2.4 Ghz Video Senders
d3cpo
Are you about to watch tv in both locations that this is installed?
Thanks
Bill G
I'm not sure how the experts would evaluate it, but I find
the picture and sound quite satisfactory.
It uses the RCA video and audio out jacks and I can
still watch the main TV using any of the other outputs.
I believe a new model is on sale now.
Bill
"d3cpo" <d3...@hotmail.com"no spam"> wrote in message
news:D%k17.12264$E93.2...@news1.telusplanet.net...
d3cpo
watch one channel fro all TV or does it allow the TV to change channels
independantly.
"Peter" <pe...@canada.ca> wrote in message
news:cLl17.12279$E93.2...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > Has anyone try these before? If so, how good is the picture/audio
quality.
> > Are you about to watch tv in both locations that this is installed?
>
> I installed it but did not happy with it, wood frame house maybe O.K.
> Concrete building is a problem, antenna has to be line of sight.
> Every time people walk on a hallway block signal, weak audio signal.
> Hard wire solved problem, I installed Channel plus modulator.
> I can select channel CATV does not use i.e.. Ch 120
>
> Peter
>
Peter
> Are you about to watch tv in both locations that this is installed?
I installed it but did not happy with it, wood frame house maybe O.K.
Dave Platt
>Are you about to watch tv in both locations that this is installed?
I've used the version sold by X-10.
They do work over moderate distances. Picture quality is OK but not
great (a 25' composite-video cable produces a significantly better
picture). They're vulnerable to interference from microwave ovens
(our own oven makes the picture completely unwatchable, and the
neighbors' interferes significantly), and other 2.4 GHz devices (some
cordless phones, 803.11b wireless LAN cards, and probably Bluetooth
devices).
I used mine for a couple of months, got disgusted, retired it, and ran
a set of A/V cables through the attic. Better picture, no
interference. The only thing I'd do differently today is run an extra
wire, for a wired IR repeater system - the RF-based "black pyramid"
types do work but are also occasionally subject to interference.
--
Dave Platt dpl...@radagast.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior/
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Peter
> watch one channel fro all TV or does it allow the TV to change channels
> independantly.
I subscribed cable about 60 ch, and dishnetwork, plus C-band receiver.
I select modulator with 2 ch. ch 120 for dish, ch 122 for C-band
Now we have 4 TV in the house, no more channel war.
Peter
Alan Dana
Platt) wrote:
> >Has anyone try these before? If so, how good is the picture/audio quality.
> >Are you about to watch tv in both locations that this is installed?
>
> I've used the version sold by X-10.
>
> They do work over moderate distances. Picture quality is OK but not
> great (a 25' composite-video cable produces a significantly better
> picture). They're vulnerable to interference from microwave ovens
> (our own oven makes the picture completely unwatchable, and the
> neighbors' interferes significantly), and other 2.4 GHz devices (some
> cordless phones, 803.11b wireless LAN cards, and probably Bluetooth
> devices).
I have a Radio Shack model, made for them by the same plant
that makes other popular models. My experiences are
nearly identical to Dave's. PQ is watchable but somewhat
worse than using the RF/coax connection to a TV. Decidedly
worse than S-video.
They are also finicky to place. They advertise they can work
up to 100' away. I had mine about 30' away and it didn't work
at all. But, funny enough, I moved it another 4' away and I
got a good picture from one of the alternate transmission channels.
Alan
--
** There are companies selling the naming rights
to stars (the astronomical variety). These are
a scam. They "sell" the same stars over and over
again. You get a fake certificate & a star chart**
Dave Platt
Alan Dana <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They are also finicky to place. They advertise they can work
>up to 100' away. I had mine about 30' away and it didn't work
>at all. But, funny enough, I moved it another 4' away and I
>got a good picture from one of the alternate transmission channels.
The 2.4 HGz 803.11b wireless-network cards (which operate in the same
band) are quite vulnerable to multipath. It seems that it's often not
the total signal strength which is the problem... it's the fact that
the signal from the transmitter is bouncing off of walls, nearby metal
objects, etc. and reaching the receiver via several different paths at
once. If one path happens to be 1/2 wavelength longer than another,
the signals will arrive out of phase and will cancel. Moving the
antenna just a couple of feet (or even less) can move it out of a
multipath cancellation null and let you get a clean signal.
Bag O'Doughnuts
problem with interference on the RF repeaters. I didn't know there is a
wired solution.
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:tkbuj98...@corp.supernews.com...
Seth
"Bag O'Doughnuts" <cru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ieqmc$mb1$1...@news1.Radix.Net...
Peter
> problem with interference on the RF repeaters. I didn't know there is a
> wired solution.
Peter
markeaux
My Siemens 2.4GHz spread-spectrum phone intereferes with each of the
X10's video channels so badly it is completely unusable. But, the
phone does not interfere with *any* of my 802.11b wireless LAN's
channels (as a test I tried them all)
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:tkbuj98...@corp.supernews.com...
: >Has anyone try these before? If so, how good is the picture/audio
Dave Platt
markeaux <mark...@YANKTHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>I got the X10 wireless cams which use the same 2.4GHz video sender.
>My Siemens 2.4GHz spread-spectrum phone intereferes with each of the
>X10's video channels so badly it is completely unusable. But, the
>phone does not interfere with *any* of my 802.11b wireless LAN's
>channels (as a test I tried them all)
Not too surprising, I think.
The X10 is a single-carrier system, carrying analog data. Anything
which splatters RF into its carrier band will affect the audio and
video.
The Siemens phone uses "frequency hopping" spread-spectrum technology.
According to the data at the FCC web-site (the Part 15 filings) it's
going to hop all over the ISM band whenever it's used, so it'll be
emitting chirps into every one of the bands used by the X10.
The 802.11b LAN cards use "direct sequence" spread-spectrum
technology. They spread their transmission energy across roughly 1/3
of the ISM band (which portion depends on which channel you choose...
the channels overlap quite a lot). I supose that an 802.11b LAN
operating on one side of the ISM band might not interfere with an X10
sender operating on the other side of the band... haven't tried it
myself.
The Siemens frequency-hopper will tend to interfere somewhat with the
802.11b transmissions, whenever it chirps in the portion of the ISM
band that the LAN card is using. Thanks to the interference-energy-
spreading behavior of the direct-sequence receiver, this will tend to
show up as a lowered signal-to-noise ratio, possibly resulting in
reduced bandwidth and range, but it won't tend to wipe out the
transmissions completely.
The 802.11b cards have a lot of robustness built into their firmware -
they'll automatically retransmit packets until they get an
acknowledgement, they can detect and avoid the characteristic
interference patterns from a microwave oven, etc.
markeaux
NOT in-use! I guess it is polling the remote handsets.
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:tks2fpq...@corp.supernews.com...
: In article <9ikuhl$oec$1...@news.jump.net>,
Dave Platt
>NOT in-use! I guess it is polling the remote handsets.
Yup. They mention this in a FAQ document on their Web site. They
state, pretty much as a fact, that the GigaSet phones are entirely
incompatible with the 2.4 GHz video senders, and that anyone using the
latter will need to switch to a hard-wired setup.
Matthew D. Ence, Esq.
and
garage at the same time. Although it's not the greatest, it sounds like it
works better than the 2.4 Ghz Video Senders.
Just my $0.02