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

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

[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

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: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: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: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: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.