What's the Matter with HDMI? 390
mrnomas writes with a link to the Audioholics site, which wonders why the HDMI standard is such a mess? The article's author suggests that the format was designed for the benefit of the content-producers and not the consumer. The result is a signal that's hard to route and switch, as well and unnecessarily complicated cable assemblies. They reach back to the DVI standard to see what might be done to make HDMI a little more consumer-friendly, with numerous technical elements woven through the discussion. "DVI lacked a couple of things which the consumer audio/video industry wanted. It was implemented on a variety of HD displays and source devices, but it was confusing for the consumer because of the many variants on the standard and different connector configurations, and it didn't carry audio signals. A consortium to develop and promote a new interface, HDMI, was formed; the idea was to come up with a standard which could be implemented more uniformly, was less confusing, and offered the option of routing audio signals along with video."
what might be done? (Score:5, Insightful)
Drop the DRM.
The DRMintaor. (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA:
Listen, and understand. The DRM is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where I stopped paying attention. Doesn't error check? He makes it sound like they just put the bits on the wire. It's at least encoded relatively well. That's even available from the wikipedia article; the video signal on HDMI is encoded with TDMS. From TDMS's wik
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, why the hell would the cable to my TV not carry a one-way stream of pixels, regardless of what's happening at the other end? This isn't lossless TCP networking. You don't want to send an ACK packet for every couple pixels you get. What are you going to do? Retransmit the pixels a couple of milliseconds later? Brilliant!
Er, maybe you should have read further after all. That's exactly the guy's point - because you don't have the luxury of being able to retransmit on error, is exactly why he's saying they should have used co-ax instead of twisted pair - did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Or any of the paragraphs before it?
Re:The DRMintaor. (Score:4, Interesting)
Believe it or not, I'm NOT looking forward to the all-digital cable switch in 2009. This hit home two nights ago, as we were watching Futurama. I was watching on my PC {analog} while my fiance and roommate were watching using the digital set-top box. We'd had some rain recently, and the set-top kept dropping seconds of video at a time. The analog connection had just a BIT of fuzz, but not enough to lose captioning [usually the first victim of low signal strength.]
I'll take robust over bandwidth.
Re:what might be done? (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid boring technology companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Note:
Do not do a google search for SuperAwesomeFunPlug if you value your sanity.
Re:what might be done? (Score:4, Funny)
Also, after searching and copying the results, firefox crashed. Evidently there is some form of conspiracy going on involving a "SuperAwesomeFunPlug" and someone dosn't want us to know about it. *sound of door being broken down in the background* They have come for me! Tell the people! Dont let 7T$&@Y@&@$
Re: (Score:2)
It been proven to be a weak protection mechanism, just need a few more keys to break it completely.
But even then, what the hell would you do with a 10.2Gbps stream? Hell, you won't want to directly encode a 742.5 Mbps stream either. You'll fill up a terabyte harddrive with 2-3 movies.. then what?
I agree with you - I want the DRM gone - but I'm just saying it has little effect on HDMI
Re:what might be done? (Score:5, Informative)
Of the two, HDMI is worse *because* of the DRM...the timing and buffering problems are almost insurmountable with some manufactures. I'm glad I don't have my friend's coding job! It would drive me bonkers!
ttyl
Farrell
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A combination of DVI plus audio was pretty much a foregone conclusion. DVI had taken over the computer world in the monitor interface department, and it's competitors are fewer and fewer these days. Allowing for easier connection of computers and computer-like media devices was becoming more and more important, and DVI was t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, because the audio and video are on the same cable, and each device only has one HDMI output, you're forced to route the video through a receiver so that th
what might you do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't hack anything with DRM on it. Don't help other people watch their crap for free.
Don't watch anything with DRM on it. Make them afraid of losing mind share.
Instead: Watch DRM wither and die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HDMI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is worth reading because it points out what's wrong with DVI too.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the connector doesn't have any sort of catch. Super expensive overpriced (and unnecessary) HDMI cables can be fairly heavy, and a lot of displays have the HDMI cables running along the bottom. End result? Damn thing just falls out! At least DVI had a mechanical cinch to lock it in.
Re:HDMI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh... but you forget that they're trying to push everyone towards HDTV. So, all those people that don't have a home theater system but do have a TV are going to (eventually) have an HDTV; these are the people that will want a drop-in replacement and HDTV via the air (free stuff) or (maybe) cable/satellite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you mean not just for interior designers that have no clue about what constitutes a good viewing experience? The same interior designers that are in umpteen tv shows, avidly followed by your significant others, that think that the top of the fireplace is the best place for an HDTV? That also seem to think that it's perfectly fine to connect that 52" LCDTV with an RCA coax cable displaying SDTV because they have no clue about how to actually ru
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:HDMI (Score:5, Insightful)
if a sound system is used, it's still better to route the signal through the TV so you can control the volume with the same remote as the TV.
personally i would prefer a communication standard so the TV could tell the amp to lower or raise volume, and the sterio could send a menu interface to the TV for controls, but that will probably never happen since every manufacturere will want to do it "their" way.
Re:HDMI (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? If you are using an external audio/video source, then other than for turning the TV on or off, the remote you want to use is the one for that source. Or you'll be using a universal remote that also controls the sound system. In either case, there is no particular reason to want to use a TV-specific remote to control the sound volume for sound from an external source being played through a sound system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
get a universal MX-900 or a MX-950 or if you like flashey color displays and spending money get a MX-3000 color remote.
Those kick the crud out of the harmony, sony, merantz, pronto and other consumer remotes hands down. Plus you can get the RF gateway and hide all your gear behind doors or in a different room easily.
Dont get a harmony, you cant do decision based macros or variable tracking in them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, you just described the way my $80 Harmony remote is set up, discrete On/Off codes and all. I wouldn't pay $300 more for RF capabilities, that's for sure. Sounds like a tough sell to anyone not already spending $50,000 on a the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell will freeze over before that happens. as a professional integrator manufacturers like to screw with that stuff just for the fun of it. 2 Dvd player that are the SAME MODEL but different revisions have different control structures.
I personally want to go and beat to death every engineer at sony, pioneer, kenwood, LG and Samsung. ther
Also, the Linux Way... (Score:2)
In addition to what other /.ers said, there's also a way that is hugely popular both on Linux DVR/HTPC boxes, on some high end box (Nad does it) and on some "get the signal on the other side of the apartment" installations (to share 1 satellite receiver for the whole house for example) :
They are equipped with an infrered emitter in addition to an infrared sensor.
Whenever the device (Linux box, Microwave w
Re:HDMI (Score:5, Informative)
When you feed audio to an amplifier and video to a digital TV separately, you will often find that the audio is visibly ahead of the video.
Re:HDMI (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
I have my TiVo Series 3 connected to my TV via HDMI and cables going from the TiVo to one set of inputs on my speakers. My DVD player is connected by component to the TV and by another audio ca
Re:HDMI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In short - it's to make life easier
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess for simplicity, you can take both video and audio in the same wire, you just
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hdmi seems like a nice connector for outputs, maybe not inputs. like for DVDs, cableboxes, game consoles, media centers, etc. my TV set lets me plug in stuff into it and then will redirect the digital audio (or line-level audio) through an audio monitor port that i can then plug into an simple amplifier setup.
people with fancier AV systems can adjust volume and switch inputs of audio and video through the AV itself. and push out amplified signal t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
and yet, because of less cable clutter behind the TV, still gets HDMI connectors.
Any questions?
Re: (Score:2)
By "better" do you mean unnecessarily big and heavy? I'm really satisfied with having my audio in a separate stream, thanks very much. How often is the device on the other end of the cable going to deliver both sound and video? In my house, the video goes one place, the audio another. One goes to the eyes, one goes to the ears. And the eyes are on the front of the mount (my head) and the ears are on the sides.
No, HDMI is all about DRM, just like almost every techno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open source! (Score:5, Funny)
Especially for people without specialized technical expertise.
Re:Open source! (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing that needs to be done is to create legislation that makes DRM illegal. This would remove the threat that HDMI poses to other technologies (such as component) and force it to compete on technical merit. Not to mention solve a lot of other consumer issues.
The second thing to be done - obviously - is make a single standard and stick to it; however that requires cooperation among the manufacturers and seems unlikely at best. Still, we can always ask them nicely, and follow up by voting with our wallets.
HDMI has been a nightmare for me. I started out with a hi-def (I thought) component video system, fully capable of 1080p bandwidth-wise and full of switching capabilities I liked and thought could take me quite some distance down the road; then the collusion between manufacturers not to provide full hi-def on component, but only on HDMI, came about, and there went that investment out the window. That system can only do 720p now (I find 1080i to be useless - part of the point was to get RID of flicker) and it lives in my basement. I had to re-buy my theater system, invest in a bunch of new cabling to reproduce signal routing I already had in place that was perfectly adequate, technically speaking... man. That was one irritating evolution.
Also, I have yet to see a single home theater receiver that has a reasonable number of HDMI inputs. HD-DVD. Blue-ray. PS3. a new XBox 360. A computer. A camera. That's six, even if you only have one of each. And you need lots of component, S-Video and composite inputs with up-conversion; as well as standard audio, coaxial digital and optical digital... just because HDMI canwant it to. There are plenty of older tech gadgets out there that could still be very reasonable assets to such a system but need other types of inputs. So far, typically you find 2 or 3 HDMI inputs on a higher end theater system.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with xbox360 and HDDVD...
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Just as I don't use my computer's DVD drive to watch DVDs because I want its useful lifetime to be spent dealing with software, similarly, I want my PS3 drive's life-span to be spent reading game disks, and my HD and Blue-ray players playing the entertainment disks. I don't even have an HDDVD drive for my 360, nor do I want one, so it isn't an option.
I have already seen DVD player, PS1 and PS2 drive lasers die; they all hav
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and no. PS3 has built-in Blu-ray. An HD-DVD player gives you the other competing high-def (incompatible) format. That way you can watch films regardless of which format they're released in (and some are exclusive to one format).
Me, I'll stick with DVD for now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdotters of all people should know magical laws don't exist. I hate DRM with a real passion but writing a law like that will prove next to impossible. What happens if an artist is working on a piece and wants to encrypt it for his own use? What about devices that automatically encrypt everything? There's tons of original content being encrypted there to keep people from copying it an using it "without perm
Re:DRM it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually really easy to construct such a law. Write it in terms of the effect on commerce, not based on the technological aspects. I can do it with a single, one-line change to Title 17:
That's all it takes. No mention of encryption anywhere in it. By writing it in this way, it goes beyond encryption to include ALL DRM technologies from encryption to an autorun disk driver installer, and does so in such a way that specifically limits its impact to the consumer rights prescribed in the copyright act and has no impact on encryption whatsoever. If a particular use of encryption (or anything else) fails the fair use test, it is illegal to use it for that purpose. It's that simple.
Now getting Congress to be smart enough to pass such a simple, clean bill without ten thousand riders attached to it that do all sorts of nasty things is another issue, but....
Re:DRM it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, there are no such thing as "Fair use rights." Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement; it is not a stand-alone right. (Don't believe me? Go look up Section 107 yourself.)
Second of all, "It shall be illegal to design . . .
Third of all, herein WHAT? Herein title 17? Herein Chapter 1?
Fourth of all, you haven't defined what an "audiovisual" or "software" product is. Does it include CDs? What about soft copies of books? Does it include still pictures?
But, most importantly, Section 17 doesn't grant individual purchasers ANY RIGHTS. So, the phrase "any rights to which they are entitled herein" is empty. (This isn't completely true, but is true enough for what you're thinking.)
Component interoperability is better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, component "just works" and it works really well. It also allows routing of the audio any way you like — as audio has nothing to do with component — so as to enable all manner of audio and image flexibility. I was really disappointed that the industry turned away from component, quite aside from the inconvenience and financial hit I ended up dealing with.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, just in case you've been considering a PS3, be aware that the PS3 does Blue-ray progressive scan in 480p max over component. So you get about the same image you would from a DVD. Games are presented in component 720p, however, and they look outstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I did get a Wii. Those are fun, too.
Re:DRM it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No doubt they'd consider me a success on one level; I don't pirate and I have a lot of DVDs. However, I am absolutely anti-DRM and quite vocal about it, so it's not a perfect match.
I have a 10,000+ volume library and I read about a book a day on av
From the no-shit-sherlock department (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the Pope reveals he is Catholic, and prominent climatologists describe the sky as "blue".
As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:5, Informative)
Some of you may note that, at 20 kHz (high end of human hearing range), the skin depth of copper is only about 0.47 mm, and so for high frequency, your conductivity will only scale with wire circumference, not area. That's true for solid-core, but keep in mind the Home Depot cable I mention is stranded, and has a 25% larger circumference than the Monster stuff. That should be more than enough to make up for any slight resistivity advantage the Monster cable might have from using purer copper (assuming they do).
What's really funny is the people who assume all this stuff matters for digital signals (as I saw in a few of the "reviews" on the Monster website). Unless you're stringing really long cables or your no-name stuff is really, really bad, there won't be a difference. Bits are bits, and small amounts of analog noise will be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the cable function. Speaker cables are a pretty undemanding application. There is often quite a difference at the low e
Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, you hit the nail straight on the head. I laugh at the amount of money wasted, but it's all marketing. The best example my marketing professor gave me was toothpaste. Go look at a supermarket aisle for toothpaste. You've got about 3 or 4 DOZEN brands of the same stuff....some has crystals, other baking soda, but it's all just paste.
At home depot there's simple example of what you describe. Look at the 2 conductor, 16 or 18 gauge lamp cord. Now look at the 2 conductor, 16 or 18 speaker wire. Huge difference in price. It's still copper stranded wire of the same quality and I'd almost argue the insulation is BETTER for the cheaper lamp cord.
I have always known it, but I had the advantage of growing up with an avionics mechanic. My dad wired planes for AA for over 37 years before retiring. He told me how small a gauge it took to reliable send signals all over a huge aircraft and meet strict FAA specs...so I quickly figured out (plus he'd laugh at the money I wasted as a teenager in the car audio scene) it was overkill. If you can ARC weld with 0 gauge, you really don't need it for your 500 watt stereo amp.Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree digital is digital, and as such analog artifacts are largely ignored, there is a specific issue with HDMI, namely inter-lane skew.
DVI/HDMI video is three data pairs on a 100ohm differential line and one differential clock.
If the analog artifacts (specifically capacitance and uneven cable lengths) are bad enough the "eye" of the differential signal may close to the extent that the op-amp at the receiver may not be able to sense and output a clean signal. Further damage to the
Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was that small amounts of analog noise on a digital signal have no effect. It's of course true that beyond a certain threshold, serious signal degradation occurs. In other words, digital signals are fine until they're not. If it's not immediately obvious that your digital signal is degraded, it's probably fine.
Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
IT
Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution (Score:5, Informative)
You can buy a 3ft HDMI cable for something like $4, 6ft for $6. Yes you can buy some ludicrously expensive HDMI cables but you can blame consumer ignorance and retailer greed for that. There is no reason to spend that much seeing as it is digital.
I see no reason at all to use component in an everyday situation if your device (be it a 360, PS3, DVD player etc.) and TV both support HDMI. It would be as dumb as connecting your PC to your monitor with VGA even when both have DVI-D support. The picture quality is far better over HDMI / DVD-D because it's digital. Analogue by definitiion degrades so even the best composite signal will still be worse than HDMI.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I cant even get it from a DISTRIBUTOR for that cheap. Distributor pricing is still in the 30s-40s for a no-name.
Here are some references to back up the range I'm describing:
$80 for 6foot BestBuy [bestbuy.com]
$125 for 6foor CircuitCity [circuitcity.com]
If you can get one for under $10 (3 or 6 foot)...but them!!
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid of the DRM, work out a _single_ rational standard for the cables and the disks, and I _might_ be interested in HDTV. Until then, I'll just keep ignoring it and pay attention to the _content_, rather than the presentation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not afraid to spend money, I make plenty. I've got a home theater setup (~7-8 years old now though). I've got a bunch of computers, multiple servers, wired and wireless networks. But for now, HDTV doesn't interest me.
If DRM went away, I'd probably do what a friend did and build a ~$5k mythtv-based video
Re: (Score:2)
The money I've saved from messing with HDTV I can spend on things I'm interested in. Sorry TV and movies isn't one of them. Why waste money on something you don't care about?
One Reason Why HDMI Was Invented (Score:4, Insightful)
Pop that together with a cable standard that HDMI are bunging more and more stuff down without doing anything, and you've got an unreliable and worthless pile of junk. The article mentions cables of lengths 50 to 75 feet, but it's a sad day when you've got to limit yourself with a shiny new technology to a run length of a few inches. Oh, and get with the program people, wireless is the way things should be heading. Where the hell is this digital home I've been hearing so much about? It's a joke. Yes, there are new HDMI cables in the pipeline, but yet again, they're going to be ridiculously expensive. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
But "closing the analog hole" was something that every media/hardware CEO could get on board with. It ostensibly makes copying harder, which makes the media companies happy, and it drives new hardware sales, especially amo
The real problem with HDMI is HDCP (Score:5, Informative)
They are too stupid to realize that pirates aren't going to copy shows and movies by capturing uncompressed frames coming through the cables; they're going to make copies of the discs. But they insist on making the honest customers suffer through the slow cryptographic handshake that occurs any time you switch on an HDMI device or even switch sources on a TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Most people aren't aware that it exists. This is a big problem since most computer monitors don't support it. Dell only came out with HDCP capable flat screens late 2006! Anyone buying Vista or a new computer hoping to install a HD-DVD in it will probably not be able to get it to work because....
2. It has many of the same issues mentioned above that HDMI has: hodge-podge of rules and standards that result in components not being ab
Typical slashdot. (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would you want audio and video in the same cable? Especially for expensive systems where HDMI is common now. Is anyone with a >$1000 display actually using built-in speakers? If so, what's wrong with you? Go get some decent speakers.
There is an alternative! (Score:2, Insightful)
So does cable quality matter? (Score:2)
I just got an HDTV two weeks ago. Before I even ordered the set I shopped around for whatever cables I might need. Lots of people said: "Expensive HDMI cables are for suckers! It's a digital signal, not analog. It won't degrade due to connections or material, so any old HDMI cable is as good as the best." So I felt comfortable buying a couple of no-name cables for $3.00 each.
Does the analysis in this article mean that cable quality actually does matter? It doesn't make a difference to me right now -
Re: (Score:2)
The slightly bizarre part is when someone disagrees and claims Monster is better somehow even though they're probably typing their retort on a computer with generic SATA / IDE
more consumer-friendly? (Score:2)
Did you just beam in from outerspace or something?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
1) With two fibers in a cable, there would be more than enough bandwidth for 1080P + digital surround sound. It is future proof.
2) It is fully bidirectional, which can be useful for error correction or detection, or for signal confirmation, or perhaps for two-way audio/video.
3) It can operate at great distance.
4) The cables would be FAR cheaper than the extremely complex and expensive DVI/HDMI cables.
5) With serial transmissions over a single pair, the encoding could be changed at any point in the future for different formats.
Let's look at the author's problems with twisted pairs and what it would mean with optical:
1) Time- not a problem, because it is all serial
2) Resistance: fiber has none
3) Skin effect: fiber has none
4) Capacitance: fiber has none
5) Impedance: fiber has none
6) Crosstalk: fiber has none
7) Inductance: fiber has none
Lets add
8) RFI: fiber has none
9) Signal leak (causing potential interference with OTHER devices): fiber has none
10) Cable thickness: fiber would be 6+ times narrower and easier to route and hide
11) Connector size: perhaps 4 times smaller with fiber? (Think handhelds, laptops, etc)
When I first saw DVI, I thought the designers had gone insane. WHO CARES about analog signals? We already have PLENTY of cable standards for that (VGA, Component, SVideo, Composite)! It looks tremendously complex and overkill to relay a stream of information THAT IS ALREADY being delivered serially over the air, from DVD's, from tuners, from ANY source. Then they "fixed" it with HDMI?? Right- make the connector IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to ever make their own or repair, add audio, and ignore all other issues (oh, and the cable costs are even more expensive than the already expensive DVI). Then to have to throw "dual link" into the mess because the "standard" set of over a dozen wires doesn't have enough bandwidth...
About the only negative with fiber is that you can't kink the cable and expect it to survive. I say "small price to pay". Oh well, maybe the next revision they will wake up??
SDI (Score:4, Informative)
They made TV annoying and complicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
FSM (Score:3, Funny)
These "cables" that we are using to connect devices are really just noodly appendages. Before you can truly understand how these noodly appendages work, you must embrace the FSM, and make Him a part of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of SDI [wikipedia.org] which could be a technically nice alternative to HDMI. Unfortunately,
SDI and HD-SDI are currently only available in professional video equipment; various licensing agreements, restricting the use of unencrypted digital interfaces to professional equipment, prohibit their use in consumer equipment.
I was hoping the industries would start to realize that there's no sharp line between consumers and professionals.
I find the term highly accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to see the point of the content industry and why they call it "consumer" this or "consumer" that. Because that's what you are to them: A consumer. Not a customer, you're a consumer. Personally, I find that term rather insulting, since it doesn't imply that I'm a partner in business but just some nuisance you have to endure to get his money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In terms of long, have you ever tried to connect your receiver to a projector attached to the ceiling? You need a cable of about 30 feet or something. Bad thing. Loses sync all day long. It hasn't even been designed for _that_.