WirelessHD 2.0 spec speeds up to 28 Gbps to make room for 4K, 3D, portable devices
By Richard Lawler 
posted January 5th 2010 1:04AM
posted January 5th 2010 1:04AM
Two years after finishing up version 1.0 WirelessHD (WiHD) is still trying to come out on top of the no-cables-necessary high definition streaming dogfight, and it's going to get a boost in that effort now that the 2.0 standard is available. Backwards compatible with existing WiHD hardware, the bandwidth has been upped to 10 - 28 Gbps (up from initial specs of 4 Gbps with a theoretical 25 Gbps limit) - enough to handle 4K resolutions, Deep Color, a newly specified 3D over WirelessHD set of standards, HDCP 2.0 DRM and even 1 Gbps file transfers between devices. Out of this world specs are just a matter of course for new hardware, but our focus is still on the group's ability to get the price down this time around if it ever plans on going mainstream. With an investment from Best Buy just announced and a spot in VIZIO's LCD lineup already confirmed, existing cable manufacturers may want to start developing Monster Air (10x higher transmission speed due to special platinum ionized molecules, of course) to sell sooner rather than later.
This is why Fiber Optic SHOULD DIE!!!!
@HelloSteveJobs
Fiber is just getting started even though it’s been around for years. With speeds 100+ gbps and not still not close to its full potential. Fiber will live for a very long time.
@JClay nvm man, i mean Fiber to the Home (FTTH)
@HelloSteveJobs
Fiber Optic is what brings the signal to the home, WirelessHD 2.0 is what moves it around the house (Wirelessly, as in without cables). These are 2 totally different techs, for 2 totally different things.
I have no idea what this means, but it sounds like I might like it if the price for the hardware is reasonable.
You make fun of monster cable, but I remember when it first came out; and Best Buy did not sell it. Only high end stereo shops sold the stuff and it DID make a great difference when hooking up large stereo speakers. This was back in the day of records, amplifiers, and tuners. Not a thing digital. Music sounded better; ie warmer then. The systems came with eight inch wires. Lots of impedance and a sound that suffered. Then monster came out with thick, copper wire and one could finally drive the speakers to their maximum. I had a friend who had to put his turntable in the bathroom because the sound waves from the speakers would push the tone arm right off the record. :) Ah youth..
@majortom
I'll second that statement... in digital, most situations don't require a top notch cable to get the best performance out of a system... but once signals go analog, a higher quality cable is almost always the way to go.
@Loveshack
Engadget doesn't have a problem with any high-end analog cables, it's just when Monster sells over priced HDMI cables by using trickery and fakery. (also suing very one with "monster" in their name.)
While I'll admit there is a nice piece of mind with cables I can't wait to get rid of the damn things.
Cables are inherently more reliable that wireless. I personally have no interest in any kind of wireless connection over a distance of 10 ft or less where a cable could be easily used.
I do think wireless is interesting for places where is it difficult or impossible to run a cable, such as a TV mounted over a fireplace, or a source device in one room talking to a display in another room. So I'm still pleased to see all the new wireless interfaces coming out. I just hope a single standard takes prominence soon, so we don't end up with another "format war".
I'm not sure about all of this technical mumbo jumbo, but it's "HD" so I'm sold!