will the quality of ethernet cable signal decrease if i...?

[chronic9]

I hid some ethernet cable behind floor moldings and its a tad short to where I want to keep my router now...

so i am either thinking of cutting open the cable and adding an extension. or use a coupler.

what I mean by quality is, will my gigabit cable turn into slow shit that wont be able to handle streaming 720p to my main rig?

 

[Bviper]

While its best practice not to use a coupler, more than likely you won't notice any difference. Personally I've coupled a 75ft cable to a 8ft cable and it worked fine at gigabit speeds. No slow down.

 

[unhappy_mage]

Use a coupler, don't cut the cable.

 

[bigddybn]

Unless it's already a very long run a coupler isn't going to degrade anything. Trying to hackjob the cable on the other hand is fail waiting to happen.

 

[Arch]

720p requires no more than 20mbps. Gigabit is way overkill unless you're running multiple streams, 5+.

 

[Electrofreak]

I wouldn't cut the cable. You'd just be introducing opportunities for crosstalk.

And Arch is correct... even if you were running a 100mbps connection, your HD stream would be in no danger.

Even streaming raw (uncompressed and unencoded) Blu-Ray video and audio only takes about 54mbps... just enough to max out a Wireless G connection.

 

[Auzner]

Splicing in more wire would undo the twisted pairs a bit, that's why there could be crosstalk. Couple it.

 

[Dawizman]

Unless it's already a very long run a coupler isn't going to degrade anything.

I beg to differ on that point. Although the average user will probably never notice the degradation, couplers are absolutely terrible. If you've ever popped one open you will see that the wires are usually not twisted at all. I'm fairly certain that I could make a better performing connection with proper splices. Also, I have personally tested cables with some fairly high end test equipment and just about every coupler I have ever tested does not meet Cat5e specifications, not to mention Cat6.

Here is a picture of a typical RJ45 coupler:
http://www.packetsniffers.org/projects/Nintendo_Box/NES-rj45coupler01.JPG

Now you can find some that are properly twisted and they will work better, but for the most part the type in the picture is what you will buy in a store or at most online retailers.

But, like I said, the average user will probably never ever notice the difference. Go ahead and use the coupler as it will work just fine for you. Me? I'll get a longer cable.

 

[QwertyJuan]

Do NOT cut the cable.

 

[bigddybn]

I beg to differ on that point. Although the average user will probably never notice the degradation, couplers are absolutely terrible. If you've ever popped one open you will see that the wires are usually not twisted at all. I'm fairly certain that I could make a better performing connection with proper splices. Also, I have personally tested cables with some fairly high end test equipment and just about every coupler I have ever tested does not meet Cat5e specifications, not to mention Cat6.

Here is a picture of a typical RJ45 coupler:
http://www.packetsniffers.org/projects/Nintendo_Box/NES-rj45coupler01.JPG

Now you can find some that are properly twisted and they will work better, but for the most part the type in the picture is what you will buy in a store or at most online retailers.

But, like I said, the average user will probably never ever notice the difference. Go ahead and use the coupler as it will work just fine for you. Me? I'll get a longer cable.

If he isn't going to notice anything then nothing has been degraded. Nobody is saying a coupler is a better solution then a proper length cable.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I wouldn't cut the cable. You'd just be introducing opportunities for crosstalk.

And Arch is correct... even if you were running a 100mbps connection, your HD stream would be in no danger.

Even streaming raw (uncompressed and unencoded) Blu-Ray video and audio only takes about 54mbps... just enough to max out a Wireless G connection.

Blu-ray isn't raw video; it's definitely compressed and encoded. Raw video at 1080p/30hz would require almost 1.5 Gbps, and 5.1 channel, 16-bit, 44.1khz audio requires another 4Mb/s

 

[bigddybn]

I beg to differ on that point. Although the average user will probably never notice the degradation, couplers are absolutely terrible. If you've ever popped one open you will see that the wires are usually not twisted at all. I'm fairly certain that I could make a better performing connection with proper splices. Also, I have personally tested cables with some fairly high end test equipment and just about every coupler I have ever tested does not meet Cat5e specifications, not to mention Cat6.

Here is a picture of a typical RJ45 coupler:
http://www.packetsniffers.org/projects/Nintendo_Box/NES-rj45coupler01.JPG

Now you can find some that are properly twisted and they will work better, but for the most part the type in the picture is what you will buy in a store or at most online retailers.

But, like I said, the average user will probably never ever notice the difference. Go ahead and use the coupler as it will work just fine for you. Me? I'll get a longer cable.

If he isn't going to notice anything then nothing has been degraded. Nobody is saying a coupler is a better solution then a proper length cable.

 

[Electrofreak]

Blu-ray isn't raw video; it's definitely compressed and encoded. Raw video at 1080p/30hz would require almost 1.5 Gbps, and 5.1 channel, 16-bit, 44.1khz audio requires another 4Mb/s

Might want to put in an edit over at Wikipedia then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

That was my source. Yes, Wikipedia, I know, but the article is well cited.

Blu-Ray is in fact 24 fps (progressive), not 30, and while your statement is true that it's not exactly raw video, I was referring to direct-from-disk data, not video that had been ripped and reencoded.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Might want to put in an edit over at Wikipedia then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

That was my source. Yes, Wikipedia, I know, but the article is well cited.

Blu-Ray is in fact 24 fps (progressive), not 30, and while your statement is true that it's not exactly raw video, I was referring to direct-from-disk data, not video that had been ripped and reencoded.

The data on the disc is still encoded and compressed. The player decompresses and decodes it on the fly and sends it to your TV/monitor.

From the same Wiki article:

The choice of video compression technology (codec) complicates any comparison of the formats. Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD both support the same three video compression standards:

 

[Electrofreak]

The data on the disc is still encoded and compressed. The player decompresses and decodes it on the fly and sends it to your TV/monitor.

From the same Wiki article:

I'm aware of that, as I mentioned in my previous post. I stream DVDs across my network in one of 2 ways: I access the DVD drive directly on the computer with the disc via the network, or in some cases I'll rip the DVD and re-encode it as something I can run in Media Player, and I'll play the file across the network. In my original post, I was referring to the former, where the original disc data (VIDEO.VOB, VIDEO.IFO files) is streamed across the network. My statement wasn't entirely accurate, thank you for your correction.

I guess what really matters is whether or not your claim of 1.5 Gbps is true or not, and ultimately whether the data is decoded before or after it is streamed.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I'm aware of that, as I mentioned in my previous post. I guess what really matters is whether or not your claim of 1.5 Gbps is true or not, and ultimately whether the data is decoded before or after it is streamed.

If it's raw video, then it's not encoded nor compressed.

If you want to see if what I said about the bandwidth require for raw video is true, then do the math:

1920 * 1080 * 24bpp * 30fps = 1,492,992,000 bps.
1920 * 1080 * 24bpp * 24fps = 1,194,393,600 bps.

 

[Electrofreak]

If it's raw video, then it's not encoded nor compressed.

If you want to see if what I said about the bandwidth require for raw video is true, then do the math:

1920 * 1080 * 24bpp * 30fps = 1,492,992,000 bps.
1920 * 1080 * 24bpp * 24fps = 1,194,393,600 bps.

I edited my post for clarity, please read it again.

However, your calculation is for "raw video", so you're contradicting yourself here...

I've seen 1080p video stream over a home network (10/100) router without any trouble, so I know your answer cannot be correct. It's reasonable to assume that if the raw 1080p video frames are being sent across the network we'd see those data rates, but obviously that's not the case.

According to Blu-Ray.com it's 54mbps. http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_capacity_video

 

[BinarySynapse]

I edited my post for clarity, please read it again.

You just said raw video, so you're contradicting yourself here... and that calculation is for "raw video" which, as you state, Blu-Ray isn't...

I've seen 1080p video stream over a home network (10/100) router without any trouble, so I know your answer cannot be correct.

You said:

Even streaming raw (uncompressed and unencoded) Blu-Ray video and audio only takes about 54mbps... just enough to max out a Wireless G connection.

I was pointing out that Blu-ray video (even if you're puling the data directly from disc over a network) is not raw video, AND that if you were to stream the raw 1080p video, you would need ~1.5Gbps.

 

[Electrofreak]

You said:



I was pointing out that Blu-ray video (even if you're puling the data directly from disc over a network) is not raw video, AND that if you were to stream the raw 1080p video, you would need ~1.5Gbps.

Ah, I thought you were making a case for streaming Blu-Ray actually needing that much bandwidth. I guess I didn't read your post correctly, you have my apologies.

I used the phrase "raw video" when I should have said "raw data". I meant to refer to raw Blu-Ray data that had not been ripped and further compressed or reencoded into a lower definition format, but I didn't use appropriate or accurate terminology.