Matrix Switchers vs. HD Over Coax: Pros Weigh in
Sending various content to TVs in sports bars poses a challenge for integrators.
There are basically three choices for integrators looking to send various HD signals to multiple video monitors in a bar, restaurant, gym, corporate office or any commercial environment:
Dedicated Source for Every Display: Forget about this one, suggests Fred Harding, who does sales and technical support for distributor Capitol Sales. It's cheap, but it's not really "distribution." The problems, Harding says, are that "control is a mess and it's not functional if [the project] has any scope at all."
Modulated HD over Coax: Basically, an HD modulator allows HD signals to be sent over a coaxial network and tuned in by the HDTVs connected to it, says Chris Bauer, director of marketing for ZeeVee.
Matrix Switcher: This can either be connected to component or Cat 5 cables with baluns on the ends (the switch and the TV).
There are pros and cons to the latter two options, Harding says. His company, which distributes ZeeVee for a coax option and Key Digital for matrix switchers, recognizes that some projects are ideal for a matrix switcher while some are suited for a modulated HD over coax solution.
Modulated HD over Coax
Blonder Tongue
Channel Vision Technology
Contemporary Research
ZeeVee
Matrix Switchers
AMX
Atlona Technologies
Audio Authority
Aurora Multimedia
AVocation Systems
ConnectGear
Crestron
Datasat Digital
DVIGear
Extron Electronics
Gefen
Hall Research Technology
Intelix
Iogear
Just Add Power
Key Digital Systems
Kramer Electronics
Magenta Research
Neopro
PureLink by Dtrovision
RT com
Savant
Sierra Video
SIG, Inc
Sima Products
StarTech.com
Tributaries
TVOne-AV Toolbox Division
Vaux Electronics
Zektor
Commercial CE pro Cory Plummer of Gray, Maine-based Home A/V Solutions agrees with Harding that both coax and matrix switchers have their place in commercial video distribution, but lately he finds himself choosing modulated HD over coax more often.
CE Pro chose to contact Plummer because we previously talked to him after he completed his first ZeeVee installation in a large sports bar with ambitious video distribution demands. At the time, he was pretty high on ZeeVee. "It absolutely revolutionized how I do a sports bar," he said, before describing a previous project in which he installed a 16x16 matrix switcher. "I ran Cat 5 to everything, terminating everything. That [was] three times as much work."
The ZeeVee ZvPro 250 units Plummer used in the project covered in CE Pro have MSRPs of $2,500 and he installed nine of them to handle roughly 45 displays. "If I used a matrix switcher here video distribution would have cost them about $40,000, but with ZeeVee it's about $20,000."
As is typical in modulated HD over coax installations, Plummer has each of the nine components connected to a source, allowing the bartender to tune the nine sources to nine different games and send them around the bar.
Price and ease of installation are big factors when CE pros choose coax for video distribution, but another benefit is system flexibility. About a year removed from Plummer's first ZeeVee installation, he says it remains his top choice for video distribution, in part, because it allows for easy system tweaking. Ideally, he likes to provide sports bar owners with 10 sources to distribute because that's usually the maximum amount of football games they would want to display. "If that seems like too much, we can take out as many as needed. Not enough? Just add one for each additional source, which also makes it a great buildable system," he says.
Plummer gives an example of a startup bar that wanted video distribution but had a tight budget. It went with six ZeeVee units connected to six satellite boxes. "That helped them get through the summer. After using a few months to bring in some money, we're adding two more ZeeVees and satellite receivers to their system without any extra work other than making the connections to the RF distribution already in place and adding the channels to the TVs."
Harding agrees that "affordability" and "being able to tweak it" are integrators' key reasons for choosing ZeeVee. He points out, though, that another modulated HD over coax option is Blonder Tongue, "a great name in the modulation business." Blonder Tongue's products, including its newest HDE-2H-QAM and HDE-2C-QAM, carry significantly higher price tags than ZeeVee's line, but the president Bob Palle maintains that the step-up in video quality is well worth it.
Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter
Read more Video stories
10 Reasons Coax, Not Wireless, Is Future of Video DistributionMcIntosh MX121, MX151 Control Centers Debut
Dish Network Auto Hop Skips Commercials on Hopper DVR
NavNet Adds Apple AirPlay Support to Entice U.S. Dealers
Key Digital Launches Compass Home Automation System
More in Video
About the Author

13 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)
John Nemesh-
In all fairness Bob said “may be illegal”. I took that as he wasn’t really sure but who knows?
I think one transport method that is often over looked is SDI/HD-SDI/3G-SDI and so on. May be CePro can look into doing a write up on the pros/cons of an SDI system compared to those listed in the article?
To be honest, I have never used or implemented SDI in an install. However, my understanding is that it is a standard digital interface that is primarily used for broadcast applications. While it can offer a superior picture to HDMI, it is an expensive option.
The point I think people reading this need to get is that this article is talking about a commercial application such as a sports bar. While picture quality is somewhat important, reliability and ease of use should be the main focus of your install, not picture quality.
Think of how you, yourself, enjoy a sports bar. When you are out having a beer with your friends and watching the game, are you nitpicking video quality? Obviously, it cant be a horrible picture, but do you REALLY need 1080p or SDI in such an environment? Is the typical bar owner willing to pay extra for better quality? Most experienced dealers would consider it a victory if they are able to convince their clients to replace their Vizio, Maxent, and Insignia TVs with something decent!
I am not saying that there is no place for HDMI or SDI in a commercial installation, but you need to weigh the benefits of the technology with the costs and problems involved.
By the way, just to pick on Bob some more…For him to recommend FIBER OPTICS for runs greater than 20 feet is ridiculous! I am having EXCELLENT luck with HDMI cables up to 40 or even 50 feet! For longer runs you can reliably send HDMI with minimal signal loss up to 330 ft at full 1080p resolution (+3D!) over a single cat5 or cat6 cable with the latest Key Digital or Gefen HDMI baluns (I am sure there are others).
Also, his concerns about HDCP and EDID issues are valid…which is another reason why I would recommend component video for this particular scenario, no HDCP or EDID issues with good ‘ol YPrPb!
wouldn’t any of you say that limiting the component output’s resolution is in itself an infringement on your usage rights?
We had RGB and we wer sold up the river to component, then HDMI. Which BTW has no greater resolution then RGB.
@Julie Jacobson
Once and for all CEPro needs to write an HONEST article on what this so called “analog sunset” means. There are to many misinformed people and too many manufactures using your magazine that our industry looks towards to propagate lies and misinformation to sell their overpriced equipment.
The Image Constraint Token applies on a per disc basis, so that one movie title could have it enabled while another from a different studio could have it disabled. It impacts video only, and has no effect on audio signal quality. Discs with ICT enabled will (theoretically) have it marked on the outside of package, allowing consumers to see if the specific disc has the flag enabled.
Note that ICT in conjunction with HDCP is used to protect the display path over which the video data travels, not the actual data on the disc itself.
The fact the no one mentions whats I just posted is a shame. We professionals look to you for information. To use a phrase from the news world - let’s make this a NO SPIN zone. Stop letting the advertisers print misinformation.
My 2 cents
Fiber for anything over 20 feet!?!?!? You have to be kidding me!
“If the native 1080p source is more than 20 feet away from the HD display, the rule of thumb is to use fiber. Although there are many brands that claim to deliver 1080p over copper up to 150 feet, they use boosters and repeaters that drop pixels along the way, adding noise to the signal and degrading performance.”
Really? C’mon now! The Crestron solution, for example, delivers 1080p with 0 pixel drops, noise, etc. That’s a fact, not a “claim”.
What a shame that these factual errors make their way to CEPRO’s audience. What happened to basic journalism practices of verifying statements with other sources? C’mon CEPRO - you’re losing your reputation.
I too am baffled by the 20-foot fiber “rule.” Typo? 200 feet, maybe?
Given that PureLink makes DCE extenders that extend HDMI and DVI over Cat5 at 1080p/24 or 60 up to 150 feet, would give Bob the benefit of the doubt. Obviously if PureLink makes the Cat5 extenders, they believe they work.
As an aside, I have heard nothing but praise for PureLink products by technicians and end users that have an installed base of their product.
>>The ZeeVee ZvPro 250 units Plummer used in the project covered in CE Pro have MSRPs of $2,500 and he installed nine of them to handle roughly 45 displays. “If I used a matrix switcher here video distribution would have cost them about $40,000, but with ZeeVee it’s about $20,000.”
As is typical in modulated HD over coax installations, Plummer has each of the nine components connected to a source, allowing the bartender to tune the nine sources to nine different games and send them around the bar.<<
Except in the real world, there can be up to 13 games on Sunday and any SportsBar worth a damn will have -all- the games, so add another $10,000 to the ZeeVee solution to do it correctly.
As others here have said, Bob Rapoport’s comments in the article regarding component outputs are as misleading as the PureLink website.
For an excellent analysis of the situation, as well as excerpts from and links to the FCC M, O and O, please look at Audio Authority’s whitepaper here:
http://www.audioauthority.com/techdocs/Component_Video_Future_AAC_0510.pdf
I think everyone is missing the boat. Why is anyone still talking about coax or component? Why is anyone balancing quality and convenience against cost? Our industry’s professionals know that convergence is here, but it’s as if they’re not applying it to its logical conclusion. Matrices and modulation are band-aids. Digital IP networks are a complete solution, and, perhaps most importantly, are the direction that commercial facilities are moving in as they implement full-digital solutions that work on a scalable, unified communications platform. NetStreams’ DigiLinX (also branded as ClearOne View for the commercial market), has been used in wide variety of commercial applications – arenas, bars, casinos, courtrooms, corporate headquarters, and more – to provide flexible, effective solutions, all at one (uncompromised) standard of quality. At some point, if you don’t get on the IP bandwagon, you’ll be missing the boat on the best opportunities in commercial
If the HD over coax can get down to around $400 range, every home (not necessarily) sports bar can start using it. I’ve been waiting for such a solution for few years now. ZeeVee seems a great solution but for distributing couple of channels let’s say in my home theater (3 TVs) cost over $2500 is just not an option. The IP solution sounds good, but will be a real mess. Thinking about all the addons to your TV.



I have a real problem with Bob Rapaport’s “expert” views in general and his statement that HD over anything but HDMI will be illegal as of December 31st in particular.
This information is BLATANTLY FALSE! The only impact we will see as of Dec. 31st 2010, is that all BLU-RAY players manufactured after that date will have to limit their output resolution over Component video to 480p. There is nothing, NOTHING, ILLEGAL about using a component video based distribution system.
Another point is that, other than pay-per-view, there is NO 1080p content available on cable or satellite TV! All broadcasts are either 1080i or 720p, and these resolutions look just fine on component video! Also, in a commercial environment, the difference between 1080i or 720p and 1080p will NEVER be noticed or appreciated.
The main benefit I could see from using matrix switch solutions in a commercial setting is that the commercial grade monitors that you would typically want to install will not generally have an ATSC/QAM tuner in them. In such a case, a video modulator will not be of much use!