What's the Matter with HDMI?

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."

Comments

what might be done?

[delirium of disorder]

...what might be done to make HDMI a little more consumer-friendly?
Drop the DRM.

Re:what might be done?

[Mahjub Sa'aden]

Maybe what's really wrong with HDMI is that it's yet another acronym. Call it SuperAwesomeFunPlug or something like that instead.

Stupid boring technology companies.

Re:what might be done?

[PayPaI]

How about DisplayPort?

Re:what might be done?

[Fry-kun]

HDCP is bullshit, nobody really cares about it.
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?

[alph0ns3]

You'll fill up a terabyte harddrive with 2-3 movies.. then what?

Uh..... you compress them?

Of course, double compression is pretty bad, but if it's the best way to copy a movie, people will accept it (look at how much people download CAM torrents...)

Re:what might be done?

[KrancHammer]

SuperAwesomeFunPlug has already been patented.

Note:
Do not do a google search for SuperAwesomeFunPlug if you value your sanity.

Re:what might be done?

[stfvon007]

Your search - SuperAwesomeFunPlug - did not match any documents.

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:what might be done?

[farrellj]

A friend of mine who works for a company that makes video processing and switching equipment has gone on and on about the problems with both DVI-D and HDMI is that there are very few manufactures that comply with them, and thus they are constantly having to update their processors to accommodate each different manufacturer's version of DVI-D and HDMI. It is the number one pain in their butts.

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:what might be done?

[crabpeople]

People dont like the obsceneties scrolled in public bathrooms? Ive read some pretty insightful ones. I always enjoy the literary treat in what would otherwise be a bland and scary experience.

Re:what might be done?

[UserChrisCanter4]

And that pretty much sums it up. Other than the DRM issues, HDMI is a solid interface (which is, of course, like the old joke about "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?").

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 there and ready. The myriad of pins on the DVI connection make for a chunky connection, which is a bigger problem on TV gear than on a computer, so a shrinking of the interface is logical.

Other than a more secure attachment method (latch? Thumbscrews?), HDMI is a decent interface: 1080p (and beyond) capable, 48-bit color in the latest version, and enough bandwidth for the newer audio signals. Sure, there are problems past 50 or 60 ft. runs, but those honestly comprise such a tiny amount of installs that it shouldn't be a primary concern for any consumer video interface. 50 Ft. is more than enough for a pretty nice projector install; if you need more than that, cost likely isn't a huge factor and an inline repeater shouldn't be a big deal.

No, it's the DRM that causes issues with the handshake when switching signals. It's the DRM that will make us eventually change out a perfectly good videocard if we want the Hi-Def formats. It's the DRM that complicates what would be simple external switch boxes. It would have been nice to see HDMI evolve along with component as the high-end, easier hook-up alternative, but instead component is being dropped because of the "analog hole" problem that makes all but the industry big wigs laugh.

No, the cat's out of the bag - HDMI is here to stay, and other than the current DRM issues, it's a pretty decent interface. My wish for the future would be something similar to what firewire was supposed to be: every box with an "in" and an "out" interface, strung along in a SCSI-like chain from A to B to C to TV. Or some miracle 10gbps wireless that's reliable enough for this type of situation. Here's hoping.

Re:what might be done?

[bguzz]

Do not taunt SuperAwesomeFunPlug.

Re:what might be done?

[bguzz]

From the looks of things, this doesn't solve any of the issues with HDCP. From Wikipedia:

"DisplayPort connector supports 1 to 4 data pairs at main link that also carries audio and clock signals, with transfer rate of 1.62 or 2.7 gigabits per second."

As they're still talking about "pairs," I doubt the number one complaint voiced in TFA has been addressed.

"DisplayPort includes optional DPCP (DisplayPort Content Protection) copy-protection from Philips, which uses 128-bit AES encryption, with modern cryptography ciphers. It also features full authentication and session key establishment (each encryption session is independent). There is an independent revocation system. This portion of the standard is licensed separately."

Still has DRM.

Re:what might be done?

[ez76]

Not to mention, if you've got a disk array that can keep up with 10.2Gbps/seconds of uncompressed video write (or a CPU array that can compress such a stream on the fly), you're probably not sweating the cost of a legitimate copy of Casino Royale.

Re:what might be done?

[Opportunist]

Since when was money or reason an issue? It's the same deal as with the moonshot, why did we fly to the moon? Because it's there! Sure, there was that space race, war of ideologies, but do you think the scientists and engineers cared about that? It was a challenge, it was to be solved, and most of all, some said it's impossible so it HAD to be tried.

So why do people break DRM? Same reason. It's there, it's a challenge and some people say "it's impossible".

Re:what might be done?

[Scaba]

Your search - SuperAwesomeFunPlug - did not match any documents.

It will, once Google crawls this article...and god help us all...

Re:what might be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I, and others like me, refuse to buy anything with propaganda included in its name. There is a chinese buffet here with "Wonderful Shrimp"...you're gonna have to do better than that to get me to eat your shrimp. Don't get me started on Taco Bueno...
 
A better name for your "SuperAwesomeFunPlug" would be PlugThatDoesHighDefinitionVideoAndAudioAndHasDRMBu iltRightIn.

Re:what might be done?

[badasscat]

And that pretty much sums it up. Other than the DRM issues, HDMI is a solid interface (which is, of course, like the old joke about "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?").

I hate DRM, but I don't even see how DRM is much of an issue in this case.

Right now, I am watching "Bones" over HDMI through my cable box on my HDTV, in full 1080i 1:1 pixel-mapped resolution and with 5.1 sound. I've got one cable that I bought for five bucks, connected it and it worked.

So what's the problem? It's working just like it's supposed to. Isn't that the definition of a *good* product?

Re:what might be done?

[risk one]

... SuperAwesomeFunPlug ...

It sounds like a Japanese sex toy.

Re:what might be done?

[kanefsky]

The problems mainly occur when you have more HDMI devices than your display has HDMI inputs. Then you have to pass the HDMI through a receiver or switcher. In many cases the HDMI handshake/negotiation breaks down and the device won't play at all through the switcher, or it won't support the same resolutions that work fine over a direct connection.

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 the receiver can process the audio even if you don't really need the switching. This results in the same compatibility issues as above.

The HDMI standard wasn't forward-thinking enough to handle different audio codecs, so they keep having to revise the standard every time a new sound format comes out. You need HDMI 1.1 for DVD Audio, 1.2 if you want SACD, and 1.3 if you want Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD. Of course the chips are not firmware upgradeable, so you have to buy new DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player and a new receiver to get new HDMI chips so you can use the new codecs. Can you imagine if they had to change the ethernet standard and you had to buy a new computer every time there was a new file format you wanted to download?

Re:what might be done?

[conigs]

I still think SDI/HD-SDI should've been the way to go. Cheap coaxial cable, good BNC connectors, and it carries audio with video. Too bad the licensing agreements limit it to professional video equipment because it carries unencrypted video signals.

Re:what might be done?

[tepples]

if you've got a disk array that can keep up with 10.2Gbps/seconds of uncompressed video write (or a CPU array that can compress such a stream on the fly), you're probably not sweating the cost of a legitimate copy of Casino Royale. If you have a disk array and a CPU array that can keep up with uncompressed HDTV, then you're probably on the effects team for a movie like Casino Royale.

Re:what might be done?

[heinousjay]

So people pirate just because they can? It's not because they're ethically scummy, willing to violate the rights of others to have massive entertainment libraries, and deluded into believing that without copyright, quality would magically go up while quantity remained the same? I must be reading the wrong Slashdot.

Oh, and for all you jackasses out there who don't understand - there is no "DRM" in HDMI, and HDCP, which works over HDMI, also works over DVI. HDMI is just a signal carrier. It doesn't care about what it carries.

Re:what might be done?

[Mattintosh]

Do not taunt SuperAwesomeFunPlug.

If SuperAwesomeFunPlug starts to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.

Caution: SuperAwesomeFunPlug may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.

Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to SuperAwesomeFunPlug.

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!

Re:what might be done?

[Malc]

HDMI doesn't imply DRM. Are you confusing it with HDCP, which can also be used with straight DVI?

Re:what might be done?

[Malc]

HDMI & DVI are identical for video. I can plug the DVI output of one device in to the HDMI input of another, and vice versa. Both HDMI and DVI allow HDCP, which is probably the DRM bit that you're thinking of. The HDCP handshake has to occur whether you use HDMI or DVI.

Re:what might be done?

[vuffi_raa]

I want to call it the "WideAngleSnakeHole" or the "VisualPleasureInsertionPort"

Re:what might be done?

[Z00L00K]

HDMI seems to me as an invention from the DRM industry. DVI may have some drawbacks, but in general it works. And the lack of audio in DVI isn't a real problem. The sound system support in the screens are usually of rather low quality and built-in speakers aren't usually of any better quality either.

Most quality-aware users will route the sound to a good amplifier and good speakers. The users with higher demand goes for THX equipment.

Re:what might be done?

[threephaseboy]

Nobody is going to introduce a HD interconnect that doesn't have DRM. If they did, nobody would sell a HD-DVD or BD player that will output on that interconnect.
DisplayPort does have plans to work over fiber, which eliminates the problem with balanced lines.

Re:what might be done?

[RedBear]

Maybe what's really wrong with HDMI is that it's yet another acronym. Call it SuperAwesomeFunPlug or something like that instead.

But, but... I already have a SuperAwesomeFunPlug!

Re:what might be done?

[Tim Browse]

Other than a more secure attachment method (latch? Thumbscrews?), HDMI is a decent interface

This is a good point - my flat screen TV, like many others, I'm sure, has the connectors at the bottom pointing downwards. So the HDMI connector is basically held in by the pressure of the plug against the socket - there's no latch at all. If it was decent pressure, like say for RCA/phono connectors, that wouldn't be a problem, but I only have to touch the HDMI cable slightly and the plug will fall out. Pretty annoying design.

Re:what might be done?

[logicnazi]

People create pirate copies and run the (fairly organized) distribution networks just because they can and for the social recognition in the pirate community.

Other people download them because they want to watch the movies.

Re:what might be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

We use the same kind of PCs that everyone else does in post production. Xeon, Opteron, Quadro, lots of RAM and disk IO - nothing exotic anymore.

Re:what might be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed -- as "firewire" did very successfully, for example.

Re:what might be done?

[Ben Hutchings]

There's nothing inherently wrong with using twisted pair for this. You can run 10 gigabit Ethernet over 100 metres of twisted pair (granted, that's not in mass production yet), so why not a few gigabits of video? From my reading of the article, I think the real distance limitations on HDMI come from poor error correction and perhaps lack of self-clocking signals. And no, twisted pair Ethernet doesn't have such a high error rate that it requires many retransmissions. Retransmission is implemented at higher levels to recover from packet loss that mostly occurs at congested routers. On a single link the error correction code is adequate.

Re:what might be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has time to scroll obscenities in a public bathroom? That's impressive. I usually just scrawl them myself.

Re:what might be done?

[SCPaPaJoe]

How about "$130.00 cable"

Re:what might be done?

[fyonn]

You can run 10 gigabit Ethernet over 100 metres of twisted pair

within limits though, afaik, most of the pci-e 10gig cards don't support 100 metre runs due to sheer power requirements. I think many vendors have brought the distance down to 50 or 35m as otherwise the cards needed to draw more than the 25 watts the pci-e bus supplies...

Re:what might be done?

[fyonn]

there is no "DRM" in HDMI, and HDCP, which works over HDMI, also works over DVI. HDMI is just a signal carrier. It doesn't care about what it carries.

my understanding is that while DVI supports HDCP, alot of DVI equipment doesnt have it. HDMI mandates HDCP support. I don't know if it's down to the software to choose to use it or not, but if it is a choice, I see few movies choosing not to use it.

am I wrong?

Re:what might be done?

[Ben Hutchings]

One vendor (I work for them) has demonstrated >100 metre reach and will be happy to ship you a 10GBase-T reference design which uses well under 25 watts. Talk about "dialing back" power is absolute nonsense - the competing PHY just wasn't ready when those other NICs were hastily announced. Still, even 35 metres is a lot better than HDMI manages.

Re:what might be done?

[Joe Jarvis]

It's already trademarked in another industry.

Re:what might be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop the DRM.

I was hoping to avoid HDCP entirely by doing the following:

* Get a 1080p HDTV with HDMI input.

* Get a PC with a high-end video card that has dual DVI outputs.

* Connect one DVI to my desktop monitor; and connect the other DVI to a DVI-to-HDMI cable to the HDTV (it's about 10 ft away).

* Configure the PC to use dual-monitor video, and extend my desktop onto the HDTV.

* Obtain my 1080p movies via ThePirateBay in the form of TS files (typically about 10 to 20 GB per movie).

* Use VLC to play the TS files; running it full-screen on the HDTV side of my dual-monitor desktop.

----------

My understanding is that this setup should allow me to play top-level HD content (1920x1080p) without encountering any issues with HDCP. Am I right?

Also: I was thinking about eliminating HDMI altogether and using only DVI. In this case, I would have to make sure that I purchased a HDTV with DVI input. There should be no HDCP issue here either, right?

Re:what might be done?

[zero_offset]

It would have been nice to see HDMI evolve along with component as the high-end, easier hook-up alternative

Except that HDMI isn't even that. Component can produce an equally good picture. The digital interface isn't buying you anything except significant limitations on cable length and the world's least-graceful signal degradation. Like most people I usually assume digital is better, but this is one case where that isn't true.

HDMI

[ynososiduts]

I always considered HDMI a anti-consumer,DRM laden, proprietary, and expensive USB cord. What's wrong with DVI? It's more compatible and I don't believe it requires any licensing to use in a product. So I ask you again, what is wrong with DVI? Why is everyone so HDMI-centric?

Re:HDMI

[OrangeTide]

HDMI has audio and a better connector and compatibility with DVI. There are a lot of things about HDMI that are theoretically very good. but there are some problems with it that overall I think make HDMI a negative.

The article is worth reading because it points out what's wrong with DVI too.

Re:HDMI

[tlhIngan]

HDMI has audio and a better connector and compatibility with DVI. There are a lot of things about HDMI that are theoretically very good. but there are some problems with it that overall I think make HDMI a negative.

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

[TheRaven64]

I never understood the need for putting the video and audio in the same cable. The video signal wants to go to the screen, and the audio signal wants to go to the amplifier. Why does having to run the audio signal into the screen and then out again help me in any way?

Re:HDMI

[segedunum]

HDMI is pretty much the same standard as DVI, cobbled and thrown together extremely badly - with all the same problems. They work on the same principle, the net effect being that it has a lot of problems with cables of any real length. With DVI this wasn't so much of a problem, because it was mostly just used to connect monitors and computers together. However, HDMI needed to be so much more than that - and they ballsed it up. HDMI is basically a reinvented DVI thrown together as a knee-jerk reaction to close the analogue hole and try and encrypt and obscure absolutely everything that comes out of a media player, hence the integrated video and audio. Don't think for a second that's for the consumer's benefit.

Re:HDMI

[sarahbau]

I never understood that either. I think very few people willing to spend money on an HDTV are going to using the built-in speakers on it. I suppose that will get more common though as HD becomes more main-stream, and not just for people interested in the best viewing experience. I don't buy the argument that DVI was "confusing" just because there are a couple different configurations. It's very easy to tell which your devices use. The only real down-sides I believe DVI has were carried over to HDMI, such as the short range. I don't think HDMI has any real-world advantages over DVI.

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

dual DVI is whats wrong with DVI
and that is not two DVI connections either
way too confusing

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate having to point this out all the time, but in the interest of educating I will do so again.

DVI can support HDCP too. Let me say that again. DVI supports the same DRM as HDMI. HDMI is DVI+audio. That's it. It is not some super evil scheme by the content providers to strangle babies and burn crops because DVI isn't up to the task.

Re:HDMI

[Lehk228]

because a huge number of screens also have speakers in them, and those speakers are used in place of a more expensive sound system.

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

[DragonWriter]

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.

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:HDMI

[Not_Wiggins]

I think very few people willing to spend money on an HDTV are going to using the built-in speakers on it.

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:HDMI

[pe1chl]

A screen that does video processing often has some delay. Feeding the audio through the screen (even when you want to send it to a separate amplifier) has the advantage that the audio can be delayed by the same amount, so it is kept lip-sync.
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

[Buran]

What's stopping you from running cables from the tuner/receiver/dvr/whatever to your speakers directly? That's what I've done. One HDMI cable for video only plus separate audio cables isn't any different from one DVI/component/whatever cable plus a separate audio cable. You still have to run two cables no matter what.

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 cable to the other audio input on the speakers. The TV is set up so that the volume is always at 0.

Works fine ...

Re:HDMI

[Penguinshit]

yeah; when I wanna see audio I drop acid. No DRM...

Re:HDMI

[Logic Bomb]

Many HDMI cables will not be routed to a TV. They'll be routed to a receiver, which acts as a convenient switch for multiple video/audio sources. Many people who are buying HD TVs probably have a DVD player, a video game system, a digital cable box, and who knows what else. With audio and video on the same cable, each component needs only a single cable to the receiver.

Re:HDMI

[Buran]

Not everyone wants to rip everything. A lot of people just want it all to work as designed and have less cable clutter. I have a cable rat's nest behind my computer even though I've tried to use cable ties to organise the mess, and another rat's nest in the living room behind the TV. Instead of having to have separate cables for everything, I'd rather have unified cables -- although, as someone said in another post, the ability to clamp or screw the HDMI cable to the socket would be nice. I used a cable tie to wrap a bunch of cables together, then created some slack in the HDMI cable so that all the other cables (which are pretty firmly attached -- RCA and component cables hang on tightly) support the HDMI cable. It hasn't fallen out yet.

Re:HDMI

[Doogie5526]

It makes it a lot easier when managing multiple inputs. Yes, for the final output to a display device (or speakers) you don't need the other signal, but it makes it a lot easier with attaching, switching inputs, troubleshooting, and cable management if both are on a single cable. For example my parents have a CD player, record player, VHS, DVD, and a cable tuner that they want to use. Many people also have multiple game systems. If the cable just transfers a digital signal, why not put the digital audio on there too?

Re:HDMI

[BKX]

Sounds like you've never owned a nice sound system. In a proper system, the sound will stay at line level (or, better yet, in digital form) until it gets to the receiver. The receiver has the only volume control that will do anything. Fortunately, nearly all expensive sound systems come with universal remotes that would make your PDA jealous. I've even seen remotes with built-in 2.4GHz LCD monitors and speakers so you can keep watching on the can.

Re:HDMI

[MarcoAtWork]

and not just for people interested in the best viewing experience

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 run a proper set of interconnects (or what a media server is, or the difference between 720p/1080i and 1080p)?

Next time you're talking with any of your married friends that are going to buy an HDTV, after a month or two ask them where they ended up putting it: if in the perfect place for best viewing, together with a good 5.1/7.1 system (good = costs at least as much as the HDTV, and must not be a bose), or if stuck 7 feet off the ground in their living room on top of the fireplace, so that you end up watching TV on the sofa at 90deg angle and craning your neck upwards to see something, and listening through the built-in 10W speakers.

Re:HDMI

[BlackSnake112]

The reason to combine audio and video in one cable is: fewer cables.

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you want to encrypt the video AND audio to digital restrictions manage, it's a lot easier to deal with if you've only got once combined set of endpoints for both streams - they're notionally one combined, scrambled stream even if they're not really. HDCP is already a confusing waste of time - imagine the chaos if the audio destination was a different device to the video destination, and provision to negotiate two sets of keys for every connection was required.

In short - it's to make life easier for the developers and users of digital restrictions management, at the expense of people who like maximum quality and flexibility. Again.

Re:HDMI

[scatters]

Absolutely - get yourself a good universal remote, like the Harmony 870 which is activity-centric rather than device-centric, and which device you use to control volume become moot. I'm pretty sure though that the circuity in a decent amp is better than that in a TV, so there's a principle at stake here...

Re:HDMI

[Lumpy]

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
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. there is no reason to change the rs232 protocols or the IR protocols.

I am certain they do it just to screw with people.

Re:HDMI

[BlueCollarCamel]

"audio is visibly ahead of the video." Man, what kind of a TV are you using? I want to see audio...

Re:HDMI

[Lumpy]

Um no. you want a GOOD remote not a harmony or pronto.

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:HDMI

[Idbar]

I guess it make sense with so many people complaining about having large amount of cables, and paying ridiculous amounts of money for audio + video + S-video + anything else. Because you can go to BestBuy and see how some guys working there don't even know what cables are used for what. So dad goes home and find several RCA connectors and S-video (probably well labeled), but don't now what should be connected and where.

So I guess for simplicity, you can take both video and audio in the same wire, you just buy one cable, and run only one cable. If you want an external audio equipment, I bet the box providing you the HDMI will also provide you with more audio connections (2.1 - 5.1 - 7.1 ?).

Still, it has it's problems but as many of the technological decisions, probably this wasn't an exception and it was taken because of money. So, HDMI was probably adopted also for economical convenience.

Re:HDMI

[carlos.hasan]

I broke the HDMI connector of my Samsung LCD TV 23" in that way (the HDMI cable was too heavy and ended up breaking the connector on the TV). Fortunately I used the guarantee and Samsung replaced all the motherboard :-) I wonder why most TVs have the HDMI connector pointing down (like most LCD monitors), so in the worst case the HDMI will simply fall and the connector won't be broken.

Re:HDMI

[johnmat]

I never understood the need for putting the video and audio in the same cable.

It makes a lot of sense: one cable from each of your DVD/Satellite/DVR/Apple TV appliances to your receiver; then one cable from the receiver to the TV. Beautiful!

Re:HDMI

[PopeRatzo]

HDMI has audio and a better connector

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 technology put out by corporations that sell consumer electronics and content. This is one reason why I'm rooting for the Chinese to destroy Intellectual Property. Then we can get back to what matters.

Re:HDMI

[OrangeTide]

Your audio system doesn't switch video inputs for you? weird.

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 to their speaker system with it. (prices start at about $200 for a very basic one)

Re:HDMI

[scatters]

Most of the features that you're referring to are used by a very small percentage of the home-theater owning population. The Harmony, or Sony, or whatever, remotes will probably provide the right combination of ease of use and functionality for > 95% of users, plus it is much nicer to hold (the MX-900 sort of looks like a Corellian Corvette with buttons on it).

JMHO, of course.

Re:HDMI

[networkBoy]

FWIW my preamp has both depth and delay controls. I honestly thought all top-end systems had this till I looked around.
-nB

Re:HDMI

[profplump]

Thanks for the recommendation. I've had a harmony and been moderately happy with it -- it lets anyone use my system and it does correctly switch between modes. But it dosen't let me have any input in what switching between modes means. It doesn't seem so terribly complicated to expose a limited scripting language to let me do some more complicated, customized things than are built in to the configuration system.

Windows-only is a bad time though ;-(. I'm sure I can come up with a Windows system for the 2 times a year I need to re-program the thing, but it would be nice if I could at least generate the configuration file in a non-Windows app.

Re:HDMI

[cortana]

But the human eye can only distinguish between 20-100 frame per second (depending on what you are looking at & measuring)...

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, what kind of a TV are you using? I want to see audio...

He's using one of those new-fangled "LSD" TVs.

Re:HDMI

[sarahbau]

Unfortunately most apartments and houses seem to have living rooms designed in such a way that it's impossible to place a TV. I guess real A/V philes would have a windowless room with nothing but the TV, sound system, and reclining chairs with cup holders built-in to the arm rests, but some people can't afford that. lol. Whenever I move to a new place, I always consider TV and speaker placement above all else in the living room, but normally I have to make some sacrifices. My current apartment is designed so I could either have my TV in a corner, or make it so I'd have to climb over the sofa to get in the front door.

Re:HDMI

[BillyBlaze]

To take the paranoid view: maybe they want you using the built-in audio because then you need to disassemble your television to get an analog but not acoustic copy.

Re:HDMI

[BillyBlaze]

Presumably he means the wireless communication is over the 2.4GHz band.

Re:HDMI

[Queer Boy]

Why is everyone so HDMI-centric?

I personally think people believe because it's one cord, as opposed to 3, it's simpler. Even with DVI you have two audio cables unless you are using TOS, which I myself have never seen a TV with TOS on it although I am sure they exist. What I want to know is whatever happened to using FireWire for AV?

Re:HDMI

[AK Marc]

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.

I just bought a fancy remote so that I can change the chanel on the cable box and the volume on the amp and the power on the TV without having to flip through options to select which component to control. Get something from here http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/product list/US/EN,CRID=2080 and never mess with piles of remotes again.

Re:HDMI

[Sublmnl]

It certainly doesn't help sonic quality. In fact it degrades the audio considerably; although you can purchase an A/V receiver with HDMI inputs that splits the signal from the receiver. This does help a little in regards to sound...though not enough for my taste. It's a trade-off between unsightly wires and sonic quality. You pick.

Re:HDMI

[el_gordo101]

Ha! You just described my brother's setup perfectly. His wife thought that hanging the nice new LCD screen above the fireplace was just spiffy, because some boob on HGTV said it was the way to go. The one smart thing we did was to rip a hole in the wall and run the cables from the back of the TV to a media cabinet in the corner (two HDMI, Component, and speaker cables). We also added an empty conduit for future expansion. Bottom line, this beautiful screen that cost him over $2K gets covered in soot every time they use the fireplace and you end up needing a chiropractor after craning you neck for 3+ hours while watching a ballgame. Stupid, just stupid.

Re:HDMI

[ad0gg]

Not sure if HDMI supports switching but on my setup i run the component cables and audio to reciever and use the reciever to do the switching, that way i don't have to switch the tv and reciever when changing to a different source.

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons Firewire was included on HDTVs was to standardize and simplify remote control operations in addition to receiving MPEG2 data. The idea was the TV remote would be able to change the channel on the cable/satellite box and adjust the volume on the receiver. There was hierarchy to connecting the devices together to accommodate high bandwidth usage.

Re:HDMI

[caudron]

what is wrong with DVI?

It doesn't do audio. I dislike DRM as much as the next geek, but even I have to acknowledge the ease-of-installation-and-use factor of a single cable connect between all devices. I have a significant home theater set up. Whenever I can replace 2--7 cables with a single line, I will do it.

Why is everyone so HDMI-centric?

Becuase the industry is pushing us that way. I don't like it either. The reality is, however, that if I intend to have a high-end home theater (OK, mid-range if you are one of the $75k+ for a theater crowd!) then I am gonna be using HDMI for any recent purchases. It carries advantages, but I also dislike the DRM side of it. Hasn't bit me yet, but I dislike the potential for lameness that it carries.

Point being, I am not pro-HDMI. I am pro-WantACoolTheater. HDMI is just an unfortunate side effect. :(

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

Re:HDMI

[vbwilliams]

Less cables. Duh. Why would you want MORE/BIGGER cabling when you can funnel the stuff through the same media and just be done with it? Aside from the DRM concerns, I actually LIKE HDMI...it's just much easier to deal with. Likewise, finding receivers now with enough HDMI inputs vs component inputs is just a hell of a lot easier, just because of space alone. If it weren't for my Playstation 2 at this point requiring component or composite instead of HDMI, my system would be 100% HDMI, and I'd have a bit less cable management to do.

My system:

Receiver --> TV via HDMI
HD Cable Box --> receiver via HDMI
DVD --> receiver via HDMI
HD-DVD --> receiver via HDMI
Playstation 2 --> receiver via component video, optical audio

Using 100% HDMI, I'd have a system with at least 2 less cables, and those cables would be pretty small in circumference as well. They'd be easier to manage. You simply mute the TV, and just control the audio from the receiver...only way you're going to get 5.1 digital anyway.

Personally, I think HDMI is better than any other option currently available. The DRM is one thing. But outside of that, there's nothing else really to bitch about. And if you do your homework, you can find great HDMI cables for half the price of component video or optical audio.

Re:HDMI

[Nightspirit]

Holy shit, my harmony 360 remote easily does everything I want and cost less than $100. Why the fuck would I spend over $300 for a remote?

Re:HDMI

[germansausage]

When dad got his first stereo he set it up with both speakers placed side by side (touching) and the turntable sitting on top of them.

Re:HDMI

[Mr2001]

The Harmony remotes have a little more capability that isn't exposed through the web-based configuration. I'd recommend calling Harmony tech support and telling them what you're trying to do - they might be able to set up the macros for you on their end.

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take the wires. If you're using S/PDIF, it's a single small fibre cable for audio anyways.

Re:HDMI

[Dirtside]

good = costs at least as much as the HDTV

Good grief. Some of us don't have hearing sensitive enough that we can even *tell* the difference between a $200 and $2000 sound system.

Re:HDMI

[Kizeh]

Because the single cable carries video and audio from your HD tuner box / computer / gaming console / HD disc player to your receiver which you use to pick what source you're watching and listening to. Both video and audio want to go from the source to there. From there audio wants to go to the speakers, video to the screen.

Re:HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Those MX remotes look like shit (i.e. they are ugly) and what good is a remote without the standard Xbox 360 buttons?

Re:HDMI

[pinkfloydhomer]

The main thing wrong with DVI is that it is too fragile. It only supports cables up to 5 meters. And yes, this is a real life issue. Many, many appliances have problems if you use, say, a 10 meter cable. And 10 meters is not a lot. For a small home theater installation, you will easily need that and more.

HDMI remedies this a bit, both in theory (allows longer cables) and also in practice.

That said, HDMI is still way too fragile and complicated. A good 10+ meter HDMI cable costs a fortune. A digital transfer standard should at least have some Reed-Solomon coding or equivalent error correction.

Another poster asked why he would need audio and video in the same cable. The reason is simple: A/V receivers works conveniently by letting you choose an input and an output source independantly. So you would route all your A/V sources (HDMI and other, say a dvd player and a DVB-S receiver etc.) to your receiver and connect your receiver to all your A/V destinations (HDMI and other, TVs, projectors, surround speakers etc.), and then when you switch input signal on your remote to, say, dvd, it would switch both the video and the audio in one go. A/V receivers without HDMI have done this for many years. /David

Re:HDMI

[WasterDave]

I take it you don't have a mother in law then?

Re:HDMI

[Tim Browse]

Unfortunately most apartments and houses seem to have living rooms designed in such a way that it's impossible to place a TV.

Never mind, give it another 50 years and architects/designers will have realised that people actually watch TV.

To quote Joey Tribbiani:

You don't have a TV?! Then what's all your furniture pointed at?

Re:HDMI

[profplump]

Having had a ~$100 Harmony and being limited by its programming capabilities, I can tell you the H360 doesn't let you do everything you can with an MX-900, at least not without a *lot* of button pushing.

Also, you can get an MX-900 for ~$250, which is in-line with the middle of the Harmony range. The MSRP is ridiculous, but you don't have to buy at the price -- it's intended to allow professional installers give you a 25% discount while still gouging you.

Re:HDMI

[Caffeinate]

That's it. It is not some super evil scheme by the content providers to strangle babies and burn crops because DVI isn't up to the task. What do you mean? DVI cords strangle babies just fine . . . I mean, what?

Re:HDMI

[ncc74656]

I've even seen remotes with built-in 2.4GHz LCD monitors and speakers so you can keep watching on the can.

Wouldn't it be simpler (and cheaper) to just hit Pause before you go answer nature's call, and hit Play when you get back?

Re:HDMI

[Nightspirit]

Hey thanks for the info I appreciate it. The only thing that bugs me about the harmony is that it cant detect if devices are on or off, and if the mx-900 can do that it may be worth the $250.

Re:HDMI

[Milikki]

The answer to this one is simple. Many (most?) people do most of their watching using the TV sound. With the derth of HD programming available, its just not worth the extra time, cost (electricity) and hassle of turning on the full surround system to watch "Leave It To Beaver" re-runs on Nick.

At least that's the way I am. 90% of the time, I use TV audio. I only turn on the good sound if Im watching a movie (DVD), playing a game, watching sports (OTA-HD).

Kevin

Re:HDMI

[jetmarc]

> 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.

There's an additional advantage of routing audio through the TV:

TVs have become complex devices. With flat panels for example, incoming signals must be de-interlaced before being shown. Often additional image processing is done, trying to enhance the visuals.

All this takes processing time, and results in latency in the visual path.

For audio to remain lip-sync, it must be delayed by an equal amount of time. But who knows how much latency your TV has? We have no standard for your TV to communicate its latency to your amp. Actually we don't have (consumer) amps with configurable audio delay either.

So, the best kludge for the moment is to route the audio signal through the TV. The TV can then delay the audio signal by whatever it sees fit.

Regards,
Marc

Re:HDMI

[zero_offset]

Feeding the audio through the screen (even when you want to send it to a separate amplifier) has the advantage that the audio can be delayed by the same amount, so it is kept lip-sync.

Even relatively cheap amps have user-configurable delay capability these days.

Open source!

[rueger]

What we need is an Open Source standard for connecting audio and video devices. That way every piece of gear would have a consistent interface and connections, and it would be easy to configure and understand.

Especially for people without specialized technical expertise.

Re:Open source!

[intangible]

It's be nice if we could design a fiber-optic adapter for HDMI, that should allow a lot of long runs and signal clarity depending on how you decide to send the signal over the fiber.

Re:Open source!

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO

Re:Open source!

[amuro98]

What? You want an easy to use system for non-technical people? Now that's just crazy talk!

Re:Open source!

[ArsonSmith]

Yea, we could call it IP and run it over Ethernet. Why do we have to have all these different standards?

Re:Open source!

[Joe U]

consistent interface and connections, and it would be easy to configure and understand.

So, completely different from every other open source project.

Re:Open source!

[bronzey214]

Unfortunately, you'd have Joe Six Pack connecting every speaker that he could get his hands on to his car.

Re:Open source!

[sxpert]

how about using SMPTE 424M ?

Re:Open source!

[scatters]

Video & sound over fiber-optic could significantly increase the cost of devices and I'm not sure that commodity items like low-end DVD players (even $80 sets now have HDMI) could support the additional cost. I don't know how accurate the parallel is, but gigabit ethernet over copper is about 10% of the price of gig over fiber (per port).

Re:Open source!

[__aailob1448]

Simply put: latency.

You might not care if your IMs or downloads arrive a couple dozen milliseconds later but when you're playing Guitar Hero, Street Fighter, R-Type or any other fast-paced game where reaction time is important, you'll be cursing IP to high heavens.

It takes time to strip data layers and get to the tender nugget of information inside. You have to wait for missing or delayed packets and wait some more for the stream to be split, encoded, reconstituted and decoded before it can be displayed.

In this case, it's much better to minimize latency, increase bandwidth and not care if the occasional pixel displays the wrong thing. At 2 Million pixels per second rate , It's statistically invisible and completely within human tolerance.

Perfect data integrity is unnecessary when dealing with an organic brain. Now, I've been assuming you'd use TCP to correct any errors. If you just use basic datagrams to store the tiny portions of the image and are willing to accept the occasional corrupted data, you will not have any significant latency issues. The problem is that because of the overhead required for packetization, each datagram will have to carry information on dozens or hundreds of pixels at a minimum to provide the necessary bandwidth, and all that information will be destroyed with each delayed or lost packet.

And btw, Component cables are just as good as DVI. Yep, analog and all.

Re:Open source!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no! First thing - UDP not TCP.

Second thing - using ATM as lower layer guarantees latency and all
those things important to audio/video. STM-16/OC-48 should be enough.

Re:Open source!

[Anonymous Coward]

IP latency is in the 10us range. You will get ~0 resends on a display---cable---videocard -setup. A resend will take 10us. You can run 1920p stream at 60% packet loss over a 10Gbps wire.

DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

...see what might be done to make HDMI a little more consumer-friendly

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:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

just because HDMI canwant it to

...was supposed to read: "just because HDMI can carry audio doesn't mean I necessarily want it to."

My apologies.

Re:DRM it is.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

PS3 and HDDVD? That's redundant.

Same with xbox360 and HDDVD...

Re:DRM it is.

[Elladan]

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.

... man, you're a really good consumer! The movie industry must love you

No seriously... Why didn't you just, you know, NOT BUY the new stuff, and read a book or something instead? Books are cheaper, and have better special effects than any video game.

Re:DRM it is.

[aichpvee]

xbox 360 only has HDDVD as an external addon. The build-in drive is standard DVD.

Re:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

PS3 and HDDVD? That's redundant.

Same with xbox360 and HDDVD...

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 have demonstrated limited life-spans and I prefer knowing that if the PS3 dies, I can still watch my Blue-ray disks, or of the Blue-ray player dies, I can still enjoy Fall of Man.

Now... you can do things any way you want with your system, of course, and I wouldn't have any comment on that, but this is how I prefer to use mine, and I am perfectly content with it. Others may feel the same way — there are tons of different ways to set home systems up, the only "wrong" way is probably a way that results in poorer than necessary performance. I say that because quality of results is the point for most people, and ideally, you would want to get, and actually get, the best possible results from your equipment.

Re:DRM it is.

[DittoBox]

I invite you to write some legislation that makes DRM illegal without making encryption altogether.

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 permission."

A law that makes illegal something as abstract as DRM is impossible. All DRM is, is encryption of specific content types. There's a million uses for encrypting multimedia content types, not just that of harming consumers. What of your own content and data? What if you want to encrypt a personal document or recording? Is that illegal?

It's nice to walk around and say "oh, that should be illegal!" It's another thing to actually do it, and do it without putting the screws on something else. Worse off look who we have in congress right now! They're far too stupid to write a law on a highly technical but severely abstract concept.

Re:DRM it is.

[rlp]

PS3 and HDDVD? That's redundant.

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:DRM it is.

[Karl J. Smith]

That's what I did - skipped the HDTV, PS3, 360, Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. I got a kayak instead. Great special effects.

Although I did get a Wii. Those are fun, too.

Re:DRM it is.

[Buran]

No, seriously ... different people have different hobbies! Not everyone wants to sit and read a book (although I enjoy reading myself and have a pretty simple TV/etc. setup since I don't spend all my time in front of the TV) but what's with the snark? The simple fact that you think watching movies/TV is distasteful doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same. I guess people have just GOT to feel superior to others...

Re:DRM it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM legislation outlaws decrypting data you already have - so called "anti-circumvention". It's perfectly feasible legally to allow encryption (of data one has) but not disallow decryption (of data one has). In fact, it's the only sane option. So it won't happen in the USA for a few years I guess...

Re:DRM it is.

[dgatwood]

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:

It shall be illegal to design or use any technology in such a way that it denies any legitimate purchaser of any audiovisual or software product any rights to which they are entitled herein, including but not limited to the fair use rights described in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107.

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.

[fyngyrz]

... man, you're a really good consumer! The movie industry must love you

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.

No seriously... Why didn't you just, you know, NOT BUY the new stuff, and read a book or something instead? Books are cheaper, and have better special effects than any video game.

I have a 10,000+ volume library and I read about a book a day on average when I'm in the mood for reading fiction, which is perhaps about half the time in blocks of several weeks at once. My library is primarily science fiction and a fair assortment of best sellers, many volumes from several different areas of electronics, programming, hundreds of books on religion (a hobby, I am not religious), and hundreds on and in multiple languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish and my own native English.) I own a literary agency and my immediate family counts a hugo-winning author, a couple of less successful, but published, authors, another literary agent, and an excellent translator among them. I've written numerous magazine columns and a couple of technical works myself. I've also written courses on learning to read Korean and a 400-page integrated martial arts curriculum. I teach martial arts three nights a week, work part of the day Saturday and Sunday for a charity I favor, and I run six companies (one of which is the aforementioned literary agency) during the weekdays. I don't party, drink, or do recreational drugs though if pot were legal, I'd change that.

Now that you know a little more about me in particular, I would like to ask you: Why would you assume that an interest in movies and gaming would preclude reading? For that matter, even if all I did was read, why would you think that my three sons, my grandson, and my lady would not have interests of their own that I might find it worthwhile to be supportive of? Finally, why is it that you would be concerned with my leisure habits at all? Doesn't it make more sense to be focused on your own?

Just wondering.

Re:DRM it is.

[Matt Perry]

The first thing that needs to be done is to create legislation that makes DRM illegal.

As soon as congress finishes with the Endangered Unicorn Protection Bill I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Re:DRM it is.

[amuro98]

How is that redundant? While a PS3 can play both PS3 game and Blu-ray movies, it can't play HD-DVD movies, nor 360 games. Even then, the 360 needs the external HD-DVD add-on to play HD-DVD movies, but it would still be considered "one device" in terms of connections to your TV/Receiver.

That said, I can easily see having a hybrid player for DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD, as well as a 360, PS3, and a HD cable or satellite receiver/DVR - that's potentially 4 devices that can use HDMI, not to mention some older devices connected via component or s-video cables.

That doesn't cover future devices, like a video camera, or a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray recorder.

My TV may have 2 HDMI ports, but only 1 of them does video+sound - the other is video only. Neither of them are HDMI v1.3, not that that matters to me really. However, it bothers me that this so-called "standard" is still evolving.

Re:DRM it is.

[cortana]

I think it may be even easier than that. Simply repeal the (DRM-related portions of the) DMCA, and let the market take care of the rest.

Re:DRM it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, if you bend over and pay for it too, don't come crying to us.

Re:DRM it is.

[cfulmer]

HA!

    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 . . . ." Is this really what you want?
    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.)

Re:DRM it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit you must be dense to need this spelled out - being 'vocal' about DRM on slashdot is fucking worthless when you're shoveling money at the companies for making it! We're concerned because they're making money off of you by raping all the other consumers.

And that god damn DRM is just there to make sure you'll buy the whole damn thing again next time.

Re:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

being 'vocal' about DRM on slashdot is fucking worthless when you're shoveling money at the companies for making it! We're concerned because they're making money off of you by raping all the other consumers.

I directly fight DRM in the publishing industry, and in the software industry as well. Aside from that, speaking out is definitely not worthless; discussion is a critical part of society's management of divisive issues. I prefer not to go straight to civil disobedience or violence, myself. One more thing: I don't object in the least to paying for entertainment, be it music, plays, movies, software, whatever. My objection centers around how I am able to use media and hardware I purchase. I bought a component system because it was DRM free and it had everything technically needed to handle the task at hand. My options once that turned out not to be usable were either not have hi-def 1080p movies, or move to HDMI. Neither precludes discussion, funding countering viewpoints, or a focus on my own productions that eschews DRM. Given that, I'll go with the 1080p. You, of course, are entitled to your opinions and choices.

Re:DRM it is.

[Jherek Carnelian]

But, most importantly, Section 17 doesn't grant individual purchasers ANY RIGHTS. This is worth pointing out to those who believe that copyright is some sort of natural right. Title 17 is almost completely about taking away rights from the public at large and giving them to specific individuals.

When expressed that way, it makes it clearer that "fair use" is not a right, it is an exception to when the government can take away your natural right to freedom of expression and give it a copyright owner.

Re:DRM it is.

[Opportunist]

All you have to write is that a legal user of content must not be kept from decrypting it. Where's the problem?

If you're not allowed to access certain content, you're not the legal user.

Re:DRM it is.

[gatzke]

Even with a "modern" 1080P HDMI amp (onkyo) I still have troubles. Thanks to DRM between my cable box, amp, and TV, I occasionally get a nice black screen during a show or while changing channels. The only fix is to turn everything off and on again.

Thanks HDCP! You would think by version 1.2, they would all work... POS.

Re:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

One thing to watch for is the up-conversion switching in and out. If there is no signal (say your HDMI DVD player is off) and your receiver is set to automatically detect the input type (composite, S-video, component, etc) then when you switch to DVD, it may try to up-convert and then not be paying "attention" to the HDMI input when you actually turn on the DVD player. A quick fix for this is to make sure the DVD player is on, select a different component, then back to the DVD player. Another more permanent fix - if your receiver supports it - is to force the input to HDMI only by turning off automatic up-conversion for that input.

I've found that most of these "black screen" events can be attributed to up-conversion issues. So hopefully that'll be of some help to you... or someone, anyway. :-)

Re:DRM it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the point is -- what if I like bending over? Then paying for good service is a good idea.

Re:DRM it is.

[sxpert]

which one did you get, the SD HD-upgradeable, or you went straight to HD ?

http://grassvalley.com/products_broadcast/switcher s/family_kayak_hd/

Re:DRM it is.

[Slorv]

The newer 360 Elite atleast has an HDMI port. And while a 360 can be used to watch movies and other media it's the hires games we're after. Also, unless XBMC comes for the 360 I'll use my old Xbox as a mediacenter. It's such a good combo that I've bought a second Xbox as a spare.

Re:DRM it is.

[Slorv]

If you can live with an external box here's an 8 input HDMI switcher. Since many highend A/V-receivers (where have all the A/V preamps gone???) can execute commands over RS232 it should be breeze to make the units work together.

Re:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

Yes, external switchers seem to be pretty much required as of now. A shame.

A/v preamps; Outlaw Audio has a preamp with a couple of DVI inputs; since in some cases HDMI and DVI can be adapted, might be worth exchanging some email with them. They might be cooking up an HDMI version too, as DVI version is about 2 years old now. I looked at this preamp very seriously when considering component, was going to pair it with a full complement of Marantz monoblocks; I'm kind of sorry I didn't go for it, the Denon I ended up with for component has the worst menu system known to man. It ended up in the basement with the 720p projector, though, so my kids have to deal with that thing now. ;-) Aside of OA, this search turned up news from Sunfire, NAD, Anthem, and Arcam that all looked interesting.

There is a HDMI transmitter/receiver pair as well, unfortunately last I heard it was only good for up to 1080i/720p. There was some talk of a 1080p model, but no actual hardware as yet. When they get there, I'm going to try it because my projector is quite some distance from my other A/V gear, a consequence of a somewhat large display (204") and limitations of the lens on my projector. As it stands now, I've got some awfully long cables run under the floor joists and I'm not very happy with that.

Re:DRM it is.

[dgatwood]

That's all relatively unimportant, though. The fair use statues provides that some uses are considered outside of the scope of the limitations of copyright infringement. it does not need to enumerate them in the body of law. The details are incorporated into the body of law through case law. Those exceptions are implicitly codified, and as such, it is sufficient to say that it shall be unlawful for anyone to use technological measures to circumvent those exceptions.

Re:DRM it is.

[dgatwood]

It's a first draft. It isn't perfect. My whole point was that it is relatively easy to describe what DRM does without even using the word encryption. Nothing more. That said, I would disagree with you on a number of points:

First, fair use rights are codified in Title 17 as a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. They are not a list of situations under which you can violate copyright as you imply by calling it a "defense". The section says that certain uses are not an infringement of copyright. In fact, it uses the exact words "not an infringement of copyright" to describe those uses. Therefore, those rights are granted explicitly by 107.

Second, yes, I would like to see the design of software in such a way that inhibits fair use to be punishable. Note that I was very careful in my wording to state that this only covers designing software tin such a way that inhibits fair use. Without a law covering design, the manufacturers would argue that the user of the software (and thus, the violator of the law) was the person installing their software, not the manufacturer of the DRM software, and thus, things like the Sony rootkit would not be illegal, nor would copy protection of software (which in my experience is even more anti-consumer than DRM on media).

In fact, I made a mistake in the other part of that pair. The use of DRM software should not be illegal. The distribution (or possibly publication) of media containing technology to do that should be illegal. Use implies the end user, while the intent was to refer to the placement of such software or technology on the media itself or requiring it for access to the media.

Third, by "herein," I meant Title 17. Interpreting it in any other way would make little sense unless the clause was placed in Chapter 1, which it would likely not be. That said, I probably should have made that more explicit.

Fourth, you're right. I should have said "audiovisual work or computer program". With that change, the terms are already sufficiently defined elsewhere in the title.

Fifth, I have mixed feelings on the mention of purchasers. The reference to a purchaser was my attempt to deliberately relax a corner case---the use of DRM to protect unreleased content (e.g. screening copies of movies). Content creators should be free to put whatever restrictions they desire on content that has not yet been made available to the general public. It might be better to avoid that by replacing purchaser with something like "Anyone who has lawfully obtained an audio visual or software work that is available or has ever been available to the general public...." On the other hand, the release of content in those categories for free with DRM is a corner case that is probably unimportant and uninteresting, and the rental of content with DRM probably should be permitted and allowed to die away on its own. Thus, I could go either way on that wording.

Just my $0.02.

Re:DRM it is.

[Jherek Carnelian]

That's all relatively unimportant, though. Sounds like you aren't a lawyer. If you want to use sloppy language in legislation, don't be surprised when you get those unexpected side-effects. The lawyers have it easy enough arguing over fairly precise language, when you start claiming rights where there are none, you are just guaranteeing full employment for the profession.

Re:DRM it is.

[Elladan]

(Sorry for the late reply)

I appreciate that you enjoy books as well, however, the point is:

The movie industry is making a bundle off of you. And they're then using that money to directly attack you and the things you believe in.

How can you expect your "anti-DRM" views, which you are "quite vocal about" to have any effect on the video cartel when in the end, they make even more money by screwing you over? You complain... but you still pay. Over and over again. For the same thing.

If it really bothers you that the industry is forcing you to pay again and again for the same thing, then just. don't. do. it. Send your money into politics instead, and see if you can buy laws that counter the cartel's legislative arm. Complaining online while simultaneously throwing your money at the same people you're complaining about just has the end effect of paying for your own opposition.

Re:DRM it is.

[fyngyrz]

The movie industry is making a bundle off of you. And they're then using that money to directly attack you and the things you believe in.

The entertainment people make some products that I want. I am willing to pay for these items, because the value I receive for the particular products I am interested in is, in my opinion, sufficient. Not perfect, but sufficient. They are as entitled to an opinion as I am about what they think is the correct way to do things; the law supports how they operate, or at least, the common interpretation of the courts of that law. So the place to agitate is indeed political, not at the companies themselves (who, if forced to remove DRM by law, will still hold the opinion that they would rather have DRM.)

The fact is, I enjoy movies a great deal more than I suffer from DRM. This makes my choice about what to do with my discretionary funds very easy. Not all things I object to balance out this way, but movies and music both do. None of this affects what I do at the political level, or for products that I control, where I enforce policies such as this one.

I appreciate that these choices may not be your choices. In that case, you should be the one voting with your sacrifice of entertainment. It isn't a choice I care to make.

From the no-shit-sherlock department

[croddy]

The article's author suggests that the format was designed for the benefit of the content-producers and not the consumer.

In other news, the Pope reveals he is Catholic, and prominent climatologists describe the sky as "blue".

Re:From the no-shit-sherlock department

[sharkey]

In other news, the Pope reveals he is Catholic

But does he shit in the woods? Enquiring minds want to know!

As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

We commonly get asked, "Whats the difference between HDMI and Component?". Our answer (tongue in cheek) is, "About $20 a foot". I bought a 1080i LCD Sony Bravia HDTV and I got a DVD at the same level. When I got to interconnect cables, I saw $30 for a reasonable set of Monster component cables. The no-brand HDMI 3 foot cable was $90. It's silly if you think about it. OK, supposedly there's a sync difference and the "transmission is faster" for HDMI, but last I checked, component video hasn't had a lag problem in anyone's home theater I've seen. You can send 1080p just fine over component, and not be worried about anything holding your performance back. This is why I laughed at the XBOX360 HDMI only output....please...when will manufacturers figure out that when you limit choices it just pisses people off?

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Tony Hoyle]

$90? You're about a factor of 10 out there... $9 is a decent cable with HDMI.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Cameroon]

You're forgetting the $81 Best Buy/Monster surcharge.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that in anticipation of HDCP and company, most DVD players will not upconvert to 720/1080 on the component outputs. Do non blu-ray/HD-DVD DVD players output 720/1080 on anything other than HDMI/DVI?

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Verunks]

component is just for video while hdmi can also carry HD audio and btw at least here in europe a monster component cable(1mt) costs about 70 while a no brand hdmi costs 15, also xbox360 component cable and sony hdmi cable cost about 20-30 and they are pretty good

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[vbwilliams]

Then you're not shopping at the right stores. I picked up five 5' HDMI cables and paid less than $70 for all of them combined. They all work fine with 1080p.

If you buy stuff where you're not paying for the name alone, prices will always be reasonable. The same can be said about your choice of TV.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[tbo]

As a physicist, it drives me nuts how much people are willing to pay for Monster cables or other "high-end" stuff. Need speaker wire? Just buy some heavy-gauge electrical wire. Home Depot sells 500 feet (152 m) of stranded 2-conductor 10-gauge (2.588 mm dia.) wire for about $85 USD. A similar length of thinner 12-gauge (2.053 mm dia.) Monster wire would cost a small fortune.

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:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Thank you for that comment. I can't believe the amount people are willing to spend on that stuff. I've wanted to hook up a monster cable to a spectrum analyzer for a long time, but I don't want to pay the price to buy one (cable) to compare it to lamp cord... (and you can get cheap lamp cord in white!)

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

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
$125 for 6foor CircuitCity

If you can get one for under $10 (3 or 6 foot)...but them!!

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Zeinfeld]

As a physicist, it drives me nuts how much people are willing to pay for Monster cables or other "high-end" stuff. Need speaker wire? Just buy some heavy-gauge electrical wire. Home Depot sells 500 feet (152 m) of stranded 2-conductor 10-gauge (2.588 mm dia.) wire for about $85 USD. A similar length of thinner 12-gauge (2.053 mm dia.) Monster wire would cost a small fortune.

It depends on the cable function. Speaker cables are a pretty undemanding application. There is often quite a difference at the low end between the $2 cable and the $15 one. But very little if any difference between the $15 and the $45 Monster.

Thing that really anoys me is that they still go for copper. Fibre would be much more flexible and cheaper too in the long run. The back of my home theatre is bristling with connectors for RCA input, S-Video, Component, HDMI, SPDIF and Optical. Each new technology will require yet another connector. Same thing happened with DVI and VGA. So I have several boxes of cables for all sorts of different vintages which must have cost $500 or more over the years.

If the connector between the CPU box and the monitor was optical it could carry the video, audio and USB feeds all at the same time. The keyboard would either plug into the USB on the monitor or to a bluetooth receiver in the monitor. The machine itself could then live in a completely different room or in the basement where it cannot be heard.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

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:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[DrXym]

The no-brand HDMI 3 foot cable was $90.

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:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

A 1gbps eth switch is enough to carry HD to your TV (and mine!). So why don't they use a known and working networking standard? CAT6 is cheap, cable is cheap, so what's the problem with it I wonder?

As technology marches on, can you imaging having wireless video connections. Stuff the pootas in a closet or attic and fsck the cabling...

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

Yes, that's a given that component is video. So I spend $30 on the component, and then about 5-15$ for analog audio or digital audio cable. I'm still way ahead. Yes, you can get a XBOX360 cable for close to that, but it's only for your XBOX360. You can't use it for your DVD player, TIVO, or anything else. If I could have used it to connect my DVD to my HDTV I would have gotten it. However, why would I? Almost everything I own has a component in or out...nothing but the HDTV has HDMI. My 3 year old high-end A/V switching receiver, which will switch up to 1080p and upscale, only has component. Yes the new version has HDMI....but again, why would I limit myself and use something with interconnect cables over 3X more expensive?

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

Can you provide names or reference links? That's about 6X lower than wholesale pricing I've seen for HDMI interconnect cables. I was at a wholesale distributor and their HDMI cables were $30 each for 3 foot...6 foot was about the same.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[SuperMog2002]

The Apple store has 6 foot HDMI cables for 20 bucks.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[amuro98]

Since when is the 360 HDMI only? The Elite may have a HDMI port, but can still do component (or svideo or composite if you really wanted) The Elite even comes with HDMI, component and composite cabling kits - just to annoy Sony with their "True HD - cables sold separately" PS3.

Also, where are you shopping where a 3' HDMI cable is $90? My local non-chain computer store has HDMI cables for $10-15. I'd gladly ship some to you for $70/ea. Shipping included.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

You're making the assumption digital is somehow better. In data communications and certain types of telephony, you'd be right. However, there is no signaling between the TV and DVD player. So what are you left with? Just a means of transmitting Green Red and Blue information between two devices. If anything, you're now at the mercy of your HDTV's digital to digital conversion.

Don't believe the hype. My HD DVD with quality component cables at 1080p will look identical on my 46" LCD as the HDMI cable. The only people who will tell you there is a definate difference are the people trying to sell you HDMI.

DVI vs. HDMI vs. Component Video -- Which is Better
Also, you have to deal with multiple and changing HDMI formats. I've read countless industry articles on the debate of HDMI Vs Component, and there's never a clear winner. So, if I have to spend $30 or $90....I'm going $30. Now others have posted they can get HDMI for $10....I haven't seen them with my eyes, however, again, I'm not going to lock myself into a proprietary cable. If component can transfer the full image of 1080p, then that's fine with me. Hell, I can't tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Most of the content out there is still below 720 anyway.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

I was in a little too much of a hurry...I was leaving work and was trying to get out the door. I was referring to the Elite model and didn't type in that one important word. I've had several references to $10 HDMI...and I'll reply like I did to them...provide a name of store, and/or link. I've supplied two (Best Buy and Circuit City) which are 80-120. I've also seen them at distributors for over $30 (distributors are usually 50% of a dealers price).

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[networkBoy]

Not entirely true.
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 signal is caused by inter lane skew, where the clock edges are not in sync with the data edges. These are analog effects that will impact overall picture quality. Also, effects like these are heavily exacerbated by length of the cable.

Mind, I'm not claiming that the monster brand is any better than generic (they are all made in about 5 factories in china), just that cable really still matters, even though the signal is digital. What I would like to see is XAUI or Fiber for video.
A single singlemode strand of fiber would be cleaner and vastly less mechanical load on the connector, and would have enough bandwidth for about 3 1080p streams. A multimode fiber would handle 720P (and likely 1080p but I need to do some math) and is vastly more resistant to dust.
-nB

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, some people like silver plated cables for corrosion resistance. I know I've seen older speaker cables have the exposed contacts corrode over time. I've never much worried about it (it's slow and my cables are still fine), but some do and that seems reasonable. I don't really know how much corrosion you'd have to have before it impacted the audio, though.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[JohnnyComeLately]

Thanks!! I'll show it to my guys and we'll mention it to people who call into us. For that cheap, I'm tempted to switch....

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Queer Boy]

All the reviews have stated they can't tell the difference between the 360 using Component and using HDMI.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[BTG9999]

If you just need a 6ft cable go to the apple store. They have one for 19.95. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=E0E73798&nplm=TL951LL/A

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Sinbios]

Silver plating's also used for stranded wires with teflon insulation, since normal solder plating will melt and fuse the strands together at the temperature that the teflon is applied.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[whoever57]

Your references don't support your claim. You referenced 2 Monster cable products. The question is how much do no-name equivalents cost.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Viv]

Digital is not necessarily better, but it does have the potential to be.

One of the nice things about an all-digital transmission path is that there will be less A/D and D/A conversions than in a path that has more analog stages.

A/D and D/A converters unavoidably add noise (called quantization noise). This can be lessened by using better AD/DA converters. That, of course, costs more money. If you're going to end up as digital at some point in the process anyway (like as in HDTV), it's technically (if minimally) better and more importantly, much cheaper to do the AD and DA conversions fewer times.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[batkiwi]

Lie much?

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id =102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024004&p_id=2526&seq=1&for mat=2

HDMI Cable male to male 28AWG - 3ft w/Ferrite Cores (Gold Plated) for $2.74

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[tfoss]

I saw $30 for a reasonable set of Monster component cables. The no-brand HDMI 3 foot cable was $90. That always makes me wonder how much the Big Box Stores make off of cables.

-Ted

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[tbo]

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.

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

[IntelliTubbie]

I'm personally a big fan of the gold-plated optical connectors. What, are you worried that the photons are going to corrode?

Cheers,
IT

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Pootie Tang]

Here's two links to amazon offering 6 foot HDMI cables in the $3 range from multiple vendors. Though I admit I paid about $20 for mine.

DVI gear

startech

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[mikey1134]

I'm not the parent but look here for some cheaper hdmi cables.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Zerth]

You can buy Dayton Audio HDMI cables for $15(3') and $18(6') retail. I imagine the wholesale prices are even less.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[amuro98]

Frys (no website to speak of) has $15-20 HDMI cables - just don't go to their AV section. For some odd reason, they have a better selection of cables over in their electronics section, near the security camera stuff. It makes no sense to me. I even found the *SAME* cable (same company, barcode and everything!) over there for $20, while the AV section sold it for $60! And in the same store! It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, but if you have a Frys near you, only go to the electronics section - avoid the A/V section entirely.

Also, a quick check on google came up with this site: http://www.optimization-world.com/products/catid/2 .html - 3' HDMI cable for $15, 6' for $20, free shipping.

But there's another store near me, just off Lawrence Expressway in Sunnyvale, where all those little stores and restaurants are. I don't remember the store's name, but it's right next to the Subway. They don't have a website, just cheap stuff. Bins full of component cables for $5 a set...

Avoid Best Buy and Circuit City - the store clerks will try to give you a song and dance about how much better their cables are, but really, the only difference you'll see is at the cash register.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[vbwilliams]

Yeah. Sony brand. Best Buy store. They're pretty much always $12.99 for 1.8 meter. Monster/Belkin/etc are always 3-4 times more than the same whitebox brand. I wired my newest system up 2 weeks ago for less than $700...all HDMI everywhere. At this point, my biggest gripe about HDMI (or any other connection) is the lack thereof on most receivers for the sheer number of them you need to properly put together a good system...not a top of the line system, but a good one.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[hobbesmaster]

$5.25 for 6 foot cable. See, order of magnitude price difference. The beauty of digital signals is that the signal is not going to be degraded over 6 feet in a home theater setting (or any others for that matter).

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Tack]

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).

One of my favorite discussions on this topic in some A/V forum (I no longer recall which) was an extremely long thread debating the quality merits of coax vs. toslink for digital audio. One person insisted that the sound produced from a coax connection was "warmer" and more pleasing than with toslink. Others insisted that optical provided crisper sound. The conversation had me in stitches.

The only plausible theory I could come up with was that those who actually were able to discern a difference were creating a ground loop by using coax -- but I really think that'd be hard to mistake for anything else. I think the more likely explanation is psychological: some of these people were trying desperately to justify spending $80 on a "quality" optical cable when a $0.99 RCA cable from the pawn shop would have done just as well.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Malc]

$2.75 or even less for 6ft/2m cable on Amazon

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[DrXym]

Monoprice.com or any eBay seller will sell you a 6ft cable for under $6. HDMI cabling is dirt cheap assuming you don't buy the branded models.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[DrXym]

As stated you don't have to spend $90. You can easily find cables for far less on eBay or Monoprice or countless other places. As for analogue being better, I don't see anything you say to support that. Sure, a device might have a busted HDMI implementation, but otherwise it's highly likely that it would deliver the exact same signal via analogue or digital. Except analogue would degrade and digital wouldn't. Further, HDMI 1.3 supports so-called "deep" colour schemes where two capable devices can be transmitting up to 48bits per pixels.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[lkeagle]

When I moved away from college I somehow lost a box full of audio cables. I needed to hook up my stereo, but I couldn't find any of my fiber cables. My receiver did, however, have coaxial inputs as well. Luckily, I had read someone else's genius solution on a newsgroup a couple years prior. I simply unwound a metal coat hanger and shoved the unshielded, unterminated ends directly into the RCA jacks.

The only reason I ever replaced it was because I was worried about the bare wire accidentally touching the chassis of some other piece of equipment. That and it was a pretty ghetto solution...

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[siphoncolder]

I've seen 1080p movies displayed over both digital and analogue connections.

I see a great reason to use component: it's nearly just as good as makes no difference, and it's not evil.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[Spazmogazm]

I bought some very, very cheap HDMI cables at amazon. $10 for a 3 meter and $6 for 2 meter. The audio/video quality is great, and like my wife, I can't imagine the $80 cables improving on what I'm already seeing.

Re:As a manufacturer of Video Distribution

[mochan_s]

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.

A small counter-argument would be that all digital signals use error correcting codes. So, any errors that occur in the signal are corrected by the hardware on the receiving side. The only problem is that the error correcting procedure takes up lots of cpu cycle and energy.

So, you might end up spending money on extra electricity running an expensive error correcting algorithm on the digital signal.

Of course, I don't know about transmission of digital signals and how often bit errors happen in low quality signals.

Plus, in CD, if an error is un-recoverable, there is an algorithm to interpolate to the points where the data could not be fetched. I'm sure a similar method is specified for other forms of signals. So, this might lead to lower quality signal being displayed or played and the viewer or listen not consciously realizing it.

HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[rthille]

Are all dead to me. That's right, they skipped right past being put "on notice".

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:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[aichpvee]

How's that Chinese Hi-Def DVD looking? I assume they're not going to have any DRM, just like their current DVDs, right?

Re:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[blhack]

The unfortunate thing is that right now, you aren't the target market for the people making these devices. Their target is the type of people who call up a home theater architect and tell them that they don't care how much it costs, just to get it done. People like that don't really CARE about the DRM, because if they want another copy for the car/RV/cabin/kids bedroom, they just go out and buy it. Or when a new standard comes out, they assume that it must be somehow better, and thats why they go out and buy it again.

Re:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[rthille]

I'm not hurting myself, I just have more money to spend on things I _want_ to spend money on. Currently, _for_me_, the value isn't there, mostly because of the issues with DRM and competing standards.
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 server and get a HDTV projector (I'm done with moving large TVs, even flat ones). But until the content producers stop treating me like a criminal, especially when the true criminals have no trouble getting around the "protections", I'm just not interested.

Re:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[schnikies79]

Face it, a lot of people simply don't care about HDTV. They aren't hurting anyone, or themselves.

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?

Re:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't care about HDTV, then why are you responding to the article.

Re:HDMI, HD-DVD, and BluRay...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Watching Discovery HD, it feels like you are really there!

For the cost of some HDTVs, you really COULD go there.

I guess HDTVs are the new cell phones... something people show off with zero realization that no one gives a flying fuck.

You are only hurting your self.

I'm hurting myself because I'd rather retire early than spend $3000 on a fucking TeeVee? Man, you've bought the marketing line hook, line and sinker.

One Reason Why HDMI Was Invented

[segedunum]

There was one sole reason why HDMI was cobbled together, and that's because all sorts of executives were jumping up and down like jibbering idiots about, as they call it, the analogue hole. Yes, we all needed more bandwidth, but that just wasn't the primary reason.

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:One Reason Why HDMI Was Invented

[Cosmostrator]

$$$$$ = One Reason Why HDMI was Invented
Why let consumers use a cheap cable when they will pay $50 for a 3 foot cable. If you really believe all the BS about needing a fancy cable to transmit a high quality signal you need to look at what the studios making the content use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Digital_Interf ace#Standards SDI and HD-SDI are the formats that all new studio equipment uses. Both formats use standard BNC connectors and cables. Why? Because it's cheap and everyone already has lots of it. Consumers can't have it though since it doesn't support any kind of DRM.

Re:One Reason Why HDMI Was Invented

[raddan]

The irony about all the fuss over the "analog hole" is that many, if not most, pirated DVDs are probably made straight from the digital source. It has been trivial to bypass CSS for a long time, and it was what I'd consider to be "not difficult" to do even before libdvdcss was available.

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 among early adopters (who now have to ditch their HDTVs for no other reason than because their connectors don't match), which makes the hardware companies happy.

Coax?

[KG6]

I'm still learning all the different HD specs and standards, but why couldn't devices just modulate the signal onto an unused digital channel? The concept worked for VCRs, why not now? Aren't all ATSC compatible TV's supposed to be able to display all the different resolutions, thereby eliminating any compatibility issues?

Re:Coax?

[cnettel]

As long as the TV set supports the bandwidth and codec of the original bitstream of the video source, and you don't want any on-screen display or anything, that's OK. I think that covers the problems as well. In the analog world, the SD signal in coax was actually at least a bit similar to the "actual" video. It's a much larger step to go from an arbitrary frame buffer to a properly encoded digital signal.

Re:Coax?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Primarily because the new bluray and hd-dvd discs deliver better audio and video than hdtv. True, 1080p video can be delivered by a ATSC station, but in many cases, the video has lots of visible artifacts. The sound is better too-- atsc only supports dolby digital, while bluray and hd-dvd have lossless tracks.

RF was similarly inferior to composite video, but it was also cheap to implement. An atsc output would involve recompressing the video in to mpeg2, the audio into dolby digital, and so on. You'd end up running into exciting and new compatibility errors

In the early days, firewire was proposed as an alternative, though perhaps hollywood didn't like the comparatively week encryption. My first hdtv tuner had a set of firewire ports-- I hooked it up to my mac and used it as a digital VCR. Fun to play with, but not really straight forward.

Re:Coax?

[raxx7]

Because DVB/HDTV channels carry MPEG-2 encoded video and sound, while DVI/HDMI carry raw video.
There are two problem's with using DVB/HDTV as general interface between A/V devices.
First, you need to reencode non-MPEG-2 sources into MPEG-2, which requires a lot of computing power and incurrs in some quality loss.
Second, you're limited by HDTV quality and you still need a better interface to handle your BluRay/HD-DVD player.

The DRMintaor.

[Tackhead]

> Drop the DRM.

From TFA:

an HDMI or DVI signal is a real-time, one-way stream of pixels that doesn't stop, doesn't error-check, and doesn't repair its mistakes--it just runs and runs, regardless of what's happening at the other end of the signal chain.

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:The DRMintaor.

[magus_melchior]

As another commenter already posted in another thread, they don't even stop when you're dead.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[Opportunist]

Since you just described that it's not a sentient entity, it would be perfectly legal to kill it. So what's the matter?

Re:The DRMintaor.

[bockelboy]

an HDMI or DVI signal is a real-time, one-way stream of pixels that doesn't stop, doesn't error-check, and doesn't repair its mistakes--it just runs and runs, regardless of what's happening at the other end of the signal chain.

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 wikipedia article:

The transmitter incorporates an advanced coding algorithm which has reduced electromagnetic interference over copper cables and enables robust clock recovery at the receiver to achieve high skew tolerance for driving longer cable lengths as well as shorter low cost cables.

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!
I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes that were made when designing HDMI. However, there's low adoption rate because there's a small number of HDTVs, the consumers aren't educated, and the cables are extremely costly. I think that might be the problem more than the fact that HDMI is made of twisted-pair cables.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes that were made when designing HDMI. However, there's low adoption rate because there's a small number of HDTVs, the consumers aren't educated, and the cables are extremely costly. I think that might be the problem more than the fact that HDMI is made of twisted-pair cables. I'd say the low adoption rate is because the customers (not "consumers") *are* educated. Cost? See other posts in this thread, not an issue -- some people are getting them for like $3 or less. But, the real problems with HDMI are a) reliability b) rights restrictions. Oh and c) the "good enough" factor.

          Reliability -- they talk about this in the article, mentioning quite simply that the signalling and cabling system used is not that robust; future revisions (HDMI 1.3) are less robust, simpling running higher data rates over the same cable.

          Rights restrictions. HDMI is really just DVI with audio built in, with rights restrictions slapped on. Plenty of people do decide just not to bother when they hear how much trouble the industry has gone to to try to restrict how they can use their own equipment. And it REALLY doesn't make people want to get HDMI when they hear about the combination of these two problems -- the cases where HDMI is unreliable *because* of malfunctions in the rights restriction system it uses.

          "Good enough". This really is why many people haven't gotten HDTVs to begin with.. I don't have a TV because I use mythtv, and I have no interest in watching my shows in high def. A lot of people with TVs have no interest either. And for people that DO have high def and already use component cabling, plenty will keep it.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine game, we'll see who rusts first.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[Vampyre_Dark]

Your coaxial cables, RCA jacks, rabbit ears, turntable needle, and etc didn't do error checking either. It's a closed connection. You probably lose a few pixels every billion, not really a big deal. It's just a video stream. Nothing 'important'.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[UncleTogie]

You probably lose a few pixels every billion, not really a big deal.
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:The DRMintaor.

[Vampyre_Dark]

I suffer from that as well on my dish, but it takes a heavy rain or snowfall completely covered the dish to drop seconds of signal. The signal source from the HDMI device, such as a blue ray player is already being error corrected as it is read off the disc. Why do it twice?

For all you guys know, you were getting the same signal, but the digital box's error correction was messing up because of the fuzz. You see a little bit of fuzz because the analog just takes it as it comes, no checking is done, and the fuzz is the result of the bad parts of the signal.

The fuzz is handled differently on the digital box, and it gets dropped. Static on analog shows up as snowy fuzz. 'Static' on digital shows up as dropped frames, or a messed up picture with bad 'blocks' of the image until a keyframe comes to fix it all up. The digital stuff works like mpeg, and has to recover from that, while the analog just keeps getting full frames.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[letxa2000]

You actually got captioning? We got a new 46" Bravia LCD TV and I got an HDMI cable to connect between the cable converter box and the TV. We got no closed captioning at all. I did some Googling and apparently that's a common problem. I promptly returned the over-priced HDMI cable and we went back to the standard AV cables where the HD image looks fine to me and we get closed captioning.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[Tim Browse]

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.

[siphoncolder]

Listen and understand. Don't buy shit with HDMI. Don't buy HDMI cables. Don't buy shit that doesn't allow any other form of high-quality I/O than HDMI.

You might say it's unreasonable to have to do without, or to wait for shit that WILL allow you to bypass HDMI.

Well, THINK before you spend 2+ grand! I did, and I realized: I don't need high-def, and it's not worth supporting something so evil.

Seriously. Fucking do without.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[vbraga]

You must be new here.

Re:The DRMintaor.

[UncleTogie]

...We got no closed captioning at all.
Wow. I've not run into that yet, and while I used to think the FCC would do something about it, I found otherwise. With a few exceptions, everything's supposed to be captioned by law. In reality, many channels won't broadcast them properly, with the Turner networks being the worst; TNT has around a 30%-40% captioning rate.

When I say "properly", I mean no "garbling", more verbatim captioning {some jokes/plot points are lost otherwise}, and more accountability for those who don't. As mentioned earlier, I tried to lodge a complaint vs. Kworld/V-Stream concerning one of their {admittedly cheaper} TV cards. Captioning was unavailable, they said when I emailed them. They maintained the hardware couldn't support it, as opposed to tweaking their TV app. As every TV since 1987 has, once again by law, been mandated to allow closed captioning, I asked them to implement CC with this in mind. No dice. The FCC rep, Jenifer Simpson, took months to "handle" this, saying finally that the FCC didn't think they should do anything. Kworld/V-Stream {same company} is still selling products to this day without captioning capability.

I'm not playing the "poor me" game; I went out and bought another brand TV card. Just remember, the fact that you can't see captioning doesn't necessarily mean your setup's wrong. Many channels stop captioning {and are allowed to} around 11-12 midnight. If you set it to CC1 {not CC2 or Teletext}, try news channels or any movie with the [CC] logo.

Side note: This is jus' for the USA, I'm not sure of the laws in other countries.

The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[rollingcalf]

The HDCP copy protection crap is what causes HDMI devices to have trouble communicating with each other, especially if there is anything between the source and display devices, like an A/V receiver or HDMI switch box.

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:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[cyclocommuter]

In addition to HDCP the problem with the new digital connectors (HDMI and even the older DVI) is that, unlike analog component or S-Video inputs, you could not use them in "pass through" mode. In my case, I am still lucky that most of my sources still sport analog outputs. That means I could still connect, say the Cable box to my Slingbox and stream content to my PC, at the same time the HDTV is still connected, via a passthrough, to the Cable box. This allows watching the HDTV and streaming video to the LAN or Internet simultaneously.

In the future I suspect these STBs will only have digital outputs and HDCP will make sure that you could only use one output at a time.

Re:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[Stripe7]

At one point the US government severely restricted the import/export sales of any kind of encryption hardware/software. I guess they must have decided that money talks and selling that technology, in fact having China manufacture most of it is now no longer a threat. I am surprised the encryption hardware used in these devices are not cataloged as munitions by the US government.

Re:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[eggoeater]

I would say HDCP is a far far bigger problem than HDMI for two reasons:
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 able to negotiate with each other. The consumer is left with expensive equipment that doesn't work and the manufacturer can point fingers at each other. And if you're doing all this on a computer it's far worse: the monitor, video card, and HD-DVD ROM all have to work together perfectly. Oh and you better have the right drivers on the right OS. Yeah, good luck.


BTW, Doesn't DVI support HDCP too?

My Mom bought a 52" rear-projection TV about 3 years ago and it has a DVI connector on the back. No HDMI.

I don't own a hd-dvd/blueray player so I haven't tried pushing a HDCP enabled signal to it, but I do have a HDMI to DVI cable that's hooked up to the cable box. (That cost $22 at WalMart.)

Re:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[amuro98]

Nothing new here... Companies have been treating their customers like thieves for decades. Meanwhile, the REAL thieves just go on their daily business oblivious to any sort of DRM or copy protection that the companies inflict on their legitimate customers.]

It's pretty much a given that things are only going to get worse before they get better.

Re:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[mr_zorg]

At one point the US government severely restricted the import/export sales of any kind of encryption hardware/software. I guess they must have decided that money talks and selling that technology, in fact having China manufacture most of it is now no longer a threat. I am surprised the encryption hardware used in these devices are not cataloged as munitions by the US government.

Those restrictions were largely removed 10 years ago.

Re:The real problem with HDMI is HDCP

[Malc]

BTW, Doesn't DVI support HDCP too?

Yes. There's a very nice BenQ 24" monitor on the market that does HDCP over both a DVI and an HDMI input. What do most HDCP capable graphics cards use for output - DVI or HDMI? I'm guessing the former. And you can use an DVI->HDMI adapter if you need to.

Answer: Joe Sixpack

[mymaxx]

This way Joe Sixpack can go to BestBuy, pick out an overpriced TV, pay for an overpriced HDMI cable, overpriced DVD player and connect them with only one cable. Plus, the BestBuy flunky will tell him that he should buy another overpriced HDMI cable so he can connect his cable/satellite receiver for "high definition" to the TV. But wait, the flunky will now suggest that he buy the Monster connection kit for $150-200 so he gets all of the cables he could possibly need.

So many people use the TV's speakers for audio (my ears hurt just saying this) that for them, it makes sense to have one cable to connect the DVD player and one cable to connect the receiver.

Re:Answer: Joe Sixpack

[windex82]

>>he Monster connection kit for $150-200 so he gets all of the cables he could possi

never! The guy will be selling you these HDMI cables.. and better yet, TWO of the MFs! Then you need the surge protector. Anything major should definitely be protected but for that price one could do much better.

No way are they selling a all in one kit for $200 when they can hook you with this. Sit and watch what else people end up buying when they go in ill prepared.

Re:Answer: Joe Sixpack

[Tim Browse]

The guy will be selling you these HDMI cables

From the description:

High-density polyethylene insulator for impedance control and reduction of video ghosting

Priceless. How do they even get away with that?

Re:Answer: Joe Sixpack

[windex82]

I went in for an OPTICAL audio cable the other day and they guy was convinced the ones with gold plated connectors would do a better job then the non-gold plated ones. I firmly believe it was not just an attempt at an up sale either, he honestly believed the gold would somehow help with an optical medium.

Component interoperability is better

[kherr]

Since I have an older HDTV with component inputs I've stayed in that world, avoiding HDMI. Boy am I glad I did, it sounds like an interoperability nightmare. I've particularly seen it with the Apple TV, where many people have problems hooking it up via HDMI to various TVs. I've personally had no problem using component and have not seen anyone complain about problems with component on the Apple TV forums. HDMI might be better on paper, but in the real world HDCP (or something) has made HDMI a real frustrating mess for consumers.

Re:Component interoperability is better

[fyngyrz]

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:Component interoperability is better

[fyngyrz]

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:Component interoperability is better

[Akaihiryuu]

I bet that's an intentional limitation in the player itself (which is software based). Hasn't happened yet, but someone will put out a mod to enable full resolution over component eventually. It'll be right up there priority-wise with mods to disable region coding.

Typical slashdot.

[ichigo 2.0]

TFA states that the reason HDMI sucks is that it was based on the DVI standard. Then the summary goes on to say that "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." In addition, this whole article is pretty much about why twisted pair sucks for long cable runs compared to coaxial, and in the end of the article they advertise their new HDMI-cable whose pairs are molded together instead of just twisted together.

Let the jokes commence!

Re:Typical slashdot.

[strider44]

What on earth are you talking about? "Reach back to the DVI standard" probably isn't a good way of saying it, but they do cover the failings of the DVI standard and note how HDMI totally failed to avoid them. I also can't find anywhere that mentions a relationship between audioholics and belden or the author and belden apart from the review that was mentioned in the article...

Re:Typical slashdot.

[ichigo 2.0]

"Reach back to the DVI standard" probably isn't a good way of saying it, but they do cover the failings of the DVI standard and note how HDMI totally failed to avoid them.

My critique is of the summary, not of the article. The summary claims that the article looks to the DVI standard for ways to improve HDMI, when the article and you state otherwise.

I also can't find anywhere that mentions a relationship between audioholics and belden or the author and belden apart from the review that was mentioned in the article...

FTA:

Beginning in 2005, we consulted with Belden on construction of such a cable for use in HDMI applications and in 2006, Belden built a series of sample reels of cable for us in its engineering lab. Our in-use testing has shown the cable working at 100 feet (quite likely more; there are some limitations imposed by our testing setup) at ordinary high-definition resolutions (720p, 1080i) and up to 180 feet at 480p. Electrical tests of the cable indicate that it should be good for 1080p at a greater distance than any cable currently on the market. The cable has been ordered for full-scale production and should be available on our site sometime in the first half of 2007 (we're guessing April or May; but that's a bit tentative).

Re:Typical slashdot.

[Stavr0]

Let me get this straight:
TFA states that the reason HDMI sucks is that it was based on the DVI standard.

In other words, they are complaining that the china in the shop is made with material that is too fragile, but they've failed to notice the elephant.

Just to make reaaaally sure I'm not spouting nonsense I went back to the TFA, and looked for the string HDCP using three different search algorithms, and none were found.

It's the elephant, stupid. (Not you, audioholics. Sheesh.)

HDCP

[Stavr0]

See subject for answer.

Re:HDCP

[Stavr0]

-1, redundant.

The problem is...

[Cadallin]

HDMI was not designed as a solution to an engineering problem. It was designed as an anti-consumer technology in the first place. Which is the entire problem. HDMI was designed from the ground up to be a DRM crippled interconnect. This gives rise to a number of paradoxes about the connection.

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.

Re:The problem is...

[Malc]

HDMI was not designed as a solution to an engineering problem. It was designed as an anti-consumer technology in the first place

Oh for fucksake, how much more of this inane bollocks do I have to read with this story? There is so much ignorance amongst /.ers about this. Go and read about HDCP, which is compatible with both DVI and HDMI. HDMI was engineered to be consumer friendly by carrying a DVI video signal (or at least backwardly compatible with it) and digital audio signal through one cable. It's so much easier to hook it up than the older alternatives.

Re:The problem is...

[Cadallin]

Then were was the demand for it? There were plenty of extant interconnects on the scene when HDMI arrived. What is so hard about connecting a digital coax or TOS-link cable? HDMI offers no advantages over any of the preexisting standards, and far more compatibility issues. I will say again, it is asinine to have audio and video in the same cable, because those signals should be going to different places anyway!

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us don't see a need for "some decent speakers" when we don't notice or care for the quality difference in audio - I never really noticed a difference between 96 kbit and wave music without actively searching for it, so why should internal speakers in a TV (which are at least better than laptop/computer monitor speakers) bother me?

Re:The problem is...

[r_jensen11]

What is so hard about connecting a digital coax or TOS-link cable?

HDMI allows you to have a higher bit-rate audio stream. With TOS-link, you can't even have 5 uncompressed channels, only 2. Where are the 6 other uncompressed channels going to come from for people with 7.1 systems?

Re:The problem is...

[Malc]

Switch HDMI to DVI, and would you be complaining the same way? Seems to be an inane /. prejudice against HDMI. And yes, they all go to the same device: the receiver. But, there's no reason why you have to do that. You can just use it as a DVI (maybe not quite correct, but I'm saying that to emphasise my point) cable to the TV and still run your audio over coax to the receiver, if you want. In fact I do this with one of my Blu-ray players. I couldn't care less if I had a DVI or HDMI cable at that point. Better than the clunky analogue component cable which is hard to see which connector goes where in the low light conditions behind the equipment. Nah: HDMI is easiest and most convenient.

TOS is really a load of toss. I see no benefit to that compared to coax. In fact it's worse. I tried running an optical switch for a while because my receiver didn't have enough optical inputs. Most of the devices wouldn't work with it. Bought a cheap RCA switch (not an over-priced audio switch) and use the digital coax through the video line on that (arbitrary: could just as easily chosen one of the left or right audio). Presumably with coax too, you can get away just using el-cheapo RCA cables. The connectors are the same.

Re:The problem is...

[revengebomber]

I'm using the built-in speakers on my $999.99 tv. Thank god for the penny!

There is an alternative!

[greks1966]

There is an alternative: it is called Display Port. Check it out: http://www.gnss.com/tch_display_port.phtml

Re:There is an alternative!

[Anonymous Coward]

But is it twist or coaxial?

Also, the Linux Way...

[DrYak]

personally i would prefer a communication standard so the TV could tell the amp to lower or raise volume

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 wireless indoor video relay, etc.) needs to control some box (satellite decoder) for which there's no standard control protocol, it'll emit the corresponding signal on it's infra red emitter, so the device will react as if you were using a remote.

It's a bit of a hack, but until manufacturer standardize on something, that's the only method.

So does cable quality matter?

[AlpineR]

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 -- my TV has two HDMI inputs but I don't have any HDMI sources. To my surprise the new HD cable box only has component, S-Video, and Firewire outputs. I'm still using a regular DVD player connected by S-Video, and my HD antenna is regular old rabbit ears and coaxial cable.

I'd love to be able use the TV as a second display for my MacBook Pro, but it only has DVI output. I think there are DVI to HDMI converters (seems simple, according to the article), but DVI doesn't carry audio. So I'd need to plug in another cable for audio, run it along with the DVI cable to a DVI+audio to HDMI converter box, and then run HDMI across the room. Yuk.

AlpineR

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[DrXym]

Cable quality matters in so far as a cable must meet its technical requirements. But all HDMI cables do meet their requirements. Most HDMI cables under 6ft would even do 1080p with no trouble. A $6 HDMI cable does exactly the same job as a $100 monster cable. Bits are bits. The data either gets from one end to the other or it doesnt.

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 / USB / DVI-D cables and does't get the irony. The only difference from going cheap is you have $94 in change to spend on disks, games, beer or whatever. Monster cables are a rip-off. You could buy more than 10 generic cables for the price of one Monster cable on the internet.

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[Todd Knarr]

Well, cable quality matters and it doesn't. The "doesn't" part comes from the fact that it's a digital signal. Either it gets to the other end sufficiently intact to be decipherable or it doesn't. If it does, you get a 100% accurate reproduction of the input signal. As long as the signal is above that threshold, it doesn't matter how far above it it is.

The "does" part comes from the corollary: if the signal isn't decipherable, you get nothing. Analog signals degrade gracefully: as signal quality goes down you get more and more snow and other artifacts, but it's a smooth loss. Digital like HDMI is binary, all or nothing. You go from getting a perfect picture to getting a black screen. The higher the quality of cable, the fewer problems you have that drag the signal down below the threshold for readability. That's especially important on long cable runs where simple distance is already pulling the signal down close to the threshold. When you're close to the maximum distance, a high-quality cable can mean the difference between getting a signal and not.

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[Charcharodon]

You can pick up a DVI to HDMI cable just about anywhere for under $30. I'm running a PC on a 40inch Samsung 720p LCD tv. It is high enough resolution to surf the web on. Looks pretty decent, but unlike computer monitors the TV still play the ol CRT game of where the tube is partially covered up by the case, so you might have to run it one resolution lower so that everything ends up visible. Don't buy into 1080i being better than 720p. It may be technically a higher resolution, but computer displays look like crap on it. Too much flicker. Stick with either 720p or 1080p. Also don't be fooled that TV's have completely caught up with monitors. All things being equal computer monitors have better response times and better picture quality. If I could have done it over again, I would have just bought a 30" computer monitor instead of the 40" TV. Don't get me wrong, I like my TV alot, but a computer monitor it is not, so using it as such is somewhat of a compromise in quality.

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[daverabbitz]

No.

SPDIF and HDMI are PCM and pumped-pixel protocols, respectively, and they actually both tolerate a reasonable amount of signal degradation. Also both protocols have no error-correction, and you will see "sparklies" if your HDMI cable is introducing errors, where certain pixels are being corrupt, or if the cable is really fucked you will get weird pixel skew or the TV will sense that the signal is hosed and give up.

SPDIF is fairly conservative and you would have to use pretty crap/long cables before the bit-error-rate reached a point where you would even notice it, on the hand HDMI is very tight and damaged or crap cables will show errors on even short lengths of cable.

With compressed and error-corrected protocols such as DVB and SDI, what you have said is closer to the truth, as the signal errors will be corrected by the ECC and will not be noticed until enough errors are present that ECC cannot be used, at which point the equipment will start displaying weird garbage or the device will display a signal fault.

All digital signal pathways have a bit-error-rate and most protocols are designed to be tolerant to a certain level, in the case of HDMI, the standard is designed that conformant cables will result in a low enough BER, that any errors will be imperceptable, and as it is uncompressed, the worst case scenario of a single bit error would be a dropped frame, and the more likely result would be a single bright pixel.

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[lightversusdark]

I opted for a Mac Mini over an AppleTV when rebuilding my home entertainment setup.
Although the AppleTV has HDMI, component etc., it isn't fast enough to run the emulators I primarily want it for.

The Mac Mini has DVI video out, and the audio I/O is on combination optical digital/analog minijacks. The optical output is converted to co-axial S/PDIF using a M-Audio CO2, and the DVI and S/PDIF are combined into a HDMI signal using a Gefen adapter.
The same connectivity is available on your MacBook Pro, but it is a kludge, and the audio and DVI are on opposite sides so it's not very neat.

As someone points out below, this was supposed to be part of the promise of Firewire - but just like MLAN, it didn't deliver. And yeah, the only difference between modern "consumer" and "professional" connectors is DRM support.

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't. Or at least, mine doesn't.

It's true that broadcast (even digital) TV signals need to be cropped, because the edges tend to be unsightly (as they're not designed to show on CRT displays, which overscan), but the modes designed for TV scale up to take care of that. The full LCD resolution is still available for computer applications.

If your TV is overscanning, even when connected to a computer, there's probably a setting somewhere that's set wrong. TV manufacturers gain nothing by masking off portions of an LCD, unlike a CRT (where it's pretty much required to get an edge-to-edge picture). After all, they could just charge you more for the superior quality of removing a couple inches of plastic bezel, couldn't they?

Re:So does cable quality matter?

[Charcharodon]

Thanks for the tip, I'll have to break down and actually read the manual and see if I can find it.

Read a book, asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your woman to a picknick, climb a mountain, go paragliding, attend a lecture with an aftertalk, go kayaking with a Nobel laureate...

Just don't be stuck in front of your high-def tube.

cheap solution

[bhawbaker]

DVI, audio cables and scotch tape or velcro straps
follows all known existing standards

more consumer-friendly?

[nurb432]

Has any digital product in the last 10 years been designed to be 'consumer-friendly'?

Did you just beam in from outerspace or something?

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[AnalogDiehard]

Has any digital product in the last 10 years been designed to be 'consumer-friendly'?

The iPod...?

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[nurb432]

Itunes was DRMized from day one, and MP3 was only offered as a suppored format as no one would buy it otherwise.

Try again?

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[Opportunist]

Linux Distributions? They got more and more consumer friendly with every incarnation. When I think back to the mid-90s distris...

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[Farmer Tim]

Itunes was DRMized from day one

If by "day one" you mean version 4 or later, you'd be right. But since the iPod was introduced nearly two years before both iTMS and DRM'd AAC, it's clear you aren't aware of (or choose to ignore because it's contrary to your argument) the actual development history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_version_histor y

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[nurb432]

Not sure id consider them a 'product' in the spirit of the discussion.

Re:more consumer-friendly?

[Opportunist]

Linux itself isn't. Linux all by itself is pretty much nothing but a real lot of various computer programs, one of them being, almost by accident, a kernel.

Unless you know how to put the parts together yourself, you need someone to act as the "glue" between all those pieces. And here's where the distris come into play. Basically, what a distribution is, is the "glue" between the different pieces, a fair lot of scripts and helper programs.

Personally, I do consider that a product.

If something has to be "tangible" to be called a product, you're right, the air's getting quite thin.

Consumer this, consumer that

[noidentity]

I've had enough with this generic term "consumer". In this case, "listener" or "audio enthusiast" would be more descriptive and suggestive of a person on the receiving end. In other contexts, "customer" and "buyer" are improvements.

Re:Consumer this, consumer that

[TeknoHog]

This reminds me of SDI 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.

Re:Consumer this, consumer that

[sxpert]

then consumers need to start buying pro-hardware...
the demand would make the prices drop like flies :D

Re:Consumer this, consumer that

[Mattintosh]

Not necessarily. There are noticeable differences in price between pro audio gear and "audiophile" audio gear. Pro gear is technically superior, more flexible, more powerful, and cheaper. Audiophile gear has gold connectors and blue LED's on the front and the prices are anywhere from double to quadruple that of similar pro gear.

Examples?

Power amp: McIntosh MC602 vs. Yamaha P7000S.

$8000 (Source) vs. $700 (Source)

The former is undoubtedly a nice amp. 600W x 2 channels. Fancy-looking VU's on the front, gold-plated connectors, and a recognized name make this a "must have" for the audiophile with more money than sense (and his neighbor, who now has to keep up with that Jones guy next door...). And on a more substantial note, it has balanced inputs, a feature you don't often see on gear meant for non-pros, and it's a feature that can make a meaningful difference in audio quality.

The latter is nicer. 1100W x 2 channels or 2000W x 1 channel, a pro-level class-A amp circuit, a multitude of options for configuration, and the ability to buy 11 of them for the same price as the other amp and still have $300 left for cables 'n' stuff (or pizza for all the nights you'll spend hooking 11 amps up). Things like balanced inputs are a given on this type of gear. VU's are left out, since pros generally like to have the VU's on the console and stuff the amp in a rack somewhere out of sight. There's still a "peak" indicator, just in case.

I'd be worried more about pro-gear getting the gouge-em-for-all-they-have reputation of audiophile gear. Which would suck, because as it stands, I can keep up with the Joneses (so to speak) for a fraction of what "they" spend. Hell, I can usually afford enough power to melt "the Joneses'" walls from 1000 feet away.

Re:Consumer this, consumer that

[sxpert]

I was thinking of pro level VCR's for instance :D

http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/ShowProduct.action ?product=SRW-5800&site=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview &category=HDCAMSRVTRs

It doesn't preclude reading... Or dick-waving.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, it was just a troll post, but come on. :)

Fiber

[markdavis]

The simple fact is that the ONLY choice for HD digital video transmission SHOULD have been fiber optic:

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??

Re:Fiber

[larien]

Quick gripe - fibre has resistance of a sort. The signal strength (i.e. brightness of light) will deteriorate over distance. It'll probably still be a "cleaner" signal over the same distance, but saying it has no resistance is false.

Also, you're probably underestimating the clumsiness of the typical consumer. Consumers will bend, kink and otherwise break fibre leads because they're used to being able to do that with almost complete impunity on copper wires. Hell, I'd probably break them and I know that they're more fragile.

Re:Fiber

[MetaDFF]

From a technical standpoint I would agree that fiber is far more superior, but from an economic standpoint it does not make much sense. The consumer electronic market is extremely price sensitive. Adding optical components will add expensive and unnecessary costs to the final product, which could be avoided by just using a piece of copper as the cabling and living with its impairments.
At minimum you would need to add an optical transmitter like an LED or LASER, and a photodetector at the receiver. Both of these components are relatively expensive as they are made exotic III-IV materials. This means they they can't be integrated with the rest of the CMOS display driver electronics, and must reside as a separate chip. The more chips that need to be put on a board the more expensive the product becomes.
Optical cabling would make sense in high-end products where the consumer is willing to pay extra for it, but for the masses, the lower the price the better.

Re:Fiber

[Slite01]

I completely agree... I was totally unhappy when fiber audio started being phased out... And it makes sense that if they could do it for audio, that the next progression would be a separate fiber for video, and then putting those channels together. The connectors and components already exist, and are pretty cheap now. And fiber is pretty thin compared to today's copper type cables, so cable management would be simplified. An excellent suggestion to the industry...

Re:Fiber

[Slite01]

True about the treatment of the cables... No way around that. But we are talking distances of audio / video components which are usually in the same entertainment center. Lengths are not that much of an issue I would guess. The only think I can think of that would be is a projector that is mounted at the back of the room, but hopefully 802.11N will take up the slack on that and it could be converted back to whatever interface back at the receiver.

Re:Fiber

[markdavis]

>Quick gripe - fibre has resistance of a sort. The signal strength

True, but over the distances we are talking about (typical cable 6-8feet, long cable Consumers will bend, kink and otherwise break fibre leads

Also true, but wind it in something a little more robust and trade ultra-thinness for a lot more kink-resistance and there you go. I have always been VERY afraid of fiber damage, but in over a decade of working with it (even in hostile environments with VERY flimsy cables) I haven't had any fail.

Of course I say that, and now Monday one will get broken :)

Re:Fiber

[markdavis]

>Quick gripe - fibre has resistance of a sort. The signal strength

True, but over the distances we are talking about (typical cable 6-8feet, long cable Consumers will bend, kink and otherwise break fibre leads
-----------

oops, I had a paste mistake... try 2

>Quick gripe - fibre has resistance of a sort. The signal strength

True, but over the distances we are talking about (typical cable 6-8feet, long cable Consumers will bend, kink and otherwise break fibre leads

(see posting above).

Re:Fiber

[markdavis]

I give up, obviously it won't allow me to type and paste the way I want! "My bad" for not previewing first. You get the idea, though :)

Re:Fiber

[markdavis]

I think you are overestimating how expensive fiber components are. I am going to guess that the connectors and associated electronics to support HDMI are more expensive than what is necessary for fiber.

Almost every reasonable DVD player has fiber for audio. All mid/high-end recievers have fiber for audio. Doesn't have to be laser based for shorter ( under 100 feet) runs (although I don't know the exact length limits).

Re:Fiber

[Skapare]

5) Impedance: fiber has none

Yes it does. It's called refractive index. And it can be more severe in fiber than in metallic.

Impedance or refractive index is an issue at junction points where there could be a sudden change in that impedance or refractive index, with also a sudden change back to the original impedance or refractive index. This can cause reflections resulting in signal loss and distortion.

But despite that, I do agree that fiber is overall the better choice, although I could live well with a single coax rated to 6 GHz with SMA connectors. The DVI and HDMI connectors and cable bundles are absolutely nuts.

Re:Fiber

[Anonymous Coward]

> Right- make the connector IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to ever make their own or repair

While I fully agree that the standard A/V cable should be fiber, this doesn't exactly count as an argument why it's better than HDMI.

Re:Fiber

[minorproblem]

You make some good points just though i would point out a few mistakes. Light is still an electromagnetic wave just like your 50 or 60Hz power system as such it still suffers from: 2) Resistance: fiber has none Fiber has resistance 3) Skin effect: fiber has none If you make the cable thin enough it would in fact have a skin effect, although cables we currently use don't suffer from this. 4) Capacitance: fiber has none 7) Inductance: fiber has none Have you heard of refractive index The main difference is that the bandwidth that is available in a fiber optic cable can easily carry the information in a 1080p signal, so it wont reach its limit and suffer from ISI or other problems.

Re:Fiber

[evilviper]

Fiber-optic is a non-starter. It has to be carefully routed, as any even remotely sharp-bends will render it useless. In just about any media cabinet, that's exactly what you'll see. You'd need some major wire management systems to prevent that kind of pulling 90 degree turns, through the nearest hole.

HDMI/DVI cables are very simple, and very cheap. Figure about $1/foot. It's cheaper than any fiber-optic cables +connectors you'll find. Of course there will always be stores that will rip you off every way they can. But switching to fiber optic wouldn't change that. If anything, it would make matters worse, since there's fewer manufacturers of fiber vs copper, and easier to monopolize the market.

Re:Fiber

[hxnwix]

Dust and grime on connector ends and inside ports tends to foul high bandwidth fiber connections such as you describe. In my experience, this is fiber's most significant drawback: dust mites shouldn't bring down your gigabit ethernet link, but they will...

Or at least they did mine before I upgraded to copper and ebayed all of my optical ethernet gear. This brings me to my point - why in the fuck can't we pipe this stuff over ethernet? The medium is irrelevant. Chop your stream into frames, ship it out... done & done.

*sigh* but that would cost slightly more and be worth it. Better to reinvent the wheel in a more consumer-friendly squarish shape...

Re:Fiber

[samael]

You can't do it over ethernet because it's moving about 1.4GB/s of data.

Re:Fiber

[renoX]

I disagree, AFAIK fiber doesn't bend as easily as normal cables so people would complain.

No what should have been used is Ethernet cables rated for 10Gb/s.

Re:Fiber

[hxnwix]

Right - and because there's no such thing as 10gbit ethernet.

Re:Fiber

[samael]

And at $3000 for a couple of ports that's going to be a _really_ popular connection method.

Re:Fiber

[hxnwix]

On the off chance that you're being cynical because you don't know better, I'd like to provide you with some info:

AoE provides a strong technical precedent for VoE. It addresses the latency and transceiver cost issues. Bandwidth remains a problem for high res applications, but you would do well to remember that ethernet bandwidth has increased ten thousand fold - FOUR orders of magnitude - since its inception.

The resolution of the human eye is constant; ethernet will eventually provide enough bandwidth - unless you are fucking blind. Can't help you there...

Re:Fiber

[samael]

I'm not saying that VoE won't _eventually_ be there. I'm saying that right now it's not nearly high bandwidth enough at anything like a reasonable price. Until it can compete with HDMI on price it's not going to catch on.

A nice, inexpensive $400 remote

[AlpineR]

You, sir, are insane (as well as inane). I'm a little bit annoyed by the remote that came with my new HDTV; it's big and clunky. I can change channels, switch inputs, and control volume with my cable remote, but I need the HDTV remote to change view mode (zoom/no zoom), menu options, and set the sleep timer. I thought it'd be nice to get a universal remote that could handle everything.

So I looked up the MX-900 you recommended. $399 ?! And the MX-3000 is $599 ?! Wow. You can get 720p HDTVs for $800. Those remotes are cRrAaAzZy.

Re:A nice, inexpensive $400 remote

[Em Adespoton]

For those prices you can buy a PDA and use it to control everything -- including programming in all sorts of smart macros. Any remote that costs more than $80 had better be able to do a lot more than send/receive IR/Radio signals.

Re:A nice, inexpensive $400 remote

[whoop]

No, lookup JP1 remotes. One can be had for $40, like the URC9910, with an RF repeater box to control stuff from anywhere in the house. Then it can be completely reprogrammed with free tools from that site (hifiremote.com or something) to control whatever you want, however you want. One of my favorite macros is to hold the device keys (DVD, VCR, etc) to automatically tune the TV, receiver to the right inputs, navigate the menus, and exit out so you're ready to watch.

Re:A nice, inexpensive $400 remote

[Lumpy]

Insane? well if you count my $30,000 home theater and my $4500 whole house audio system a remote that works perfectly every time for a mere $500.00 is a pittance. Many nut-cases pay $1000.00 for a remote control, I prefer to spend it on a real projector (Sharp ultravision 6000 lumen 1080p rocks!) real draper screen and good gear and speakers.

so yup, I am insane. and certianly inane. But I make my money int he biz and have tried every single remote out there and the MX900 is the absolute best there is. it works with my Crestron processor and my Adagio AES whole house audio perfectly as well. every person that is not doing a low budget self built theater chooses that remote and likes it a lot. It has a wife acceptance factor that is way WAY above anything else. (even over the crestron tcmp-8x at $5200.00)

you may not be able to afford it, but a professional that does not want to be nagged by his wife certianly does.

having a button that says "watch DVD" that can tell if the system is off or on and if off turn everything on, set it all up for DVD and even start the DVD that is in the player is worth every penny these executives and sports figures spend. and they cherish that $500.00 remote.

you are simply not anywhere in the income range to afford that remote. but it still makes it far better than the pronto or harmony. the RF discreet port capability alone makes it awesome over anything else.

BTW, that remote is inexpensive compared to the other stuff in it's class out there.

Re:A nice, inexpensive $400 remote

[GizmoToy]

having a button that says "watch DVD" that can tell if the system is off or on and if off turn everything on, set it all up for DVD and even start the DVD that is in the player is worth every penny these executives and sports figures spend. and they cherish that $500.00 remote.

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 theater.

SDI

[Detritus]

The solution for all these problems already exists. It's called the Serial Digital Interface. It's simple, cheap, and works over a single high-quality coax cable. It's used in professional video applications like television production and broadcasting. It doesn't do DRM, which I consider a feature. If you need to make a cable, just buy some Belden 1694A and a pair of 75-ohm BNC connectors.

Re:SDI

[Overzeetop]

That would be awesome, but there need to be good "converters". The ability to leverage the RG-6 in my walls would be a wecome relief to the troublesome fishing of 100' of cable that's as thick as my thumb and can't have a connector field crimped.

Of course, for maximum flexibility, what I'd prefer is a consumer-priced MPEG2 encoder/modulator so I could add all my component channels on my local cctv system just like I do with SD video right now. SDI would be snazzy, but would require some pretty expensive nxm switching gear in the basement.

Re:SDI

[Skapare]

SDI would be great for us. But that still leaves those who are wanting to run video from their DR(ain ba)M(aged) HD-DVD players to their DR(ain ba)M(aged) HD display monitors having to use one of the stupidest designs ever (aside from the DRM itself). The content industry simply won't go for it unless it supports DRM.

The very concept of SDI doesn't preclude using DRM. Just crank up the bit rate a it, encrypt the content, and include a few places in the format timing for the DRM exchange. So it could be done.

BTW, SDI is not a perfect design. While is certainly gains from simplicity and ease of use, a few tweaks to the design could make it a lot better. For one thing, the bit level modulation coding needs to change. SDI currently suffers from the possibility of losing serialization sync when there are long runs of specific bit patterns. Although SDI does include a non-crypto type scrambler to avoid certain common signal values affecting this, it cannot entirely eliminate it. A certain pinkish color for standard definition video is known to trigger these issues. But this is so easily fixable for any new re-design being done by using a group coding that entirely prevents long runs of 0's or 1's. Consult with me if you want a coding system designed for it.

Re:SDI

[TeknoHog]

A certain pinkish color for standard definition video is known to trigger these issues.

Wink wink nudge nudge say no more!

Kayaks

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Not to mention that the kayak travels through time.

It isn't that simple.

[fyngyrz]

Yeah, yeah, it was just a troll post, but come on. :)

It was either a troll or a serious post of doubtful merit. I treated it as the latter because it wasn't clear to me that it was actually a troll; I thought the poster probably deserved the courtesy of a reply. Unfortunately, on slashdot, we see that the GP was moderated "insightful" when it was no such thing, and my attempt at a courteous reply was moderated "troll" when it was no such thing.

That's why anyone who really wants to read posts here pretty much has to read at -1; your reply, for instance, would have been buried from my sight if I paid any attention to post ratings. Slashdot's moderation system isn't even useful as commentary because everyone can't do it, and it certainly isn't useful for determining what is worth reading. Moderation here needs serious reform.

What's the matter with HDMI

[Nom du Keyboard]

One word: MPAA

Inexpensive HDMI cables

[Viv]

http://www.monoprice.com/home/index.asp

I've never purchased through them, but someone recommended them, and after seeing the prices, I bookmarked em.

Re:Inexpensive HDMI cables

[karmatic]

I've purchased through them, they work fine.

They're cables. They pass along digital signals. The signal either gets there or it doesn't.

No practical difference between the $7 monoprice and the $70 monster.

High definition neurons...

[FernandoBR]

... read a book.

what might you do?

[gd23ka]

Don't buy anything with DRM on it. Let their accountants do your talking.
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:what might you do?

[Opportunist]

Instead: Watch DRM wither and die.

Think they'll make a movie of it? It would be the first Hollywood movie in a long time that's entertaining and fun to watch.

Re:what might you do?

[packeteer]

The problem with the "voting with your dollars" system is that some people have more votes than others. In the democracy i live in i prefer to think everyone is equal. Its sad but true though that you ARE voting with your dollars. Everyone should keep this in mind but really the best solution is not to play the game that the MAFIAA designed.

Re:what might you do?

[gd23ka]

In reality as far as entertainment goes, they can easily afford to lose dollars
but not mind share. Entertainment is mainly a social engineering tool and they
like to keep it honed.

Re:what might you do?

[mblase]

Don't buy anything with DRM on it. Let their accountants do your talking.

What, you want me to give up DVDs completely? Fat chance of that, I'm still waiting to get the "Doctor Who: Season 2" box set.

Re:what might you do?

[elljay]

That is just silly and you know it. Face it, the massive media companies have rights to entertainment that people want to see. Why else would they have billion dollar deals, all the top celebrities, skyskrapers, satellites, you name it.

To say that we simply should STOP watching any media that is DRM'ed is well.. just not real. It's like saying 'don't drink tap water because it's flourinated'. Sounds like a nice idea but in practice you gotta brush your teeth and people need entertainment.

I'm sure you've seen every other freaking movie and tvshow and song that the rest of us have. Hippocrite.

Re:what might you do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear. It's the only way we'll make a difference.

If you can't live without your Doctor Who Season 2, you have no self-control.

Re:what might you do?

[innocent_white_lamb]

I'm sure you've seen every other freaking movie and tvshow and song that the rest of us have. Hippocrite.
 
I don't know about him, but I don't even own a TV. I haven't watched broadcast (or cable) television since about 1985.
 
As for movies, I own a movie theatre. I watch pretty much all of the trailers, but as for watching a whole movie, I watch maybe three per year at the most.
 
(I just finished playing -and watching - Grindhouse, which is truly excellent and I recommend it highly if you haven't seen it yet.)

Re:what might you do?

[Anonymous Coward]

people need entertainment.

I seriously question your values. Entertainment is a luxury, not a basic human need.

Monster sucks ass, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a Monster surge protector at Radio Shack, mostly because I couldn't find anything else nice and small, and the other crap RS had was all the same price, anyhow. The salesman tried to tell me what a great brand it was, but I did know better than that. I just figured they couldn't be that *bad* and it was only a stupid surge protector, not that badly overpriced.

So I plug it in once I get home and *boom* breaker flips. My Monster surge protector is dead, having just killed power to part of the house. Good thing my computer is on a UPS!

Given how badly over priced their stuff is to begin with (I only even considered it because RS was close and I didn't want to waste time), I'm going to avoid them from now on. The no brand surge protector I got from the damn drug store is working just fine, and was about 1/3 the cost.

The only thing I can see that's "premium" about the Monster brand is the price. I'm not buying their crap again.

Do you really mean HDMI or HDCP?

[cepler]

Nothing wrong with HDMI, I think perhaps what you're really trying to hype is what is wrong with HDCP...

Re:Do you really mean HDMI or HDCP?

[Kevinv]

Exactly. Everybody jumped on DRM as the problem, it is a problem but it isn't the problem with HDMI. HDCP is DRM on top of HDMI. And no, HDMI was NOT designed from the ground up with DRM in mind, DRM was hacked on in response to complaints from content owners. Proof of this? The damn signals are still just DVI in a new plug. This is why DVI to HDMI adapters are cheap.

And anyone that claims a particular digital solution prevents DRM from being used is full of crap, any digital signal can have DRM added to it, you just need manufacturers of equipment on each end of the signal to agree to it.

I like HDMI connectors because they're small and don't need to be screwed in like DVI. I dislike combining audio and video since I usually separate the two, but I've still separated the two on my devices so no loss to me that the cable can carry both. If I ever upgrade to an HDMI capable A/V receiver I may even like running the fewer cables.

I dislike having to buy cables off the internet to get cheap ones. All the brick and mortar stores seem to just carry crap cables for $90.

HDCP should be thrown away. It does nothing to protect content and just causes problems with poor implementations.

WARNING: Parent has LOST season finale poiler

[Anonymous Coward]

DO NOT read parent if you don't want to know details of the LOST season finale!!

DRM? Did anyone even RTFA?

[brunes69]

The whole article is about twisted pair vs. coax and why HDMI sucks for long cable runs. it has NEXT TO NOTHING to do with DRM.

Aside from that - this article is pointless. HDMI is not DESIGNED for long runs. Its to go from your TV to your reciever, that's it. No one transmits video over long runs anymore - the type of crap he talks about in the article (running video to a set 300 feet away) seems so 10 years ago - nowadays everyone who wants to do this kind of thing has a central media server serving the CONTENT to their set-top device to play it - no one streams video all over the freaking place.

If it were up to this guy HDMI cables would cost about $100 for a 3 foot cable instead of being able to find them the $6 bin at your nearest big box.

What a waste of time. Good thing no one in here RTFA but me anyways.

Re:DRM? Did anyone even RTFA?

[Jeremy Erwin]

From the article

Many thanks to Bluejeans Cable for providing this article for our site.

$15.50 for a 3 ft cable. $96 for a 50 ft cable. The longer cables are useful if you're using a projector, or perhaps a multizone receiver/whole house audio system.

Re:DRM? Did anyone even RTFA?

[haraldm]

HDMI is not DESIGNED for long runs. Its to go from your TV to your reciever, that's it. No one transmits video over long runs anymore

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_.

Simple reason

[Opportunist]

Content providers want HDMI, HDDVD/BluRay/Whatever-players manufacturers want their hardware to sell, content providers refuse to make anything that could be played on "open" systems.

The rest is done by marketing, telling everyone how HDMI is the next big thing and better than sliced bread. And behold, the people believe it.

Well..

[Junta]

Interesting you should hold up DVI as an example of the way things should be. HDMI on a core techincal level is a DVI-D connector with one additional functional pin (CEC which I've never seen used) arranged in a more compact form factor. The DRM used in HDMI started life and is implemented in some DVI devices. The audio being multiplexed in is a use of the digital data lines new to HDMI, but that is it. Hence why a DVI to HDMI cable is entirely passive (my Myth box uses a 7 dollar cable from its DVI port to get into sets HDMI port no problem).

It seems like a logical connector for widespread consumer use. The DVI connector is too bulky for some people, and in this capacity they only care about a single-link, digital only behavior, so they can ditch 8 pins and the key. I suppose the industry has established that for the most part latchless/screwless connectors seem to be the thing (S-video, RCA, even traditionally screwed coax connections in most end-user capacities are used with screwless connectors). I honestly can't complain, HDMI to me has been on par with USB, and the cables I use are light (I recognize there are Monster brand HDMI cables, but that's just foolishness).

Ethernet is too low bandwidth.

[Sycraft-fu]

Take a 1080p signal for example. That's 1920x1080 pixels, each updated 30 times per second, each with 3 bytes of colour information. That's 1.4gpbs. Then of course there's higher bandwidth things like computer monitors, or higher colour displays to think about. 10gig Ethernet would work, but it wasn't available when DVI was designed, nor does it operate over very long distances with copper at this point. GigE is just too slow. Yes, I realise that compression could do the trick but that's the whole point of the standard is to have no compression.

Afraid I have to disagree

[Sycraft-fu]

First on the price, cheap HDMI cable isn't hard to get. Monoprice sells HDMI cables for between $1-3 per foot depending on the length and kind you want.

Also, I doubt that there's no difference between it and component. I can't say I've tried it myself, but I have tried a very similar situation. I have a 1920x1200 widescreen LCD for my computer. As with most displays of this size, it has a whole array of inputs, in this case DVI, HDMI, VGA, and component. For fun, I decided to check the difference between DVI and VGA. I have a nice VGA cable with mini coax in it that used to use for my CRT and the DVI cable that came with the LCD.

Well, the VGA signal isn't bad, that's for sure, but it isn't near as good. Things look just ever so slightly blurry, and sometimes there's a tiny bit of noise visible. With the DVI cable, it's crystal clear down to a single pixel.

Now this is what you'd expect. The computer is generating a digital image. If I use VGA it has to convert it to analogue, the LCD then has to lock on to that signal and try to match it up to the pixels on its screen. With a DVI cable, there' no change, the card just tells the LCD what pixel is to go on and off when.

I'm guessing the same would be true for any HD source to a TV. It's digital at the source, and most of the TV display technologies are digital in nature (LCD, DLP, etc) thus putting an analogue conversion in there is going to introduce some problems, even if they are pretty slight.

It's not a matter of faster transmission, it's a matter of accurate transmission.

I find the term highly accurate

[Opportunist]

Because you have to buy it. Whether you (can) listen to it or watch it doesn't matter.

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:I find the term highly accurate

[BiggerIsBetter]

I agree that it's insulting, and also that it's accurate. Their wholesalers and maybe the large retailers are their customers. The consumer is simply the end of the line for their products... just a schmuck who gives them everyone else their money.

Re:I find the term highly accurate

[Opportunist]

But hey, I can sympathize. I write programs, and without those pesky users who do nothing but file bug complaints, it would be really sweet.

Hey... well, who'd pay for my shit if not them?

Re:I find the term highly accurate

[noidentity]

I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm only a customer to the business I buy things from, not to the original producer. On the other hand, the distributor virtually always sells the product without modifications, and the original producer doing things that piss the distributor's customer off will piss the distributor off too, so it's in their interest to treat the listener as the customer.

What's wrong with HDMI? The connector has no locks

[chiph]

HDMI connectors are friction-fit. So if you have a heavy gauge HDMI cable running up the wall to your expensive plasma display, there's a good chance that the weight of the cable will exceed the strength of the connection, causing the cable to fall off.

A friend does high-end installations, and he's taken to super-gluing (with customer approval) the cable to the TV to prevent this. Otherwise you've got a pissed off customer who can't move their 75+ lb television by themselves & get it reconnected (if they do somehow manage to get it plugged back in, it'll just fall off again shortly afterwards).

If the HDMI people had put some latches on the connector, this wouldn't be necessary.

Chip H.

What's wrong with HDMI?

[cadeon]

HDCP.

PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how pornographic SuperAwesomeFunPlug sounds!

reinventing the wheel

[sxpert]

there's an already existing standard that could have been used, that's HD-SDI, which is used in the pro market. it does everything DVI and HDMI does and more over a simple coax cable that costs almost nothing.

why did they reinvent the wheel in a more expensive and complicated way ?

One caveat

[earnest murderer]

The cables would be FAR cheaper than the extremely complex and expensive DVI/HDMI cables.

This is a marketing abberation, if FOC wire were used BestBuy et al. would still charge 90+ dollars for a length. I am not claiming that these are the prices you would pay in that fictional world, but it's not a bad guide for what is happening on the cheap end...
A yard of duplex FOC is 8.36 at monoprice.com whereas 3 feet of HDMI is only 2.74. Even their best quality stuff is only 14.97.

On another note, people care about analog because that's what the marketplace already had installed. The vendor only has to make one connector and saves a few pennies per display, ships one cable (if they bother to include one) and a salesman/customer doesn't have to figure out if their computer will work with it. Worst case it's a sale of another 20 dollar adapter worth a dollar rather than a return. Not wholy insane in an era where manufacturers sold computers with soldier pads for an AGP slot but wouldn't put one on because it was an additional 1.5 cent part when they already had integrated graphics (analog baby). I hope it was an anomaly, but I remember a couple of times going to Compusa and they did not have a computer in stock that had a slot for the video cards they sold in the next isle.

Ha, you make the usual layman's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

No sections of law ever grant rights. So what's your point?

Section 107 is a statutory section which memorializes some of the bases for declaring fair use. You make several typical mistakes of the layman. It's a shame, really.

A basic civics lesson would get you past your first error. Statutes don't grant rights. How many times does that need to be clarified for Slashdotters? You're born with every single right you can exert for yourself. Constitutions and statutes are ALWAYS representative of a REMOVAL of your natural rights.

The extent to which copyright law did not remove several of your rights was defined by many courts over the years. "Fair use" is the generic description of the process by which courts were recognizing that copyright statutes (and the copyright section of the constitution) had boundaries on the extent to which those laws could restrict your rights.

Start from the premise (in copyright or in any area of the law) that you can do any darn thing you feel like (in the case of copyright, you can do anything you want as to "content"). Got it? You start out being able to do ANYTHING with content, your own or anyone else's. So, the analysis then becomes, to what extent have the lawmakers seen fit to place some restrictions on your unlimited, abundant rights, and, do the courts agree with the lawmakers that those restrictions are reasonable ones?

And here is your second error - and for this one, you need more than a basic civics understanding, instead, you need to educate yourself just a little bit about the law (talk to a lawyer friend) to grok this one.

Here it is - the statutory description of fair use rights in the copyight law statutes does not fully encompass the field.

Read that sentence again, because it is important. The statutory list is a PARTIAL list.

The lawmakers said, hmmm, the courts are consistently finding that the restrictions which our statutes seem by their language to be imposing on your free, abundant rights have these commonly, repeatedly recognized types of limitations. So let's list some of the most common ones of those limitations on the law in the statute itself. (If you want to really get technical about it, in fact, the fair use provisions in statute are, like all laws, a limitation - this time, a limitation on the degree to which courts can apply the terms of the statute against you).

But don't take my word for the idea that the section 107 list of fair use "rights" (really, a list of lack of fair use limitations) is not comprehensive, and that you have lots of other fair use rights that are not listed in the statute. The fact that the statutory list is partial is in the statute's "legislative history" (Google that one - it's what Congress says a law means while they are passing it) and the courts have repeatedly pointed to the legislative history and said that the list in the statute consists only of EXAMPLES of some fair use rights. (I don't have time to grab you some case citations right now - ask a lawyer if you need to know).

So, you got it straight now? We all have untold dozens or hundreds or thousands or whatever fair use rights that we have had since birth. Copyright law to date has only taken away a few of those many many rights. A FEW of the limitations that have been placed on copyright law, preventing the law from taking rights away from you, are listed in the statute. But only a few. There's still plenty of other rights that you have that the statute doesn't even discuss.

Your ignorance (I don't mean that pejoratively, it's just a fact in this instance) is hurtful in many ways. It further those who have an incentive to spread FUD about copyright laws. And, it infantilizes a citizenry too afraid to do anything unless the government has first given them permission.

The government doesn't grant rights - it doesn't give permission. It's the opposite - we give the government permission. They rule us in limited ways only upon our consent, to try to keep a reasonable balance of order.

Re:Ha, you make the usual layman's mistake

[cfulmer]

You're being rather smug for an anonymous coward who doesn't know I'm a lawyer who specializes in IP law. (But, please don't take any of the following as legal advice; seek your own counsel.)

First of all, you're taking quite the 'natural rights' view to the law. But, that's really a philosophical question about the true nature of law, and not one which is generally agreed upon. The natural rights view has been in decline for at least 100 years.

Of course laws grant rights. Consider the following in Section 106: ". . . the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize the following. . ." If that's not an explicit grant of a right, I don't know what is. The concept of "Intellectual Property" doesn't even exist in natural law, so there can be no natural grant of a "copyright" (the right to exclude others from using your work.)

And, you're right that the 4-factor Section 107 analysis is not intended to be complete. But, I never said it was. I did say that the '76 act specifies that fair use is a defense to infringement, not a "right." If you can find me a single US court case since 1978 (the effective date of the '76 Copyright act), that refers positively to "Fair Use Rights," I'd be interested in seeing it.

DVI isn't all that nice either.

[Growlor]

While searching for solutions to a problem with a rear-projection TV I had that was failing, I ran across a reference to the manufacturer installing a "self-destruct" in the DVI decoding software "http://www.freelists.org/archives/techassist/08-2 005/msg00393.html" I replaced that TV with a much nicer LCD unit (from a different manufacturer) and have recently had issues with my cablebox/DVR's DVI to it. The TV started complaining about something that sounded suspiciously like copy protection handshake and would just not display anything until I removed power from it to force a reset (it would then work fine for a week or so and then do the same thing.) I was able to work-around this by using a DVI to HDMI cable (the output on the DVR/cablebox is DVI and the TV has DVI, HDMI and component inputs), but am VERY NOT HAPPY that my $3400ish TV is defective by design! Growlor

Re:Compatibility issues will force out the DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a JVC 5U D-VHS deck 5U? Jesus, man, you've got a huge deck!

They screwed up more than just the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

The left it open and optional on who has to "pillar" display! (make the 4:3 items 16:9 by adding bars on the sides).

The earlier displays didn't and now they do. Most earlier players did and now they mostly don't do. As someone who ended up with a earlier HDMI display who is now being forced to use that interface for 720p+, odds are I'm watching stretched wide 4:3 programming.

isosynchronous

[kybred]

To my surprise the new HD cable box only has component, S-Video, and Firewire outputs

Actually, this is exactly what Firewire was designed for. That's why many DV cameras have FW ports on them. I saw an RCA HDTV that had FW ports on it. There was really no need to invent HDMI, except for the addition of the DRM.

They made TV annoying and complicated...

[Quiet_Desperation]

...where it just used to be annoying. I know engineers and scientists and other smart folks who have avoided HDTV so far because of all the nonsense. It's bullshit. They took something simple and made a complete mess out of it. I love the early adopter horror stories, like people who bought sets that only do 480p and 1080i, and are faced with 720p/1080p game consoles. Or video game lag, and the TV manufacturers going "Duuuuuuuuh, video lag is a problem? Video games? Never heard of them! Wazzat? Duuuuhhh." The there's HD-DVD versus Blueray, or Blu-Ray, or Blooraye or whatever the fuck they named it. Plasma sucks. LCD sucks. DLP is sort of cool, but then you have to buy new bulbs at ass raping prices that make the printer ink market look charitable. Seriously, has there EVER been a clusterfuck like this in the history of consumer electronics? I've never seen such a mess, and I remember the first color TVs.

Re:They made TV annoying and complicated...

[revengebomber]

Plasma sucks. LCD sucks. DLP is sort of cool, but then you have to buy new bulbs at ass raping prices that make the printer ink market look charitable. You forgot HD CRTs, you insensitive clod!

Re:They made TV annoying and complicated...

[darkwhite]

Plasma sucks. LCD sucks. DLP is sort of cool What? Why does plasma suck?

You can say LCD sucks because it's transmissive, which is ostensibly wasteful and limits dynamic range, but modern LCD displays have gotten really pretty damn good with dynamic range, and extremely price effective, so they rock. Plasma used to wash out, but that's been addressed as well, which makes it pretty awesome in my book. The only lame tech is the one you named - DLP - who the hell wants a transmissive projection technology, even with LED bulbs - let alone incandescent, give me a break - when plasma and LCD beat them in pretty much everything?

Hate the interconnect standards, not the display tech - the displays have gotten pretty awesome lately.

HDMI Codec?

[Doc Ruby]

HDMI is a really fast interconnect, 10.3Gbps, even if it's only 1-way. The PS3 HDMI output is by far its fastest "I/O" (O, really), the only one in the class with its Cell processing power (to say nothing of its RSX graphics chip). With Ubuntu on PS3, I might be able to write code that tunnels data over HDMI. But where are the HDMI input cards (probably PCI-e) that can accept the "HDMI" data (really TDMS data), decode it, and use the encapsulated data I sent across?

Re:HDMI Codec?

[Anonymous Coward]

PCI-Express 16x gives about 4GB/s of bandwidth; less than half of HDMI/DVI. So, for an HDMI input card to actually be useful, you'd need to use something else.

Re:HDMI Codec?

[Doc Ruby]

PCI-e is now 500MBps, so 16x is now about 8GBps. In any case, there are cards that receive HDMI, but their APIs are only high-level MS ones for actual graphics/video, for mixing under Windows.

1394 Firewire.

[Bigglare]

Firewire or 13094 was THE orginal digital connection. It routes audio and video between components with just one cable. Its been aroundas long as HD in the US.

Visualization

[tepples]

audio is visibly ahead of the video. Man, what kind of a TV are you using? I want to see audio... Is it that hard to make a spectrum analyzer, even if it only shows the bass and treble levels through a component? My cheap stereo has one built into it. I'd imagine that a lot of DVD players have some sort of more complicated analyzers as well.

Vis?

[tepples]

yeah; when I wanna see audio I drop acid. Why risk jail time when there's visualization software?

Proud member of the Late Majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Late Majority is a marketing term which categorizes a consumer as one of the later adopters of new products, the wikipedia article says: "skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status" (not my definition)

Well, I am proud to be a member of the Late Majority in the case of HDTV. Between accommodating the entertainment industry at the expense of the consumer and encouraging destructive competition between incompatible and incomprehensible standards, the backers of the latest generation of HDTV can simply count me out for the next few years.

We like to look back and poke fun of the silly VHS versus Beta war; the current turmoil in video is far more foolish. Ultimately it is alienating a large segment of potential buyers.

God bless /. and /.ers for expressing their unwillingness to tolerate industry manipulation and bullying.

Because AV over 1394 is lossy compressed

[tepples]

What I want to know is whatever happened to using FireWire for AV? AV over FireWire commonly uses DV compression, which behaves similarly to a stream of JPEG images. AV over HDMI uses PCM at 8 bits per RGB channel (or deeper).

Re:Because AV over 1394 is lossy compressed

[ncc74656]

AV over FireWire commonly uses DV compression

Not on digital-cable boxes. The FireWire ports on mine spit out MPEG transport streams with MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio.

Re:Because AV over 1394 is lossy compressed

[tepples]

AV over FireWire commonly uses DV compression Not on digital-cable boxes. The FireWire ports on mine spit out MPEG transport streams with MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio. That's still lossy, even if it isn't transcoded. DVI and HDMI try to be lossless.

FSM

[scooter.higher]

Reading through this made me realize that everyone is not really getting it...

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:What's wrong with HDMI? The connector has no lo

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats funny to say a high-end installer uses super glue. if you buy the right cable or install it right it doesn't fall out. The monster and acoustic research proII have slightly oversized connection to avoid that problem. its the $5 dollar walmart and ebay cables that people jack the price up to make an easy buck that give customers the problem. unfortunately you tend to get what you pay for in life. cheap cost means cheap product.

Re:What's wrong with HDMI? The connector has no lo

[Anonymous Coward]

Connectors falling out are the least of your worries with those high gauge cables. Often I see customers that get the added bonus of cheaply made connectors peeling off the mainboard of the device they're using. HDMI is a miserable little pile of failure that I will never touch.

Wireless?

[Aehgts]

Oh, and get with the program people, wireless is the way things should be heading.

HDMI has an advertised maximum bandwidth of 5Gbps, last time I checked I didn't have a wireless connection at that speed
sitting around. You of course could retort with 'I said that's where they should be heading not where they are.' but
trying to push that much data at that speed through a wireless network is not trivial. We have the shannon-hartley capacity
theorem C=B*log2(1+SNR) to point that out, even before the technological difficulties. Licensing for that much of the
spectrum would be large and ongoing unless a free section could be used (eg wifi). But in this case it's not clustering a
dozen channels around 2.4GHz, each non-overlapping channel would need a few GHz depending on the allowed transmission power.
To overcome this one could use wave-guides and directional antennae, but taking these to the extreme brings you right back
to cables again where you can have your own private, shielded, broad spectrum transmission lines.
To top it off, most of these devices are within a few feet of each, other often in the same cabinet, anyway.

If it aint broke, fix it 'till it is?

Re:Wireless?

[segedunum]

HDMI has an advertised maximum bandwidth of 5Gbps, last time I checked I didn't have a wireless connection at that speed sitting around. You of course could retort with 'I said that's where they should be heading not where they are.' but trying to push that much data at that speed through a wireless network is not trivial.

Well yes, I did say 'heading towards', but really, in order to achieve that they should be looking to cut down on the amount of traffic required. New video formats, better compression, stuff that will actually make things better etc. etc. Instead, they chose to focus on chucking as much stuff on a disc as they could and making DRM the primary focus.

I can...

[Hymer]

...see any resolution using a standard RGB cable... right now it is 1920x1200 non interlaced (wich is 11% more than 1080) and there is no fixed upper limit, so tell me again what do I need HDMI for ?

Red Headed Step-Child -

[HW_Hack]

That was the status of HDMI at Intel's R+D center in Oregon - at least in '03 - 04 ... architects responsible for protocol / spec. work were luke-warm at best which also reflected senior managments intrest. While not directly involved ... I got a distinct "briar-patch" or "kitchen sink" impression of the project

Whats wrong with Firewire...

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the current cable types for a home theater system it makes the back of the receiver look like a pile of spaghetti. Not counting HDMI, or coax (cable-TV, not audio) the simplest connection is at least two cables, and some four or more.

I stumbled across an interesting proposal a few years ago called HAVi. Basically the concept is to use a single cable standard to communicate not only all audio, and video data, but also the ability for devices to communicate between themselves. To quote a section from the sites FAQ:

What are the advantages of HAVi-enabled devices?

The HAVi specification offers advantages for both the end-user and the device manufacturer.

Some advantages for the End User:

• Will have seamless connectivity, interoperability, and increased functionality of digital audio and video devices, regardless of manufacturer.
• Will be assured of future compatibility of devices through built in upgrade paths.
• Will be able to easily connect to the internet for web browsing.

The HAVi Specification was developed for home entertainment AV networks, providing high bandwidth for transmitting multiple AV streams and featuring easy "plug-and-enjoy". The HAVi specification allows for automatically detecting devices on the network, coordinating the functions of various devices, installing applications and user interface software on each device, and ensuring interoperability among devices regardless of manufacturer.

However, the last update to that website appears to have been sometime in 2004. Looking up information for this post I ran across what appears to be the current incarnation High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance (HANA) with some pretty heavy support from across the industry. Such as IBM, JVC, Mitsubishi Electric, NBC-Universal, Samsung, Sun, Texas Instrumets, WB, AMD, Dolby, ATI, just to name a few.

For those thinking that firewire (aka IEEE-1394-1995, IEEE-1394a-2000, IEEE-1394b, i.Link) has insufficient bandwidth for HD video signals let alone video & audio signals. Recall that Firewire as currently deployed can handle up to 800 Mb/s, and the spec currently allows for up to 3200 Mb/s, more than enough bandwidth for the content in MPEG2 format, let along h.264. Also note that the HANA proposal does not involve necessarily having the player decrypt the data, but possibly just transmitting the MPEG2, or MPEG4 singal along the cable, thereby reduce the amount of bandwidth needed. For a brief overview regarding why they choose firewire you can read an article

Re:Whats wrong with Firewire...

[Anonymous Coward]

firewire is limited to 4 meters of cable unless you use 1394b with the optical option. Which is useless for the scope of the article referenced. Thank you for reading the article.

Re:Whats wrong with Firewire...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the cable length can be much longer than 4 meters. You are correct that it does depend upon the medium of the cable there are certain lengths; however, consider the actual specifications[pdf - Standards Orientation v5], or 1394a & b white paper[pdf]:

• Plastic optical fiber (POF) - 100m at 200Mb/s or 400 Mb/s
• Glass optical fiber (GOF) - 100m at 800Mb/s, spec. to 3200Mb/s
• CAT5e - 100m at 800Mb/s

Of course these are point to point distances (i.e. between devices) not the total length of the device chain which I do not believe there is a limit (couldn't find one anyways). And there are always repeaters such as here, or here if you need even more distance.

Two Words: Environment & Global Waming

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, wait, thats three. Oh well..

Felching Monster Cables

[Anonymous Coward]

Monster cables are unadulterated crap. I have a set of Monster component and a set of Generic component. I have to wiggle the red monster cable to keep the display from going green. My generic brand works like a champ. Never had any issues with the generic. Trouble is the it's hard to get generic cables where I live. Stores only carry is the high mark-up monster cables.

Re:Felching Monster Cables

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Monster cables have a lifetime warranty... Their website says to check the warranty that came in the package.

DRM

[remmelt]

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see why DRM does not fail as hard as we would like. The parent knows about DRM and its implications, is technically savvy enough to post on /., has the money for various consumer devices, agrees (twice) that HDMI is bad because of DRM...

and yet, because of less cable clutter behind the TV, still gets HDMI connectors.

Any questions?

Re:DRM

[Caffeinate]

because of less cable clutter behind the TV, I think there's more to the issue than this. Most of us still want to enjoy the media that the RIAA/MPAA put out (at least some of it) and we have been forced (if we want to enjoy the content WITHOUT stealing it) to purchase it in the formats provided.

Let's face it, if we were willing to compromise quality/quantity for no DRM, VHS would not have died.

So use compression, or use 10gig Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

10gig Ethernet would work, but it wasn't available when DVI was designed

But now it does, so let's use it.

whole point of the standard is to have no compression

So the standard is wrong from first base. It should have employed one of the many easy-to-encode/decode lossless low-compression schemes, just enough to drop the bitrate sufficiently for transmission over existing networking cables.

Re:So use compression, or use 10gig Ethernet

[profplump]

No. You will not resample or compress my video and audio data. Maybe you don't care about fuzzy characters on your monitor, but I do, and I'm not going to let you compress the data just so that you can use a familar cable type.

Beside that Ethernet isn't any more friendly. Even if it worked on GigE, you'd still need an isolated network, because A) you need all the bandwidth for the A/V data and B) putting more than once source on the network would require that users setup some sort of addressing on the display to select the right source, and that would never fly -- most people can't even get back to the physical input line, let alone select a source from within that line.

Re:So use compression, or use 10gig Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You will not resample or compress my video and audio data. Maybe you don't care about fuzzy characters on your monitor, but I do, and I'm not going to let you compress the data just so that you can use a familar cable type.

Dude, what part of "lossless compression" don't you understand. The bits after decompression are identical to the bits before compression. No fuzzy characters or other compression artifacts, just a slightly lower bitrate during transmission.

why would you want them to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time the more-expensive video processing circuitry in your HDTV will do a better job upconverting the DVD video than the DVD player will; unless you're one of those weird folks who spends $1K on the DVD player and $599 on the TV.

Counterpoint

[mihalis]

My feeling is any debate like this is mostly dominated by people who ran into problems. I'd like to provide just one data point in the opposite camp.

I got a Sony Bravia 42" LCD TV late last year which does 1080p. I connect my DVD player to it with a 15ft HDMI cable which cost me about $100 at the Sony Store. Quite an expensive cable, however that setup has worked perfectly for me ever since.

More recently I got an AppleTV and hooked it up to the second HDMI port on the TV using a short $20 XtremeMac HDMI cable. That setup also worked perfectly.

So that's two cable lengths, two cable vendors (I'd say makers but who knows who really made either cable), two signal sources of vastly different types from two manufacturers. Even two resolutions (the DVD player seems to be nice at 1080i upscaled, the AppleTV seems better at 720p). Everything works seamlessly. My only complaint is that switching inputs on the TV is slow.

This doesn't prove anything, I know that. This debate is just a numbers game anyway. Even the best regarded, most reliable, most consumer friendly technologies sometimes have problems, it's just the nature of engineering. What matters is not whether the technology is perfect, but that your odds of success should be high.

HDMI has been a breeze for me, and replaced a thick bundle of analog cables snaking around the fireplace in our living room.

By the way, my actual Apple TV failed within 48 hours. The replacement is fine however. Technology remains a crapshoot at consumer prices.

cat5e, cat6 and cat7

[BlueParrot]

If you can afford to pay $money for just the cable you can probably afford to stick decent networking in your display and amplifier. Wire it all up with standard Ethernet cables ( up to 10 gigabit over 100m with cat7 ) and the problem is solved.

does not comply with the WAF "standard"

[Anonymous Coward]

as much as anything wife-related can be considered "standard"