Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

!!!Offtopic!!! Wireless HDMI mumbo jumbo - help from an experienced technomage needed!

Discussion in 'Single Player Forum' started by naranjadita, Feb 22, 2016.

  1. naranjadita

    naranjadita IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Lemme get straight to the topic.
    So there is a TV (not a new one, it has usb and hdmi slots, but it has no in-built wifi receiver).
    Then, there is a desktop computer with GeForce 650Ti video card.
    Everything is situated within one room.

    What I want to do:
    I want the TV set to be an additional display for computer (suitable for playing saucy visual novels or mortal kombat, watching porn both from local and online sources).
    I want the whole stuff to be wireless.

    What bothers me:
    1). Google has increased the levels of my confusion as I have no idea how this wireless mubmo jumbo works and the prices for more or less related devices vary from 10 to 400+ $. So what's the difference between, say,
    this
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/1080P-MiraS...ngle-DLNA-Airplay-Miracast-HDMI-/301794670524

    and this
    http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transmitter-Streaming-Satellite-NPCS549/dp/B009E6R89C/ref=pd_sim_sbs_147_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=41hlLs4mwIL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=039RVP88M8ESDQV36M1D

    ?
    2). So let's say I'll install some of this magic stuff in my system - some transmitting module in pc, some receiver in TV. The HDMI output slot is in the video card, it transmits video stream, but what about audio?
    Okay, I found something on this one:
    http://www.overclock.net/t/441176/g...hdmi-now-including-creative-cards#post5305349
    My card isn't listed but the thread gives some insight on what to do if the thing won't fly on the first run.

    Thanks in advance!
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
    PandadudeSP likes this.
  2. Steven Q Urkel

    Steven Q Urkel IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    166
    HDMI, by definition, is Hi Def multimedia interface, is it not? It is my understanding that HDMI can carry both a video and audio signal. But my only experience with HDMI is hard-wiring the cable box to the TV - I've never attempted anything wireless with HDMI so you'll need to hear from someone who knows more about this than I do.
     
  3. Bry

    Bry IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    8
    HDMI does both video and audio. I have my computer plugged directly into my TV with an HDMI and it works great both video and audio. Then I use a wireless keyboard and mouse. I have no idea about those other products though.
     
  4. naranjadita

    naranjadita IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Well duh, but isn't video card a video... well... something from where video stream oozez, right? That's what confuses me.
    is the HDMI cable connected to your discreet video card HDMI socket, or is it a socket on your motherboard?

    Okay, I got some info on "audio stream from video card" topic and updated the top post accordingly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
  5. nulio

    nulio IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Both. If your motherboard has a shared GPU and by result HDMI out, that will also have video+sound.

    But depending on the solution you chose you won't need the HDMI in your PC

    I think this does what you need:
    https://www.google.pt/chromecast/tv/

    This uses the WiFi network, you just need to have a wifi antenna in your PC.

    The second thing you posted is different. Converts what comes out from your HDMI PC output to wireless magic and then sends it to the thingy thingy in your TV. That's why is much more expensive.

    Chromecast and miracast use wireless magic it already exists, so they are cheaper.
     
  6. naranjadita

    naranjadita IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    So what you're saying is, the first thing uses an already existing Wifi network, and the second one works at is own frequency and does not need additional devices like router?
     
  7. nulio

    nulio IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    287
    I never used any of those, so I'm just reading what each have in their description.

    The second one claims having loads of quality and no latency, check the reviews to see what the users have to say about it. If you don't need the no latency, etc., the other solution is quite cheaper, but you should also read reviews.
     
  8. maareek

    maareek IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    310
    Chromecast uses your already existing wireless connection. There are some tricks online for trying to get around that, but a quick perusal on my part doesn't see any that aren't pretty annoying.

    Now then, assuming I understand what you want (ie the computer to be wirelessly connected to the internet and the TV connected to the computer) all you need is a wireless adapter somewhere on the computer, whether built in or an aftermarket one and the TV connected to computer via any connection. If you want sound as well as video, the connection will need to be with an HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt or USB 3.1 type-C connector with HDMI being by far the most common connector for a TV.

    You can connect those cables to either the output on your motherboard or your video card, but the video card will basically always be the better option, unless somehow you got sidled with a weaker discreet card than your on-board card is. Note that the output on your motherboard will only work if you had an integrated graphics chip, but more than likely if it's there it can work. Still, the discreet card will likely 1. be more powerful and 2. have better included processes for decoding video and audio codecs, making higher-end sources play better.

    If you must have a wireless connection between the computer and the TV, I hope you're prepared to both pay and have pains. First, if you're going to use a solution that uses your current Wi-Fi connection you need to have enough bandwidth to support all that you're doing. So both getting any information from the outside, then sending it from one device to another while still supporting whatever else is on your little slice of the internet (however many other people are on your connection, especially if that connection is cable) etc. Assuming that is okay you also need to have a reasonable way to connect the two devices wirelessly, meaning few to no obstructions, not too much distance separating and, most importantly, low interference on whatever channels the device(s) use. Some devices taut their multi-channel interface, but then only have half a meter of pickup on the less popular channels, so it's very important to read reviews and do some research.

    Looking at the links you provided: Miracast is not supported by your video card. Nvidia GPU's only support Miracast in the second generation Maxwell architecture (the 900 series) so you'd need to drop $150+ to pick up a card to work with it. I suppose it's vaguely possible that your computer supports it through the other chip or possibly through the NIC - here's a list of supported products] - but it seems that is probably out as an option. The second link you provide is a device that uses radio signals to both transmit and receive, making it somewhat fragile to interference (as some of the reviews have mentioned) and its cost is high enough that unless I had really poor internet connectivity I would just get an Nvidia Shield, instead.

    The Shield also includes Chromecast, so you can use your phone as a remote, allows you to stream games from your computer to your TV and much more. But while it will allow you to view your videos and pictures and etc on your TV from your computer, you can't actually use the Shield to run the TV as a separate monitor for the computer.

    But that comes around to my real point here: if you're going to try and make this work wirelessly, you're going to have to make compromises. And, let me be honest, the biggest compromise is almost certainly going to be your time. It's sexy to have things work with no wires, for sure, but it's only really convenient when you aren't the one maintaining the setup. Wired stuff just works, pretty much always. Going wireless introduces so many problems that range from the obvious (distance, strength) to the eldritch (oh someone half a block away just set up a radio transmitter and now none of my stuff works) and those problems will pop up so fraking often that I would not suggest it for something you're counting on being seemless and free of latency, like connecting the TV as a monitor to your computer.

    It's really not that expensive to pick up velcro, ties, tape - if you can't put any holes in anything - or brackets, holders and screw-in channels to make the cabling work in places it won't be in the way, and it's not even that expensive to pick up ways to cover up the cables if you must, but the convenience and efficacy of just having a direct cable connection will save you money, time and aggravation for what you're trying to do.

    If you absolutely must do this wirelessly, then from the options I have seen from a few quick looks around (which are far from extensive; I've mostly just looked up what you listed) my suggestion would be to buy a Nvida GTX 950 or higher graphics card (assuming your power supply can run the card you choose, but the 900 series is so power efficient I'd be shocked if that were a problem; still check though) and the Miracast adapter and try that, because the graphics card has functionality for when you decide at some point after the return timeframe has gone away that you don't want the setup anymore.

    One last time, though, as someone with some familiarity with dealing with technology let me reiterate that I would view going wireless for what you want as the last option. The list of pluses are far too short and the list of minuses far too long for me to recommend it at all.

    Edit: I went ahead and did a search for "hooking up PC and TV wirelessly" and this was the most interesting article I saw, though it's from more than a year ago. It cautions about problems with Miracast (which is consistent with results I got from earlier searches; it doesn't seem particularly well supported outside of very specific devices) but it does mention some methods (posted in November, no less) you can use to have Chromecast cast from your computer to your TV (which isn't the same as using it as a monitor, but achieves a large amount of the same functionality and may well just be as good as you can do wirelessly.) Seems like Chromecast has the ability to be quite handy, though still with many potential points of failure and still is less intuitive or effective than just running the cable, but seems like probably the most affordable and sensible option if you really need/want to try to get things working wirelessly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
    nulio likes this.
  9. nulio

    nulio IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    287
    When did maareek become gripphon #2? :p
     
  10. thefranklin

    thefranklin IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,606
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Nice answer Maareek! Wired is always the best option (HDMI cable) and the 2nd best option is a streamer box, of which the shield is currently the best. The third best option is wired again (HDMI to ethernet and back again).

    But the real question is: How in the world do you have a room where you are putting pron on a big screen and there is a concern about a wire running across the floor and up to the tv?
     
    Bry and kestegs like this.
  11. japanzaman

    japanzaman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    179
    how important is quality for you? chromecast or some equivalent can probably get the job done unless you absolutely cannot tolerate value loss for extremely hi-res situations. why not try it out and see if it gets the job done?
     
  12. naranjadita

    naranjadita IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Well, I hoped for 100% quality, heh. I guess that's not the case with any kind of wireless setup for reasonable money.

    I got your point. Well that's basically what I was afraid to hear, lol. I guess I'll have to figure out how to hide 15 meters or so of HDMI cable somewhere under the floor or under the plinth (not sure about correct usage of the last word, engurish is diffikurutu).

    What's so confusing about that? Not only neckbearded basement dwellers (who don't care about anything except for clear paths between bathroom, computer and fridge) may want porn on big screen at home : 3

    ---
    ---
    conclusion: okay people, thanks a bunch for the info and advice and for pushing in the right direction. I guess I'll stick to good ol' cables for now.
     
  13. maxicek

    maxicek Moderator Single Player

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,493
    Likes Received:
    918
    Trophy Points:
    535
    You can't run a 15m long HDMI cable. It pretty much maxxes out at 5m.
    If you want to run longer you need HDMI to Ethernet extenders.
     
  14. logoutzero

    logoutzero IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Why?

    Edit: I'm not trolling, I was thinking about picking up something like this to use in my basement, but if it doesn't work, I'm wondering why. TIA.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2016
  15. nulio

    nulio IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    287
  16. maxicek

    maxicek Moderator Single Player

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,493
    Likes Received:
    918
    Trophy Points:
    535
    I can't say I'm a video expert, but I used to sell an HDMI cable that was one of the few to guarantee 4K over a 5m HDMI.
    I guess it depends what performance you need.
     
  17. logoutzero

    logoutzero IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    187
    So, you basically get what you pay for? High end TV plus high end media player plus high end cable, and it might push 100' (~30M)?
     
  18. maareek

    maareek IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    310
    Alright I've got more than a thousand words I've put down to respond to the thread and I'm a little frustrated at how much more I feel like I could go on for so let me change tracks and try to reply directly.

    100 feet is outside the validated range for an HDMI cable. By alot. You are playing the lottery buying a cable at that length. The "quality" of the cable, in terms of price or brand name or whatever, makes basically no difference; all HDMI cables are made to the same standard and you're pretty much as likely to have a $10 one work at 100' as a $100 one. An active cable may work, because it uses additional power to sort of regulate the signal, but they're expensive (an "active" cable draws power and will specifically call itself "active.") An extender, whether that also converts or simply amplifies, may also work and is probably cheaper.

    Either way, make sure you're using High Speed HDMI cable (the one you linked probably is, unless the manufacturer or Sears are unscrupulous/particularly ignorant) and if using an extender you'll either need two HDMI cables or a cable of the type the extender converts to (probably Ethernet.) If using an extender make sure you don't use active HDMI cables.

    I wish I could give specific advice on what to get, but a little searching hasn't really revealed much I feel good about that isn't fairly expensive. Lots of people seem to like monoprice and that link is set to show their 100ft hdmi stuff. Personally from that list I like the look of this Luxe cable the most, even though it's limited to 24fps for a 4k display at that distance, but that's just me. Remember your needs and your intentions: a random passive cable would probably do fine to power a 720p display over 100 ft, probably even 1080i but if you have a 1080p or higher resolution display now or intend to get one within a few years you probably want to go with the active cable or extender.

    I've left a ton of information out of this, so ask if something isn't clear, but hopefully that's somewhat helpful.
     
  19. coju

    coju IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    174
    Since this is am OT thread, I'll post here.
    My oh my how time flies! A lot of folks here have been here longer than i, but it is pleasent seeing familiar avatars!
    I was on a reddit thread and someone posted smthn about a spreadsheet and it got me thinking about this site.
    Oh, Maareek, omgwtfbbqpwnd says we sound the same and have the same voice mannerisms and stuff. He asked me if I was you last month, I guess after watching your diablo 3 videos. The only video I have of myself online is a video called Life According to Howard on YouTube, and I'm using a voice during it, so really cannot compare our voices directly.

    On topic about hdmi, as I'm sure you all know, there really isn't a difference between a 5 dollar pair from amazon and a 55 dollar pair from the 55 dollar store except name and price.
    Neercat, why wireless? For ease and aesthetics?
     
  20. maareek

    maareek IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    310
    Yeah he said the same thing to me though I didn't know you had any videos online. I just assumed it was a case of omg being wrong again, cause that happens alot, but maybe you are lucky enough to sound like someone as awesome and humble as myself. ^_^

    Like most hard and fast rules this is 100% correct except for the times when it isn't. All passive HDMI cables designed to Standard specifications are the same. All passive HDMI cables designed to High Speed specifications are the same. All active HDMI cables designed to Standard specifications are the same. All active HDMI cables designed to High Speed specifications are the same. Except the ones for each of the above designed to also include Ethernet, which are different and, frankly, massively overpriced and useless.

    An active cable draws power which it uses to actively correct errors along the length of the cable, which allows you to extend beyond the lengths where passive cables start having issues with carrying constant signal (~40 feet or so, generally speaking.) Each active cable is as near as makes no difference identical to another, excepting for factory defects or physical damage, but an active cable and a passive cable are not interchangable because they are made differently to do a different job. Likewise a Standard cable and a High Speed cable are designed different for doing different jobs and a Standard cable will not carry the same amount of data at the same bitrate as a High Speed cable because the specifications are different.

    The stuff about 4k cables and premium cables and all that is rubbish, but that doesn't mean that all HDMI cables are exactly the same. Standard and High Speed are different specifications, each with an additional design that carries Ethernet, and passive and active are different characteristics for different uses.

    In other words, at some really short distance (let's say ~6 feet) any HDMI cable is pretty much equal, because it's a digital signal and the range isn't long enough to corrupt anything. As you go further, the more physics has to say about what's going on, which is why things like extenders and active cables exist - to correct for the errors inherent with trying to send a high bandwidth signal that far. Since most people use 6-12ft cables it's very easy to shorthand to "all HDMI cables are the same" since most people actively hate learning anything, but shorthand is shorthand because it involves leaving information out and in this case that information is that at a certain length you need a specific tool for the job. Now that still means that the 100 foot active High Speed HDMI cable A and 100 foot active High Speed HDMI cable B are the same, but intimating that 100 foot active High Speed HDMI cable A and 100 foot passive Standard HDMI Cable X are the same is 1. completely misleading and 2. demonstrably false.

    Now don't get me wrong. A passive Standard cable COULD successfully carry the information over 100 feet. Or 1,000 feet. Or a light year. The possibility exists because of the complexity inherent in the system and the unpredictability involved with corner cases, but the fact remains it isn't designed to do that job. That job is not within tolerances for that item and trying to use it for that job is a hackney and lottery-playing solution. The High Speed cable is designed to carry more information and having an active cable extends the range at which that information can be expected to be carried successfully.

    So back to the example at hand. If the TV (or whatever display) to be hooked up at 100 feet distance is displaying only 720p or 1080i then a passive Standard cable would most likely do the job. If the TV is 1080p or higher, or you intend to upgrade in the future, you should use a High Speed cable and either using an active cable or an extender will increase the likelihood of it successfully operating at those resolutions.

    I've spent the entire time writing this post, like the one before it, trying to prevent myself from going on a rant about how much it upsets me that 1. tech companies so blatantly lie about what they're selling and 2. tech reviewers and "customer advocate" types so often present things in iron writs which they know good and damn well to be drastically more nuanced than they lay out for people. Hopefully that hasn't prevented me from imparting sensibly laid out knowledge that in some way informs or helps. Again, if anything is unclear or there are additional questions about this particular subject, go ahead and ask.
     

Share This Page