Question 4K over 15 meters - HDMI, Fibre, Ethernet = one confused consumer

groovyclam

Standard Member
Well, I thought it might be useful to post an actual case study that works in reality.

I did start to read the entire thread but then the tech-heads started throwing blah around and I lost interest.

It is just as valid to hear an opinion from someone who has done something that works, than theoreticals.

The original poster can make their own decision based on my post and costings - he can ignore my post or not.

As to your snark ChuckMountain, my requirement was for 30m ( not the posters 15m ) so my costings are not excessive - unless you want to tell me how I get 4K along 30m of HDMI for less than what I paid ?

@mushii - I'll take the point about Amazon cables being cheaper ( but the Lindy cables are Premium - it's in the tech specs )

I still don't see what's wrong with the original poster using two of those Amazon slimHDMI cables at 7.5 metres with the Lindy HDMI booster in the middle for belt and braces.
 
Last edited:

Otto Pylot

Active Member
OK, I've not read the whole thread and I know diddly-squat about projectors, so don't kill me if I'm talking crud...
There is a definite, continuing learning curve with a/v so don't feel bad about asking a question. That's how we learn.

The simple plan that I use, and then adjust as necessary, is as follows, and this is for 4k HDR:

For runs up to 25' (8m), Premium High Speed HDMI cables (with the QR label for authenticity) should work.

For runs over 25' (8m), and up to 30m, a hybrid fiber cable (Ruipro4k) is probably your best bet. These cables are active (require a power source which is usually drawn from the sink side).

That being said, the best and most reliable connection is a single cable from source to sink with no adpaters, extenders, wall plates, etc in-between because 4k HDR can be very finicky with its connections. Most mfrs of active cables (copper-only, fiber, and hybrid fiber) do not recommend daisy chaining your cables together. Heavy gauge wire should also be avoided because because bend radius is greatly reduced which can lead to increased strain on the HDMI input.

If I read your connection scheme correctly, your cable run is close to, if not a bit over 30m. That is long for any cable so you have that working against you. Using a single cable, source to sink, is even more critical in that scenario. You should also be running your cable in a conduit so you can control bend radius (which if too sharp of a bend can drastically affect signal transmission over time) and allow for easier and safer installation of the cable, along with a pull string.

ARC/eARC will also be an issue at 30m if that is something you want to do. Unfortunately, given your situation and needs, there probably isn't a cost-effective way to do this.
 

Joe Fernand

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
Lindy are playing games with the wording on the 10m cables you link to - no cable over 8m is certified as 'High Speed' or 'Premium High Speed'. Lindy have added 'Premium' to Standard to create its own category of cable (they do say in the tech specs that it is a Standard cable with Ethernet).

Great you have a working solution at 1080p though as others have said that is no indication of how teh system will work with 4K UHD source signals.

Joe
 

groovyclam

Standard Member
Lindy are playing games with the wording on the 10m cables you link to - no cable over 8m is certified as 'High Speed' or 'Premium High Speed'. Lindy have added 'Premium' to Standard to create its own category of cable (they do say in the tech specs that it is a Standard cable with Ethernet).
Aha, good to know ( or not so good in my case ).
 

Otto Pylot

Active Member
Joe is correct. Consumers have to be very careful in purchasing cables because the cable mfrs are very good, and very careful, on how they market their cables. You almost have to read between the lines of the product descriptions to see exactly what it is you're purchasing. Most consumers don't. They just latch on to the buzz words and don't go any further than that. There is a very respectable cable mfr who is now seeing knock-offs of their product that look almost exactly like their cable when it comes to product description, packaging, and marketing for about half the price. However, the build quality is not there.
 

mushii

Well-known Member
@groovyclam please lets not degenerate into name calling. If you are unhappy with somebody's response its fair to say so, but to start being base and using profanity benefits noone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to disagree with somebody elses, but there are people here with tens of years of experience in this industry, who give their time up, gratis to help other forum members. To ignore their input and then to say that you couldnt be bothered to read what they have said is also kind of hurtful and really, you then denigrate years of technical knowledge as 'blah' is just plain rude.

Lindy cables are not 'certified' as premium high speed. You also need to read their wording very carefully as they are 'flexible' with their facts and imply things by using weasel words. I have used their products in the past but lets just say that the 'sizzle' was better than the sausage.

Below is the 'L' section from the hdmi.org database (the organisation that certified the cables)

1571676551487.png


You will note that Lindy are not present and neither do their cables bare the QR Hologram of certification. Maybe a little more 'blah' for you to ignore.
 

ChuckMountain

Well-known Member
Well, I thought it might be useful to post an actual case study that works in reality.
So my original reply was quite short because I was on my phone...

You haven't however got a working 4K solution, only a 1080P solution. If the OP wanted 15m at 1080P then he could have just one direct copper cable.

I genuinely hope your solution works when you do upgrade but I suspect a combination of the 10m cables and repeaters will give you a number of issues, which will result in you having to shell more money and time out to resolve.

I did start to read the entire thread but then the tech-heads started throwing blah around and I lost interest.

It is just as valid to hear an opinion from someone who has done something that works, than theoreticals.
Unfortunately, you have not got a working 4K solution only a 1080p solution. If you are going to post on a technical forum post then make sure your solution does what it says on the tin. Yours is the only theoretical solution currently.

The original poster can make their own decision based on my post and costings - he can ignore my post or not.

As to your snark ChuckMountain, my requirement was for 30m ( not the posters 15m ) so my costings are not excessive - unless you want to tell me how I get 4K along 30m of HDMI for less than what I paid ?
I see you edited your post a bit but here you go:


30m @£169.99
15m @£139.99

These work :)

@mushii - I'll take the point about Amazon cables being cheaper ( but the Lindy cables are Premium - it's in the tech specs )
As per others' posts, no they are not.

I still don't see what's wrong with the original poster using two of those Amazon slimHDMI cables at 7.5 metres with the Lindy HDMI booster in the middle for belt and braces.
Apart from the fact you don't know whether it works at 4K, it is still best to have a single run. It is matchbox size, it still steals power and you have to put it somewhere, it does not fit neatly into trunking, skirting etc so it is more difficult to install and more to go wrong.

One of the best solutions has already been suggested, but you seem to have taken offence when somebody points out that your solution does not meet the OP's requirements and can be done for a similar cost.

Learn some forum etiquette, read the posts, if it is too technical and you post something don't be afraid to let people critique it!
 
Last edited:

gibbsy

Moderator
@groovyclam Can we keep answer civil please. I've have deleted one of your replies.
 

Otto Pylot

Active Member
Wow. I'm almost sorry I contributed to this thread. If I may summarize, for 1080 just about any well made cable will work, even at 30m. But at that length, either an active cable or a passive cable with possibly a voltage inserter would be more reliable. The other caveats about wire gauge, bend radius, conduit, and strain on the HDMI input still hold true. A hybrid fiber cable (Ruipro4k would also work, although it may be a bit of an overkill for just 1080). For 4k HDR, I'd recommend a 30m Ruipro4k cable installed in a conduit. Source to sink. Period.
 

groovyclam

Standard Member
@groovyclam Can we keep answer civil please. I've have deleted one of your replies.
I think ChuckMountain's reply to my original post was quite uncivil but no-one jumped on him.

His second post above is a far better reply without snark, perhaps that's how he should have replied first.

I come from a computer programming workplace and there is a considerable level of one-upmanship and snark in that community. It comes from a desire to "guard" knowledge and thus feel more important about oneself.

Posters like @Joe Fernand and @Otto Pylott show a far more civil and educational way of replying to posts that they feel need critiquing and I applaud them for that. I would say to other posters... follow their example.
 

groovyclam

Standard Member
Unfortunately, you have not got a working 4K solution only a 1080p solution. If you are going to post on a technical forum post then make sure your solution does what it says on the tin. Yours is the only theoretical solution currently.

One of the best solutions has already been suggested, but you seem to have taken offence when somebody points out that your solution does not meet the OP's requirements and can be done for a similar cost.

Learn some forum etiquette, read the posts, if it is too technical and you post something don't be afraid to let people critique it!
I made my post quite clearly stating it wasn't sending 4K HDR yet, and the original poster can make of that what he wants. Or should I have not posted at all then ?

I took offence at the nature of your glib post, not the message, daft emoji included. If you had just said "a better solution is x,y,z for reasons a,b,c as mentioned 3 posts up" then I would not have been offended. You were just being obnoxious to a noob for cool points. If this forum is not for noobs then eventually it will die when the gronards die out. So I say to you as well in your own words... learn some etiquette.

And moderator... "if learn some etiquette" is going to get this post deleted then delete Chuck's too.
 
Last edited:

ChuckMountain

Well-known Member
took offence at the nature of your glib post, not the message, daft emoji included. If you had just said "a better solution is x,y,z as mentioned 3 posts up" then I would not have been offended. You were just being obnoxious to a noob for cool points. If this forum is not for noobs then eventually it will die when the gronards die out. So I say to you as well in your own words... learn some etiquette.
What's bad etiquette is not bothering to read the previous posts, then posting something that doesn't meet the original OP request. Other posts agree with my original post. Then you ask somebody to point out the particular post answers the question in the thread that you didn't read. As for the smiley, it is the commonly used one on the forums for confused as your response is confusing. It still doesn't meet the requirements for the OP something cheap.

I am simply stating a fact, you resort to insults that's why the post was deleted.
 

mushii

Well-known Member
I will agree that Otto and Joe are far more tolerant and have a different communication style, of that you are correct - and I applaud them for their cool headedness. I on the other hand am not quite so diplomatic. I do apologise to the OP for hijacking his thread, you did not deserve this and hopefully you have the answer to your original question. other than that I have nothing more to add to this thread.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
This thread has taken a turn for the worse and is now getting very close to be locked.
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
Not sure if useful to the OP with everything going on but - i bought this cable the other week and am having no problems with dolby vision/atmos/HDR using an Apple TV 4k and a Panasonic UB820 UHD player - i am having some problems with a 1080p sky box but im almost certain thats related to the HDMI switch im using...

 

ChuckMountain

Well-known Member
Not sure if useful to the OP with everything going on but - i bought this cable the other week and am having no problems with dolby vision/atmos/HDR using an Apple TV 4k and a Panasonic UB820 UHD player - i am having some problems with a 1080p sky box but im almost certain thats related to the HDMI switch im using...

It's good to know that some of the cheaper cables are working well now especially since they are hybrid cables. I know early adaptors often charge more to cover the research costs but given HDMI 2.1 we are more likely to see these over shorter lengths.

What issues are you having with sky and is it sky HD or q?
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
It's good to know that some of the cheaper cables are working well now especially since they are hybrid cables. I know early adaptors often charge more to cover the research costs but given HDMI 2.1 we are more likely to see these over shorter lengths.

What issues are you having with sky and is it sky HD or q?
its an older sky hd box - looking at the switch i have it says "compatible with hdmi 2.0 devices" so im guessing my old sky box is probably a 1.4 at best... ive had it for donkeys - might call them with a cancel my tv sub unless i can get a new box and if i cant im happy to cancel anyways. :)
 

ChuckMountain

Well-known Member
HDMI versions are backward compatible so the switch should work with older versions. However as the sky HD box is quite old it could have some of its own issues which don't help.

Switches also can be problematic as HDMI can be fickle and some devices can take longer to switch. :(

You could always upgrade to Sky Q to get 4k, probably means giving sky more money though :censored:
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
HDMI versions are backward compatible so the switch should work with older versions. However as the sky HD box is quite old it could have some of its own issues which don't help.

Switches also can be problematic as HDMI can be fickle and some devices can take longer to switch. :(

You could always upgrade to Sky Q to get 4k, probably means giving sky more money though :censored:

yeah it does open up ok with sound/video but after a few minutes starts flickering and then gone entirely whereas all my 4k sources hold with zero problems - def a weird one!

i'll change the cable before doing anything else but it was working ok prior to the switch being installed.
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
Does SKY+ HD work correctly when connected directly to the TV?

Is your HDMI Switch externally powered?

Joe
not sure as tv and cabinet with sky box are opposite ends of the room - it worked ok previously with my denon amp (ive sold up and gone soundbar route).

Switch is externally powered direct to mains yes.
 

Joe Fernand

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
Try bypassing the Switch - if you still have an issue try bypassing the Soundbar.

How long and what cable runs between the Switch and the Soundbar?

Joe
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
Try bypassing the Switch - if you still have an issue try bypassing the Soundbar.

How long and what cable runs between the Switch and the Soundbar?

Joe
ive outlined here.. but short version is 15mtr hdmi cable (fiber) - handles 4k dolby vision sources with no problem but doesnt like the old sky hd box for some reason.

 

Joe Fernand

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
We find our RuiPro4K Hybrid Fibre cables to be more ‘system’ friendly vs. any of the ‘all Fibre’ solutions we have tried.

The signal format is unlikely the issue - one potential issue is power, try installing a 5V HDMI Voltage inserter onto the far (TV) end of the Fibre cable.

Joe
 

mooperman

Distinguished Member
We find our RuiPro4K Hybrid Fibre cables to be more ‘system’ friendly vs. any of the ‘all Fibre’ solutions we have tried.

The signal format is unlikely the issue - one potential issue is power, try installing a 5V HDMI Voltage inserter onto the far (TV) end of the Fibre cable.

Joe

even though its working fine with my uhd player, 4k apple tv ps4 pro etc?
 

Otto Pylot

Active Member
HDMI versions are backward compatible so the switch should work with older versions. However as the sky HD box is quite old it could have some of its own issues which don't help.

Switches also can be problematic as HDMI can be fickle and some devices can take longer to switch. :(

You could always upgrade to Sky Q to get 4k, probably means giving sky more money though :censored:
HDMI is backwards compatible only in that the in-common options are available. IOW, an HDMI 2.0 source sending data to an HDMI 1.4 sink, or vice versa, will only be able to utilize the HDMI 1.4 option sets. That can cause issues if you are trying to use options that the lower HDMI chipset version is not coded for.
 

ChuckMountain

Well-known Member
HDMI is backwards compatible only in that the in-common options are available. IOW, an HDMI 2.0 source sending data to an HDMI 1.4 sink, or vice versa, will only be able to utilize the HDMI 1.4 option sets. That can cause issues if you are trying to use options that the lower HDMI chipset version is not coded for.
Yes, I agree, I should have been more specific for example, in terms of switching so for example a HDMI version 2 switch will switch 1.4 and lower signals as well so shouldn't cause the specific issues seen.

HDMI 2.0 sources should drop down as you say, but HDMI is fickle :)
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

Netflix UK free trials come to an end
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sony update brings AirPlay 2 and Dolby Atmos support to select TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cleer FLOW II headphones get Google Assistant
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Denon introduces DHT-S216 All-in-One soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom