# Sharing Signals through multiple devices / TVs



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm in the process of a complete basement build and have decided on several runs of various cabling. Now I'm trying to determine the best combination of HDMI switches / splitters to achieve my desires. I'm not real familiar with splitting signals but I know some things can be touchy with making it all happen. 

I have decided that 3 DirecTv boxes will be enough to operate my basement as I will have 3 TVs in the living room (football/sports setup) and then 4 other places in the basement and garage I'd like output. With 2 viewers I'm confident 3 sources will be enough. In addition, I'll have a single Roku connected. Ideally, I'd like to send that signal out, too, but it could also be mostly fine on the main single TV.

So, here's my dilemma. In best case scenario I'd like to be able to send each possible of the 4 signals to each of the TVs. That sounds possibly complicated / expensive and maybe limited by equipment. It would be ok to have each receiver feeding a TV in the living room and them mirrored to one other in the basement (and 2 in one case). That sounds like it could be a lot easier to accomplish but of course limits the possibilities.

What would you guys do? Thoughts?


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

This is what you want I think, but it is not cheap.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=109&cp_id=10914&cs_id=1091403&p_id=10682&seq=1&format=2

This is cheaper, but might not work if your HDMI runs are too long.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=5704&seq=1&format=2


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Using DIRECTV equipment the best you can hope for is one GenieGo session.

Matrix switching HDMI is dicey at best and can certainly run into the big money ($1,000-1,500 for a 4x8). Yes, there are cheaper matrices but they don't typically support home automation required to control the switcher from several different locations. Still probably cheaper than modulating ATSC.

Matrix switching also requires some heavy duty home automation stuff to control the switcher and likely a lot more discipline to use than any conventional WAF will allow for.

There are some key questions to evaluate whether this has any chance of working:

1. How many simultaneous views?

2. How far away are the furthest displays?

3. How difficult is running wiring likely to be (especially to the garage if it is detached)?

Remember that anyone that doesn't have direct control of a receiver is just along for the ride and may have their program taken out from under them by another user or a timer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Beerstalker said:


> This is what you want I think, but it is not cheap.


The TS mentions 7 TVs in the OP so a four TV setup probably isn't going to get there.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

harsh said:


> Using DIRECTV equipment the best you can hope for is one GenieGo session.
> 
> Matrix switching HDMI is dicey at best and can certainly run into the big money ($1,000-1,500 for a 4x8). Yes, there are cheaper matrices but they don't typically support home automation required to control the switcher from several different locations. Still probably cheaper than modulating ATSC.
> 
> ...


1. Number of viewers isn't an issue. There are two in the household with a genie and 2 clients upstairs and will be 7 displays downstairs and in the garage fed by 3 HR24s. It's simply a matter of being able to view 3 things at once in the living room and then other various locations around the basement (guest bedrooms, office, and then garage). Won't ever be an issue with control.

2. I'm still trying to decide the best locations. For example, if I want all 3 HR24s in the living room with the signal branching from there or 1 in the living room with 1 in each bedroom feeding back to the living room and then the 2 others. At any rate, the living room is about 15 feet from one bedroom and about 25 from another and 40 from an attached garage.

3. Running wire is no problem at all. I'm building the basement from the concrete up and it's all open as of right now....which is why I'm planning now before the conduit is in.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Having all the receivers centrally located lends itself better to a matrix type distribution system. Having the receivers where they're most likely to be used and doing a home run back to the Living Room for game day is probably cheaper and less fussy.

The 40' run may or may not be too far for an RF remote. That's straightforward to test.

If I were doing a true guest setup, I'd move a receiver into the guest room. Expecting someone to figure out a matrix system or having to ask someone to change channels is probably too much to ask.


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

I have have this for about 6 years now with no issues: I use 50 foot runs of redmere HDMI for a bedroom DVR to a splitter to the bedroom TV, excercise TV, and bathtub TV so we don't need to pay for 2 extra DVRs. About a year ago I replaced one fat HDMI cable with redmeres and it works great.

As for a splitter I would only use Gefen Toolbox, I have a 1x4 splitter (http://www.gefen.com/kvm/gtb-hd4k2k-144.jsp?prod_id=11448), they now have some that do 4k. Not cheap but the best.

My radio remotes have no trouble at all going through walls, etc.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Think I'm just going to go with a simpler setup than originally planned. I'll have three HR24s feeding the tvs on the living room and then each will use an hdmi splitter to feed a signal to another tv. Doesn't give quite the same flexibility but accomplishes almost the same thing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Since DIRECTV doesn't typically allow you a combination of IR and RF control, it probably doesn't much matter where the DVR is located. You'll need RF remotes all around.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> Since DIRECTV doesn't typically allow you a combination of IR and RF control, it probably doesn't much matter where the DVR is located. You'll need RF remotes all around.


I thought Genie (HR34 and 44) had simultaneous IR and RF now. But HR24s will definitely only do one or the other.

Best I can get is about 30 ft, so I'd keep them as centrally located as possible.

I would actually simplify even more and feed the local TVs via component and remote ones via HDMI, no splitters required, and same picture quality. You can run into copy protection, signal loss and picture quality issues with splitters, not to mention having yet another device that can fail.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mdavej said:


> I thought Genie (HR34 and 44) had simultaneous IR and RF now. But HR24s will definitely only do one or the other.


Out of those Genies, only the HR44 has both IR and RF at the same time. For me this is more an annoyance than a feature


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mdavej said:


> I would actually simplify even more and feed the local TVs via component and remote ones via HDMI, no splitters required, and same picture quality. You can run into copy protection, signal loss and picture quality issues with splitters, not to mention having yet another device that can fail.


With your proposed set up, you can also run into HDCP issues if the HDMI connected TV is off


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

peds48 said:


> With your proposed set up, you can also run into HDCP issues if the HDMI connected TV is off


I didn't realize that had changed. But I honestly haven't used such a setup in many years. It did work the last time I tried it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mdavej said:


> I didn't realize that had changed. But I honestly haven't used such a setup in many years. It did work the last time I tried it.


I don't think nothing have changed. With the HDMI connected TV being off, the HDMI handshake breaks and the receiver just down all outputs


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I don't think nothing have changed. With the HDMI connected TV being off, the HDMI handshake breaks and the receiver just down all outputs


How does it know the difference between off and disconnected? Seems like component alone would never work at all then.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HDMI is an "active" cable, meaning it can communicate with the devices is conected to. Component cables are "passive" cables, meaning the just transfer the video regardless of what is (or not) conencted on either side.

HDMI makes a "handshake" wiht the connected devices to make sure that those devices are "supported", if they do, video transfers commences. If the handshake fails, nothings gets transfer and the receivers shuts down all ouputs as "safety" to prevent illegal copying of the video


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Understood. What I'm saying is how does component work alone when no HDMI is involved at all? For example, I connect my HR24 to my old school TV via component. HDMI handshake fails because it isn't connected at all, component is shut down. What you're saying is that component only works when HDMI is also connected and the TV it's connected to is on. That's the opposite of how HDCP should work. If I designed the HR, I'd always enable component UNLESS I get a HDMI handshake from another connected device. That way there is only one video stream as intended.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Oh, I see what you are saying now. if no HDMI was ever present from the begining, then HDMI gets "disabled" as no handshake was ever made. The problem begins when a handshake was started and it is interrupted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Makes sense. Thanks


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

The TV, when "off" is like the DirecTV DVR when "off". It isn't really off, just in standby with some of the electronics still functioning, including hdmi signalling. You can turn your receiver on and it would cause the TV to turn on automatically via hdmi, or vice-versa (with some versions of hdmi). So the receiver knows if there is an hdmi connection, and it knows it the item at the other end of that connection is using it. Unplug the hdmi cable, and now it isn't being used, and the system knows it isn't being used.

You can use a powered hdmi switch in some cases to provide that handshake, so even with the TV off, the DVR "sees" the hdmi handshake from the switch and allows content to pass.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mdavej said:


> How does it know the difference between off and disconnected?


TVs in standby typically don't respond to HDCP handshakes so the receiver is forced to do whatever it does when HDCP fails. This is nothing new, but the proliferation of flagged content is.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

harsh said:


> The TS mentions 7 TVs in the OP so a four TV setup probably isn't going to get there.


I was assuming everything locally would be hooked up directly, the matrix was only going to be used for the 4 remote TV locations.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

There wasn't one single plan in place but it's lookiing like 3 tvs in a single room with the directv receivers at that location. I'll send signals to the other 4 tvs in other basement locations from there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Beerstalker said:


> I was assuming everything locally would be hooked up directly, the matrix was only going to be used for the 4 remote TV locations.


Remote control of the matrix switch is where the big money makes an appearance and the complexity of operation takes a big hop.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I never said it was going to be cheap or easy, and the OP never acted like he had a budget he was trying to stay within. I figured if he was putting 3 TVs in one room to watch sports, money might not be his biggest concern.

That said, to me you really have to look at how much time and money you are going to spend setting up a complicated system like this, and compare that to just spending $6.50 a month to have a client or receiver/DVR at every TV and which comes out ahead. $1500 for the HDBaseT switch could pay for almost 58 months of lease fees for 4 clients.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

You're correct, sir. There will be some expense and I don't mind investing in a longer term payoff but at the same time technologies do seem to become quickly outdated. I think the bigger thing is that with two in the household, the likelihood of needing multiple receivers is greatly diminished. I'm really looking at the 3 receivers each just having a hdmi splitter. It's not what I initially envisioned but the complexity and cost outweigh the benefits of that system. The use in the other rooms will be relatively infrequent.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

If the use in the other rooms is that infrequent have you thought about putting RVU enabled TVs there?

When you say infrequent do you mean only a few months out of the year, or a few times a month?

If it's a few months out of the year you could just add those RVU clients during the months needed, and turn them off when not.

If it's a few times a month you could steal the RVU authoriaation from RVU clients in the main room. (assuming you went with a Genie and 2 mini clients in the main room).


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Some will be days between uses, some possibly months. 

I always thought the RVU tvs carried a monthly charge just like a box. What really pisses me off is charging for each client off the same genie. Someone with no clients still has 5 tuners at disposal and, worse, someone with more than 3 clients can't use them at the same time anyway.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Have you though about wireless minis that you can move at will?


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

I have but I'll likely use them back and forth...like in a exercise room and then the family room again. One might work.


----------



## stvcmty (Oct 24, 2014)

J Blow said:


> I have but I'll likely use them back and forth...like in a exercise room and then the family room again. One might work.


Do you have large TV's in the less frequent viewing locations? If not, do you really need HD at the less frequent viewing locations? If SD is acceptable and a coax independent of the DirecTV system is available, analog modulators could let this be done for cheap.

If you have mutiple DirecTV boxes in one location and you can live with SD quality at the remote sets, a used 4 channel UHF SD modulator (NTSC) can be had used from ebay for $50. SD outputs from direct TV boxes into modulators, split modulator RF out to all the less frequent viewing locations, then every less frequent viewing location has access to all the modulated DirecTV boxes, greatly simplifying avoiding conflicts. (Bonus points for grabbing OTA ATSC so locals are in HD and don't tie up a DirectTV box.)


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Trying hard not to sound like an elitist prick, I can't imagine watching tv in sd anymore. I understand how ridiculous that sounds in ways and those living in today's age pretty much have it all but once you've been to the HD pinnacle, going back would be very difficult. To be completely honest, I can't think of a single thing important enough to me I'd watch in sd unless it was some sort of local high school sports broadcast. 

In thinking a little more about it, sd in the old days of the tube televisions wasn't terrible but what has really turned me off on it as looking at it on the tvs most of us have now. I guess I funny quite understand how those tvs can look much worse than the tube tvs. I get it to a degree but it looks unwatchable to my eyes. Ya, we're all spoiled.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

J Blow said:


> Some will be days between uses, some possibly months.
> 
> I always thought the RVU tvs carried a monthly charge just like a box. What really pisses me off is charging for each client off the same genie. Someone with no clients still has 5 tuners at disposal and, worse, someone with more than 3 clients can't use them at the same time anyway.


Yes, RVU TVs do cost the same $6.50 a month when active. However, if you have rooms that are inactive for months at a time you can call DirecTV and drop that RVU client, so you aren't paying for it during those months when you don't need it. You can activate/deactivate RVU TVs whenever you want without signing a new 2 year agreement like you would with leased receivers.

If you are using those TVs multiple times a week that obviously would not be a good solution though.

As far as charging per RVU client, I have complained about that since it was first rumored. There is no reason they should be charging for each one in my opinion. I think they should have switched to a by tuner feed, or something like that. Or if they insisted on charging for RVU clients they should only charge for the first three, and then any past that should be free. I actually even wrote a letter to the office of the President at DirecTV and they pretty much just blew me off on it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Beerstalker said:


> As far as charging per RVU client, I have complained about that since it was first rumored. There is no reason they should be charging for each one in my opinion. I think they should have switched to a by tuner feed, or something like that. Or if they insisted on charging for RVU clients they should only charge for the first three, and then any past that should be free.


I think there may be a valid reason for this. I expect that DIRECTV plays a big part in the RVU development in RVU client devices. If this is the case, the fee likely helps support development of a feature that serves a very, very small percentage of the consumer population given the absence of competitive support for RVU.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Not sure that explains why we pay for multiple genie clients we can't use simultaneously.


----------

