There's No Such Thing as 'Wireless HDMI'

An anonymous reader writes "CE Pro magazine interviewed Steve Venuti and Les Chard of HDMI Licensing, LLC to get a preview of all things HDMI at CES. The duo addressed some of the more controversial issues surrounding HDMI, including 'Wireless HDMI' (There's no such thing); Consumer Electronics Control (There will be interoperability); competitor DisplayPort (No traction in CE); and the complications of HDMI ('It is not an HDMI problem. It's a digital issue.')"

Comments

Wireless HDMI is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Got clippers?

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent links to a trojan.

"It's a digital issue"

[Sylos]

Yup, that's why we have analog..

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[djlemma]

Too bad we won't have analog much longer..

At least not in the US.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[toiletsalmon]

Eventually the digital signal will be sent into my analog TV via the tuner-box that the government is giving me a $40 coupon for.

Government Subsidized Media Time-shifting FTW :)

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, from the dta2009.gov website FAQ:

Using a Coupon
2. Can I use my coupons to purchase any TV converter box?
No. The government will provide a list of coupon-eligible converter boxes and participating retailers here. You may also ask participating retailers whether TV converter boxes in their stores can be purchased with the $40 government coupon.
...
18. Can coupons be used toward the price of an upgraded converter box (for example, a box that includes a DVR)?
No. Coupons are only valid for eligible converter boxes. The intent of the program is to allow consumers to continue to view TV over-the-air on the same TV they used prior to the transition, not to enable upgrades in technology. FTL :(

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[JonathanBoyd]

To be fair now, that's like being upset that someone who says they can't afford to buy you car goes and buys someone else a pair of slippers. $40 doesn't pay for a lot of health care.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[OnlineAlias]

This issue isn't about subsidizing tv, its about real estate. That real estate is 700 mgz radio spectrum which analog tv uses. Its the last piece of valuable real estate available in the US. The only way the government can sell it is if it kicks everyone off of it by giving them set top boxes.

So how much are the set top boxes to the goverenment? Eh, a 100 million dollars or so. How much is the radio spectrum going to sell for? Eh, up to 20 BILLION. Thats right, B, as in 20 freekin BILLION.

Communism is the very last word that comes to my mind....

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[ravenshrike]

At max, less than 12 billion dollars. Whereas the Brits with their NHS, are cutting back. Why, because there's no accountability(an inevitability when dealing with all things nanny state) and because there's not enough money.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[iamhassi]

"So how much are the set top boxes to the goverenment? Eh, a 100 million dollars or so. How much is the radio spectrum going to sell for? Eh, up to 20 BILLION. Thats right, B, as in 20 freekin BILLION."

Great! That 20 billion will buy 2 or 3 NASA toilet seats!

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: dtv2009.gov

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[toiletsalmon]

Isn't it crazy? I hadn't thought of it that way until some British Slashdotter said basically the same thing the other day.

Sometimes I think Douglas Adams died and got the job of writing the storyline for reality :)

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[JonathanBoyd]

I don't disagree with you about universal health care being good (I live in the UK and greatly appreciate the NHS, warts and all) or about money not always being spent on the best causes, but this program is just a drop in the bucket and is most helpful for the people who rely most on TV for contact with the outside world. It seems pretty reasonable. But we're a little off topic here.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[crawling_chaos]

Or pay off a couple of months of Iraq.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[lxw56]

Or pay off a couple of months of Iraq. it's sad because it's true.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[Miseph]

No, it's sad because it isn't. Instead it will probably be used to spend another couple of months there.

Re:"It's a digital issue"

[AK Marc]

So the government can't afford universal health care but apparently they can afford to subsidize the purchase of new TV equipment? Geez..

The government is making money giving away these boxes. They are making more on selling the frequency freed up by the change than lost by the paying for the boxes. That's a net gain. They didn't think they could get away with making it illegal for a broadcaster sending a signal that worked with all the TVs out there unless they also provided some way to update old TVs so everyone could receive the new signal.

Wireless HDMI is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere out there, Wireless HDMI says there is no such thing as YOU!

Wait a second, I am still thinking, therefore I still am. Or is that just what the HDMI wants me to think? If I'm still thinking, that is. Wait a second, I am still thinking, therefore... :(

Re:Wireless HDMI is real

[Oktober Sunset]

It's called Soviet Russia.

Re:Wireless HDMI is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Soviet Russia called, it's for YOU.

Re:Wireless HDMI is real

[Oktober Sunset]

HA! and they all laughed when I laid that phone line through that time hole. Who's the popular one now?

Re:Wireless HDMI is real

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, it's called "somewhere out there".

Bah humbug

[hcdejong]

Blatant lies like It is not an HDMI problem. It's a digital issue make me want to avoid HDMI like the plague. I'd like to replace my 22 year-old TV and rubbish VHS VCR with a digital system, but I've been putting it off for three years now because I can't bring myself to expend the time and headaches involved in figuring out a system that works.

Re:Bah humbug

[UnknowingFool]

You forget the DRM issue as well. With a VCR, you could move your recorded show from one room to the next by taking out the tape. Unlike older analog and digital cables, HDMI 1.3 integrates DRM into the design.

Re:Bah humbug

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think it's reasonable to say that, supposedly there are plenty of devices that aren't really HDMI compliant electrically, being a bit out of spec. Or if you get a bum cable, then maybe you're going to have problems. I am disappointed that they didn't make the connector more positive, most connector designs hold the cable in a bit better, and the VGA and DVI cable had screws. But it's done pretty well for me there too.

Personally, I don't think HDMI problems are as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Remember the "Internet Bullhorn Effect", which causes people to think problems are bigger than they really are. I have a 50ft HDMI cable between my HD player and my projector and have had zero problems. I also only paid $55 for the cable too.

Re:Bah humbug

[Chrisje]

Well, I just bought myself an LCD TV. 37" size. It's got two HDMI connectors on the back which are idling.

My set-top box is an older one, so I used an expensive SCART cable to route the vid to the TV. This provides a nice enough image, although some programs appear to be a bit pixelated. This was already the case on my 29" CRT though. The image quality however, is very nice. All audio runs through my receiver, this includes the Set-top box.

Then I connected my Wii and my DVD player to my receiver using component video, which is ample for support of 720p (or in the case of both devices, the 480p they provide). Now the image quality is still very nice, and the sound also gets routed (optical from DVD, stereo-jacks-to-Dolby-PLII for the Wii) through my trusty receiver.

As far as the Laptop is concerned, I connect that with a standard issue VGA cable to the VGA input connector on the back. The TV gets seen by the system, and images are crisp and clear at 1366x768 resolution. Possibly, my laptop gives the best image quality using that connection. Cable costs 5 Euros at the local HW store. Sound gets (again) routed through my trusty receiver.

You can tell me that none of this is a "true HD" setup because I "should be using HDMI with an HD DVD player at 1080p", but in the mean time I'm watching TV and playing games and movies on a nice size screen.

What I'm trying to say with all of this is that HDMI doesn't even need to enter the picture if you want a flat screen and a DVD player. 25 Dollar component-to-component cables will do you fine on the back of a normal DVD player. I promise.

Re:Bah humbug

[kherr]

This is one of the main reasons I'm still using component video for my HD. Okay, mostly I have an early set that has no HDMI, but I've yet to rely on HDMI for anything. I've recently added a TiVo HD and Blu-ray player to my component video world, so you can get current HD gear without diving into HDMI. And no HDCP worries. I know I run the risk of getting hurt by that, but I think I'll get years of HD enjoyment before HDCP becomes a show-stopper (pun intended). And with any luck the DRM problem will become more difficult than it's worth, like we're seeing with music.

I'm sure the HDMI interop problems aren't as nasty as just a couple years ago, but it's been astounding how fragile the HDMI universe has appeared. For example, the Apple TV forum is peppered with people having difficulty getting TVs working with the Apple TV via HDMI. I just hooked up via component and had no worries. And what happens with HDMI 1.1 devices when all of a sudden everyone demands HDMI 1.3? That really is a "digital issue" because it's far too easy for the industry to "improve" the spec and then orphan a bunch of older hardware.

Re:Bah humbug

[evanbd]

If the devices aren't compliant, they shouldn't be sold as such. Testing for compliance and certifying devices as compliant would be the logical role of the licensing agency. They shouldn't let people put the HDMI name on something if it doesn't work. As such, it certainly is their fault that these devices don't interoperate properly. And if the standard is so complicated that they can't actually test for compliance, then that's their fault too.

Re:Bah humbug

[sound vision]

"Going digital" with HDMI isn't necessary for a high-quality video setup. Quality TVs today still come with analog inputs. A DVD player connected to a good TV with component cables or even S-video would be worlds better than a rickety old VHS. No HDMI necessary. No blu-ray/HD-DVD. No DRM in the signal chain.

Re:Bah humbug

[el americano]

I also only paid $55 for the cable too.

That's more than I've ever paid for a cable, but you seem to feel that you got a bargain. I guess you have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Re:Bah humbug

[uabtodd]

you must not have read the part about it being a 50 foot cable. $1.10 per foot is pretty freaking cheap for HDMI, compared to the $50+ stores like Best Buy want for a little 3 or 6 foot cable.

Re:Bah humbug

[reezle]

For a 50ft cable, that sound like a pretty good price to me.
I've paid $30 for the same type of cable in the 8-10' range. (and have seen the same going for over $100 with gold plated contacts, etc)

Re:Bah humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a 25-foot HDMI cable for ~$12 (used a $10 off purchases over $20 coupon at an online store). Worked equal to the 5-foot HDMI cable that came with the player. And my TV has the HDMI ports mounted facing down. No problem materialized with the physical connection. Only thing I had to do unusual for the whole setup was press and hold the arrow buttons on the remote for the TV to get rid of a green vertical line on the right side of the television screen. Apparently the image was not completely centered and these green lines (that can be on the left or right side) are actually frequency or refresh data.

Re:Bah humbug

[pvera]

The HDMI compliance issue is very real.

1.My first attempt at purchasing an HDTV LCD (Westinghouse) drove me nuts because even if it was advertised as HDMI, it would not pass sound. A week later it died, so I returned it.

2. My second and third attempts (Magnavox and Memorex, both 19") worked fine with our two Xbox 360s and our HDMI upscaling DVD players.

3. I swapped the 19" Memorex for a 32" Olevia. It worked fine with the HDMI upscaling DVD players but the Xbox 360s could not get a secure link. That TV is still with us, with the 360 connected to it with component cables, my son doesn't mind. After very little research I found dozens of documented cases of people that couldn't get the 360 to connect to that specific 32" Olevia model. Olevia TVs have a USB port for firmware updates, but to date there is no firmware update for that specific model.

4. I swapped the 19" Magnavox with a 37" Olevia, which has dual inputs for everything. Both the 360 and the HDMI upscaling DVD players connected at the same (same HDMI cables that failed with the 32" Olevia) and everything works beautifully.

5. I also noticed a separate issue with the upscaling DVD players that we were using (Philips, we got them for about $55 at Target right before Xmas). Whenever we switched inputs and tried to go back to that HDMI channel, it would not recognize the link and forced us to restart the DVD player. The 360 never had that issue with the five TVs we have tried to date.

To add insult to injury, those cables are expensive if you buy them at retail. A friend just picked an upscaling DVD player with HDMI at Walmart last night for less than $40, then almost flipped when he saw that the cable would cost almost the same.

Re:Bah humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

You've paid less than $55 for a 50ft HDMI cable?? Where the hell do you shop?!?

Re:Bah humbug

[Jeremy Erwin]

That's more than I've ever paid for a cable

Probably because you've never needed a 15m cable.

Re:Bah humbug

[AJWM]

Nobody in their right mind buys cables at places like Best Buy unless they need the cable right now. Things like that are high markup items, where the stores more than make up for the couple of dollars they shave off the suggested retail of whatever electronics box is on sale this week.

One of my favorite places to order cables, Microbarn, sells 50 foot HDMI cables for $26.99, qty one. Cheaper if you're buying a bunch. The main cost in HDMI cables is the connectors, (a 6 foot HDMI cable at Microbarn is $6, or only $4 for nickel plated connectors), partly due to licensing costs, but wire is cheap.

Re:Bah humbug

[aquarajustin]

I bet it was monoprice! I got two 25' HDMI cables for $60.

Re:Bah humbug

[koalapeck]

What exactly do you mean by a system that "works"? I have HDMI on most of my components (TV, PS3, Denon AVR-3806, HD DVR), and it works exactly the way it's supposed to.

Re:Bah humbug

[sledd_1]

It's clearly a bandwidth issue. It's too bad that Bluetooth was such a ridiculous bust for usability. I'd like to give Wifi a shot... ...but something so sophisticated may not be necessary. I have fantastic results with my Rocketfish gadget, which uses 2.4 GHz to send sound to my rear home theater speakers.

Re:Bah humbug

[timmarhy]

what crack are you smoking that makes you think copper wiring is cheap?

Re:Bah humbug

[walt-sjc]

I have a 50' HDMI cable too. My components are in a cabinet in the front corner, and the TV is mounted on the back wall. Cable has to go down through the basement.

Here's the problem. When you go long, the cable diameter increases as the wire size increases. My cable is 1/2" in diameter. It doesn't bend well, and you can't do much of a bend by the connector due to stresses. This makes it a bitch to plug in to the set.

HDMI sucks. Pro gear doesn't use it, it uses a HD version of SDI which only uses coax cables and has a MUCH longer distance capability without repeaters. Love your HDMI all you want. I hate it with a passion.

I want optical. Optical is future proof and doesn't have a distance issue (within reason.) It uses standard connectors which are MUCH easier to terminate than they used to be. It isn't reasonable to terminate your own HDMI cables in any case, so concerns about termination are moot. Prebuilt optical cables over a certain length are less expensive than HDMI too. Thinner, better capacity, etc.

The HDMI folks can take their spec and shove it. Idiots.

Re:Bah humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember PCI "plugfests" at the PCI SIG meetings, where vendors of PCI products would go from room to room with PC vendors and test their products for compatibility.

This was a great way to check a far greater number of devices together than otherwise would be possible.

It was also a great way to get contacts at companies that you might not connect with any other way.

It seems like this might work well for the HDMI folks as well.

Re:Bah humbug

[cHiphead]

I must say yours is absolutely a case of 'you get what you pay for' and going with the lowest end choices for LCD HDTVs was the first problem. Stop buying tvs from Walmart and Target (or Tiger Direct's cheapest crap) and chances are you will get something that was built with enough quality control involved to often avoid damaged hardware and inconsistent hdmi compliance.

Anyone paying $40 for a fun of the mill HDMI cable is nuts. http://www.microbarn.com/details.aspx?rid=102015

Cheers.

Re:Bah humbug

[AJWM]

My original: "but wire is cheap."

Your strawman: "you think copper wiring is cheap"

I think you need to lay off the crack yourself, it's apparently affecting your reading comprehension skills.

Re:Bah humbug

[Vancorps]

Cheers to you man, looks like you've run into all the same issues I have over the last few years. That's why we standardized on SDI here at work. Optical cabling is great, we do all of our long range distro with it breaking out to SDI at both ends.

In short, HDMI sucks, the cables die easy, they come out easy, and all the weird DRM screws with everything in the home although I don't have that problem in the HD video production world. /p.

Re:Bah humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop buying tvs from Walmart and Target (or Tiger Direct's cheapest crap) and chances are you will get something that was built with enough quality control involved to often avoid damaged hardware and inconsistent hdmi compliance.

So I take it there is some sort of FCC compliance exemption label on said equipment? It was my understanding that devices sold with claims of HDMI, etc. were actually 'supposed' to work under US law and not damage other equipment. Could you point out were this exemption is?.

Re:Bah humbug

[IronChef]

If there is specific gear you want, hit the web and look for specific problems. Because there are some, no doubt. (This stopped me from buying a particular Sony AVR in the recent sales... Terrible HDMI implementation and forums full of problems.)

Otherwise... replace that 22 year old TV already! Go to AVSForum and research the models you are interested in. If there are problems... they are probably uncovered already.

I have several random HDMI gadgets and they all work fine. Which isn't proof of anything... but I agree that HDMI horror stories are VASTLY louder than they ought to be.

Re:Bah humbug

[GoRK]

Personally, I don't think HDMI problems are as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

Consider yourself one of the lucky ones. I have had trouble with every HDMI setup I have ever touched and 100% of the problems without a single exception have been with the HDCP handshake. It hasn't seemed to matter if it's low end, high end, old, or new gear it simply doesn't work reliably 100% of the time and therein lies the real problem.

You know, while the HDMI people were ripping off the DVI standard to make some extra money they should have done something innovative to improve upon it. The physical connector of HDMI is worse than DVI, the audio channel is very limited in the bitstreams it can transport, and the data channel is a complete and total joke. On top of this they didn't bother to make HDCP any more robust than it was with DVI, leaving everyone with a horribly broken "standard" to adhere to. To add insult to it, they keep changing the thing because they couldn't get it right to begin with.

Re:Bah humbug

[purpledinoz]

The markup on USB cables at BestBuy are ridiculous. They charge $20, but they only pay $1 for them, or something like that. Now don't get me started on monster cables...

Re:Bah humbug

[Firethorn]

Anyone paying $40 for a fun of the mill HDMI cable is nuts.

Or just ignorant. If you're not used to shopping on the internet, your only knowledge of this stuff is likely from walmart, best buy, sears, and their ilk. Small HiFi stores that I've seen tend to price about the same.

Perhaps, after spending $1K and up on a HDTV, DVD player of some ilk, etc... Maybe a $40 cable just doesn't register anymore.

Re:Bah humbug

[geekoid]

The issue is the DRM, and how it screws up some of HDMI'a advantages, and how it will be used to lock you out of content you have purchased.
Which means if you want to re-watch something you recorded, say 6 years ago, you may not be able to. Other then the DRM, HDMI is pretty nice.

Re:Bah humbug

[Firethorn]

This is part of the issue, in and of itself. Bluetooth, WiFi, your rocketfish gadget all operate on the same part of the spectrum.

Running a high definition, somewhat decompressed video stream over 2.4Ghz in a real world situation would run into lots of noise problems, assuming it doesn't stomp over any other systems in the area, like the rocketfish, your 802.11n network, etc...

5Ghz would be better, but companies seem to hate it.

At this point I think it's too bad that they haven't come up with a gigabit fiber common bus type system - where you run a single pair of fiber from your disc system to the TV, a pair from your TV to your receiver(or vice versa), etc...

They then talk to each other and share data for configuration, and use the link to ship things like video and audio streams.

Re:Bah humbug

[scatters]

I buy my cables from Blue Jeans Cables in Seattle. They're not quite as cheap as the GP's supplier, but they are excellent quality:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

Re:Bah humbug

[msromike]

Here I can help you with that.

Go buy an HDTV with an HDMI input. While at the same store, buy a DVD player with an HDMI output. Take an HDMI cable, you can get it at the same place you bought everything else, and plug it into both devices. Don't worry about which end goes yo which device, it doesn't matter.

All set. I bet it doesn't take you nearly as much time as you have spent on Slashdot reading about it.

Re:Bah humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

-- New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm.

What a great idea! ~

Re:Bah humbug

[Aladrin]

Future-proof? Are you kidding me? Even if optical never gets replaced by something better, someone will find a way to modify that cable and get 10x the throughput, and your 'future proof' cable will be old news again. Maybe it's a new end, or a new substance for the transmission, or a new coating... Someone will find something to make your 'future proof' cable obsolete.

Re:Bah humbug

[walt-sjc]

I suggest you learn about attenuation, crosstalk, and noise. Physical wire will NEVER surpass optical. 20 year old optical can be upgraded by using different transceivers.
In contrast, look at network cable. Twinax, cat3, cat5, cat5e, cat6, shielded and unshielded, etc. etc. Each time there is a speed / technology upgrade, they usually need to upgrade the wire spec. Why do you think cable companies and telco companies are upgrading all their systems to optical? Oh yeah - it's because they are actually downgrading, right???

Sheesh.

Re:Bah humbug

[Ant P.]

SCART is probably the main reason HDTV isn't taking off in Europe (well, apart from the lack of content). When you've already got a VGA-quality RGB signal the cost of upgrading is harder to justify. In the US they've used S-Video since forever.

Some people swear by vinyl, I guess this is the same sort of thing.

Re:Bah humbug

[cHiphead]

Well of course, if one has so much money, the markup of items is negligible. That said, anyone posting to slashdot that spends $40 on an hdmi cable is just f'ing lazy :)

Re:Bah humbug

[amokk]

You know, for being a regular poster on a geek website, you sure are a fucking idiot.
Learn about optical tech. It might amaze you.

Re:Bah humbug

[greed]

Yeah; some of us had been using what's now called S-video as "Luma/Chroma" on Commodore 64s. I've got a C=64 to S-Video cable around somewhere... nothing quite as scary as "38911 BASIC BYTES FREE" on a big TV.

I really had that S-Video connector. I'm glad they used RCA with component; I'm not a big fan of RCA either, but compared to the orientation-sensitive 4-pin mini-DIN behind an equipment rack, RCA phono plugs are brilliant.

Re:Bah humbug

[Firethorn]

That said, anyone posting to slashdot that spends $40 on an hdmi cable is just f'ing lazy :)

Or in a hurry.

When I said 'not noticable' I was picturing a guy walking into a store and walking out with an order to deliver that new 50" HDTV, HDDVD/Blueray player, and HD DirecTV/DISH Network service plan w/installation.

At that point, a $40 cable or three is likely to get lost in the shuffle, and probably less than the sales tax.

He just wants it to work for the football game this saturday, he isn't interested in saving $20 and having to wait for it to show up in the mail.

Re:Bah humbug

[AK Marc]

Future-proof? Are you kidding me?

Nope, he's not kidding you. There are fiber cables 20 years old that, with a retermination of the ends, will work to gigabit and faster. Show me the Cat-3 that you can push gigabit over. Yes, the gear at the ends might be more expensive. Yes, you might have to reterminate every 10 years or so when they switch plug types on common equipment. But the actual cable itself is future-proof. Not the same with "wires" and Cat-3, Cat-5 Cat-5e, Cat-6, and all that.

Re:Bah humbug

[FrankieBaby1986]

Otherwise... replace that 22 year old TV already! Go to AVSForum and research the models you are interested in. If there are problems... they are probably uncovered already.

Why should anyone replace a perfectly good television? It's not a computer that can't play the latest FPS. Its a relatively simple device to display sound and images. The only reason to upgrade is because we're being forced to, not because the technology isn't sufficient to perform the task of presenting pictures and sound. If you want the fancy HDTV signal, which really is not necessary to enjoy the programming (Who wants to see every newscaster's zits anyway?) then go ahead and buy the latest TV. But don't force everyone else to. If you want HD, theres cable and satellite for that.

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!!

Re:Bah humbug

[Aladrin]

Do you understand what 'future proof' means? It means you won't have to replace it in the future with something better. I'm not denying that it's done well so far, I'm denying that there will -never- be an advance that obsoletes it. I said -nothing- about physical wires. I did, however, mention a few possible improvements to optical that might make current optical cables obsolete. If you have to replace something, even with a better version of itself, it's not future-proof.

Re:Bah humbug

[the stapler]

I agree that the cable prices are completely ridiculous. Why would I pay more for the cable than the deck? Coax is cheap, and cat5 is pretty affordable. Why not design the standard to be cost-effective unless you are planning on charging too much?

Re:Bah humbug

[IronChef]

The only reason to upgrade is because we're being forced to

I LIKE HDTV. No one held a gun to my head. And if I wanted to keep an old TV, it would still work even if I had to buy an off-the-air converter box. If I wanted to keep using it with a cable/sat box, then no effort at all is required.

When people see HDTV and say, "it doesn't do anything for me" I respect their opinion and that's that. I don't preach. Please do me the same favor and let me enjoy my god damned bigass TV. Enjoy your 9" B&W CRT, bootleg anime VHS tapes, or listening to the wireless with the other curmudgeons. You can all have a good laugh at my expense; send me a telegram if you like. Please include the details of the car you drive so I can criticize it.

But don't force everyone else to.

I'm not. The OP said he wanted to replace that TV but was afraid of modern connectivity standard issues. My post was in reply to that, saying it's not that bad so if you want a new TV, get it.

Context, motherfucker, do you get it?

If you want HD, theres cable and satellite for that.

WTF does that even mean?

Old man, I am SO ON YOUR LAWN right now.

- Less Old Man

Re:Bah humbug

[HTH NE1]

I remember PCI "plugfests" at the PCI SIG meetings, where vendors of PCI products would go from room to room with PC vendors and test their products for compatibility.

This was a great way to check a far greater number of devices together than otherwise would be possible.

It was also a great way to get contacts at companies that you might not connect with any other way. That sounds kinky.

Re:Bah humbug

[zerkon]

Buddy of mine works at Best Buy and gets cables (including HDMI) for 5% above cost. I had him get me a (non monster) hdmi cable that retails for $70 for $20.

by my rough math that's a 350% markup.

Re:Bah humbug

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I said -nothing- about physical wires.

Well you should have. That's the expensive part. If I'm in an office building and I can double the backhaul capacity with a transceiver upgrade, that's much cheaper than rewiring, which is messy, expensive, and time consuming.

Re:Bah humbug

[Fulcrum of Evil]

"Other than murdering dozens, Jim Jones was a pretty decent guy"

Re:Bah humbug

[blake182]

Nobody in their right mind buys cables at places like Best Buy unless they need the cable right now.

One trick that I learned from the Best Buy sales rep -- buy the cable at Best Buy right now, and return it in 30 days and buy your "real" cable online somewhere that doesn't hurt you in the nethers as badly.

I have a wife. She likes to return things, so it works for me.

Re:Bah humbug

[AJWM]

Hah, I'll have to remember that one.

Mind, there's the tradeoff against the gas and time costs of going to Best Buy twice, but it could still be worth it.

Re:Bah humbug

[walt-sjc]

The discussion was physical wire versus optical. Obviously nothing is forever, but optical has proven that it can handle MANY generations of upgrades of speed without replacing the cable. Even over the standard optical cable, lab transceivers are running in the multi-terabit level via optical multiplexing / etc. It as close to future proof as you can get compared to anything else out there. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Re:Bah humbug

[walt-sjc]

Actually, I'll get back to the topic of discussion.

The industry standards for residential structured cabling currently recommend two cat-5e, two RG6U-QS, and optionally two fiber at each standard location (more drops for "media centers." I wired my house for this.

The "bastard of a spec" HDMI came out well AFTER this standard. That's right, these ****tards came up with a HORRIBLE cable spec that is INCOMPATIBLE with industry standard residential structured cabling. I was all ready with a home-run cable system, but the HDMI a-holes decided that nobody should have ever want their display more than 6 feet from the receiver, and certainly wouldn't want the cable hidden in a wall. HDMI must die and be replaced by a structured cable compatible alternative.

terrible connector

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they gonna fix the issue of a limp friction-fit connector at the back of enormous TVs trying to hold back the weight of a thick cable? Who thought that one up? It's hideous.

Re:terrible connector

[Achromatic1978]

Use the big cable tie at the back of [pretty much every] TV like that, it lessens the strain by orders of magnitude. I've never had a HDMI cable fall out, or even wiggle out, even on vertical-down oriented connectors.

Re:terrible connector

[ScrewMaster]

It's still lame though, considering what HDMI is replacing. I shouldn't need to strain-relief a connector just to keep it from falling out.

Re:terrible connector

[Achromatic1978]

Yes, despite my previous reply, "IAWTC". :)

Re:terrible connector

[seanadams.com]

I'm sure the reason for the smaller connector is so a) it takes up less space on the back panels of devices and b) so that it can pass through tight spaces as are common in in-wall installations and cabinets. Regular DVI connectors would be a pain.

Still, would have been nice if it had been done over CAT6 (10Gb/s). 1080p is only about 3Gbps right? More compact, more secure connector, cheaper wire, and field-crimpable.

Re:terrible connector

[sound vision]

I Am World Trade Center?

Re:terrible connector

[Anonymous Coward]

It Ain't Worth The Custard.

Re:terrible connector

[cheater512]

You have a 40' TV and your concerned about the plugs size?

Re:terrible connector

[Anonymous Coward]

Monster Cable - that's who. The connector was fine until the deep-pocketed cable manufacturers decided to bring their game to the digital world and start selling cables as thick as a telephone pole to the average braindead consumer. Never mind the fact that it's digital; bigger is better, right?

Re:terrible connector

[orielbean]

It would be nice to see the tv & cable manufacturers start using the strain-relief connectors that are used on professional applications. The appliance has a steel hook that's part of the device frame, and the cable has the last 6 inches wrapped in a steel insulate that hooks onto the back of the appliance. It goes a long way in keeping my BNC connectors safe from people yanking or stepping on the cords.

Re:terrible connector

[sound vision]

Ah. I was thinking along the lines of IANAL.

Re:terrible connector

[Lumpy]

Decent HDMI cables have had "clip locks" for years now. they have two "prongs" on the top that when you push down on a part of the hood, it releases the prongs and you can easily remove the connector.

The crap quality cables like "monster" brand do not have this feature.

NOTE: you Can not see a difference between a $6.99 HDMI cable and a $79.99 HDMI cable. the only difference is using very flexible stranded copper wire, silly things like a braided cover over the wire jacket and most importantly, decent connector ends.

Most of the problems ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come from two factors of the digital domain ...

1. Everyone has their own standard.

2. DRM used to stop people (*) from viewing/listening to content.

Sadly I can't get why people are (*) surprised when this includes legitimate users.

Why would it be so hard to pipe some form of RGB/YUV or PCM data over a serial bus is beyond me ... That said, I don't see the compelling need for 1900x1400 [or whatever it is] HD images for HOME use. Hate to break it to ya, but "House" is as much a goof in 720x480 as he is in HD.

Re:Most of the problems ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to ya, but "House" is as much a goof in 720x480 as he is in HD.

Although he was more of a goof when he was Prince George.

Re:Most of the problems ...

[ScrewMaster]

720x480? Hell, he's just as big a goof in NTSC.

Re:Most of the problems ...

[Jeremy Erwin]

Dr Cameron looks better in HD.

Re:Most of the problems ...

[sexconker]

NTSC is 720 by 480.
VGA is 640 by 480.

what it is

[bcrowell]

Would it be too much trouble for the submitter to explain what the acronym HDMI stands for, or at least to link to the WP article? Even after reading the WP article, I don't really know much about it.

Since it's a device for imposing DRM, there's presumably some mechanism for forcing the user to buy and use it. What is the mechanism? What types of equipment require it? The closest the WP article comes to discussing it seems to be this: "Both introduced in 2006, Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD offer new high-fidelity audio features that require HDMI for best results." Well, I'm still in the dark. What does "best results" mean? What are your results like if you don't use it?

Another thing I don't understand is how they think this kind of hardware-based DRM can work. All it takes is one hardware hacker to figure out how to tap in to some unencrypted signals, e.g., by connecting onto circuit boards. Once there's a single device that can be hacked by a publicly known procedure, every DRM'd movie out there can be transcoded into a non-DRM'd format.

One interesting sentence from the WP article: "PCs with hardware HDMI output may require software support from Operating Systems such as Windows Vista." So does this mean that you can't use the technology on a Mac, for example? I'm also curious whether any manufacturers are actually making mobos or video cards with hdmi connectors on them.

And how does this fit in with the apparently overwhelming recent trend away from DRM in music? Is it really believable that movies will go the other way?

Re:what it is

[Jeff DeMaagd]

And how does this fit in with the apparently overwhelming recent trend away from DRM in music? Is it really believable that movies will go the other way?

Movies have been copy protected for a long time. VHS had Macrovision, DVD had CSS and HD formats have AACS. They've all been broken though.

HDMI's copy protection has been broken, it's actually the weak point in the chain, HDCP strippers are available. and the encryption is much simpler than what the HD movies have.

Re:what it is

[poetmatt]

its an acronym for: screwing over the consumer yet again via putting DRM in hardware. Don't forget how much microsoft will downrate the quality of things if they don't support microsoft's DRM using vista over HDMI - basically you cant watch high def with netflix (remember that recently?).

Between HDMI, Bluray, and HD-DVD, consumers have gotten the shaft. The only use for HDMI is to go from your computer to your TV (which is about the only way to get quality out of the HDMI). If I recall correct, HDMI stands for high definition multimedia interface . I would suggest avoiding any forms of HDMI and any current form of high def, because although it looks nice its just a political powerplay by major media companies.

You are correct that things that require HDMI over windows as mentioned above, are basically not supported on anything else. So if you are new to the "consumers are criminals" as being the motto of the media company, I welcome you as you are no longer outside of that loop.

Re:what it is

[InvalidError]

Since it's a device for imposing DRM, there's presumably some mechanism for forcing the user to buy and use it. What is the mechanism? What types of equipment require it?

HDMI is only a link-level protocol, electrical, cable and plug/jack specification much like 100BaseTX. HDCP is the actual DRM introduced along with HDMI and it has been adopted by both DVI and DisplayPort.

HDCP (be it over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort) is only required for playing back DRM-infested media at full resolution on DRM-infested OSes like Vista.

Re:what it is

[Teun]

I'm a bit confused by your question in the light of your /. ID.
You ought to be old enough to have read previous discussions about HDMI and DRM and not too old like from the era of valve amplifiers.

Just curious :)

Re:what it is

[UserChrisCanter4]

HDMI is DVI video + digital audio + a DRM system called HDCP (High-bandwidth digital copy protection). HDMI cables have a different pin-out than traditional DVI connectors, but there are adapters that can take one to the other. The DRM system is not required unless the media requires it (more on this below). So, for example, I have my home theater PC connected to my HDTV via a DVI->HDMI cable, and it works just fine. The digital audio on HDMI has the ability to transmit faster than the old S/PDIF system, but other than that it's pretty straight forward.

The HDCP DRM functions by way of a system called the image constraint token. You can plug an HD-DVD or blu-ray player into a tv via analog component (RGB), but the manufacturers of those discs have the ability to activate the image constraint system on the disc if they wish. Unless the player reports that it's connected via HDMI (and thus has the ability to encrypt the signal), the output resolution on the video is reduced to 1/4th the original (960x540 vs. 1920x1080). As far as I know, no disc currently shipping implements the constraint token, and the studios stated that they planned to hold off on activating it until 2009.

In the computer world, the OS as well as your computer hardware has to support the system if you want to playback video that requires HDCP encryption for full resolution. Many video card manufacturers are currently shipping cards with DVI that has HDCP capability, but you'll need Vista to enable it as far as I know. You'll also need a monitor or television with HDCP support. This usually means purchasing a monitor with HDMI inputs, but there are many that use DVI and support HDCP over DVI. One manufacturer I know of, ASUS, is currently shipping a mainboard based on the NForce chipset that has an HDMI output that actually combines the onboard video and audio into the single cable, but for everyone else you'll generally have to run the audio over coaxial or optical digital and the video over HDCP-eqipped DVI or an HDMI connection that isn't transmitting audio.

The comical part, of course, is that they've spent so much time locking down the video stream when it's far more likely that people will crack all of the DRM at the disc level. HD-DVD has already been mostly compromised, and Blu-Ray discs have an extra level of DRM that hasn't yet been implemented but is theoretically supported in all Blu-ray player. Of course, I'm sure it will be just as foolproof as all the other DRM systems...

At the end of the day, the principle complaint that people have with HDMI is that the need to handshake for encryption sometimes gets screwed up, especially when switching inputs. So, for example, most people who plug their PS3 straight into the TV do fine, but if you plug it into an audio receiver and plug the receiver into the TV, people may experience a blank screen when they switch back to the PS3 input because the system is convinced that the link has been broken. In this situation, you have to go unplug and replug the HDMI cable to re-establish the link and get your video signal back. Highly annoying, but nothing like the ridiculous "We're closing our online video store so your purchases are now worthless because they can no longer be authenticated." In my opinion, the benefits of the single cable digital audio+video outweigh the minor and occasional annoyance, although it sucks that the annoyance only exists because of the asinine requirement for DRM on the cable.

Re:what it is

[asc99c]

Just to point out, HDMI (high def multimedia interface) itself does not contain or require DRM. HDMI is pretty much the DVI standard with support for sending audio over the same cable, and a much smaller connector. The DRM scheme that goes with it is HDCP (high def copy protection). PCs have been built with HDMI for a while now. I don't believe HDMI output requires any special software support, but the HDCP bit might. I got a nVidia 7300 for my media centre which has an HDMI port (I'm not sure if it supports HDCP, I'm fairly sure it's not using it). I therefore use an un-DRMed HDMI link between the PC and the TV. I'd have been almost as happy with DVI, but then I'd need another cable for the audio. Hardware wise, there's nothing wrong with HDMI - it's a fast digital link for audio and video. Blu-Ray also doesn't seem to require DRM contrary to all the reports I've seen. The Planet Earth Blu-Ray discs I have (from the BBC) don't seem to be DRMed up, and they definitely are region-free. Unfortunately the films I have on Blu-Ray are fully DRMed and only playable on my PS3 :(

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to time I wonder why I keep reading /.. Thank you for reminding me about that -- and thanks for the answer.

Re:what it is

[91degrees]

Would it be too much trouble for the submitter to explain what the acronym HDMI stands for, or at least to link to the WP article?

Normally I'm all for spelling out acronyms, but this is one of those times when it really isn't going to help. Of course, a link or a brief explanation of what HDMI is wouldn't have hurt.

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

HDMI 1.3 requires HDCP be included. Intel cash bonanza, since they designed the DRM for HDCP.

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

> As far as I know, no disc currently shipping implements the constraint token, and the studios stated that they planned to hold off on activating it until 2009.

"[...] an unofficial agreement between film studios and electronics manufacturers to not use ICT until 2010 - 2012. However, some titles have already been released that apply ICT." (ICT = Image Constraint Token)

Re:what it is

[bhima]

Ed Felten reviewed the HDCP system when it first came out. His conclusion: "A much more plausible answer is that HDCP encryption exists only as a hook on which to hang lawsuits".

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1004
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1005
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1006
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1007

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

both waffles and what are closed to registration at the moment. change your sig and hang out in the IRC channels.

Re:what it is

[Tim C]

HDCP (be it over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort) is only required for playing back DRM-infested media at full resolution on DRM-infested OSes like Vista.

Or for playing it on any HD-DVD/Blu-ray player and HD TV for a disc that stipulates that it requires it. The studios have promised not to switch on that requirement on discs they release until 2009, but that's hardly iron-clad.

Incidentally, Vista only requires HDCP because it was that or not be able to play "DRM-infested" media at full resolution. While it would have been nice for MS to have taken that fight for us, given they back one of the formats it was never very likely.

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Blu-Ray discs have an extra level of DRM that hasn't yet been implemented but is theoretically supported in all Blu-ray player. Small point - the extra level of DRM, BD+, has been enabled in new releases from Fox at least.

Re:what it is

[Runefox]

Since I didn't see anyone else mention it, almost any DVI-capable video card with HDCP can output DRM'd HD media to any capable display (or if the card isn't HDCP compatible, it can output SD or DRM-free). The reason for this is that HDMI is completely compatible with DVI-D (single link) cable, and is directly convertible with only a simple pin conversion part (nearly the size of a DVI to VGA adapter).

Obviously, audio isn't transmitted over this link, and it isn't compatible with a VGA-only card.

Re:what it is

[Repossessed]

HDMI actually uses HDCP whether the media in question tells it to or not. In fact, the only technical difference between HDMI and DVI is that HDCP is mandatory on HDMI.

That is way too many acronyms.

Re:what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing I don't understand is how they think this kind of hardware-based DRM can work. All it takes is one hardware hacker to figure out how to tap in to some unencrypted signals, e.g., by connecting onto circuit boards. Once there's a single device that can be hacked by a publicly known procedure, every DRM'd movie out there can be transcoded into a non-DRM'd format. You are, of course, correct.

However, there is a somewhat popular theory that says that DRM doesn't need to be perfect in order to be effective. According to this theory, if DRM can stop or slow down some people from pirating, then it will push a certain percentage of them toward legal purchases.

I do believe that at this point in time, we have had enough DRM failures so that the media executives finally understand that they need to lower their expectations of what DRM can do for them. (Good evidence of this is the recent availability of authorized DRM-free music online from the major labels.)

HDCP was mandated several years ago, before media executives started understanding the limitations of DRM. I believe that the conventional wisdom among media executives now is: "The long-term benefit of HDCP is uncertain, but there's no reason to discontinue it, because it might help slow down piracy -- at least in the short-term."

Also, there is another theory that says it may be possible to create a DRM system that is unobtrusive enough that it won't piss off customers too much, and therefore (when combined with the theory above) could result in a net positive for the media companies. Media executives are taking a wait-and-see attitude to see if HDCP turns out to be such a system.

Re:what it is

[xaoslaad]

There are in fact manufactures making motherboards with HDMI connectors. This is one I just bought for a basic media PC I'm in the process of putting together. You can search around Newegg and find more. They aren't all that uncommon anymore, and as you can see not too terribly expensive.

P6NGM-FIH

There are nVidia and ATI cards with HDMI outputs or adapters as well. I have seen nVidia 8600's with them on the web, as well as 7600's, and ATI X1600's I think... you have to search a little but you can find them.

What does HDMI get me? Well, in my case at least (don't know if it is true of all TV's), I need to use an HDMI connector to get 1080p resolution on my TV. Other connectors support up to 720p/1080i. If you've never looked at a computer screen rendered at 480i or 1080i (the i is for interlaced) I'll tell you now that it will make you insane in no time. Straight lines have a habit of flickering really badly because every other line is refreshed (odds and evens) at a time.

With 480p, 720p, and 1080p (p is for progressive, and is refreshed from top to bottom if I'm not mistaken) everything becomes better. 480p gives you a screen thats smaller than 640x480 and is very tough to work with, though I have done it by shrinking fonts, etc. It is kind of funny to look at a huge television screen with a tiny resolution like that. Anyway, 720p gets much better, and 1080p is just the icing on the cake.

This little project was inspired from loading Linux on my PS3. It's just that it's too damn slow. You can't even play a DVD full screen without it bogging down (when under Linux, the PS3 OS plays DVD's and Blu-Ray discs just fine.) Less intensive processing work OK, but with less than 256MB or RAM and Sony's Hypervisor in the way, it just tends to drag...

Once I get the PC up and running the plan is to be able to do anything from surfing the internet, streaming audio from pandora.com or similar, watch DVD's, or movies from Netflix (though that would require a VM to use their damn Windows only client) and maybe get World of Warcraft running under WINE (which is does quite fine) so that I can engage in some raids on the 60" big screen, just for the sake of saying I did it. Really anything you would do on your computer, but on a much much bigger display.

As far as audio goes, I'm not sure. My receiver is from the stone ages, and hopefully one day in the near future I will get the money to replace it, so that I can get true surround sound, to go with that great picture, and all those speakers, etc. I'm not exactly what I'd call an audiofile anyway, so I don't know if I would even be able to tell the difference...

Re:what it is

[Kalewa]

I'm sorry, but I think generally submitters and editors of Slashdot assume a certain level of informedness from the readers. If you're a technie, you should either know what HDMI is, or be able to look it up yourself. I don't complain when stuff gets posted about Linux that I don't get. I look it up.

Re: what it is

[Dolda2000]

HDCP (be it over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort) is only required for playing back DRM-infested media at full resolution on DRM-infested OSes like Vista. Is that really true? As far as I know, HDCP is at the very least a required part of the HDMI specification, so devices need to implement it in order to be HDMI-certified. What I don't know is whether or not they use it by default, or even whether it's possible to turn it off.

Since all devices need to implement HDCP anyway, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the use of it is mandatory as well. Even if it isn't mandatory, it wouldn't surprise me if most/many devices simply won't work if its peer on the link refuses to use HDCP.

I've been wondering about this for a long time now and have been hesitant to use HDMI for any purpose not knowing the answer (not only just because it is DRM, but also because I read previously on /. that HDCP is what is causing the vast majority of problems when using HDMI). I'd really appreciate it if someone could tell me (or, of course, link to the answer).

Re:what it is

[daern]

HDCP (be it over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort) is only required for playing back DRM-infested media at full resolution on DRM-infested OSes like Vista.

Actually, this isn't strictly correct, as I found out when I bought a new HDMI "switching" amp from Sony. It actually turns out that this amp cross-converts video formats that are plugged in the back. e.g. My Wii plugs in using the add-on component video cable, and the amp converts this and sends it down my 10m HDMI cable to the TV. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, the downside of this is that *the amp* enforces HDCP compliance and if you plug in a non-HDCP source, like for example my Vista MCE box with a good-ol' DVI output, the amp won't route it. Bloody annoying, I can tell you.

Re:what it is

[gatzke]

The worst part of HDMI + HDCP for me is the way it is implemented.

They don't do a per session check or even a periodic check. It appears they continually check, and I must have a loose connection between TIVO-Amp-TV so I get a black screen with warning message IN THE MIDDLE OF WATCHING STUFF. and it makes me angry. I touch the cords and restart the amp and it goes away. Sometimes you just power the amp and it goes away.

This makes me want to find some solution to strip HDCP from the stream so I don't have to deal with the problems it causes. I can fix it when it happens, but my three year old just wants to watch tv...

Re:what it is

[mtmra70]

Your statement about component video (RGB) into a TV is misleading; it is actually YPbPr. RGB implies that each cable has red, green and blue with each containing sync. You would be hard pressed to find a TV with actual RGB (not RGBHV) on any TV let alone a consumer TV.

YPbPr is as follows: Y=luma, Pb=different between blue and luma, and Pr is difference between red and luma.

Re:what it is

[Hillgiant]

Would it be too much trouble for the commenter to explain what the acronym WP stands for?

Semi-seriously. I was just reading the article about text editors and was wondering what Word Perfect had to do with digital signals.

Re:what it is

[caldaan]

On the audio side, it looks like an HDMI cable is the only cable with enough bandwidth to carry the decrypted Dolby True HD without transcoding it. Since one of the big bonuses of Dolby True HD is that it is compressed using a lossless compression(which has the possibility of digital master quality audio), then transcoding it is going to degrade the sound.

If you don't have HDMI most devices can create a Dolby Digital output for SPDIF and optical connections to use, that will sound better than a standard DVD's audio, but not as good as the standard Dolby True HD signal.

Re:what it is

[allgoodnamesaretaken]

HDMI is DVI + audio... I have a HDMI to DVI cable and I can play both games and blu-ray movies from my PS3 no issues. I have plugged the DVI into TVs, computer monitors, other display devices and of course my 720p projector for which it was purchased with no issues so far, seems to be a standard DVI signal... (the only issue is running a seperate cable for sound to my amp, boohoo) I honestly don't know what your all going on about DRM, this is news to me, I have never had any problems with that :(

Re:what it is

[L0rdJedi]

At the end of the day, the principle complaint that people have with HDMI is that the need to handshake for encryption sometimes gets screwed up, especially when switching inputs. So, for example, most people who plug their PS3 straight into the TV do fine, but if you plug it into an audio receiver and plug the receiver into the TV, people may experience a blank screen when they switch back to the PS3 input because the system is convinced that the link has been broken. In this situation, you have to go unplug and replug the HDMI cable to re-establish the link and get your video signal back.

Are there systems that fix this little "annoyance"? I can see why people would call it more than an annoyance. Who wants to get behind their equipment everytime they switch to playing their PS3 or whatever else it happens to? Most of the time, people hide that stuff in the back so it's not an eye sore.

Re:what it is

[HTH NE1]

They don't do a per session check or even a periodic check. It appears they continually check, and I must have a loose connection between TIVO-Amp-TV so I get a black screen with warning message IN THE MIDDLE OF WATCHING STUFF. and it makes me angry. I touch the cords and restart the amp and it goes away. Sometimes you just power the amp and it goes away. I used to get that all the time on my TiVo Series3 HD, telling me the HDMI connection could not display the video I was sending it. Either something changed in this area or the software of the TiVo was updated such that it's been months since I've encountered that problem.

I do still have problems with the image disappearing for a second, then coming back with a click. Worst times are when there is analog(!) noise in the digital image, even when the TiVo is paused, like someone running a blender. Most problems occur when using the TiVo, though that's only to say I use the TiVo more than any of the other four devices (XBOX 360, PS3, or upconverting Sony 400-disc DVD changer).

I pass the signal through a 4-port HDMI switch before going to the HDTV. Next time I have trouble I'm going to bypass it entirely.

Re:what it is

[gatzke]

My amp does HDMI switching, but I may have to bypass it in the future as well. I assume the Tivo HD will put out HDMI and digital audio at the same time... Eventually someone will sell a HDCP removal box and I will be able to stick that between my tivo and amp and I won't have to worry with the black screen of piracy accusal.

While I am complaining... Why doe they have to screw with the audio encoding? It makes my amp switch periodically to a different mode. Usually, commercials cause it. You would think the channel would remaster all the audio so it is in the same format all the time. I guess they slip different tv modes as well (720p 1080i) you would think they would not do that either.

CES is the new LinuxWorld

[heroine]

Amazing how big CES has gotten in the last 7 years. Now it's the center of the universe. Don't forget to mention DVR for OCAP.

Re:CES is the new LinuxWorld

[pla]

Amazing how big CES has gotten in the last 7 years. Now it's the center of the universe. Don't forget to mention DVR for OCAP.

Don't know if you meant that as sarcasm, but for at least 15 years, I've always waited until after the January CES to make any large tech purchases... Not because I always want the cutting edge (in fact, I usually avoid most of the newest of the new at the CES), but because it drives the price of the last year's toys over a cliff.

Or looked at a bit more cynically - It happens after the holiday season for a reason. ;-)

It *IS* an HDMI problem.

[Jane Q. Public]

Very obviously! If there were no DRM in HDMI, there would be no problem!!! It just pisses me off because essentially they are saying: "If we opened it up we would have no way to lock in consumers and guarantee ourselves a profit in a non-competitive field. So we are just going to screw the consumers instead."

Re:It *IS* an HDMI problem.

[InvalidError]

It just pisses me off because essentially they are saying: "If we opened it up we would have no way to lock in consumers and guarantee ourselves a profit in a non-competitive field. So we are just going to screw the consumers instead."

And we all know average consumers lack the knowledge or technical resources to copy the stuff (particularly from VGA/DVI/HDMI sources) in the first place and for pirates, it is always a simple matter of "break once, copy everywhere" that only delays things by a few hours or days at most.

Between actual lost sales to piracy (people who really want/need the media/software but download instead of buying) and the millions companies pour into DRM, I seriously wonder whether or not DRM pays for itself. In any case, HDCP today is completely irrelevant: with AACS broken, the raw media data is a far more desirable source than decoded and pre/post-processed raw data on the display link.

Re:It *IS* an HDMI problem.

[Jane Q. Public]

Lost sales to piracy have been grossly exaggerated. And the RIAA and MPAA have admitted that their lawsuits have been a money sinkhole, not a source. If they spent the same effort on modern distribution of products people wanted, at a price people thought was fair, this problem would cease to exist. Instead, they have done little but try to bolster their old, outdated business models with legislation, litigation, DRM and other restrictions.

Re:It *IS* an HDMI problem.

[Jane Q. Public]

I should mention that the market is finally forcing them to do that (get on the drm-free, downloadable tunes bandwagon) anyway... it was inevitable. The only remarkable thing is that it took them so long to figure that out. Resistance is NOT futile... Now I wonder how long it will take them to figure out the same thing for video. The writing is right there on the wall, in big print! How long will it take them to read it?

In other news...

[rhizome]

Industrialists say smog isn't a pollution problem, it's an air problem.

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when ./ started posting news about things that does not exist or newer should have existed?

No such thing as wireless anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean "wireless" routers have power cords and cat 5 plugs. And wires run to radio transmitters and usb receivers run to "wireless" keyboards and mice.

And don't get me started with all those wires and traces on circuit boards and such.

The whole wireless thing is a fraud, if you ask me.

So they plan to spring the trap in 2009?

[Xenographic]

The HDCP DRM functions by way of a system called the image constraint token. You can plug an HD-DVD or blu-ray player into a tv via analog component (RGB), but the manufacturers of those discs have the ability to activate the image constraint system on the disc if they wish. Unless the player reports that it's connected via HDMI (and thus has the ability to encrypt the signal), the output resolution on the video is reduced to 1/4th the original (960x540 vs. 1920x1080). As far as I know, no disc currently shipping implements the constraint token, and the studios stated that they planned to hold off on activating it until 2009.

This is the important part, IMHO. They intend to wait until people have "upgraded" to HDMI before they spring the DRM trap on them. Then again, I'm sure that the pirate copies won't contain any image constraint tokens.

Just what the hell kind of business are they running when "thieves" treat their customers better?

Re:So they plan to spring the trap in 2009?

[UserChrisCanter4]

Yes, but if you've upgraded to HDMI then the DRM isn't an issue. You've got the secure path, the ICT won't be activated, and you'll get the full 1920x1080 signal.

The people that get burned are folks who bought HDTVs before HDCP/HDMI had hit the market; they've got connections fully capable of feeding 1080p signals in, but they'll be screwed when the image constraint tokens starts getting activated.

Re:So they plan to spring the trap in 2009?

[L0rdJedi]

People like me, who bought "last years model TV", because I didn't know what HDMI was at the time. The TV had a DVI input, which excited me since I knew I could plug a PC into it and get a good resolution. My tv can only do up to 1080i, but I'm going to assume that that'll still get chopped way down once the ICT is activated.

Or I could just get HD movies from the net in other ways and not have to worry about my resolution getting turned down.

Re:So they plan to spring the trap in 2009?

[UserChrisCanter4]

A little late to the reply, but there's a good chance that your TV doesn't actually "do" 1080i unless it's several years old. 1080i is an interlaced format which is only natively reproduceable on analog displays, and most TVs from about mid-2004 on use digital display systems of some sort (LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCoS, etc.) This is especially likely given that your TV has a DVI connection.

So, what you have is likely a TV that has an actual resolution somewhere around 720p (1280x720), but can accept a 1080i input and display it. Thus, your TV can "accept" up to 1080i but is going to interpolate that signal. It may, in fact, be possible that you purchased an EDTV, or one with a 480p native resolution that just interpolates all inputs down to approximately 720x480.

Yeah, ICT will likely chop down your resolution, but not as much as it might originally sound to you, since the TV was already busy doing the same thing.

Headline Misleading As Always

[Anonymous Coward]

What he actually said was nothing more than a bitching about a technicality in terminology.

"Wireless HDMI"

"There is no such thing," Shard says, noting that the moniker is "misleading" because it suggests the technology is standardized through the HDMI camp. "Basically it means that there's HDMI on one end and a wireless link on the other. ... We asked them to start calling it wireless for HDMI."

Re:Headline Misleading As Always

[yoyhed]

Yep: WirelessHD

10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

HDMI bandwidth is 10.2Gbps synchronous (ie. not packet switched). 10Gbps (theoretical max) wired ethernet therefore won't even do it, not with a single cable. Is there any wireless protocol that could deliver HDMI data without loss, even using multiple channels (if properly supported)?

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

HD content will be distributed in compressed form.

Think DLNA & DTCP

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

Well, at 50:1 H.264 would give 204Mbps, so Gb-e could pump that over a wire. But where's a wireless protocol for 204Mbps? Maybe 802.11g over multiple simul channels...

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is over the air HD broadcast already a wireless protocol? :P

Just need the rabbit ear on the TV and a HD transmitter. Problems solved.
Why make things more complicated than it is technically needed.

Also you need to hook up power and speakers to your home entertainment system or have they all gone wireless while I dozzed off reading this?

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Renraku]

I'm sure we could come up with something, but the energy density would be so high you'd have to tell people not to stand in the invisible beam.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[91degrees]

Yes. But a channel only provides about 24MB/s (YMMV in different countries. This is UK DVB using 64 QAM).

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

But where's a wireless protocol for 204Mbps? http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?QuickLinx=4CSG
Allegedly.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[pdxp]

This is the closest wireless can get AFAIK.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

That's not even close to 1080p, which is the 10.2Gbps I mentioned. Or did talking sense go out of order when you posted as an Anonymous Coward?

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

That's pretty damn cool. But what it needs is a receiver to connect to the TV that can also do 300Mbps, and decode H.264. Preferably fanless, and hopefully the whole wireless/codec pair is under $800. Seems possible...

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[cloricus]

Yes you can easily get wireless to transmit that much. Though the limitations and the cost would be totally insane mainly because you would have to use a huge chunk of in use spectrum, limit the range so you didn't drown out a huge amount of other equipment as well as other wireless HDMI systems, and depending on how many megawatts used hide your cat to avoid it being microwaved.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[zippthorne]

And where are you getting this 10.2 Gbps signal, anyway? From a 50 GB Blu-ray disk? That's what, almost a minute?

If you put the decompressor in the set, what's the problem? You don't have anywhere near 10.2 Gbps of actual information coming into anyone's house via any method at the moment.*

*Ok, except maybe people with some kind of IMAX sized spools coming in by forklift. But I don't know many houses that are equipped to handle that kind of equipment.

BTW, OTA digital broadcast ranges from SD, all the way up to 1080p60 depending on the station. It's not compressed by reducing the pixels, but by reducing the detail, preferentially both in time and space.

The main flaw in the AC's plan is the question of whether or not good H.264 compressors can work in real time.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

Well, I'd probably get it from the most accessible source, the HDMI output, from my Blu-Ray player or my HD cablebox.

But I have an HDMI TV, and there's no equipment with an HDMI input. So I don't really want a new TV with the decompressor in the set. So given what we've actually got is a setup that could use exactly what I described.

And OTA 1080p with lossy pixels isn't HDMI.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

OK, how? I hid the cat and I'm rich.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[zippthorne]

I look forward to seeing pictures of your to-be-built giant spool room and buggy-whip collection.

Just because you've already bought into the infant technology, doesn't mean that it's the best way to go about doing things, or that the better ways will make your bit useless. Other people could still benefit from looking at the problem from a different angle.

Data-rate is a non-argument for shooting down lower-bandwidth solutions than HDMI currently because there is no source of 10.2 Gbps information in the home at the moment.

Further, the OTA signal and the BRD format are both no more complicated than H.264, so your television is *already* capable of decompressing all of the High-Definition input options (and one of those, without modification) available (and if it doesn't, you bought it early enough that you knew you were basically beta testing), it's just not wired in a way that makes this accessible.

No matter which option you choose, no more than O(35 Mbps) of actual information makes it to your TV. Which is technically within range of fast ethernet or 802.11g networking, and well within the range of GigE. If any disks are encoded below the broadcast-standard bandwidth, they could be transmitted to the television on an empty channel, much like those FM radio thingies so popular amongst the portable music players, except with no degradation of signal.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

Do you have a 1080p TV? My 2007 50" 1080p DLP looks spectacular, especially with my $500 PS3 (that runs Linux) Blu-Ray. But the PS3 fan is so loud that I'd like to keep it in the office room next door's datacenter, not in the livingroom with a 7.1 HiFi. A $150 cable that can connect only one TV makes me want a $400 wireless link that could maybe serve multiple TVs in my home for just $100 per receiver. And my existing Gb-e LAN makes me think I could get most of the benefits pretty soon, before the wireless is working/affordable.

All of which is just a little evolution away - evolution of HDMI. It looks like there are already some multi-channel 802.11n devices, and some fanless H.264 HW, that could do true wireless networked HDMI, with all its benefits. which puts about 10.2Gbps decompressed pixel data on my 50" screen. That looks a lot better than 35Mbps, or anything else less than actual HDMI. Which, if you've actually watched bigscreen HDMI, you already know.

So I don't consider HDMI/DLP, Gb-e, 802.11n, H.264, most of which I've already sunk a sizeable (but not bankrupting) investment into "buggy whips". Not when millions of others have also done so, when the product lifecycle of the format is at least 7-10 years longer than now, and when there's no reasonable alternative - and when it looks great and is fairly affordable. It's true that always dreaming of the next, more perfect tech is free, and even looks better (in your mind), but it's much harder to watch a movie with a friend that way.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[zippthorne]

I'm glad you enjoy your purchase, but although it is currently the best solution on the market, it remains far from the most efficient use of the various technologies in question. Although you're transferring 10.2Gbps of data over your HDMI link, you are not transferring 10.2Gbps of information.

If the information is coming from a BRD, then the rate is somewhere around 35-60 Mbps, and if it's from OTA digital, it's somewhere around 24 Mbps. Note that these two numbers are within an order of magnitude, although the disk contains quite a bit more information.

Based on what I've seen of PS3 games, I'd say that the actual information is considerably less than 35 Mbps, though it is less clear how to send only the good stuff, since it is not already in compressed form. This compares well with the observation that CGI films are not rendered in realtime on PS3s at the movie theater, but on huge render farms, taking more than 30 CPU-minutes per frame, before compressing into the various distribution formats.

Absolutely NO ONE is sending out full HDMI data streams of movies in any format. A two-hour film would occupy 9 terabytes at that rate. I used IMAX spools as an exaggeration, but I think you can clearly see how the weight of a movie collection would very quickly exceed the capacity of the average living room floor storing films of that size using existing media.

Anyway, the point is that you don't need to talk about whether you can send the full 10.2Gbps over wireless for a wireless link to be extremely useful. In fact, there is already plenty of capacity over existing wireless technologies to fully support movie watching, generated content from PS3, Xbox360, or computers notwithstanding. I don't think anyone was suggesting forgoing the physical link entirely, but rather opening up more connection options for people to avoid tangled wires and overpriced cables.

Re:10.2Gbps Wireless?

[Doc Ruby]

Well, if all that's true, then why are all these "wireless HDMI" products dropping real data for compression? Even 802.11g should be able to do 35Mbps.

I'm looking to improve my current setup with something either available now, or right around the corner. It seems to me that at worst an H.264 compression should compress even 10.2Gbps losslessly over WiFi or something like it. But there isn't a product offering that performance, not even vaporware.

So we're both saying effectively the same thing. The disagreements about whether the high end that I say is doable is necessary are immaterial. What's taking so long for anything that deliver all the data we use HD for?

nice connector

[nguy]

I don't see this as a problem at all; you shouldn't be putting so much strain on your connector that you need screws to hold it in. If you have a long, heavy cable hanging from the back of your TV, hold it in place with a cable clip so that there is no strain on the connector at all. I much prefer small, friction-based connectors to the old VGA and DVI style connectors.

Re:nice connector

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're crazy.

Re:nice connector

[lhorn]

Much better to take the trouble to fit a cable-tie than having a wonky connector - especially since the system is designed to detect a minute cable break and need renegotiation to set up the secure channel. This seems to require power cycling in some devices.

HDMI Licensing, LLC?

[jeffkjo1]

HDMI Licensing, LLC

This is perhaps unrelated to the original purpose of the thread, but HDMI Licensing, LLC? So there's a whole company whose purpose is just to license the HDMI Connector? Well, they're not doing a good job, because it's all but impossible to find HDMI to HDMI connectors at most stores.

More than that, has anyone heard of an RCA Cable Licensing LLC? A cursory search of the internet doesn't yield any attempts by RCA to control dissemination of the now ubiquitous cable. Perhaps HDMI doesn't need a whole company....

Re:HDMI Licensing, LLC?

[JohnnyComeLately]

HDMI is a proprietary plug, whereas the RCA, aka phono, plug wasn't (isn't). They purposely made it a closed, proprietary format so that they could charge for licensing, etc. It's really an end game for the DRM goals that large corporations are hoping allow them to totally lock content, IMHO. Crack your player? Cool, but the TV won't display the video because your HDMI signal doesn't include the "flag", which says you paid for the content. Have a consumer modulator (e.g. you can see a camera over the front door on channel 125 from any TV)? Ooops, can't use it unless they paid the $$$ for the HDMI license to say, "This content is OK".

I half think they would somehow build DRM into prescription glasses if there was a technical way to do it and then make it look like a "charitable act".

FREE GLASSES* (must subscribe to DRM-enable subscription for $10 a month, 24 month minimum with a $500 early drop out fee).

Re:HDMI Licensing, LLC?

[AJWM]

it's all but impossible to find HDMI to HDMI connectors at most stores.

Try Microbarn, unless you absolutely hate ordering online. I have no connection with them beyond being an occasional (and satisfied) customer. Good prices for all things cable, IMHO. (They sell other stuff too, but so far I've only bought cables from them.)

PulseLINK has wireless HDMI (shhhh dont tell TFAA)

[JohnnyComeLately]

(TFAA meaning The Freakin Article's Author).PulseLINK announced wireless HDMI with full HD content and is showing it at CES. They also use similar technology to send 4 simultaneous HD streams (audio + video) along side Gigabit Ethernet (at each end) via conventional coax (assuming RG-6). So, without re-wiring your home, you can have Gigabit Ethernet and 4 HD feeds anywhere there's a coax drop. It also passes through normal splitters and doesn't interfere with conventional TVs hooked to coax, so you don't have to swap out all your coax wall plates with something that strips out the signal.

The assertion "it's not wireless HDMI" is, IMHO, intentionally misleading. Technically, using their logic there is no HDMI because you could equally say, "Well, there's a possibility today's physical cable won't pass whatever standards they approve". To me it's retarded. You're building DRM into the cable? I'm not sure the Home Integration Market (the guys who specialize in big dollar home theater jobs in really nice houses) realize the implications down the road. Your really nice in home modulator, etc, may become obsolete when new DRM-expectant devices don't see "the secret code" and shut down any content they don't recognize. One of the other posts on here did a good job explaining the impact, using the example of plugging your PS3 through a receiver to a projector. I do just that with my XBOX360. I send it through my Denon high-end receiver. The 360 content isn't touched, but the DVD (standard def) input, and VHR player are upscaled and sent out the single Component Output for the projector. In other words, I use my receiver to switch between inputs to the single, component input of the projector.

What's a "digital issue?" There were none with CDs

[dpbsmith]

And why should there be such a thing as a "digital issue?"

I don't remember any "modulation issues" when FM radio was introduced. You just bought the damn radio and it worked, except the sound was better than AM.

I don't remember any "magnetic issues" when cassettes were introduced. You just bought the damn cassette player and it worked, except the sound wasn't quite as good as LPs... but the cassettes were compact and there weren't any ticks, pops, or scratches.

And for that matter I don't remember any "digital issues" when CDs were introduced. You just bought the damn CD player and it worked, except that the sound was better then on cassettes. (And for 98% of all ears on 98% of all recordings in 98% of all real-world consumer situations, it was much better than LPs, too).

If the customer is using HDMI and having "issues," then they're HDMI issues.

No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

If the morons who designed it had any experience with actual AV equipment, they would have copied HD-SDI instead of DVI.

HD-SDI lets you have 100m runs over standard 75ohm cable, terminated in standard BNC connectors.

Compared to HDMI or DVI which can't be terminated, so it can't be run through walls, and running it through a wall would probably exceed the maximum run anyway. The only way to make a long DVI run is to use expensive extenders that require power on either side. And even then

If the guys who designed HDMI had copied HD-SDI instead, there would be no home theater installation issues.

dom

Re:No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[kindbud]

These standards are used for transmission of uncompressed, unencrypted digital video signals (optionally including embedded audio) within television facilities;

Yeah, like that's gonna show up in consumer electronics equipment^Wtoys.

Re:No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Just asking: How does termination facilitate running through walls?

Re:No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to pull a cable through a conduit if it has a huge plug on the end. Odds are the plug doesn't even fit in the conduit.

Also it's hard to know how long of a cable you need. That's a problem because if you pull a 50' cable because you think it's a 50' run but it turns out that it's a 51' run, you're screwed. Since nobody makes a 51' cable, you probably have to get a 100' cable and have 49' sitting coiled up somewhere.

I don't know about you, but I don't really want cables dangling out of my wall. I want a faceplate on the wall with a jack on it that I can plug into.

Re:No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not suggesting that they should have implemented HD-SDI as the standard, just that they should have copied it. They could have added encryption, DCC, more bandwidth, and so on. They could have even created a whole new standard, just based on the same concepts. It's not like the HD-SDI signalling or physical interface is somehow too expensive to implement for consumer equipment. In fact, it looks much simpler and should be cheaper (like USB vs. FireWire).

My point is just that if I was going to create a standard for consumer HD video, I would copy a different standard for HD video (HD-SDI), not a standard for plugging monitors into computers (DVI). I would also make it so that the encryption doesn't cause problems with things like KVMs and video switchers, but that's beside the point.

dom

Re:No, the problem *IS* HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the idiots who came up with HDMI were ignoring how everyone and their sister have Home Theater setups, instead of just a TV sitting next to an optical drive, and maybe a game system or cable box.

[/sarcasm]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"It's a digital issue" There WON'T be bricks...

[davidsyes]

But, thar WEEL BE BLOOD. WHen the FCC starts shitting bricks over the backlog of anal log uptake constriction. They can give out all the coupons they want, but there will be those who don't or won't get them, and they'll be cut off. I don't know if they'll be in some place in Tennessee or the Ozarks, but if they get their hands on congress, thar will be blood... It'll be crude, but it'll be red...

50 feet?

[Khyber]

Last I checked and tested the longest a *COMPLIANT AND CERTIFIED* HDMI cable could go was 40 feet. Anything further without increasing the thickness of the wires caused massive problems, and that's across HDMI 1.2 and 1.3 spec.

So where the fuck did you buy your 50 foot cable?

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/how-long-can-hdmi-run.htm

Re:50 feet?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Monoprice.com

The wires are thicker, the bundle is 1cm in diameter, the wires in the cable are a larger gauge than that of shorter cable. It's not wimpy stuff.

Re:50 feet?

[Khyber]

From informative to flamebait. Again, mods need to go back to school. I've done the HDMI dance several times, I know what I'm talking about, and the response to my post confirmed my suspicion of having bought a cable with thicker conducting wire. This mod is BS.

It's all laid out.....read it

[speedlaw]

HDMI is part of a whole. The idea is to cease analog outputs. No HD will be allowed without HDCP. Note any upscaling DVD players only upscale via HDMI, analog outputs are limited to 480. HDCP is not a requirement of HDMI, but having a license for HDMI means that if I make some sort of HDCP stripper, the agency that licenses HDMI can come after me for violation of their license. It is true that HDMI does NOT require HDCP, but HDMI is not an "open" format or standard, like an RCA jack. So, the industry is not totally stupid. Knowing most consumer electronics lasts 2-8 years, we gently introduce HDMI, allow the analog equipment to mostly wear out, and once the analog ports disappear by industry agreement, you will see the image constraint token used. Think of this like Macrovision. It's a pain in the behind to the casual user, but trivial to the pirate. As the older stuff dies, the new stuff will just happen to have ICT, and HDMI only for any HD output. Anyone who thinks that the voluntary ICT hold back is permanent is deluded. The lockdown is proceeding apace. The only fly in the ointment is the lack of interest in Vista and the new HD disc formats.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush

[tepples]

2008 election - thank God it's not Bush. The big question is whether Hillary Clinton will serve one or two terms as POTUS before JEB takes office.

If not Cu, then what metal?

[tepples]

My original: "but wire is cheap."

Your strawman: "you think copper wiring is cheap" What metal cheaper than copper are your HDMI wires made of?

Re:If not Cu, then what metal?

[CastrTroy]

Who cares what the wires are made of. It's a digital signal. As long as the signal gets from A to B, then you have no problems. It's not like analog with variable levels of degredation based on how much interference there is.

Re:If not Cu, then what metal?

[Firethorn]

I've heard that aluminum is cheaper. You generally have to use a larger gauge of it, so it's a little more complicated, but it's generally cheaper.

Re:If not Cu, then what metal?

[AJWM]

Someone else with reading comprehension problems.

Hint, "wiring" != "wire". And neither equal "cable".

24awg copper wire goes for about 1.25 to 1.5 cents per foot per conductor; I'll grant you that's about three times the commodity price for bulk copper, but if I can buy 6 feet of HDMI cable (19 conductors) for less than the price of a Happy Meal, (plus $2 each for the connectors) I don't regard it as expensive.

Your economic situation may vary.

Re:PulseLINK has wireless HDMI (shhhh dont tell TF

[Doc Ruby]

Well, they admit that "video data is encoded using the JPEG2000 video codec". Since they don't claim it's the lossless version (and the compression ratio down from 10.2Gbps would be too high otherwise), it's got to be lossy compression. Which means it's not HDMI.

But I guess it's better than nothing, where the rest of the system is HDMI and wireless is required, and evidently it will interop with the other HDMI links in the signal path. And later, when when someone uses H.264 to compress only 20-30x, they'll have to replace only that link in the path.

Re:"It's a digital issue" There WON'T be bricks...

[Firethorn]

Less than 50% of the nation at this point doesn't have something other than OTA broadcast. A somewhat smaller fraction hasn't bought a new TV with a digital tuner yet. I'm one of them, but I'm fairly unusual.

Still, I know about the coupons, they've been broadcasting ads on the TV about the shutoff.

At this point I'm merely waiting for the boxes to be available. I think that relatively few people addicted to their OTA broadcasts are going to be caught unaware.

There will be some idiots that complain, but then, in a country of 300 million, I can find somebody to complain about most anything. Most caught by the changeover will simply go out and buy the converter box, coupon or not.

Wasn't it Obvious?

[EdIII]

The first time I saw tech posts with Wireless HDMI I knew it was more then likely impossible. Not impossible to accomplish, but highly unlikely you could make it perform well enough to actually push HDMI over the signal reliably and viably for the home theater market.

Mostly, from a technical position since it takes a VERY fast wireless signal to send a HD transmission. I am sure that the target market is not expecting only SD to work well over Wireless HDMI. Every device I have seen so far that attempts to send HD signals over a network, regardless of HDMI, fails horribly. It's a very simple issue of bandwidth. Wireless G cannot possibly handle it, even under the best of situations. Wireless-N is all just draft anyways, and in my experience tends to perform poorly compared to its specs.

They sell a lot of HD wireless media devices, but I have yet to hear (directly) that any of them actually performed in real world situations. This is a case of vendors just being dicks and pushing out products that only operate under %99.999999 ideal conditions. Some of the processing power is so strained on them, that I am surprised they can run a UI while transmitting data at all. Anything less then lab perfect conditions, and you start to visually see problems with the transmission itself.

Additionally, the last I heard was that HDMI can require 4.95Gbps to 9.9Gbps to send video information. I admit, I don't know exactly what kind of resolution is generating that traffic. I just know that is what I hear is being transmitted on HDMI cables.

What wireless technology, that is cheap enough for home use, can push that much bandwidth? One of the last demonstrations I saw reported on said a whopping 3 FEET was shown with the wireless HDMI unit. I am pretty sure you can rig up a wireless solution for only 3 feet that can push the required bandwidth. Let's try something real world and practical like 15-30 times that distance.

P.S - I am sure some people are getting confused by the article, in that it implies that there is no licensing for these products. The guy only stated that there is no such thing as Wireless HDMI, coming from them specifically. There is no agreed upon standard for HDMI being transmitted wirelesses yet. He advised that it should be called Wireless *for* HDMI.

P.P.S - I know that HDMI and HDCP are different. An HDMI device can be HDCP compliant, but it does not have to be from what I understand. So one does not imply the other. I want to know if these devices are even HDCP compliant in the first place.

Re:Why does everyong care so much about HDMI?

[Jeremy Erwin]

The only thing HDMI gets you is a crappy connector and it carries audio as well as video. Whoopy-freakin-doo!

Bluray and HD-DVD both offer high resolution audio soundtracks-- imagine a CD, uncompressed, in 7.1 channels. On some players, you can hook them up with 3 pairs of RCA cables. On the PS3, and lower end HD-DVD players, the necessary analogue jacks are not present-- only hdmi.

Yes, you can use SPDIF, but it lacks the bandwidth for anything more complex than DTS/Dolby Digital.

Will still be analog on cable...

[lpq]

Cable companies (Comcast) are advertising the benefit of being on cable -- since cable TV won't convert to digital anytime soon for their bottom (i.e.: standard, no extra charge) tiered services.

Not Wireless HDMI; Wireless HDAV!

[kryptkpr]

It's true that there is no wireless HDMI (due to the enormous bandwidth requirements of uncompressed high definition video), but a new standard is emerging called Wireless HDAV.

In a nutshell, there's a real-time 1080p H264 encoder on one end, then a UWB wireless link (claims of up to 10m) followed by an H264 decoder. Hopefully they will allow one to directly inject H264 content (from a cable/iptv box or from other sources), then use this technology to send it to the TV for decoding. Applications such as video game consoles can pass through the H264 encoder first.

This was just announced so technical details such as video bit rate are anyone's guess, but if this was correctly implemented we may one day be able to get rid of the rat's nest of wires behind our entertainment systems because everything will self-configure wirelessly.

Re:What's a "digital issue?" There were none with

[greed]

I do remember issues with FM Stereo.

It's due to the pilot tone being within the human hearing range, 19 kHz. The receiver is supposed to notch-filter it out and use it to regenerate the carrier for AM demodulation of the "Left-Right" channel (the "Left+Right" channel was sent where mono FM would be).

Many receivers in the '70s had very poor notch-reject filters and would let the 19 kHz pilot tone through; if you had decent speakers and good hearing, that meant a continuous high-pitched whine when listening to FM stereo.

Or, worse, flaws in receiver design would have cross-talk and an amplified version of the pilot tone would feed into the output stage. These ones were easy to fix; just turn off the FM stereo circuit.

You also wouldn't want to listen to an FM stereo channel with a mono receiver and good speakers, unless the receiver was modern enough to "know" about the pilot tone and have brick-wall filter above 15 kHz.

And I've had plenty of azimuth issues with magnetic tape. Commercially-recorded tapes were horrid; the signal quality was often pretty good, the problem was, the head alignment was different between any two tapes you'd care to name. So you wouldn't get good sound from any one tape without fiddling with the azimuth screw on your deck.

Digital can be infinitely regenerated. Other than that, there's no reason for it to not suck.

Mod Parent Up

[mpapet]

The actual threat to your personal media freedom posed by HDMI is worth sticking with analog or go fancy and get a digital output for your freevo/mythtv box.

Digital offers all the hi-def goodness with none of the DRM evil.

Re:"It's a digital issue" There WON'T be bricks...

[davidsyes]

That IS be true... (A play on "thar weel be blood", hehehe, bad one, huh?)

BELKIN WIRELESS HDMI doesnt exist!?

[duguk]

Oh wait.. Yeah, it does exist! It's right on The Register.

(Belkin 5ghz wireless HDMI transmitter at CES)