RE: RE: Advice on sending video and audio around my house ... ?

[Keith Doxey]

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Warrington [mailto:<a
href="/group/kat5-users/post?postID=OCRMY_vmIyYP4hQo6DTHqaOf0YSQa6TI-4MLkjuCXNXHbxjvhrxvdImQ2XNvP_Us463dWO4LGpE-_qY">marcusw@m...</a>]
Sent: 15 May 2002 12:31
To: <a
href="/group/kat5-users/post?postID=Bk68zqW8O55KYRjZSKurbZzwurtBI3BJkTfRWGsU-Unx1dg77qtLeFpOhtZjttER5ln2ZT4MiTfYZiQ7npy2mdN1">kat5-users@xxxxxxx</a>
Subject: [KAT5] RE: Advice on sending video and audio around my house
... ?


> Why bother keeping RF at all if you're looking at KAT5 - or is it a
> case of keeping your options open?

Well basically its down to cost !

[KD] You should always have some coax whilst you still have TV's with
Tuners.


> The cunning plan with the switcher will be to switch any 8 sources
> into any 1 or more of 8 destinations.

Hey this sounds cool !
Is this planned to be controllable via IR .. how about IP ?


[KD] There will be a Web interface as well


> KAT5 can be custom built to ANY mix of Audio and Video in either
direction
> subject to a maximum of 4 circuits in a unit. This is because each
circuit
> uses one pair in the CAT4 cable and there are only 4 pairs.

Mmm.. would it not be possible to build a unit that was completely user
configurable then. i.e. it had 4 audio and 2 video encoder/decoder circuit
and the user simply flipped a dip switch or something to configure
which 4 circuits to use ? Sorry if that's obviously a dumb question but
from a "user" perspective it seems very versatile and means I
wouldn't
be "painted into a corner" at some later date...

[KD] it would be possible but it would require a larger unit and would be
more expensive.

> So much so that I did a demonstration to Mark McCall where I
DELIBERATELY
> connected the output of a CD player to the CAT5 cable to cause
interference

Impressive ! Is this resilience a product of your Kat5's or the cat5
standard ?

[KD] It demonstrates the principle of Balanced Transmission and its
inherant
resiliance to interference

* "Keith Doxey" <<a
href="/group/kat5-users/post?postID=rDN4A7HPW6hqIHszVnx3rhTavnNLn-R0J-CRHqSPatIpjCOGo4xenv04a1uTAd2XziJQAJWIcv7LS7iojCmOr3zZwaQ">keith.doxey@b...</a>>
> You may be picking up interference because of the way you have patched
it.
> The phone wiring should be on 4&amp;5 the Blue/White pair and the
bell wire on
> the Orange on Pin2 if you have patched it to the correct standard for
> structured cabling and are using the plug in adaptors.

OK, that brings up the question of what is the "correct" standard
for
structured cabling ? I was thinking about punching my patch panels
to 586B standard (since that's what our engineer at work said we use
here).. how does this effect anything. Presumable how ever I punch
it down at the patch panel (586B) should be mirrored at the RJ45 Socket
end i.e. straight through connections.

[KD] if you stick to either 568A or 568B (the only difference is the colour
code, electrically they are identical) then you shouldnt have any problems
whatsoever

Keith

www.diyha.co.uk
www.kat5.tv