|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
Bye Bye HDMI |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Registered: March 10, 2009 | Posts: 2,248 |
| Posted: | | | | It seems the days of HDMI are numbered as the industry is rallying around Ethernet based cables as the new industry standard.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18902 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,197 |
| Posted: | | | | I'm looking forward to a future without cables. | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| Registered: February 23, 2009 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,580 |
| Posted: | | | | You've got to be kidding me! We're just done changing all scart cables to HDMI here and now we'll have to replace those yet again?
What does this mean for HDMI1.4, which supposedly has a bigger bandwidth and is the standard for HD 3D? Will that standard change? | | | Blu-ray collection DVD collection My Games My Trophies |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | I would imagine, that soon, the physical connection between component and display will be eliminated.
With the 802.11n standard and a 300m wireless, I could see only the power connection left. |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,463 |
| Posted: | | | | I'm skeptical. I don't think today's Ethernet cables have enough sheilding, so that means new cables anyway, and they will be expensive. Also, I don't know where there will get enough connections to carry both standard Ethernet and equivalent HDMI without some kind of multiplexer / converter - again expensive. Then there is the whole matter of digital rights management used between displays and other devices such as Blu-Ray players and set top boxes, so the compromise will likely be some sort of HDMI adapter. So, the upshot will be that we will replace HDMI cables with another set of expensive cables / adapters / plugs - phooey baloney. Don't believe the Hype!!! We will all suffer, no matter what they say! (Getting down off soapbox, and reaching for another cool one in sweltering 100+ heat .... ) | | | Thanks for your support. Free Plugins available here. Advanced plugins available here. Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. | | | Last edited: by mediadogg |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,414 |
| Posted: | | | | Yeah, I remember when I first bought an HDTV in 2001 everyone was insisting you had to have firewire connections because that was what everything was going to be. Never happened. | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,463 |
| Posted: | | | | Ok, it's even worse. Try replacing all your equipment to be HDBaseT compliant. There is a company called Valens that will have the first chipset. It has all the conversion and multiplexing that I was mentioning before. There is a transmitter and receiver (old days we used to say "mux / demux"). The tramsmitter can consolidate HDMI, Ethernet and other signals such as RS232 and IR (USB??) into one multiplexed signal that can be sent over Cat5/6. The receiveing end then demultiplexes the complex signal back out to its component parts. This the way all modern communications systems work today, sending massive amounts of data over, for example, a single optical fiber cable. (Apologies to the many of you that know all this stuff already). So, if this thing takes off, it could be cool, but get ready to be innundated with new "HDBaseT compliant" devices with the chips built in, and various converter boxes that you plug all your legacy junk into, and one wire out the back into the wall (and then vice-versa on the other end.) Personally, I think it would be more successful if they chose either fiber optical or COAX as the transmission. At least with COAX, most residences are already wired. Fiber would have more long-term capabilities. Happy shopping! | | | Thanks for your support. Free Plugins available here. Advanced plugins available here. Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. | | | Last edited: by mediadogg |
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | Posts: 415 |
| Posted: | | | | I wouldn't say this was a replacement for HDMI between your components, but rather a solution for multi-room installations. Start thinking hotels, office buildings, hospitals, churches etc
Cat5/6 is cheaper than Fiber and COAX does not have the bandwidth for all that data. |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,463 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting jmbox: Quote: I wouldn't say this was a replacement for HDMI between your components, but rather a solution for multi-room installations. Start thinking hotels, office buildings, hospitals, churches etc
Cat5/6 is cheaper than Fiber and COAX does not have the bandwidth for all that data. Yup, I agree that is the right perspective - although I thought COAX could handle it, given it can transmit multiple high-GHZ TV signals. I get Ethernet plus a gazillion HD channels over the RG-6 cables in my house (FIOS Actiontec Router has Ethernet over COAX). Anyway, no matter about those details. It does seem kind of exciting, right? | | | Thanks for your support. Free Plugins available here. Advanced plugins available here. Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. | | | Last edited: by mediadogg |
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | Posts: 415 |
| Posted: | | | | Certainly I know a few places that would love this, and they already have Cat5/6 installed throughout the building. |
| Registered: March 10, 2009 | Posts: 2,248 |
| Posted: | | | | The problem with HDMI is the longer the cabel has to travel to the source the more the quality degrades. This issue might not be a problem for joe six pack but for those with home cinemas. Although i don't see this as being the main reason.
The main reason is a prep for the future for streaming and dowloading i think. |
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,853 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting mediadogg: Quote: I'm skeptical. I don't think today's Ethernet cables have enough sheilding UTP: Unshielded Twisted Pair. It seems to work pretty well for data. Quote: so that means new cables anyway, and they will be expensive. CAT5e cables are not very expensive at all. You can easily find 10 foot cables for well under $10. Quote: Then there is the whole matter of digital rights management used between displays and other devices such as Blu-Ray players and set top boxes Well, we users don't care about such things anyway. Quote: So, the upshot will be that we will replace HDMI cables with another set of expensive cables / adapters / plugs - phooey baloney. They need not be expensive, but I have no doubt they can be. In an age where people will pay hundreds of dollars for a $5 power cable that's bound to be the case. --------------- |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,463 |
| Posted: | | | | @scotthm
Thanks for your detailed responses. I think you sort of missed the whole issue of bandwidth and high frequency signal propagation. Transmission of typical computer "data" does not require anywhere near the bandwidth of HD video. Also, at very high frequencies, sheilding is required both to eliminate interference with other devices, but to prevent signal degradation. HF signals can actually creep out and snake along the shield if the cable is damaged or poorly constructed.
The other point was made by jimbox - that this is really a standard for distribution. The cables will be long (room to room), and while the standard is designed for today's Cat5e/Cat6 (up to 328 feet), I'll bet there will be "HD" versions of those cables that will allow transmission over longer distances. With this thing, you can use your existing cables to connect to the transmitter and receiver.
And most people might not care about DRM, but you can't use Cable Boxes or connect HDMI without it, so the new stuff has to support it.
Anyway, I can see how it could be confusing if you don't have an engineering background. | | | Thanks for your support. Free Plugins available here. Advanced plugins available here. Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. | | | Last edited: by mediadogg |
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,853 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting mediadogg: Quote: Transmission of typical computer "data" does not require anywhere near the bandwidth of HD video. True, but a CAT 5e cable should be more than capable of handling the bandwidth of an HD signal if, as you suggest, it's properly run, terminated, and within specification. Quote: The other point was made by jimbox - that this is really a standard for distribution. The cables will be long (room to room), and while the standard is designed for today's Cat5e/Cat6 (up to 328 feet), I'll bet there will be "HD" versions of those cables that will allow transmission over longer distances. I think it would be a very good way to distribute HD signals between rooms, and agree that manufacturers couldn't resist selling high priced "HD" versions of cable to those willing to pay for them. I don't really see the 100m distance being too much of a limiting factor in the typical home though. Quote: And most people might not care about DRM, but you can't use Cable Boxes or connect HDMI without it, so the new stuff has to support it. This is where I really see the biggest issue. The media companies won't be willing to roll back on their copy protection schemes, so I don't know if this is likely to really take off or not. --------------- |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting mediadogg: Quote: @scotthm
Thanks for your detailed responses. I think you sort of missed the whole issue of bandwidth and high frequency signal propagation. Transmission of typical computer "data" does not require anywhere near the bandwidth of HD video. Also, at very high frequencies, sheilding is required both to eliminate interference with other devices, but to prevent signal degradation. HF signals can actually creep out and snake along the shield if the cable is damaged or poorly constructed.
The other point was made by jimbox - that this is really a standard for distribution. The cables will be long (room to room), and while the standard is designed for today's Cat5e/Cat6 (up to 328 feet), I'll bet there will be "HD" versions of those cables that will allow transmission over longer distances. With this thing, you can use your existing cables to connect to the transmitter and receiver.
And most people might not care about DRM, but you can't use Cable Boxes or connect HDMI without it, so the new stuff has to support it.
Anyway, I can see how it could be confusing if you don't have an engineering background. You may be thinking about this wrong. I don't imagine sending a HF signal down the cat 5/6. I see more of an IP based system. I don't need a lot of higerend frequencies, and chipsets are plenty fast enough to decode an IP based ethernet signal. (FULL HD) Charlie |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | In all realism, I can transmit a full 1080p signal with 7.1 sound over cat 3 twisted pair out 6k ft without any issues. I need less than 10Mb/s signal path to do so.
And since we are talking about a single a/v stream from component to tv over relatively short distance, the change to a ethernet based system is not out of the picture. (once legal issues are resolved)
Charlie |
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|