# HDMI through an electrical outlet



## 4bama (Aug 6, 2006)

This article was in a CNET news letter I got today.

"Wireless HDMI" isn't quite here yet besides a couple of expensive options, but Acoustic Research's HDP100 promises the next best thing. The $300 system attempts to turn your electrical wiring into a HDMI conduit, similar to an Ethernet-over-power line adapter. A actual HDMI cable will still provide the best performance, but if you're pressed to avoid the gnarl of wires in a typical home theater setup, the HDP100 may be an option to consider. Read more at CNET.COM.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

Technically... running HDMI over the powerlines isn't 'wireless'.


----------



## acnownzu (Mar 4, 2004)

Ethernet over power line never really took off, and I doubt this will either. I can't wait till wireless HDMI becomes mainstream though.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Wait 'til your power co figures out a way to bill you monthly for this. :sure:


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

I don't know. 
Some of these products are good for extreme situations.

But in a LOT of cases, it would be cheaper not necessarily easier to do it via wires.

Sure it might take some time to get done, but you only have to do it once.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

Samsung has a wirelss 1080p 50in TV out for around 1299. Not bad. Looks like wireless may be closer than we think.


----------



## nostalgiaguru (Aug 12, 2008)

acnownzu said:


> Ethernet over power line never really took off, and I doubt this will either. I can't wait till wireless HDMI becomes mainstream though.


Say what? They work great, that's how my 722 receives internet.

They're not meant to replace a better connection, they're a niche product for those in unique situations.


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

why are they talkin about a wiring mess? If people would do it the right way, you don't see any wires and its easy to do


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

projectorguru said:


> why are they talkin about a wiring mess? If people would do it the right way, you don't see any wires and its easy to do


Yeah, that sounds good. I had things pretty clean. Then I replaced my 508's with a 612. Then we just had to have a Wii. Now the wires are a mess and after Christmas I'll have to tear everything down and start over to get a clean looking wired install. Or not.


----------



## butters (Sep 25, 2007)

Yeah, or not! I know how that goes. It all looks good until something gets moved/added/upgraded and then it gradually becomes a sea of chaos. :eek2:


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

nostalgiaguru said:


> Say what? They work great, that's how my 722 receives internet.
> 
> They're not meant to replace a better connection, they're a niche product for those in unique situations.


IAWTC: It's nice to have alternatives. As an apartment dweller, my ears perked up when I read the OP. I'm already pushing the envelope with how I've run my wiring from my 1000.2 to my 722. This power line thingy (yes, that is the technical term. LOL) may make it easier to get HDMI signals to the Westy in by bedroom.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

This would be cool. Our bedroom TV is wall mounted and the components are in teh closet. When our house was built, the contractor had no way to pre-run HDMI cable in the wall, so they did run 5 RG6 for component and I ended up having them run a couple of Cat 5e cables also, so I could use a converter for HDMI if I ever need to due to MPAA screwing me over with selectable output control. IT will be nice if I have additional options.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

bartendress said:


> Technically... running HDMI over the powerlines isn't 'wireless'.


Technically, the article made that distinction already.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

deltafowler said:


> Technically, the article made that distinction already.


Touche! :goodjob:


----------



## AMD_GAMER (Mar 3, 2008)

When I upgraded to HD, I simply ran a 50' HDMI cable from the receiver in the basement to the HDTV on the first floor. As a computer guy, I try to avoid wireless whenever possible. Too much interference and loss of connection. Sure, I could run Wi-Fi on my computers, but I ran CAT5e to get Gigabit. I always prefer a wired connection, unless its impossible.


----------



## wolfjc (Oct 4, 2006)

butters said:


> Yeah, or not! I know how that goes. It all looks good until something gets moved/added/upgraded and then it gradually becomes a sea of chaos. :eek2:


Has any one ever seen under the floor of a mainframe computer center.
In ours there were water pipes for the cooling for IBM's big iron which were not needed anymore. And MILES of dead cables for various I/O devices which had been changed out.
It took us weeks to get it all cleaned up so you could at least see the floor.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

projectorguru said:


> why are they talkin about a wiring mess? *If people would do it the right way, you don't see any wires and its easy to do*


It's only "easy to do" if you're using some big honkin' media cabinet to hold everything.

HDMI-over-powerline would be great, for example, when somebody hangs a plasma on the wall, and wants the various devices that feed it hidden somewhere else.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

russdog said:


> HDMI-over-powerline would be great, for example, when somebody hangs a plasma on the wall, and wants the various devices that feed it hidden somewhere else.


IMO, this is going to be much like the phone and Ethernet solutions, in that their inherent limitations are going to make them of limited utility.

For example: the flat-panel TV on the wall. Great, so it can use HDMI over the powerline. But what if you have 3 devices to hook up? Well, you can put an HDMI switch in front of the HDMI wireless adapter, and manually switch. Will that be reliable with this system? We don't know yet.

So, let's be even more realisitc: we have 3 source devices, but only 1 of them is HDMI (DirecTV HD-DVR), with another being component (X-Box360), and the last one being composite (Wii). Now you need some kind of processor to convert these various signals to HDMI *and* switch them. So, yeah, a modern $500+ AV receiver can do that, but things are getting exponentially more complicated and costly. At this point, running cables is going to be easier for most people.

Hey, it's always great to have another option; don't get me wrong. But these "cable replacements" never give you everything a cable can do, and are never as reliable.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

IIP said:


> IMO, this is going to be much like the phone and Ethernet solutions, in that their inherent limitations are going to make them of limited utility.
> 
> For example: the flat-panel TV on the wall. Great, so it can use HDMI over the powerline. But what if you have 3 devices to hook up? Well, you can put an HDMI switch in front of the HDMI wireless adapter, and manually switch. Will that be reliable with this system? We don't know yet.
> 
> So, let's be even more realisitc: we have 3 source devices, but only 1 of them is HDMI (DirecTV HD-DVR), with another being component (X-Box360), and the last one being composite (Wii). Now you need some kind of processor to convert these various signals to HDMI *and* switch them. So, yeah, a modern $500+ AV receiver can do that, but things are getting exponentially more complicated and costly. At this point, running cables is going to be easier for most people.


You get a receiver that can do an adequate job of switching multiple sources (including non-HDMI sources) to a single HDMI output. 
Whether it's worth it to do that is up to each person, but that's a cost issue, not an ease issue.

BTW, those items are most certainly not "getting exponentially more complicated and costly". 
To the contrary, they are getting far more affordable and with greatly improved ease of use.

In any case, the idea that it's somehow easiest to run multiple cables and have the result be cosmetically acceptable seems to be a stretch.
I have no idea if this particular doohickey is worth a hoot, but IMO it's an excellent concept.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

bartendress said:


> Technically... running HDMI over the powerlines isn't 'wireless'.


That is what the OP and the article said. They called it "the next best thing."


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

russdog said:


> BTW, those items are most certainly not "getting exponentially more complicated and costly".
> To the contrary, they are getting far more affordable and with greatly improved ease of use.


For you and me, sure. Most folks' eyes would glaze over if you tried to tell them they needed an AV receiver and needed to both keep it on constantly and switch inputs on it when they wanted to watch different TV sources. Heck, people who PAY me to work on their TV/HT/Sat systems (arguably making them at least MILD enthusiests) usually resist the whole AV receiver concept.

People already complain about having to buy HD source components (HD sat receiver, Blu-Ray, etc.) for their HDTVs. Now you tell them they have to buy an AV receiver too, it's just too much for a lot of people. That's all I'm saying.

Like I said before, I welcome any new alternative solution, but this one won't solve quite as many problems as it might first appear.


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

But to somewhat paraphase and interpret the OP: I would solve my problem.


----------

