Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Add a bedroom receiver without RG6 cable run
Posted 25 December 2011 - 01:24 AM
What is the simplest way to do this without an RG6 run (not an option)?
I have an extra Panasonic BL-PA100A module.
SL3-SWM -----> RG6 -----> PI-21 -----> SWS-8 splitter -----> HR24, HR24 -----> HDTV
Motorola SB6120 Modem -----> CAT5e -----> Linksys WRT54GL -----> CAT5e -----> Panasonic BL-PA100A HD-PLC
Panasonic BL-PA100A HD-PLC -----> D-Link DES-1108 Switch -----> HR24, HR24, Sony PS3, D-Link DNS-323
Every day I beat my own previous record for the number of consecutive
days I've stayed alive. - George Carlin - 1996
Posted 25 December 2011 - 02:33 AM
Well I guess you could get an HMDI splitter, a box that converts HDMI to ethernet and then use your adapter, which probably won't have enough speed, and then another box to convert the ethernet back to HDMI. After all of that the TV in that room would only be able to watch what the receiver had on and unless the receiver is close you would need to get an RF system for the remote.
All of that would probably cost more than it's worth and not be that good after the final product. So I'll stick to my first sentence.
Posted 25 December 2011 - 07:41 AM
The one that I tried was the MyWirelessTV transmitter made by a company called Actiontec.
I paid about $200 for mine. Performance has been excellent in most situations where I've tried it. Sending the signal up from the first floor to the second floor and across the width of the house, I get 7 or 8 or 10 bars on the unit's signal strength meter, and the image quality is, to me, as good as what I get with a direct connection between the DIRECTV box and the TV. With a longer run through more walls, I was down to 2 bars on the signal level meter, but the quality of the picture remained unchanged.
This solution does have some limitations. Obviously, this solution limits viewing on the remote TV to what is being watched on the TV with the DIRECTV box. I also realize that the $200 cost would be about the same as the lease fee for an additional DIRECTV receiver for about 3 years, but, for me, a one-time $200 expense is psychologically easier for me to take than is an extra $5 per month on my DIRECTV bill. I also discovered that, contrary to what the manufacturer claims, the product does not work with a 3D signal.
Even with these limitations that might not make the product suitable for all situations, for me, it is a relatively inexpensive solution that meets my needs without requiring an additional cable run.