Interesting you guys say this. I have a decent router set to serve different devices transmitting on G and N, and it doesn't really cope with 720p video through Plex. On the second comment is there some kind of logic that G does video better than N? At the moment the only real way I find without issue is to plug in a cable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next-Generation Wireless Wi-Gig Specification Published
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting you guys say this. I have a decent router set to serve different devices transmitting on G and N, and it doesn't really cope with 720p video through Plex. On the second comment is there some kind of logic that G does video better than N? At the moment the only real way I find without issue is to plug in a cable.
Band Frequency
Band Frequency Wavelength Propagation via
VLF Very Low Frequency 330 kHz 10010*km Guided between the earth and the ionosphere.
LF Low Frequency 30300 kHz 101*km Guided between the earth and the D layer of the ionosphere.
Surface waves.
MF Medium Frequency 3003000 kHz 1000100*m Surface waves.
E, F layer ionospheric refraction at night, when D layer absorption weakens.
HF High Frequency (Short Wave) 330 MHz 10010 m E layer ionospheric refraction.
F1, F2 layer ionospheric refraction.
VHF Very High Frequency 30300 MHz 101 m Infrequent E ionospheric refraction. Extremely rare F1, F2 layer ionospheric refraction during high sunspot activity up to 80*MHz. Generally direct wave. Sometimes tropospheric ducting.
UHF Ultra High Frequency 3003000 MHz 10010*cm Direct wave. Sometimes tropospheric ducting.
SHF Super High Frequency 330 GHz 101*cm Direct wave.
EHF Extremely High Frequency 30300 GHz 101*mm Direct wave limited by absorption.
Band Frequency Wavelength Propagation via
VLF Very Low Frequency 330 kHz 10010*km Guided between the earth and the ionosphere.
LF Low Frequency 30300 kHz 101*km Guided between the earth and the D layer of the ionosphere.
Surface waves.
MF Medium Frequency 3003000 kHz 1000100*m Surface waves.
E, F layer ionospheric refraction at night, when D layer absorption weakens.
HF High Frequency (Short Wave) 330 MHz 10010 m E layer ionospheric refraction.
F1, F2 layer ionospheric refraction.
VHF Very High Frequency 30300 MHz 101 m Infrequent E ionospheric refraction. Extremely rare F1, F2 layer ionospheric refraction during high sunspot activity up to 80*MHz. Generally direct wave. Sometimes tropospheric ducting.
UHF Ultra High Frequency 3003000 MHz 10010*cm Direct wave. Sometimes tropospheric ducting.
SHF Super High Frequency 330 GHz 101*cm Direct wave.
EHF Extremely High Frequency 30300 GHz 101*mm Direct wave limited by absorption.
That's kind of phunnie. Google calls it experimental. A test community to start. G and N are going to be the defacto for quite some time. Even if Google started to build their experimental network. Remember that 1Gbps doesn't do much for you when the servers hosting the sites you visit are bound by lesser bandwidth. There is always a bottleneck. I have 20Mbps at home right now, but until each and everywhere I might access and download files from has bandwidth to match, then I can't realize my full DL speed.
I had a G router before having an N and I could transmit video over G in SD and HD just fine. The N does the same. However I recently switched my setup where my iMac is wireless to my N Airport but my Apple TV is wired to my Airport gigabit port since I have Cat5e wired throughout my house. I have a 4 port switch behind my TV so my PS3, Apple TV, and DirecTV DVR can all share my home internet through the wall port which goes down to the basement where my Airport is. But my iMac is just wireless to the Airport.
Blub Blub Blub
" but most people's houses are typically *not* filled with water.
[/QUOTE]
Well. I think the fish people will find your comment very offensive!!
" but most people's houses are typically *not* filled with water.
[/QUOTE]Well. I think the fish people will find your comment very offensive!!
Interesting ... so it's a quality of image on TV thing. Yes If i can see the difference I would probably want it.
Thanks for the confirmation on how it worked over G as well. I think I might have to end up following your path and use some hard-wired connectivity as well. If not to the everyday mac, but perhaps to the MacMini which is intended only for video like your Apple TV setup. In the meantime wall thickness and the distance between router and the mini is perhaps some of the explanation.
Thanks for this clarification.
However, I would argue that even when you have two 802.11n devices that are operating at a link rate of 600Mbps you will generally get far less than that number in actual data throughput. That's because those link rates have to include the overhead involved with error correction and the packaging of the data that you want to get between point A and point B (let alone the overhead involved in getting that data into its final, useful format on the receiving device). Then you have issues with range where the effective data throughput can fall regardless of the theoretical bandwidth. The net result (I would argue) is that in real-world situations you'll never even come close to a data throughput of 600Mbps with consumer grade equipment (whether it be "4x4@40MHz@400ns" or not).
Right now I'd say that the best that consumer-grade 802.11n will general do in real-world data throughput is just over 100Mbps. People who flaunt their "300Mbps" or even "150Mbps" wireless connections are quoting link rate and theoretical bandwidth rather than actual data throughput. If those people measured their actual throughput they'd most likely find that their data rates were one half to one third those numbers (at best). Things can get even worse when you look at variations over an extended period of time, since you may see fairly good data rates from time A to B, but much lower rates from time B to C (because of the random nature of noise and other changes in the environment).
This is why 802.11g's stated 54Mbps bandwidth is often insufficient for things like HD video (unless you keep that stream under 10Mbps). In fact, even 802.11n can have problems with high-data-rate HD in a typical home environment.
Funny, because Apple is usually the first to bring new technology to market.
Not that you would know though
This is not intended for a building sized network. It would be used to replace a video cable. You only need a range of abut three feet for that. Or maybe to replace the Firewire cable. Think of it more like an ultra fast Blue Tooth rather than a faster Wifi
A little math, for perspective...
Hm...
1080 pixels X 1920 pixels X 24 bit per pixel = 49,766,400 bits per frame
(I'm not really sure how many bits per pixel are commonly used for HDMI)
at 30 frames per second, that's about 1.5Gbps.
at 60 frames per second, that's about 3Gbps.
In my experience, I'm doing well if I get even 50% of the bandwidth capacity of a wireless connection in real life.
It seems like we can expect to get 1-3 uncompressed 1080pX connections in a given area.
Hm...
1080 pixels X 1920 pixels X 24 bit per pixel = 49,766,400 bits per frame
(I'm not really sure how many bits per pixel are commonly used for HDMI)
at 30 frames per second, that's about 1.5Gbps.
at 60 frames per second, that's about 3Gbps.
In my experience, I'm doing well if I get even 50% of the bandwidth capacity of a wireless connection in real life.
It seems like we can expect to get 1-3 uncompressed 1080pX connections in a given area.
Yay! Another way to introduce lag into home theater systems!
Seriously, I really hope this has zero lag, but I doubt it.
Don't know why people are looking at this like a replacement for wireless N, which it clearly isn't. Looks like a better version of that wireless streaming that was in those Sony video cameras awhile back. Would be great to have like a massive bandwidth bluetooth connection. Wireless iPod transfers, from video / still camera to computer, from iPhone or laptop to TV...
Seriously, I really hope this has zero lag, but I doubt it.
Don't know why people are looking at this like a replacement for wireless N, which it clearly isn't. Looks like a better version of that wireless streaming that was in those Sony video cameras awhile back. Would be great to have like a massive bandwidth bluetooth connection. Wireless iPod transfers, from video / still camera to computer, from iPhone or laptop to TV...
What are you on? 1 Gbit/s connections are readily available if you look outside the US which isn't exactly spearheading the broadband infrastructure development. In Sweden it's alreadly available in all 3 major cities; Stockholm, Gothenbourg and Malmö, but Also in Lund.
Other than that 100 mbit/s connections are common.. Not to mention that the LTE network is already pushing 45 - 50 Mbit/s in Stockholm right now. Development in Wifi-like standards are much needed, both considering that the throughput have already been far surpassed, and that the adoption and availability of a new standard takes years.
Wrong if you know your apple history then you should know that apple innovated the market by being one of the first if not the first with USB , Cd-rom drives,Ethernet , Bluetooth (Most pc makers charge for this) and last but not least Wifi built in while most pc makers didnt even include those features as standards for a long time.
So apple is not always late to the party my friend.
Funny...I think replacing HDMI cables have already be done:
http://www.sibeam.com/
http://www.wirelesshd.org/
Actually, TV sets are already in place and selling. I've seen the tech in person.
http://www.sibeam.com/
http://www.wirelesshd.org/
Actually, TV sets are already in place and selling. I've seen the tech in person.
It's for monitors/tvs/cameras/external hds/etc within the same room and will also function as a typical wifi router.
Wire up a gigabit ethernet cable to other rooms and you can then add Wi-gig repeaters to stream to more tvs/monitors/whatever.
Wire up a gigabit ethernet cable to other rooms and you can then add Wi-gig repeaters to stream to more tvs/monitors/whatever.
been waiting for something like this for a while - this to me effectively seems to be the wireless version of Light Peak, hopefully usable with anything! cant wait!
cant wait!
In other news, my cable internet speed maxes out at 30Mbps. Sure, intra-network streaming will be improved, but the limiting factor is still my ISP.
-Clive
-Clive
Don't forget firewire, they were first to add it, first to dump it and first to add it back.
Hell, it took the same consortium 7 years to finally ratify 802.11n, how long is this standard going to take to ratify, 14? lol
lolhttp://www.lg.com/us/tv-audio-video/accessories/LG-tv-accessories-AN-WL100W.jsp
There already is a replacement for HDMI cables. It claims 50 feet and through walls and doors. I know it's a bit pricy but it's new what do you expect??
There already is a replacement for HDMI cables. It claims 50 feet and through walls and doors. I know it's a bit pricy but it's new what do you expect??
That was then, today it's a different company.
We have been waiting eSata for 5 years, blu-ray for 3 years, now we are waiting for usb3 and who knows how long?
If people don't stop buying today's macs, we will never get new features and expandability...