Hi,

Are any custom installers here familiar with Wyrestorm products? If so, could you please share any insight you might have as to why the EX-70-4K's instruction manual and original specification document, together with the company's product brochures from 2015 and 2016, state that the product is HDCP 2.2 compliant when it is actually isn't? Most distributors and installers I've contacted thought that the EX-70-4K was HDCP 2.2 compliant, but Wyrestorm are now saying that it isn't despite product and marketing materials stating otherwise.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

I'm having trouble understanding why anyone other than wyrestorm would have an answer for you.

o.O

Furthering what Impaqt said, note that this fur ball problem is going to be exacerbated by what the display is vs. what manufacturer says it is capable of doing, what cabling restrictions will impact signal, as well as what sources are....

Thanks Impaqt and Fred for replies.


I was asking because I was hoping that someone might have real-world rather than theoretical knowledge. Wyrestorm clearly initially believed that the EX-70-4K was HDCP 2.2 compliant, otherwise they wouldn't have included it in the instruction manual or their product brochures. Wyrestorm support are now suggesting that the EX-35-4K and EX-100-4K-PRO are HDCP 2.2 compliant, but the EX-70-4K isn't. Something obviously went wrong somewhere regarding the components used in the EX-70-4K.


The source is a Sky Q Silver box (I'm based in the UK), which is HDCP 2.2, and a 4K extender is required in the hope that it handles Sky's forthcoming 'UHD' broadcasts next month, which it seems will initially be 2160p50 10-bit 4:2:2 REC.709 (no HDR). The display is a Panasonic TX-50CX802B, and all HDMI inputs are HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compliant. The longest CAT6 cable run in my fluke test results is 22 metres.

If those are indeed the specs for those upcoming 4K broadcasts, I don't think ANY HDBaseT extender on the market will carry that signal. Both Crestron and Atlona, for example, can only carry a 4K/UHD 50/60Hz signal with 8-bit 4:2:0 color. You will need a high-quality 18GHz HDMI cable.

What Peter said.
The issue is not HDCP it is instead the 4:2:2 color output.

HDBaseT can (and only just barley can) support the following within the 10 Gbps limit.
4/K, 24, 4:2:0, 8 bit color & (with latest hardware/firmware) 8 bit HDR.
4/K, 30, 4:2:0, 8 bit color.
4/K, 60, 4:2:0, 8 bit color.

Anything beyond that is beyond HDBaseT, sorry.

What Brent said. Ultra HD Premium requires a minimum of 4:2:0 10 bit to be compliant and pass that content.

HDBT can support 4:2:0 8 bit due to the 10.2 max bandwidth currently. That is the minimum for HDR but you will likely see banding.

Better to down res to 1080p and let the display upscale.

Many thanks to Peter, Brent and Jeff for your input.

A lack of HDCP 2.2 compliance would still be an issue, as Sky Q utilises it. However, having an HDCP 2.2 compliant extender now seems like it wouldn't be a solution. Regarding the capacity for HDBASET to handle Sky Q's yet-to-be-confirmed broadcast standard, perhaps this might explain why one UK matrix manufacturer's website no longer refers to Sky Q in their 4K product descriptions. Sky Q's UHD broadcasts don't commence until 13th August, but the 2160p setting was recently introduced in an update.