Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Extend HDMI With Ethernet Cables Up To 330 ft

By - Source: Gefen | B 39 comments

Gefen is offering a range extender for HDMI using CAT-5 Ethernet cables.

The Toolbox KVM Extender consists of two devices, one sender and one receiver box. The sender is connected to a PC via HDMI and USB 2.0 and the receiver via HDMI to an HDTV display. the two boxes are then connected using two CAT-5 cables to transfer HD video data.

According to Gefen, the distance between the PC and display can be up to 330 feet or 100 meters. AN IR blaster can be used to control the PC from the location of the display, while an IR extender enables users to increase the range of the IR control. Data transfer via CAT-5 supports 1080p video, 12-bit color, LCPM 7.1 Audio, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio.

"The emphasis here is that you can extend hi-def video with your peripherals from a central location to wherever you wish to control them," said Hagai Gefen, president and CEO, Gefen.

The company said that its technology is based on HDBaseT specifications, allowing the delivery of high definition video with IR and Ethernet over the same industry-standard cable. A second cable is used to extend USB 2.0 signals from the source to the display at up to 480 Mb/s.

The range extender devices are offered for $1200. If you intend to leverage the full range of 330 feet, calculate another $130 - $150 for a 300 ft CAT-5 cable.

Discuss
Display all 39 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 15 Hide
    Taylor422 , October 15, 2011 6:21 PM
    If you're paying $150 for 100 meters of CAT5 you need to shop around.
  • 12 Hide
    kinggraves , October 15, 2011 5:33 PM
    Too bad thanks to "content protection" we have to involve HDMI in it at all when the signal could've just traveled through CAT5. Well at least HDMI has put an end to bootlegging forever...

    wait....
Other Comments
  • 12 Hide
    kinggraves , October 15, 2011 5:33 PM
    Too bad thanks to "content protection" we have to involve HDMI in it at all when the signal could've just traveled through CAT5. Well at least HDMI has put an end to bootlegging forever...

    wait....
  • 3 Hide
    jbart1981 , October 15, 2011 6:17 PM
    Really? Cause I can see a ton of applications for this. In fact 330ft might be way to short for a lot of applications. First thing that comes to mind is schools with a central media center where content is stored in a central location and distributed to classrooms over a network. Heck fifteen years a go my HS had similar capability with SD content. Each room had just a TV and remote and all of the video players, laser disc players etc. were located in a room next to the library. The librarian loaded content into each player - I think there were about 50 - at the beginning of the day. And they were available remotely for teachers whenever they needed them. It kept the media secure and centrally located. What about sports facilities and other large places like bars and restaurants that want to have central control over their content delivery? Perhaps their are better alternatives in the professional space I am unaware of but I think this is a great product with lots of applications.
  • 15 Hide
    Taylor422 , October 15, 2011 6:21 PM
    If you're paying $150 for 100 meters of CAT5 you need to shop around.
  • 5 Hide
    N.Broekhuijsen , October 15, 2011 6:22 PM
    Still no comment about how it might just be cheaper to use a HTPC and stream over that network cable? I'm sure you can build a pretty damn good HTPC for under 1200$
  • 3 Hide
    oxxfatelostxxo , October 15, 2011 6:23 PM
    So... why would they use CAT5? we have CAT6 already. Then what was ever the point of creating HDMI when CAT cables could already do the same thing at a much cheaper price..

  • 6 Hide
    ansemx324 , October 15, 2011 6:27 PM
    For $1200 I could buy two new dedicated HTPCs for my other TVs! Ill definitely be using this money saving logic when discussing the idea with my gf. I would say it might have been a typo, but those don't happen at Toms ;) 
  • 0 Hide
    jbart1981 , October 15, 2011 6:27 PM
    @ xbeater -but then you need a decoding piece of hardware at the TV end right?

    This is for people that don't want that added complexity. I could see this being used by traveling presenters for remote video to different parts of the audience or people like mobile DJ's who setup at a different place every gig and never know how far it will be from their setup point to where they need a monitor for things like karaoke and displaying music videos or live streaming video of the dance floor.
  • 3 Hide
    ansemx324 , October 15, 2011 6:29 PM
    xbeaterStill no comment about how it might just be cheaper to use a HTPC and stream over that network cable? I'm sure you can build a pretty damn good HTPC for under 1200$


    Xbeater I was right on that, I was writing my comment when there was only 1 other one on the article, you just beat me to it!
  • 0 Hide
    jn77 , October 15, 2011 6:33 PM
    Why are people still using 10/100/1000 and Cat 5 or 5e...... 10,000 (10GBit) is available on Cat 7/7E
  • -2 Hide
    jhansonxi , October 15, 2011 6:40 PM
    kinggravesToo bad thanks to "content protection" we have to involve HDMI in it at all when the signal could've just traveled through CAT5. Well at least HDMI has put an end to bootlegging forever...wait....
    That problem was solved months ago.
  • 3 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , October 15, 2011 6:42 PM
    jn77Why are people still using 10/100/1000 and Cat 5 or 5e...... 10,000 (10GBit) is available on Cat 7/7E


    Because even my recent Asus P8P67 Pro mobo doesn't support that. And that's high-end; an average home PC doesn't even have gigabit LAN.
  • -4 Hide
    maddy143ded , October 15, 2011 7:12 PM
    Tom's is really going to dumps by providing irrelevant news like this.

    and I am pretty sure that if someone tries they can actually build a HDMI range extender for a fraction of this money. and also i remember seeing HDMI cables upto the length of 100ft on sale in ebay.......
  • 2 Hide
    irh_1974 , October 15, 2011 7:12 PM
    Taylor422If you're paying $150 for 100 meters of CAT5 you need to shop around.

    Got that right, I bought 305m (1000ft) of CAT6 for £80 (£120)
    And these extenders are massively overpriced, I already have some that cost me £18 ($27).
    Good tech story, stupid pricing, what was the point?
  • 6 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , October 15, 2011 7:27 PM
    Quote:
    4UDNL-TELTP-KUTGJ-8UCNK-AU9R9-5NATD


    LOL, CyberLink MediaEspresso serial key detected :kaola:  Next time, be careful with CTRL+V :lol: 
  • -1 Hide
    victorintelr , October 15, 2011 7:57 PM
    jbart1981Really? Cause I can see a ton of applications for this. In fact 330ft might be way to short for a lot of applications. First thing that comes to mind is schools with a central media center where content is stored in a central location and distributed to classrooms over a network. Heck fifteen years a go my HS had similar capability with SD content. Each room had just a TV and remote and all of the video players, laser disc players etc. were located in a room next to the library. The librarian loaded content into each player - I think there were about 50 - at the beginning of the day. And they were available remotely for teachers whenever they needed them. It kept the media secure and centrally located. What about sports facilities and other large places like bars and restaurants that want to have central control over their content delivery? Perhaps their are better alternatives in the professional space I am unaware of but I think this is a great product with lots of applications.

    There are other alternatives much cheaper, but they are mainly used by construction companies, and the converter connects to a 120v like any other appliance, and the connection is like any plug but with HDMI.
  • 2 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 15, 2011 8:13 PM
    Taylor422If you're paying $150 for 100 meters of CAT5 you need to shop around.


    I was going to say, my work has 1000 foot spools of CAT 5 and CAT 6 for $89.

    And I think 300FT is like $60ish.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 15, 2011 8:24 PM
    Wow what a bargain! Check smarthome and they have had this forever and they have 100ft ones for $50 and 300ft ones for $375...
  • 0 Hide
    Chrys , October 15, 2011 8:32 PM
    Others have existed for a while that are way less expensive. Yes at the same distances, the price for this one is getting into the HDMI over fiber realm.
  • 2 Hide
    mcd023 , October 15, 2011 9:07 PM
    irh_1974Got that right, I bought 305m (1000ft) of CAT6 for £80 (£120)And these extenders are massively overpriced, I already have some that cost me £18 ($27).Good tech story, stupid pricing, what was the point?

    I bought 100' of Cat5e for a few bucks. ;) 
  • -1 Hide
    ProDigit10 , October 15, 2011 9:28 PM
    A single cat5 cable can pass multiple HD video streams at the same time!
    Think a gigabit network (maximum theoretical bandwidth equals ~100MB/s) Blueray HD movie bandwidth does generally not exceed 50Mbits; encoded in MP4 it generally does not exceed 10Mbits (peak). Most of the time HD video has ~8Mbits of data that needs to be transferred. THey should think about transferring the encoded material, to be decoded at the receiving part, instead of trying to force the decoded (raw) data through a cat5 cable!
Display more comments