On September 6, 2016 at 11:22, tomciara said...
All I can think of is, in a 21st century system using an HDMI matrix, why are you messing around with 1980s IR extender type systems? In what likely is a fairly high budget set up, you are using low-budget componentry.
Did I just hear you propose spending more money as a goal in itself? If low budget componentry does the job, what's the reason to spend more money?
Don't a lot of HDMI transmission devices have IR built in? Why would anybody bother to offer that if IR is outmoded?
Sorry to not offer any answers to your questions, I would be inclined to step back and take a second look at the design here. Are RF or IP remotes not possible?
I always encourage stepping back and asking the more basic question instead of figuring out how to implement something crazy, but this is not crazy. It's proven technology that WORKS. Unless, to be sure, you have a Great Dane who is always walking between you and the system cabinet. For that, the slight elevation of technology to RF is the perfect solution, but RF is just IR with a slight wrinkle.
...and here's a high tech application of a VERY old technology. The freakin' US Navy is going to avoid hacking by using LIGHTS to talk ship to ship. This is more like maybe 1780, 1880 for sure, than 1980!
Here's the article:
[Link: luxreview.com]It is complete foolishness to be "progressive" (to use the political term) and adopt something new simply because it is new or deemed new. Now, I said "simply because." There is no mention of any advantage of RF or IP over IR, and no mention of any disadvantage or inherent difficulty in using RF or IP.
No reasonable decision can be made just by considering "...why... 1980s... type systems."
