Home » Computing » Peripheral » Asus BR-HD3 Wireless HDMI Kit » Asus BR-HD3 Wireless HDMI Kit

Asus BR-HD3 Wireless HDMI Kit - Asus BR-HD3 Wireless HDMI Kit

By Hugo Jobling


Our Score


Review Price free/subscription

Both the receiver and transmitter are pretty much aesthetically identical, made from fairly attractive glossy black plastic. A folding segment at the rear houses three antennae (for MiMo WiFi). There are holes in the rear to accommodate screw heads should you wish to wall-mount either of the two base stations, but I'm not particularly convinced you’d want to - they're not exactly works of art.

The front end of the top surface is home to three status LEDs. From left to right these indicate whether the device has power, a video connection and a wireless connection to the other. As these can't be turned off, they could be annoying in a darkened room while you're trying to watch Blade Runner, or possibly just Gossip Girl - we're not judging.

A possible problem is the lack of any IR pass-through which means that although the transmitter and receiver can be placed in separate rooms, there's no way to control your Blu-ray or HD DVD player. A PS3 or Xbox 360 would have no such issues, of course, as both of those have wireless remotes. In a projector set-up the wireless connection would really excel. Placed on a ceiling the receiver becomes much less intrusive and being able to place your source devices anywhere in your living room, without having to worry about laying cables, should prove a boon.

The single-port-only restriction is a little annoying, but nothing a cheap HDMI switcher can't solve. A three-port version is mooted for release in the middle of next year, if you really can't be without more than one HDMI input on the transmitter itself. However, I can't help but think that anyone who can afford a £400 wireless HDMI kit probably has an AV receiver in their setup, which will consolidate all those HDMI devices into a single video output anyway.

Asus reckons that the BR-HD3 provides lag-free wireless transmission of video and, to the best of my ability to discern it, this does appear to be true. In an attempt to test this claim, I passed the HDMI signal through an Onkyo HDX-22HD to extract the audio, before then plugging the output of that system into the BR-HD3 transmitter. I'm not the kind of viewer to tolerate out-of-sync audio so I was most pleased to see (or should that be hear?) a complete lack of issues with this setup. I was also pleased to see that there was no discernible loss of image quality using the wireless connection.


While we'd have preferred the BR-HD3 Wireless HDMI Kit to offer support for 1080p video, there are plenty of situations where the 1080i/720p limit won't be an issue. As such, the biggest issue is the price; at £400 this kit is simply far too expensive to recommend to all but the richest of fat cats.

Scores In Detail


Our Score

Previous page


December 5, 2009, 7:21 am

I don't see why this can't do 1080p24/25 that doesn't require any more bandwidth than 1080i50/60. The only time there would be a bandwidth problem is on a 1080p60 PC input or from a couple of PS3 games.

Then again if you can afford this stupidly expensive HDMI transmitter then you will probably have a TV which can deinterlace and convert 1080i60->1080p24 just as well as the blu-ray player itself.

Then again... again.. if you have a home cinema with a projector system (which might make this device worthwhile), the fact you have to cover a wall with a screen and break apart the ceiling to mount the thing and run an extra power point to power the transmitter... a single HDMI cable isn't that much of a problem. Also you'd be finicky enough about PQ that you'd never consider feeding a big screen compressed wifi video.

All in all, it's a massive waste of time.


December 5, 2009, 9:48 pm

For 400 quid I bet a plasterer would 'chase' quite a few wires in for you.


December 6, 2009, 12:10 am

"For 400 quid I bet a plasterer would 'chase' quite a few wires in for you."

Quite. I can't help feeling there's a little bit of common sense lacking here. With the kind of range the review is quoting, it's not even as if this would get you round the usual limitation of 10m long hdmi cables. I guess at a push the 10m limit here would be direct, rather than following wall, but I'm pretty sure I would go option of plasterer + HDMI repeater...


December 6, 2009, 4:08 pm

I agree with the above comments, but here's my big problem with it:

Who wants a wireless HDMI kit? Someone who has their AV gear in a cabinet away from their tv. Maybe even in a specialist AV closet.

Who has an AV closet? Someone who likes their AV gear A LOT. Someone who likes watching their Blu Rays and other 1080p HD stuff. Oh wait. This thing can't do 1080p...

So who would buy this? It solves one problem for it's target market, while not allowing them to do what they would do normally!

Mark Johnson

December 6, 2009, 6:14 pm

You have forgotten the cost of the cable; it is likely that the cable length will be 15m if the direct path is 10m. A 15m HDMI cable that will work without affecting visual quality is likely to be £200, and the price rises fast the longer the cable. Basically, you're attempting to push the cable past the maximum design length of HDMI so either special care is required in selecting materials and manufacture or a signal regenerator has to be incorporated every so often. Low volumes and high expertise means high prices.


December 7, 2009, 5:28 am

Flatwire for the win!



December 7, 2009, 6:48 pm


Flatwire does indeed win, but it's not available in the UK dammit! I think if they brought it over here, (including the power carrying version) I might finally by able to sneak a surround sound system past the wife!

comments powered by Disqus