Let’s start by talking about HDMI, an acronym we all know today, mainly because it is the standard connection for digital video and sound with better quality. But it is still one more cable that will have to be managed, either to try to hide it, or to reach its destination. But … Why continue to use cables when Bluetooth or WiFi are now a standard in any house ? For the quality it cherishes, much superior to any other alternative video transmission method.
But all is not lost, for several years there has been an alternative, wireless HDMI, something that exists but almost no one is aware of it, combining the quality it offers us and the comfort of not having to use cable to connect our monitor or television to the equipment. Since the biggest problem when connecting or disconnecting our console or computer to the TV is to cope with this endless tangle of cables, especially when the distance between the two is very great. Stay to know more about this technology and why it is not popular.
Wireless HDMI, a large unknown
There are a variety of devices that support wireless HDMI, Unlike other options such as AirPlay or Chromecast, this does not require a WiFi connection to operate. Therefore, we do not depend on the coverage of the router or its proximity to obtain a decent quality. The transmitter uses the 5 GHz band (significantly less saturated than the 2.4 GHz standard) the reception distance is between 10 and 30 meters, so the range is quite wide.
It should be borne in mind that the walls that may exist between the receiver and the transmitter must be added at this distance, as these would considerably reduce the range. Over the years, there have been many manufacturers who have launched wireless HDMI products operating at 60 and 190 GHz in bands without a specific license.
Not all benefits with wireless HDMI
The most important disadvantage of this technology is undoubtedly the price. Although it is not the only one, since the digital signal which passes through the HDMI must be encoded, transmitted, received and decoded. What happens with the wireless method is the dreaded delay or latency between the broadcast and the reception. It’s something we won’t notice much about watching movies or series, but something that will be boring and even unbearable when playing video games.
There are options that promise 0 imput shift, but this would only be possible if the distance between the transmitter and the receiver is very short, not more than 5 meters and as long as there are no problems of interference with other wireless devices. In this, they affect not only the devices we have at home, but also those that our neighbors may have. My recommendation would be to buy this type of item in stores where they accept returns, like Amazon.
Attractive but stagnant, why ?
This technology seems the most logical but it does not stop taking off, the most important reason is the lack of agreement between manufacturers to create a standard. The low sales of this type of connection contributed to it, so they are not encouraged to invest.
Is this system really necessary and useful, or a simple wiring cut ?
In domestic use, it is not recommended under normal circumstances, where the devices are normally close to the television or monitor, it would therefore be advisable to use a good HDMI cable, because even with a cable, performance can be poor. , if the quality is not adequate. Only in specific cases such as the use of a single video decoder for several rooms, where the use of wireless HDMI would make a lot of sense.
Even so, it is more advisable to make a discreet installation of cables with regattas or gutters, because the final quality of the image will be much higher, and the price of this technology is still high. There are many ways to make a clean installation with highly concealed wiring.
Even with these drawbacks, it is something that will eventually happen, if it is not via wireless HDMI it will be with another type of connection, but the cables for this type of transmission will be totally useless sooner or later. Like WiFi or bluetooth, a standard that replaces the HDMI connection may soon be released. Leave it alone and only for specific cases such as video games.
Alternatives on the market
If we are looking for something similar in the market, we find WHDI. It operates on the 5 GHz band and can reach a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels. Resolution 4K would therefore be totally excluded with this system. In addition, this tends to cause many problems with new routers who use the 5 GHz band to provide coverage for high speed WiFi Ac.
There are other solutions such as WiGig which would work on resolutions 4K or wireless which would overcome the limitations mentioned above. But the products that use these technologies are almost nonexistent and the few that can be found have a high cost.
The traditional HDMI continues to evolve but it has a major competitor
While wireless HDMI has stagnated to the point of being somewhat residual, the traditional cable keeps evolving, offering increasingly better refresh rates as well as increasingly high resolutions, we currently find HDMI 2.1 as the most advanced of all, so much so that televisions are not compatible.
A tough competitor has arrived and I don’t know anyone other than USB C, a standard capable of many things, including loading our devices, transmitting data, video or sound. Currently, it is used, in particular to load our smartphones with Android, but Apple has integrated it into standard in all its computers, reaching with its connection Thunderbolt 3 40 GB / s and the load power up to 100w.
Although the trend is drawing here, due to the simplicity of its connection and the lightness of the cable, it is still not the most recommended to play, since USB-C standards will not yet support Adaptive-Sync until DP Alt mode is upgraded to version 1.4, you will therefore not be able to use FreeSync or G-Sync.