New HDMI 1.4 Spec Set To Confuse 357
thefickler writes "HDMI Licensing LLC, the company that determines the specifications of the HDMI standard, is set to release the HDMI 1.4 spec on 30 June. Unfortunately it could very well be the most confusing thing to ever happen to setting up a home theater. When the new cables are released, you're going to need to read the packaging very carefully because effectively there are now going to be five different versions of HDMI to choose from — HDMI Ethernet Channel, Audio Return Channel, 3D Over HDMI, 4K x2K Resolution Support and a new Automotive HDMI. At least we can't complain about consumer choice."
I probably shouldn't be surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
But the main article is fairly wrong. The Audio Return channel doesn't require a different cable, and the higher resolutions and 3D will both work over the high-bandwidth version. The ethernet options will be different cables, as will the automotive, so there will be quite a few new cables, but I don't think that's particularly confusing. (That's normal HDMI; HDMI plus ethernet; high-speed HDMI; high-speed HDMI plus ethernet; and automotive HDMI.)
dvice.com [dvice.com] has some analysis and the press release.
The Audio Return thing will allow your display to send audio to your receiver, instead of using a second audio (e.g. optical or coaxial) cable. Why that wasn't there from the beginning is beyond me, since the connection was already bidirectional (to negotiate DRM).
I would not be surprised... (Score:2, Interesting)
One that can only be used on Mondays, One for Tuesdays only.. etc... etc...
HDMI 1.4 spec = fail...
Meh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a 52" 1080p LCD *AS* my Computer Monitor.
Computer DVI -> HDMI.
Works great. I have a little 19" LCD off to the side that isn't even plugged in. Just in case.
For BluRay and HD-DVD I have a combo driver which cost $90 in my computer. Everything is run through a single harmony remote and wireless keyboard/mouse.
I also have a laptop in case I want to browse the web while watching TV. Just about the perfect setup if you ask me. Perhaps not for work when I want dual displays but more than adequate for all home computer activities.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:HDMI Ethernet (Score:3, Interesting)
And really, do my speakers actually need to talk back to my receiver under any even remotely plausible scenario that doesn't scream "DRM, mother fucker, do you speak it?"
Off the top of my head, I imagine you could have a mic each speaker so the system can dynamically adjust for ambient noise, or something silly like a surround sound system pinging itself during setup to concentrate the "surround" effect on the desired area.
I also guess you could work this into some type of karaoke/Rock Band game.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
HDTVs are cheaper than flat panel displays in equivalent sizes. But as to your question, unless you want a big panel, don't buy a big panel, it's a waste of money.
Computer display has not been in rapid flux compared to TVs. TVs have gone from not having any input except an antenna input to having composite inputs, then s-video, then component, then HDMI in a little bit under 30 years. In the same time, computer monitors used 3 connectors, the original DB-9 (three flavors, RGB+I, RrGgBb, then analog RGB), then the HDI-15 (VGA connector), then DVI in a slightly shorter timeframe.
In the case of TVs, every change of connector/signaling was due to needing increased resolution except for HDMI. HDMI was to simplify connections, and indeed, a single HDMI connector is far simpler (and cheaper) than 3 RCAs for video + 2 RCAs or a single optical cable for audio.
TVs are by FAR not simpler than computer displays. HDMI allows 36 bit color, it allows more than 3 (RGB) channel color. It also brings audio, including multichannel audio. It also brings control signaling through CEC and now ethernet. With HDMI, turning on your TV can automatically turn on your amp. That doesn't happen with computers unless you use a 2nd cable, a USB cable.
I can't say I'm thrilled that the HDMI group can't understand that changing the spec less often will help make sure it is successful. But I do like the idea of return audio on HDMI 1.4. I do like the audio sync that was brought with HDMI 1.3. The multichannel audio in HDMI 1.1a was a fantastic idea, solving the problem computers never solved properly (which is why computers have 3 1/8" jacks for audio on the back instead of a single audio connector).
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
HDMI is inferior at moving sound when compared to a pair of old RCA cables.
For a turntable, maybe. But bluray supports 7.1 channels. The more expensive players have 8 analog output jacks. The cheaper ones just use HDMI.
The problem, however is that a set of 8 jacks takes up a lot of space on a chassis. So most receivers only have one set of multichannel input jacks. What if you want to connect a computer as well? An SACD player? A Playstation 3?
But plenty of receivers have three or four hdmi inputs, and most of the goodones can decode the hdmi audio signal.
In addition, many receivers have digital filters for room correction, delay, and levels. The conversions between analog and digital add noise. If the audio is converted to analog only once, the noise is reduced.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
No there isn't.
There is no adapter that will let you hook a DVI output to a DisplayPort-only monitor.
There are physical adapters that let you get DVI output from some DisplayPort ports. But it just ties a line on the connector that tells the sending device to not actually send DisplayPort signaling, but send DVI instead. This has a couple problems. First is that you are still paying the DVI licensing fees, including HDCP fees. Second is that if the source device doesn't have this alternate mode, the adapter doesn't work, because it can't convert it itself, it can only tell the sending device to send DVI instead.
Apple's adoption of DisplayPort seems like a disaster so far. If you have a more then 3 month old MacPro or iMac, Apple doesn't have a 24" display they can offer you. If you want to put an Apple 30" display on your MacPro, Mac Mini, MacBook or iMac, you need a $99 adapter that is large, takes up a USB port and doesn't even work right on some displays. And if you want to be able to give a presentation from your MacBook/Macbook Pro, you had better have brought a gaggle of adapters with you, since there isn't a projector on the planet that accepts DisplayPort. Not that you would have a DisplayPort cable to connect to the projector anyway, Apple doesn't even sell one! And even if the projector had a DisplayPort cable already attached, you couldn't use that either because Apple used mini DisplayPort, so it's adapter time again, except Apple doesn't sell that adapter either.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
THere is an adapter made by MS that allows HDMI with optical(or RCA jack Stereo) output. Full Dolby Digital through optical. In this configuration i get full HDCP link DVD upscaling. PS3 same thing. HDMI out straight to TV, optical to a receiver. I get Dolby Digital, DTS, the works.
Re:Why not just use Ethernet? (Score:2, Interesting)
And you pulled that 16 gigabit/sec number out of your ass [forret.com]. Or maybe your definition of "HD video at high frame rates" is ~325 frames per second?
"unreliable communications over 500 meter"
...and this is a problem how?
"using a shared-channel"
...and this is a problem how?
"with LOTS of overhead"
yeah 1.3% overhead is "HUGE" using IP w/ standard 1.5k MTU (which could probably be raised even larger, especially when the devices are directly connected)
"and very high computational requirements"
no. and compared to what really? if the protocol designers would be idiots and use TCP then yes.
Re:Why not just use Ethernet? (Score:3, Interesting)
When transferring 16 Gigabits/sec of uncompressed HD video at high frame rates
Well, the answer is quite obvious then, compress the video
Computational power is cheaper than HDMI cables anyuwhere you look.
Re:Ethernet (Score:2, Interesting)
To watch utubes?
Actually, it will probably be used in reverse. One plug between your cable box and your Xbox. Video goes up, data goes down.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, as I work most of my time as an AV-tech, I'd have to say that this is truth with modifications.
Projectors at conferences are usually vga only. I've never encountered a DVI cable in static systems at conferences. Sure, when we set it up ourselves and go for high quality HD projectors @ 10k ansilumens we will use our nice fiberoptic dvi cables or hd-sdi, but most of the time it is vga/rgb-hv.
That means one(1) adapter, if you bring your own laptop. Even peecees come with DVI these days.
For us techs, it means 3 adapters, one dvi-vga, one minidvi-vga and one DisplayPort-vga. This will not make much of a difference in our flight cases...
Apart from that, I agree. Apple pulled a bit of a stunt with the DisplayPort. While I like the new port, I think it's way too arrogant to assume that people will ditch a 6 months old machine just like that. :-)
H
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Streaming media capabilities built in to the TV would be quite useful... Unfortunately, they're more likely to use the functionality to implement DRM.
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Plasma suitable for moving but not static image (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Plasma's burn-in problem makes it a complete non-starter for anything other than movies, as you say.
What remotely modern plasma still has a problem with burn-in ?
Re:I'm a geek, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a cheap cable that does everything... or at least everything we will soon be doing wirelessly. .
What the hell? HDMI is one of the most overpriced cables out there, for what it is.
And thanks to the digital nature, the cheapest HDMI cables work basically as well as the most expensive ones
No, you need expensive, high-quality HDMI cables if you want to do anything other than a short cable run. The "digital nature" doesn't help with this. Even though it's digital, the frequencies it operates at cause failure if you go beyond the rated distances. And the rated distances aren't very long at all.