RE: Re: Confused with Video distribution

["Paul Gale" <groups2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally I think baluns are definitely the way to go - so much more
flexible in installation and use than hard wired coax (yes you need 3 x
good quality coax - not TV aerial stuff -for a component (YUV) signal PLUS
you also need audio - either a coax for digital or two coax for stereo).
Having Cat5 baluns (i.e. Keith's Kat5 units) is far better as you can send
the signal longer distances and make use of a structured Cat5
infrastructure. Of course that Cat5 infrastructure can also send Ethernet
and a whole host of other signals. I have RS232 for some devices,
signalling for sensors etc etc.

I also noticed CPC are doing component wallplates that have the Cat5 balun
built into them - the transmitter end only needs power. Looks quite
interesting.

Paul.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Paul Bendall
> Sent: 16 September 2007 22:56
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Confused with Video distribution
>
> So if I went component for cabling could I use coaxial to get the
> bandwidth over long runs? Would I need a co-ax cable for each
> component signal?
>
> As said at the moment S-Video is good enough (we have a 32" CRT
non-
> HD and Sky+ non-HD) but I would like to cable to future-proof for HD
> without the need for baluns.
>
> Paul
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Paul Gale" <groups2@...>
wrote:
> >
> > Well my main AV room plasma is fed with component YUV rather than
> HDMI as it's an older plasma that doesn't have HDMI. I did run an
> HDMI cable to the LCD in the master bedroom but haven't really used
> it much yet (waiting for the loft conversion wiring to go in). The
> cable was around 15m IIRC - not sure the specs allow much more
> although you can get repeaters etc I believe. This is obviously OK
> while Sky HD allow analogue HD - but maybe in the future this could
> be a problem.
> >
> > Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>