Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Topic:
Connecting and IR emitter output to an IR bus
This thread has 13 replies. Displaying all posts.
Post 1 made on Monday September 5, 2016 at 18:26
mrtristan
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2003
1,634
Is there a way to take an IR output from an HDMI extender to an IR block?

I have a low budget installation with centralized AV and multiple TVs. I wanted to consider using an IR remote in each TV room (say URC MX-450 or ProControl using IR output). The remote would point to the IR receiver included with a Wyrestorm or Key Digital HDBaseT extender then eventually control source equipment and HDMI matrix at the head end. I know there is a large risk of interference at the IR receivers. But say there wasn't, the remotes are going to control shared components and I would use some sort of IR block that uses an IR bus as an input.

The HDMI extenders usually have an IR output on the component side but I'm not sure if I can integrate that two conductor circuit into a 3 conductor IR bus. I have not done an IR system this big in a long time so I can't even remember if that was possible. Does Xantech or other have an IR block that can accept an output that's meant to drive an IR emitter? Would like to avoid sticking multiple IR emitter onto a single IR window.
Post 2 made on Monday September 5, 2016 at 18:46
MediaImageAV
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2012
365
[Link: nilesaudio.com]
OP | Post 3 made on Monday September 5, 2016 at 18:59
mrtristan
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2003
1,634
Do the input connectors on the Niles accept the two conductor IR output of an HDMI extender?
Post 4 made on Tuesday September 6, 2016 at 06:52
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
I'm not sure where to start, but I'll throw out some things.

Some systems have a 5V DC supply. Some have a 12V DC supply. Trying to use different voltage systems together is an open-ended research project that's best done if someone is paying you a salary, not by the hour. It's best to use parts that uses the same voltage as your HDMI stuff's IR output. I know Xantech uses 12 volts and I've heard that others use other voltages but Xantech handles everything I need.

The output of an IR sensor (the IR buss) provides enough current to light up several LEDs, so a resistor is put in series with the buss to limit current to each LED. This controls the LED's light output, too. Those adjustments you see on some IR blocks are like volume controls on the LEDs, except they are rheostats instead of potentiometers. I'm leaving it at that for now: they adjust the light level.

So the difference between an IR emitter signal and an IR buss is that current is limited in the IR emitter signal.

You can use diodes (google "diode OR" and be sure to look at the images) to mix together IR emitter signals. You can do the same with IR buss signals. What won't be effective is trying to mix IR emitter and IR buss signals.

Digest and report back on what you've been able to apply to your circumstance. It's late and I might be reporting or I might be rambling....
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
OP | Post 5 made on Tuesday September 6, 2016 at 07:48
mrtristan
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2003
1,634
It sounds like something I want to avoid or maybe I do shine the multiple flashers on a table top IR receiver.
Post 6 made on Tuesday September 6, 2016 at 11:22
tomciara
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,958
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. 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?
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
Post 7 made on Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 01:09
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
Tom,
What do you use these days instead of copper, since it's so outdated?

Old stuff that works reliably does not need to be abandoned just because there's another way to do things. (And that will be each of us one day.)
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 8 made on Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 01:35
Mario
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2006
5,681
On September 7, 2016 at 01:09, Ernie Gilman said...
Tom,
What do you use these days instead of copper, since it's so outdated?

Old stuff that works reliably does not need to be abandoned just because there's another way to do things. (And that will be each of us one day.)

Maybe, but if you're going to spec things and purchase new equipment, why not do it right the first time?
Post 9 made on Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 11:44
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
A newer way of doing things does not make an older way not work, does not make an older way wrong, does not make an older way ineffective.

There's even a time period when new ways are first introduced that lack of familiarity with the new ways, or flakiness of new product, makes it worse than the old way. If it's true that the new way is simply better, we would not be familiar with banging our heads against the wall trying to make new stuff work.

For instance, there's HDMI.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 10 made on Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 14:56
iform
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2010
760
Should work as long as you verify that the ir on the HDBaseT units are 12 volt. I think.

I guess it would depend on what the output is that you are feeding the connecting block.

I would look at using blasters instead of a bunch of emitters at each source component.
It would be interesting to see if a ir block would work with a reversal of ir direction?
Post 11 made on Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 15:31
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
On September 7, 2016 at 14:56, iform said...
Should work as long as you verify that the ir on the HDBaseT units are 12 volt. I think.

I guess it would depend on what the output is that you are feeding the connecting block.

I described this in some detail above.

I would look at using blasters instead of a bunch of emitters at each source component.

How would this help? By the way, if you really have several emitter signals* going to one place, you can use a diode in series with each signal, wired as in the diagrams I referred to above, so that only one emitter would be required. However, pushing two remote buttons at the same time would probably give no result.

It would be interesting to see if a ir block would work with a reversal of ir direction?

If you're talking about something simple like a Xantech 78944, well, that's just an IR buss in with a 470 ohm resistor between the buss and each emitter output. That's four resistors.

If you injected four IR busses into that, the signals would mix together, and maybe the 470 ohm resistors would somewhat isolate the IR busses from one another, but it's not the best way to do it. It would probably work, though. Just one problem: on a backwards 78944, I believe you'd want to connect to the ring and sleeve, while IR emitter plugs give you just tip and ring with the sleeve part essentially shorted to the ring. So you'd have to connect the emitter with bare wires or wire up a stereo plug the correct way for this setup.



*IR emitter signal = IR buss + resistor to keep the emitter from being blown by the available buss current.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 12 made on Thursday September 8, 2016 at 05:01
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
4,366
In the early days I made up my own matrix with diodes and resistors, but lately I've been using Niles MSU140's. You can use a simple two bare wire connection for input, 3-wire for powered sensors, 4-wire if your system returns status (I don't think that I've ever used this), or some of their IR sensors simply plug in directly. It's a time saver and much faster to install and neater than a home grown matrix.
Post 13 made on Friday September 9, 2016 at 01:59
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
buzz, my brother! I've found myself at the end of an installation where I had no distribution block and somehow had enough resistors and terminal blocks that I could make my own block.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 14 made on Friday September 9, 2016 at 11:39
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
30,104
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."
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse