Wired HDMI beats wireless (almost) every time

• How does wireless HDMI work?
• So what’s the problem with wireless HDMI?
• Is there any hope for wireless HDMI?

As with many of you, I’m sure, I remember a time when the space behind any TV was a mess of tangled wires, and woe unto anyone who had to go back there. Your VCR or DVD player alone had several plugs, and many devices used color coding, which made it even more imperative than it is today to keep track of which cable went where. A modern smart TV is a masterpiece of simplicity by comparison.

The dream, of course, is to eliminate any need for any cable, except maybe power. Technically, you can already do that — but since many of us have consoles, speakers, or media streamers we need to connect, a lot of us are stuck with at least one HDMI cable. You can fix that by switching to a wireless HDMI system. Personally, though, I’m holding off on the concept for a few years longer. I’ll explain why.

How does wireless HDMI work?

A quick primer on the future

At its core, any wireless HDMI system consists of what you’d expect: a transmitter and a receiver. The two units communicate over a dedicated, high-speed link, usually operating in the 2.4, 5, or 60GHz bands. If those first two numbers sound familiar, that’s because your Wi-Fi router also supports the 2.4 and 5GHz ranges. The 60GHz band is reserved for higher-quality systems, with benefits and limitations that I’ll explain more in the next section.

Beyond these basics, there’s some flexibility in how systems work. Some require screwing on external antennas, for instance, while others may have the option of using USB power instead of a conventional wall plug. More advanced products may support multiple inputs on a single transmitter, and/or broadcasting across your house instead of just a single room. With some products, you’ll still need your own HDMI cables, but far shorter than you’d otherwise need.

The two units communicate over a dedicated, high-speed link, usually operating in the 2.4, 5, or 60GHz bands.

There are a variety of reasons you might want to use wireless HDMI in your home beyond just decluttering an entertainment center. You might, for example, want to keep your game console and Blu-ray player next to your couch, making it easier to pop in a disc without having to run a massive cable under your rug or around the wall. Likewise, no one really likes the idea of running any more cables than they have to up to a ceiling-mounted projector.

In professional arenas, wireless HDMI is used for purposes like film production, office meetings, and putting on events like church services and college graduations. I’m going to avoid talking too much about these, since they’re not the focus of Pocket-lint, and have niche parameters.

So what’s the problem with wireless HDMI?

Serious tradeoffs for the average Joe

One of the biggest issues is bandwidth, which translates into limitations for audio and video options. The best professional-grade systems can’t stream 4K at any better than 60Hz. On consumer products, you’re likely to be capped at 4K/30Hz, or 1080p/60Hz. That may be fine for most movies and TV shows — the standard cinematic framerate is just 24 frames per second — but that rules out 4K gaming, and even 1080p60 may be disappointing, given the risk of artifacts like screen tearing if framerates exceed the 60fps mark. You absolutely need a wired HDMI 2.1 connection or better if you want 4K at 120Hz, or pretty much any form of 8K.

Worse for some of you may be the absence of HDR (high dynamic range). Standards like Dolby Vision and HDR10+ can really make images “pop” with stronger contrast and color, but the bandwidth required is just too much at the moment. Even the vanilla, non-dynamic HDR10 is generally off the table.

There’s better news in the audio department, in that some products support 7.1-channel surround sound and/or lossless formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. You can’t expect Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, though, and the technology isn’t built for ARC or eARC speakers.

That leads me to two other issues. Like any wireless technology, there’s the potential for interference, and if it’s severe enough, this can cause audio and video to drop out completely for an instant. Also, while 60GHz transmitters enable superior audio and video quality over their 2.4 and 5GHz counterparts, their range is so limited that they can’t broadcast beyond the room they’re in. You’ll have to take care to remove any potential signal obstructions — assume you’ll need direct line-of-sight.

Perceptible lag isn’t guaranteed, to be clear, but why take the chance if you don’t have to?

For me, the deal-killer is lag. I like gaming on my TV with my Steam Deck, and the potential input lag created by wireless HDMI risks making some titles annoying or unplayable. Just a fraction of a second can mean the difference between beating a boss or having to repeat an entire section, and it’s not worth it simply to eliminate a few feet of cable from my home theater setup. Heck, you might have similar feelings if you don’t play games. Imagine a split-second of lag every time you tap a button on your remote. Perceptible lag isn’t guaranteed, to be clear — but why take the chance if you don’t have to?

That leads me to the final flaw, which is price. A decent transmitter/receiver pair for a home theater is liable to cost you at least $150, and something that can broadcast across your home with any reliability will probably be even more. Pro-grade systems can cost upwards of $200 to $400. When it comes to cables, you may have to pay more for an “active” (signal-boosted) product that will work beyond 10 feet (3 meters), but even a 50-foot (15-meter) HDMI 2.1 cable can be had for less than $40, and passive options are cheaper still if you can get away with them.

You really, really have to value a “clean” setup to justify wireless, in other words. If I suddenly won the lottery, I’d probably continue to use wired HDMI not just for fidelity, but to feel like I got my money’s worth. I’m not one of those people who would buy a Ferrari or a mansion simply because I could.

Is there any hope for wireless HDMI?

Some final thoughts

Certainly. If we’re already getting 4K30 systems with minimal lag, there’s no fundamental barrier to bringing 4K60 to the masses beyond evolving existing technology and exploiting economies of scale. It’s more a question of how long that will take — wireless HDMI kits aren’t exactly flying off the shelves at your local big-box store.

The tougher nut is delivering the amenities people are used to with cables. 8K may be irrelevant for most households, but a lot of you probably take 4K HDR for granted, and the gamers in the crowd are going to care about both lag and high refresh rates. Wireless HDMI is waiting for some sort of fundamental leap, whether that’s higher frequency bands or ultra-efficient transmission standards. In the meantime, I’d think twice about bringing it into your home.