TV by wireless

[Dave2002]

Is it now possible to distribute TV signals wirelessly around a home with reasonable quality using wireless technology? Does anyone actually do this?

My own feelings - here I'm answering one of my own questions again - is that wired systems still outperform wireless systems, and surely wired systems are more energy efficient - or are the energy requirements for wireless systems really not that significant in a domestic environment?

We have a few PVRs - an early Humax Freeview, a later Humax FreeSat, and a more recent BT (Humax) YouView box. All require a wired connection to the TV. I was just wondering if newer models could transmit a signal locally to the TV set to avoid having to put in extra wiring and locating the PVR near to the TV. This could avoid having to place a PVR and TV close to a BT master socket, or a PVR close to an aerial input connection.

I would expect UHD and future TV signals to be far too demanding, at least for the present, but SD and HD signals might work. My own observations, with devices such as a 3rd Gen Apple TV are that wireless operation using Wi-Fi and a high speed LAN is not always very good, with drop outs, and lip sync problems, but I think that some problems might reduce in the future as the technology improves with new developments.

Some members of the human race seem to have an aversion to wires!

[Stunsworth]

Perfectly possible to do that sort of thing wirelessly - using something like Plex. A Plex server, and the media, sit on a network attached computer and a Plex client on the replay device.

UHD shouldn’t be a problem wrt bandwidth, both my Apple TV and the TV itself can access such content from Apple/Netflix/Prime etc. and the device and my router are linked wirelessly.

[Anastasius]

Perfectly possible to do that sort of thing wirelessly - using something like Plex. A Plex server, and the media, sit on a network attached computer and a Plex client on the replay device.

.....

But only if you can load the Plex software onto the device. Which in the case of Dave2002's equipment is not possible.

He would need something like an HDMI transmitter and then an HDMI receiver (if such a beast exists). Then somehow convince everything that it's all legit...as IRC HDMI can get very fussy about DRM and the like. I know that Dave2002 likes a challenge but IMO this route is full of pain and angst and destined not to get very far.

[Stunsworth]

But only if you can load the Plex software onto the device. Which in the case of Dave2002's equipment is not possible.

I assumed the question was about distributing TV wirelessly in general rather than Dave’s specific requirement to use his existing setup.

[Dave2002]

I assumed the question was about distributing TV wirelessly in general rather than Dave’s specific requirement to use his existing setup.

Partly I was wondering if a new PVR c/would have wireless capabilities, and be capable of linking either to a hub router, or to a TV wirelessly, and with good results. If so, are there any models?

[richardfinegold]

Are you asking about something different than Airplay?

[Dave2002]

Are you asking about something different than Airplay?

Probably.

Since the first post I have since managed to get adequate reception using a NOWTV box with a short distance wireless connection via an ethernet LAN to a BT router. I think better picture quality is possible by other means, but it was possible to watch football tonight, and tennis earlier in the day. I'd prefer to use the BT Youtube box but to make that work I need to install a wired link. In the past I used Powerline units to provide a link through the mains wiring.

Richard - do many people still watch broadcast (i.e. picked up by wireless) TV in your part of the world, or are 99.9% of people on some form of digital cable service? In the UK there are still a significant number of people who access TV from broadcasts. The underlying infrastructures do have an impact on problem solving. There are quite a few different ways to access TV programmes nowadays.

[richardfinegold]

Probably.

Since the first post I have since managed to get adequate reception using a NOWTV box with a short distance wireless connection via an ethernet LAN to a BT router. I think better picture quality is possible by other means, but it was possible to watch football tonight, and tennis earlier in the day. I'd prefer to use the BT Youtube box but to make that work I need to install a wired link. In the past I used Powerline units to provide a link through the mains wiring.

Richard - do many people still watch broadcast (i.e. picked up by wireless) TV in your part of the world, or are 99.9% of people on some form of digital cable service? In the UK there are still a significant number of people who access TV from broadcasts. The underlying infrastructures do have an impact on problem solving. There are quite a few different ways to access TV programmes nowadays.

Here the option are :
1) Free TV-the traditional method
2) Paid services, either Cable, Satellite, or Internet based.

Cable and Satellite have the bulk of the market. They are very expensive. I am one of millions of cord cutters-I stopped paid TV and we occasionally purchase some content via Netflix or iTunes. The millennial here tend not to purchase cable or satellite and do web based TV, either connecting their computers to television monitors via HDMI cables or using something like Air Play

[Dave2002]

Here the option are :
1) Free TV-the traditional method

Isn't there a very limited choice of "Free-TV" - i.e. broadcast channels? Perhaps it's as many in the UK or Europe suggest, "many channels, but hardly any worth watching" - sorry to be disparaging. I thought for the much wider choice one had to have cable or other distribution methods. Here, in the UK, thanks to newer technology we are now veering towards the "many channels, but few worth watching" scenario, but some are still quite good. The digital broadcast TV standards are quite different in the US from most European countries and the UK. To be fair to the US, it's a very big country, and the distribution issues there are rather different from smaller countries. Methods which work well in fairly densely populated countries, with cities which are close together, are not so good for countries (such as the USA) with very dense centres, but with very large and sparse gaps between them. Canada has been hovering between standards IIRC - not sure what it's opting for now.

2) Paid services, either Cable, Satellite, or Internet based.

Cable and Satellite have the bulk of the market. They are very expensive. I am one of millions of cord cutters-I stopped paid TV and we occasionally purchase some content via Netflix or iTunes. The millennial here tend not to purchase cable or satellite and do web based TV, either connecting their computers to television monitors via HDMI cables or using something like Air Play

We either watch broadcast TV (either live or time shifted) via PVRs, tuners, or nowadays quite often via internet streaming. We try to avoid expensive viewing models - subscription or otherwise - though we do have a BT contract which includes some programmes - most of which we don't watch.

I have just decided to try out a 4k/UHD Roku streaming stick, to see if that will give better results with an HDTV - and I might even be persuaded to buy a 4k TV to go with it.

[richardfinegold]

Isn't there a very limited choice of "Free-TV" - i.e. broadcast channels? Perhaps it's as many in the UK or Europe suggest, "many channels, but hardly any worth watching" - sorry to be disparaging. I thought for the much wider choice one had to have cable or other distribution methods. Here, in the UK, thanks to newer technology we are now veering towards the "many channels, but few worth watching" scenario, but some are still quite good. The digital broadcast TV standards are quite different in the US from most European countries and the UK. To be fair to the US, it's a very big country, and the distribution issues there are rather different from smaller countries. Methods which work well in fairly densely populated countries, with cities which are close together, are not so good for countries (such as the USA) with very dense centres, but with very large and sparse gaps between them. Canada has been hovering between standards IIRC - not sure what it's opting for now.
We either watch broadcast TV (either live or time shifted) via PVRs, tuners, or nowadays quite often via internet streaming. We try to avoid expensive viewing models - subscription or otherwise - though we do have a BT contract which includes some programmes - most of which we don't watch.

I have just decided to try out a 4k/UHD Roku streaming stick, to see if that will give better results with an HDTV - and I might even be persuaded to buy a 4k TV to go with it.

The Free TV listings are more limited than they were when we became cord cutters a few years ago. At that time the premiere sporting events were on Free TV, but in response to the millions of Americans that have also dumped subscription services, now every sporting event of consequence is on paid networks. I have responded by stopping watching sports, and I already feel that I have pushed off Dementia by at least a decade. My wife watches PBS—our version of the Beeb and still free except for our tax dollars—exclusively so spending a couple of grand a year to watch the half dozen sports events a year that I really care about is a no brainer—I go to me local pub.

[Dave2002]

Not quite directly on topic, but using BT to supply TV by internet and a wireless link to a Roku Stick+ yesterday, the last few minutes of the England vs Sweden match were marred by technical glitches - possibly with iPlayer. The same thing also has been happening with one or two of the Wimbledon tennis matches. I don't know what has caused the glitches - buffering, or some other problem.

This kind of glitch is incredibly frustrating - and will encourage me to try a more conventional approach using aerials, tuners etc. Admittedly the internet solution does offer the possibility of 4k/UHD viewing, but that's not much good if it's going to be unreliable - particularly at critical moments. HD or even SD viewing is better if one can then be sure of the outcome of games in the World Cup. We hung on for a few minutes, and managed to pick up the last few minutes of yesterday's game via an iPad. Fortunately they were not too eventful!

[richardfinegold]

I had recently moved my Oppo 105 from my two channel system into my Home Theater System. The105 has a HDMI input on the front panel. My monitor is a 10 year old plasma TV which only has one HDMI input, and I am loath to disconnect it and reconnect it to experiment, but when my daughter came over with her Windows laptop which has an HDMI output we connected it to the Oppo and she streamed a show, glitch free, for 5 minutes.
It’s a pity that Macs don’t have HDMI output (afaik), but that demonstration got my attention. There are HDMI converters
but the thought of going usb-HDMI seems loaded with potential for problem.
I am also interested is a file organizer program for Classical Music for my NAS called MusiChi that is a Windows based, so I am starting to think about getting a cheap Windows laptop with HDMI and and using it for these purposes.