New HDMI 1.4 Spec Set To Confuse

thefickler writes "HDMI Licensing LLC, the company that determines the specifications of the HDMI standard, is set to release the HDMI 1.4 spec on 30 June. Unfortunately it could very well be the most confusing thing to ever happen to setting up a home theater. When the new cables are released, you're going to need to read the packaging very carefully because effectively there are now going to be five different versions of HDMI to choose from — HDMI Ethernet Channel, Audio Return Channel, 3D Over HDMI, 4K x2K Resolution Support and a new Automotive HDMI. At least we can't complain about consumer choice."

Comments

HDMI Ethernet

[NFN_NLN]

â HDMI Ethernet Channel
"The HDMI 1.4 specification will add a data channel to the HDMI cable and will enable high-speed bi-directional communication. Connected devices that include this feature will be able to send and receive data via 100 Mb/sec Ethernet, making them instantly"... OBSOLETE

Thanks for coming out.

Re:HDMI Ethernet

[pla]

100Mb/s bandwidth for a 40Mb/s signal. What is the problem?

Well, for starters, 1080p (keep in mind this involves "raw" devices, not sending an MPEG4 down the line) uses just shy of 1.5 Gbps.

We can follow that up with "anyone not using wireless already upgraded to gig-E switches about five years ago".

We can then finish it off with one of my favorites (actually not, but in this case it really does serve the described need) - Any attached devices needing bidirectional communication can use plain ol' ubiquitous USB. And really, do my speakers actually need to talk back to my receiver under any even remotely plausible scenario that doesn't scream "DRM, mother fucker, do you speak it?"

Yah but

[Colin Smith]

Are they gold plated?

The TV manufacturers are simply screwing themselves over. They're dreaming. The new standard is going to be a computer screen attached to a PC streaming from youtube or similar.

 

Re:Yah but

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I'll be surprised if in 5 years we buy many displays without "computers" built-in."

Worst prediction ... ever ...

I'm a geek, but...

[raddan]

Ugh. Maybe you can explain why I'd want to buy an HDTV with all of the accoutrements rather than buy a vastly cheaper flat panel display, and use it with my far more flexible computer. In my opinion, TVs and computers are converging, and new revisions of HDMI are a way to keep them differentiated. Is there really an advantage to an HDTV? This is the thing that has stopped me from buying an HDTV.

Now, as far as cabling goes, I suspect most of this is driven by a marketing department. If you look at computer display technology, which has been in rapid flux for at least 20 years, they've managed to standardize on TWO different connectors: one for analog and one for digital. Sure, there are some weirdo ones out there, like ADC and 13W3, but they never really had any real relevance. But with TVs, which is ostensibly simpler than computer displays, we have this panoply of cables. Why?

Now, Cat5e-- that's an impressive technology. The data rates people have been able to squeeze out of plain ol' twisted pair! But seriously; we do everything in software now. Why does television insist on having cable after cable to do functions that we could do with a single one?

Re:I'm a geek, but...

[ion.simon.c]

Simple example: what about networked players?
* Do you add a switch into the unit and have both the TV and the player on the same subnet/VLAN? Or does the player and TV have its own subnet and the unit acts as a router?

If we assume that these devices are going to be on Joe Average's network, then we do nothing fancy... behave just like any PC attached to the network would behave.

[Should the player be a router o]r should the TV?

Neither, unless one really *wanted* to make them a router, I would make them a switch. I suppose that you could advertise your network-enabled media device as a handy-dandy router, for those folks who can't be arsed to buy a $30 router + WAP. But then, you'd need to add an IP stack to the devices in question.

Which address space should it pick? What if it clashes with the existing network?

Use DHCP to figure this out. If there are no DHCP servers, turn to the procedures outlined in RFC 3927.

What if there are duplex negotiation bugs/issues?

I imagine that duplex/rate negotiation is a solved problem by now. Have you seen issues caused by non-broken hardware that would not negotiate rate or duplex settings?

Re:I'm a geek, but...

[Bert64]

People buying a 40" monitor would expect a much better resolution than that offered by 1080p... Look at the resolutions supported by the high end displays from Apple for instance.

Great

[macemoneta]

This is the 11th revision of the HDMI specification in the less-than 7 year life of HDMI. Meanwhile, the 22-year old VGA connection still works fine, at full HDTV resolution, and with none of the incompatibility or usage restrictions (DRM) that HDMI brings to the table. Um, progress?

Why not just use Ethernet?

[ISurfTooMuch]

Forgive me for not having kept up with the progress of HDMI, but wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to have simply used gigabit Ethernet for all this? The data is all digital anyway, and networking technology is quite mature, so why did these folks feel the need to reinvent the wheel? Right now, you have to worry about whether your new TV will have enough HDMI inputs for the devices you have or might get later, or you need to get an HDMI switcher. With Ethernet, you just connect everything to a switch or router, and you're all set. One connection per component is all you need, and, if you use a router, everything immediately gets connectivity to the home network or Internet. And if a new component comes out that needs to talk to another component in a different way or using more bandwidth, that can all be handled in the firmware. As long as you don't flood the local network with more data than it can handle, everything is fine, and the rest of the networked devices, including the router and cables, can stay exactly the same.

Or did someone in the entertainment industry worry that using Ethernet for connecting entertainment devices would make it too easy for those evil hacker types to connect a computer to the setup and break their DRM? Or maybe that if this gear was too easily networked, we might...GASP!...use it to send video from our Internet-connected computers out into the living rooms, undermining traditional TV?

Re:Why not just use Ethernet?

[Zero__Kelvin]

" ... so why did these folks feel the need to reinvent the wheel?"

To sell more wheels.

Re:Why not just use Ethernet?

[markov23]

Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists. HDMI is really all about copy protection. I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection. The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft, 200 ft etc ) we now are spending > 500 for a piece of cable, we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal. This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen. Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate. And as long as I'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades. /End Rant

Why bother. Just use component video

[wiredlogic]

It amazes me how much the proles gobble this shit up when *gasp* analog component video is perfectly capable of handling a high bandwith video without all the incremental upgrades to a poorly thought out spec. Remember, a VGA cable (not quite as good as separate coax) is able to carry higher resolution and refresh rates than 1080p/60 and it could be all achieved on an early/mid 90's PC with a high end video card.

Re:Does any get that sinking feeling about HDMI?

[ceoyoyo]

I thought six bucks for a fifteen foot cable was quite reasonable. You're not paying the extortionate prices for cables in the retail store, are you?

As for wireless HDMI, no, no, no. That's just what we need. Some huge bandwidth hog spewing unnecessary interference all over the little bit of spectrum we've got just because you find plugging one end of a cable into your blu-ray player and the other into your TV too confusing. Save the wireless for things that actually benefit from being wireless.