HDMI to be replaced, good riddance

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

I guess these are going to be "midrange" priced soon once other companies start producing these newfangled connectors.

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp

 

[Exterous]

I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was likely the best we've ever had for audio/video overall.

Hmmm...yes it was simple but that doesn't mean they made it easy. They took an idea that was amazing and made it as complicated, screwed up and convoluted as possible

So this cable:

can do the same as this cable:

One design seems a tad more straightforward than the other

 

[Exterous]

I guess these are going to be "midrange" priced soon once other companies start producing these newfangled connectors.

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp

I got ripped off! I bought it from here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...namitedata.com



At least I got a great deal on my speaker cable
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...namitedata.com

(The reviews are worth a read through)

 

[slashbinslashbash]

If you want to see why engineers did not want to put them in the same signal look at the thousands of people posting every week on the internet asking how they can hook up their PS3, Bluray, pc , audio from their tv, to a receiver . We were even willing to accept a separate wire internally on the hdmi cable as long as the video and audio remained separate. Having the audio not be encoded with the video stream would have allowed people to use what audio devices they wanted. Instead marketing and the MPAA folks stepped in and wanted to dumb it down for consumers and the MPAA insisted it be protected along with the video content. So you get this series of TMDS transmitters that break the DVI standard by adding audio to the stream while not doing anything to improve upon it. HDMI should have been called DVI (now with audio)

HDBaseT at least innovated. They got rid of the parallel transmission of TMDS and made the new standard serial, similar to SATA. It caries more and is less susceptible to crosstalk. Still no separate audio but at least the cables are easier to work with.

Separate signal (conductors) within the same cable.... ok. I was talking about separate cables entirely.

And I don't get how people are having problems with hookups. Or, rather, I do, but I don't see what it has to do with HDMI. It was a LOT more complicated too hook up a receiver before HDMI. With HDMI, at its most basic level, it's the same as it always was: source(s) -> receiver -> TV. Except now there's only one cable, instead of 4 or 5, per source. And you don't have to go through your receiver's setup menu to designate an optical input to be attached to a particular video input. Don't have a receiver? Still the same: source -> TV.

Nothing has changed. The only reason there's more idiots complaining on forums is that there's more people buying high-end systems than there were back when component video was the best video connection available. Most people look at the back of a component video-equipped receiver, and they would either say "screw it, I don't need a receiver" and go with plain TV sound, or pay somebody to set it up for them. Now with HDMI, the kid at Best Buy tells them it's a single cable hookup, and that sounds easy enough, so they try it themselves without any real concept of what's going on (i.e. that the receiver becomes the switchboard, and that the signal must pass through the receiver on its way to the TV).

As for the connector strain issue, that's always been an issue with all kinds of connectors, and it's just plain lazy engineering that's caused it to get so bad with HDMI. I have had 2 notebook computers which eventually became unusable because the power connector gradually sheared off of the motherboard PCB. Strain relief is important, and I do the best I can to ensure straight connections, long-radius bends and plenty of room for all of my cables no matter what kind.

But in the end, I don't really know enough about the engineering issues to defend HDMI specifically. I like it because it is a relatively small connector that can carry both audio and video over the same cable over fairly long distances. If this new Cat5 solution gives us the same thing but is somehow better engineered, I will welcome it as well.

 

[alcoholbob]

The problem is hdmi already has a ton of market penetration--ps3, xbox, bluray players, receivers, TVs. People are not going to repurchase unless ALL of these devices move to the new generation, not just one or two.

 

[sdifox]

Separate signal (conductors) within the same cable.... ok. I was talking about separate cables entirely.

And I don't get how people are having problems with hookups. Or, rather, I do, but I don't see what it has to do with HDMI. It was a LOT more complicated too hook up a receiver before HDMI. With HDMI, at its most basic level, it's the same as it always was: source(s) -> receiver -> TV. Except now there's only one cable, instead of 4 or 5, per source. And you don't have to go through your receiver's setup menu to designate an optical input to be attached to a particular video input. Don't have a receiver? Still the same: source -> TV.

Nothing has changed. The only reason there's more idiots complaining on forums is that there's more people buying high-end systems than there were back when component video was the best video connection available. Most people look at the back of a component video-equipped receiver, and they would either say "screw it, I don't need a receiver" and go with plain TV sound, or pay somebody to set it up for them. Now with HDMI, the kid at Best Buy tells them it's a single cable hookup, and that sounds easy enough, so they try it themselves without any real concept of what's going on (i.e. that the receiver becomes the switchboard, and that the signal must pass through the receiver on its way to the TV).

As for the connector strain issue, that's always been an issue with all kinds of connectors, and it's just plain lazy engineering that's caused it to get so bad with HDMI. I have had 2 notebook computers which eventually became unusable because the power connector gradually sheared off of the motherboard PCB. Strain relief is important, and I do the best I can to ensure straight connections, long-radius bends and plenty of room for all of my cables no matter what kind.

But in the end, I don't really know enough about the engineering issues to defend HDMI specifically. I like it because it is a relatively small connector that can carry both audio and video over the same cable over fairly long distances. If this new Cat5 solution gives us the same thing but is somehow better engineered, I will welcome it as well.

your power connector to the laptop is plugged and unplugged frequently, so it is under a lot of wear. HDMI ports were breaking just from the hanging cable.

 

[Modelworks]

And I don't get how people are having problems with hookups. Or, rather, I do, but I don't see what it has to do with HDMI. It was a LOT more complicated too hook up a receiver before HDMI.

The difference is that with HDMI you now have to go through another device to get the audio signal , you don't get to choose. While HDMI works for setups of player > reciever , it doesn't work for people that want to do HDMI > TV > headphones unless your tv has headphone or audio out. This wasn't a problem before because you could route audio however you liked. Look on HTPC forums at the number of complaints from people trying to go from PC > home theater and trying to get audio to work correctly. They either have to buy a video card that supports it or do without audio on the tv. Most TV will not let you provide audio any other way on HDMI but through HDMI cable.

Of course manufacturers love it because they get to sell all new receivers.

As for the connector strain issue, that's always been an issue with all kinds of connectors, and it's just plain lazy engineering that's caused it to get so bad with HDMI.

Not bad engineering at all. The engineers told them that it was a problem but were dismissed . Engineers wanted thumbscrews to support the cables like DVI but marketing wanted it like USB.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem is hdmi already has a ton of market penetration--ps3, xbox, bluray players, receivers, TVs. People are not going to repurchase unless ALL of these devices move to the new generation, not just one or two.

They don't have to buy new ones. It will slowly phase in like other connectors in the past. Things will ship with both HDMI and the new ones and eventually it will be only the new ones.

I looked at some of the chipsets that do the encoding for the cat5 cable and it should be possible to buy adapters to convert HDMI to the newer standard for under $20 for those that want to be early adopters.

 

[Exterous]

The problem is hdmi already has a ton of market penetration--ps3, xbox, bluray players, receivers, TVs. People are not going to repurchase unless ALL of these devices move to the new generation, not just one or two.

Well - the good news it that it is supported by some pretty big players in the market: Sony, Samsung, LG. Add to that the fact that a lot of manufacturers were already adding ethernet hookups for various reasons and I think this has a very good chance of being widely adopted

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm surprised that the marketing folks aren't fighting HDBaseT. Aren't they worried about your average buyer plugging the HDBaseT cable into the Ethernet port of their shiny new Internet enabled HDTV of Blu-Ray player, and then returning the product because it "doesn't work"?

Besides, I'm kind of a fan of HDMI... it sure beats having to use separate component and optical cables for video and audio!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The difference is that with HDMI you now have to go through another device to get the audio signal , you don't get to choose. While HDMI works for setups of player > reciever , it doesn't work for people that want to do HDMI > TV > headphones unless your tv has headphone or audio out.

Uh....Isn't this how it worked in the past? You couldn't hook up, say, a Nintendo 64 to an analog television and to headphones, unless 1) your TV had a headphone output or 2) you passed the audio signal through some sort of audio component with headphone output.

This wasn't a problem before because you could route audio however you liked.

As far as I know, there aren't any source components out there with ONLY HDMI as an output. E.g. my Xbox 360 is capable of outputting HDMI and the old-style component/optical (or even analog audio) combo at the same time. This is how I have it hooked up, actually -- HDMI to my TV, and optical to my receiver (because my receiver doesn't have HDMI). The "you can do whatever you want with the audio signal" thing is still just as valid today as it used to be pre-HDMI, because those audio signals (digital and analog) are still present and still being output by the same source devices. Gaming consoles? Analog outs. Blu-Ray players? Analog outs. Digital Satellite and Cable? Analog outs. Anybody who wants to can hook up whatever audio stuff they have, to whatever source devices they have, and completely ignore HDMI (or, for that matter, digital audio altogether) if they want to. A receiver just makes your world a whole lot easier because you can use it as a signal switcher and never have to change inputs on your TV. If you are fine with switching inputs on your TV all the time, as well as changing inputs on your receiver, you are still free to go nuts running wires all over the place and hooking things up in whatever order you want to.

Look on HTPC forums at the number of complaints from people trying to go from PC > home theater and trying to get audio to work correctly. They either have to buy a video card that supports it or do without audio on the tv. Most TV will not let you provide audio any other way on HDMI but through HDMI cable.

So they should know the limitations of the TV's they buy before they buy one. If they care to use separate analog or digital audio connections from their PC to their TV, then then can buy a TV with component or DVI+optical inputs. If they already have a TV that doesn't do this, then they can buy a new video card that outputs audio over HDMI.

And you have to admit that a huge portion of the insanity that is building a HD-capable HTPC is due to the ridiculous HDCP requirements of the movie companies. Never to date has the signal been so thoroughly controlled, from disc to display. For standalone components like BRD players, game consoles, receivers, and TVs, there's a very good degree of interoperability (although I have heard of a few exceptional cases) but when you're building a HTPC from a BRD drive, a video card, a motherboard, etc. where the signal could conceivably be "jacked" at one point, the MPAA has created a lot of hoops to jump through. That BS would have happened regardless of whether the physical standard for the connector was HDMI or this new Cat5 thing.

Not bad engineering at all. The engineers told them that it was a problem but were dismissed . Engineers wanted thumbscrews to support the cables like DVI but marketing wanted it like USB.

I am not talking about the original engineering team that designed HDMI. I mean the people making the flimsy electronics with the likely-to-break connectors in them. There have got to be ways to reinforce the connectors on the inside so they don't break, or just make them more beefy in general so they don't flex.

Of course manufacturers love it because they get to sell all new receivers.

Uh, yeah, that's the way it works when a new video signal standard comes out. You've got to buy new source devices that output the signal, new TV's to display the signal, and, if you want to run the signal through a receiver, you've gotta buy a new receiver too. Damn progress!

 

[Modelworks]

As far as I know, there aren't any source components out there with ONLY HDMI as an output.

There are players from LG and Insignia that disable things like optical or coax when output source is selected as HDMI. The hardware that retained other audio connectors is mainly things that were caught in the transition between standards. It saves cost to not have to route it on board and also not having to provide additional jacks.

So they should know the limitations of the TV's they buy before they buy one. If they care to use separate analog or digital audio connections from their PC to their TV, then then can buy a TV with component or DVI+optical inputs.

The TV that accept optical or coax for DVI are few , very few.

If they already have a TV that doesn't do this, then they can buy a new video card that outputs audio over HDMI.

There was no need to change it . It didn't add value to the connection , in fact it made it more complicated and caused the standard to be delayed.

That BS would have happened regardless of whether the physical standard for the connector was HDMI or this new Cat5 thing.

Probably . I blame consumers a lot for the current state of things. They waited too late to start complaining about it. Most were not aware of it until HDCP appeared but the copy protection systems had their hooks in systems long before that and people should have complained then.

I am not talking about the original engineering team that designed HDMI. I mean the people making the flimsy electronics with the likely-to-break connectors in them. There have got to be ways to reinforce the connectors on the inside so they don't break, or just make them more beefy in general so they don't flex.

It would be extremely difficult to do. It would be like trying to hold a 2x4 board in the air with only 1 foot of it in your hand. They would need to make it a longer/deeper connector. Even then you start to get problems with the connectors becoming loose around the outside removing the advantage of making it longer. Most of the breaks are not the actual sockets themselves, the solder cracks making the connection intermittent. There are sockets made that physically screw to the chassis but those are not use as often as they should be.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

There are players from LG and Insignia that disable things like optical or coax when output source is selected as HDMI. The hardware that retained other audio connectors is mainly things that were caught in the transition between standards. It saves cost to not have to route it on board and also not having to provide additional jacks.

Ok, so simple solution, don't use HDMI at all. As I recall, we had resolutions up to 1080p-caliber that worked just fine over analog VGA. Component video is capable of carrying very high quality analog video. Plenty good enough for up to 1080p. In fact, my Xbox 360 is hooked up with both HDMI to my TV, and component through my receiver to my TV... guess which I end up using more? Component, so I don't have to switch inputs on my TV. I have never noticed a difference on my 720p 32" LCD between the HDMI signal and the component signal. Of course I know the theoretical benefits of the all-digital signal (and I would use it if I had an HDMI receiver), but I know I'm not really losing much by using component video.

The TV that accept optical or coax for DVI are few , very few.

Ok, but 1) they are out there; and 2) if they are using the TV's built-in speakers, why would they really care about audio quality anyway? It is just going to be stereo anyway. L/R analog is good enough, and I've yet to see a TV that doesn't have RCA inputs for stereo audio. If the person in the above-mentioned scenario has a HT receiver, then obviously it would take optical or coax.

There was no need to change it . It didn't add value to the connection , in fact it made it more complicated and caused the standard to be delayed.

Do you still refuse to see the simple, everyday, end-user value-added in having ONE CABLE that provides both audio and video signals? Regardless of the engineering difficulties in creating it? Do you really think that in post-2000 consumer electronics it should be that hard to accomplish digital video and digital audio on the same cable? If the final implementation is screwed up, that's one thing; but the end result to the consumer (one cable for all signals) is a big benefit.

 

[mv2devnull]

Video and audio in single cable? That was called SCART for several years ...

 

[alcoholbob]

Well - the good news it that it is supported by some pretty big players in the market: Sony, Samsung, LG. Add to that the fact that a lot of manufacturers were already adding ethernet hookups for various reasons and I think this has a very good chance of being widely adopted

They are shipping with ethernet ports...but they don't have the chipset for the same functionality. That's like saying there are RCA audio inputs on your receiver, therefore in the future there composite video support will be widely adopted.

 

[alcoholbob]

dbl post.

 

[Exterous]

They are shipping with ethernet ports...but they don't have the chipset for the same functionality. That's like saying there are RCA audio inputs on your receiver, therefore in the future there composite video support will be widely adopted.

No, it's not the same at all. RCA audio is only L+R (Red and white). Composite video would require an additional hookup or would require the removal of an RCA audio jack therefore removing functionality

In contrast Ethernet requires no additional port and adding the additional functionality of HDbaseT does not remove the existing functionality of an network connection capability

And I never said it will be adopted I simply stated I though that this would help make it more likely to be adopted

 

[Pia]

Marketing wanted something that looked like USB and was just plug in and use. We wanted DVI with a thumbscrew one each side so the cable wouldn't stress the connectors. Marketing decided that would be too complex for consumers.

I think the marketing was at least partly right. How are thumbscrews a good thing for anyone? If a more secure attachment than friction is needed to prevent stress on the connectors, why not use a clip like RJ-45 has, but larger and sturdier, maybe two symmetrical clips? I can always plug in a RJ-45 blind to a difficult spot with no room to move the hand. A connector with more shape and tactile hints would be even easier. Not so with DVI or VGA and their thumbscrews.

 

[Chapbass]

I got ripped off! I bought it from here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...namitedata.com



At least I got a great deal on my speaker cable
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...namitedata.com

(The reviews are worth a read through)

LMAO the 2nd link. I love this part the best:

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?
27% buy
HDMI TO HDMI 6 foot cable 4.6 out of 5 stars (2,929)
$2.28



I know its not the same cable, but still...absolutely awesome.

 

[Chapbass]

Okay so heres a question....what about devices like the ps3? Yeah, it doesn't have the chip, could it do so via some sort of software emulation via firmware update, or are we going to have to spring for new ps3s/xboxes?

 

[A5]

Okay so heres a question....what about devices like the ps3? Yeah, it doesn't have the chip, could it do so via some sort of software emulation via firmware update, or are we going to have to spring for new ps3s/xboxes?

The PS3 will be long gone by the time this new connector is common on TVs.

 

[CubanlB]

I think a lot of manufactures got tired of paying HDMI Licensing fees for a tech that is basically a single link DVI with audio.

As someone who has installed many, many, many HDMI cables I can't think of a single instance where I thought to myself "I am so glad I'm not using cat5 for this!". In fact I can remember many instances where using cat5 and hdmi baluns saved me a ton of time and cost. Now cut out the need for baluns, everyone wins.

The funny thing is that monster will make cables for this standard that will still hit their current price points/ margins, and people will still buy them. (The Denonlink cable, although not monster, is a great case in point about manufactures banking on consumers dumbassery) The margin in cables is to important for most B&M's to not try and foist onto consumers.

This is going to be great for integrators considering they already rely on cat5 for a multitude of uses.

Anyway, a fool and his money...

 

[manimal]

Handshake is the worst thing to happen to media.....


I ran Cat 6 all over my house for audio and video distribution. Been using baluns for a while now, when this rolls ill sell off the baluns and use the existing wire!!

 

[Modelworks]

I think the marketing was at least partly right. How are thumbscrews a good thing for anyone? If a more secure attachment than friction is needed to prevent stress on the connectors, why not use a clip like RJ-45 has, but larger and sturdier, maybe two symmetrical clips? I can always plug in a RJ-45 blind to a difficult spot with no room to move the hand. A connector with more shape and tactile hints would be even easier. Not so with DVI or VGA and their thumbscrews.

Even with a clip the socket is still being pulled on by the cable. With cat5 it isn't so bad because the cable is light but with HDMI it is far too heavy. The clips would need to not be part of the socket but anchored in the chassis and not to the board. Thumb screws were already proven to be reliable for over 20 years. They could have gone with something like the old parallel port method of using metal clips that slide over the top of the connector holding it in place. Those cables are about the same weight as HDMI.

This will not be a problem now with video because they changed HDMI from parallel to serial format so it uses less wires lowering the need for heavy cables.

 

[Modelworks]

Okay so heres a question....what about devices like the ps3? Yeah, it doesn't have the chip, could it do so via some sort of software emulation via firmware update, or are we going to have to spring for new ps3s/xboxes?

This has been in development since 2008 so they had time to consider the options and best way to do it without costing too much.

The biggest change with this is they have changed the transmission protocol from parallel to serial. Think of it like going from IDE to SATA. There is no software that will allow the output chips in current devices to work. It will require an external adapter with HDMI -> HDBASET . The current HDMI -> ethernet adapters will not work as they do not convert the signal they just remap it to different wires.

For those interested in the technical bits. The chipsets right now are made by Valen. VS100TX is the transmitter and VS100RX is the receiver .

If you look at the block diagram you can see the HDMI block. That allows them to adapt devices that are currently HDMI very quickly. There is nothing for manufacturers of devices to do but add the one chip and the port and they can still keep the HDMI ports. They don't have to totally redesign the hardware.

5PlayTM convergence - simultaneous distribution of:
Uncompressed high definition (HD) video: 1080p@60Hz@48 bits, 3D, 4K x 2K
High-quality audio
Ethernet 100BaseTx
Power over cable
Control signals including RS232 and Infrared
HDCP compliant HDMI Rx & Tx interfaces for easy integration
1xHDMI in
1xHDMI out
1xMII/RMII bi-directional interface to interact with external Ethernet MAC /switch
Bi-directional control channel which can be used for example for RS232 and IR control
I2C slave management

Another feature people are missing is Power over Cable, up to 100W. That means it would be possible to provide a power source on the cable that could run all the attached devices. My 32 inch tv uses about 65W so I could install it on a wall with just 1 cable running to it and nothing else needed and let something like a separate power supply or connected device provide the power. From reading the spec, devices can also share that load so while one device is limited to 100W or 48VDC @ 2A under the specification, you could have supplies capable of 48VDC @ 4A (limit for typical cat5 cable), to power larger devices off the one cable. It is also cumulative meaning 5 devices all providing 100W can provide a total of 500W on the power wires.

HDBaseT uses the Ethernet infrastructure as a physical medium but its packets are not Ethernet packets.
CEC Is transparently transferred over the HDBaseT link.
HDBaseT passes 5V and HPD signals in compliance with the HDMI standard.
DDC is also passed over the HDBaseT link. Source devices are required to support I2C stretching according to the HDMI 1.3 standard.
A serial interface called PDIF, designated for serial data transfer (e.g. RS232,RS422) over HDBaseT is accessible on both Transmitter and Receiver boards. Currently, this channel can carry a maximum BW of 1Mbps

The serial interface is an interesting part of the chips. Since it supports star networks it would be possible for that interface to carry data to any device in the home from any other device without ever communicating over the ip network of the home. Things like Ip addresses and workgroup names would not be needed to communicate between devices for things like a tv requesting a playback from a media server. They could find and auto configure themselves without the user knowing anything about file sharing.

The interface is too slow for video but for IR commands and communication between devices for things like location information, settings, it is more than fast enough. HDMI had CEC for this but it is very poorly supported and compatibility between devices is a problem. This is a basic serial protocol, you could even send data from pc with it to control devices in the home.


For devices that do not have the new ports there will be adapter boxes . I imagine just like the one here used in the dev kit. It is one chip, HDMI in HDBaseT out. They shouldn't cost much at all, probably around $15-$20.

From some of the press releases over the years.

There are literally billions of legacy products that will not be displaced quickly. If a buyer wants to incorporate HDBaseT solutions, do they need to replace all associated products or is there some sort of transition?

The current option is to incorporate external accessories, such as dongles with HDBaseT technology. These devices are already available, offering a way to connect CE devices until devices with embedded HDBaseT become available. In the future, we envision HDBaseT switches that will have a mix of HDBaseT ports and legacy ports, which should simplify home installations.

Eventually we see HDBaseT as the connectivity of choice for all CE/PC devices. In the mid-term, dongles may be used.

Will I be able to power my TV?

Definitely. Today you can power a 40-inch LCD TV with 70W, and in the near future the TV size you can power with HDBaseT will dramatically increase. This is what makes HDBaseT so attractive to TV manufacturers. TVs are getting thinner and lighter, suitable for hanging on the wall like a picture; however, TV manufacturers find it extremely hard to help consumers understand how to connect the power jack and how to find the place for all the AC-to-DC and DC-to-DC power circuitry. For the first time, HDBaseT enables all-in-one connectivity that helps manufacturers in their quest to design thinner devices that ca be connected with a single cable/connector, thereby eliminating the AC-to-DC elements