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?

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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...

[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.

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.

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:Open source!

[ArsonSmith]

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

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: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.

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: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.

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?

[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?

[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: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: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.

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.

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: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.

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'.

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: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?