New Ethernet A/V standard aims to take down HDMI
The humble but able Ethernet cable forms the basis of the proposed HDBaseT standard
The beautifully simple new standard, which is called HDBaseT, is turning to the humble and ubiquitous Ethernet cable to provide a cheap and easy way to pipe HD and 3-D video around your home. We assumed that such a simple and common sense idea would have been dreamt up by an unknown startup company looking for some positive headlines but HDBaseT has been developed by a industry group that includes LG, Samsung, Sony and Valens Semiconductor.
The kind of heavyweight support that such large players can offer is likely to be instrumental in getting the new standard into peoples homes.
We've got to admit we're surprised. Most new A/V standards developed by large industry groups come saddled with the baggage of a proprietary connector, ensuring consumers have to go out and buy an exorbitantly priced cable just to keep up with the latest standards (we're looking at you HDMI). Ethernet cables on the other hand are as cheap as chips and can even be made at home with gear bought down at your local PC World or Maplins. Its a touch of common sense we're unaccustomed to seeing in the technology world.
The standard purportedly allows for cable lengths of up to 328 feet, more than enough for most peoples needs, and will be rolling out at the end of this year if all goes to plan.
A simple, easy and cheap way to connect your A/V system up - does that sound a little too good to be true right now? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
97 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyWho wants to bet that when it's released you'll need to buy a special proprietary router and a £50 RJ45 to HDMI/DVI/VGA/YPbPr converter box though?
In either case sounds like a good idea, cheap to cover a large distance to a projector or something :)
also they are alot more flexible than most cable and would allow for far better cable management
Well that's confusing since Ethernet by definition is "a family of frame-based computer networking technologies for local area networks (LANs)." and they are named 10baseT/100baseT/1000baseT for consumer level standards.
Using RJ45 jacks for data that isn't supposed to be plugged into a network would be ****ing stupid.
Also, Valens Semiconductor's HDBaseT Receives HDCP Certification From Intel's DCP LLC. FFS.
I am also wondering what you pay for a 20meter Goldplated, triple twisted angel hair wired "Monster" cable. :P
35ft cable inc. delivery for £2.99 on the Amazon Marketplace.
If that's not a good deal I'm not sure what is!
i think they may need to provide some sort of prorection though, to prevent damage caused by connecting to a standard ethernet port, POE etc
I bought 2x 1.2m hdmi cables (admittedly not 328ft!), delivered, from amazon for under £1.50... they do the job.
Not got the gear to put into every room but the sockets are there and waiting for technology to catch up. My new TV has an Ethernet connection and links to YouTube via the internet connection and also uses my home server for images, music and video. however, some formats don't work so I need my mediacentre to do that part for me.
So my main question Is it just a software issue for the TV?
Requires Cat6/7 cable and hardware that can handle a few of gigabits
an example.
http://www.kenable.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=1764
Although better digital cables have less signal loss so error correction does not need to be applied so much thus producing a better quality picture.
Digital cable?
I can't wait to see $100+ fancy ethernet cables.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp
Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.
Not at all stupid. I have CAT6 throughout the house - several ports per room. By using something like the Intelix system (avovercat5.com) I can move my cable box to the basement with the rest of the electronic junk that I have (like switches, vonage boxes, wireless phone bases, modems, and who knows what else) and plug whatever TV I have wherever I want. I'd just not connect the "TV" CAT6 cable to the switch.
Why on earth would I necessarily want or need to have the HD and IR signals routed through my switch? I don't plan on moving my TV around very much.
FFS that should be illegal
Can you show me a rigourous "double blind" study to back this claim up?
Unless the cable being used is so poor or so long or suffering massive interference the signal won't get degraded enough for there to be picture loss.
A quality cable should be able to run longer and shield itself from more interference, but time and time again over priced cables for digital connections have proven to supply no more accurate a digital signal than standard cables.
BTW, I'm not claiming that there aren't some really poor HDMI cables out there which are badly made - I'm sure there are some dreadful cables out there, but "most" cables will perform just as well as an expensive one.
For me it would be extremely useful to view whats happening on my server if it crashes or RDP/NIC fails, unless anyone knows of a cheap out-of-band management solution?
Cool! I added my own ;)
So you can watch your Sky HD on any PC/laptop in the house? Stream content to your Xbox. Be able watch the content at multiple locations simultaneously? Have several different streams broadcasting all at once?
And by the way, I wasn't suggesting piping signals over Cat5e/Cat6 is a bad idea... It's a fantastic idea - cheap cabling with low signal loss, good number of twisted pairs, what's not to love? It's sticking an RJ45 connector on the end.
RJ45 is for Ethernet networking. Making it dual purpose is confusing and will lead to tears when equipment end up getting fried.
I spoke too soon...
not completely but to agree to have HDCP was a big dumbass move on their part such a stupid standard...
It's required to view high definition content such as Blu-Ray. You can complain all you want about the morals of the standard, but from a technological perspective, not including HDCP would be disastrous for this idea.
Just as everyone plugs their Xbox 360 into their PS3?
If you're lucky, some hardware will come with SATA cables with clips. Though without them, SATA annoys the crap out of me because of this.
You gotta get locking sata cables, they're really nice until you get in tight spaces and need to unlock them
eSata is terrible about falling out of the sockets but then again it might be the cheap socket it's plugged into
I wonder if we will be able to purses firmware updates for current devices, I've already seen TV's with Ethernet ports. Alternatively most of the big Samsung screens have PCMCIA slots in the side...
There, fixed it for you!
If you think people don't use their TV's built in speakers, you're living in a world of your own. Plenty of people do. It's not a bad idea really. You only need two extra conductors and it's one less cable for the massive majority of people.
Well, HDMI is a digital protocol so there are actually no extra conductors in the cable, either the data is transported or it isn't, it's always in the specification.
In fact, HDMI supports lossless compressed audio streams as well as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master, which is superior to analogue cables.
I know I do.
Why you ask ? Because I'm not rich that's why
As for the Uber-cable..... 24/7 support line!!!
"help me... i need help to connect the cable"
You got to be joking right??? its a horrible standard that forces people to have to buy hardware and monitors that support HDCP... as an example I have a great 30" Doublesight Display and its more then capable of viewing HD content but because it doesnt have that stupid HDCP chip I cant view it unless I rip or use ANYDVD now you tell me whats so great about the standard, its like gun laws all that standard does is prevent those from not doing wrong from enjoying content and those who do plan to do wrong well its not worth a hoot as its easily bypassed anyways. So in the end its a pointless standard.
Very few people have the money or space for 30inch screen
And as with all tech gotta upgrade eventually.
most if not all dual link dvi monitors that have hi-res (part of the reason for the dual link is supporting the higher res, this includes new and old monitors) dont have HDCP as it doesnt meet the "standard" which is absurd as it obviously surpasses the HD res requirement, so again its a stupid idiotic standard plain and simple.
Anyhow beck on topic, as long as they dont key the ends so that your stuck once again into having to buy special cables then this is fantastic.
balls...
"lossless compressed"
double balls
This! I'm happy enough with the telly's speakers i'm not an audiophile and while i proabably could tell the difference between good speakers and the telly, I don't care.
I know. I use the input on my audigy 2 and then play everything on my 10 year old FPS2000 and it's still a thousand times better than the TV...
Please think before you comment. Honestly, it will help you a lot.
The reason why transporting audio information between devices as a digital signal rather than an analogue signal is advantageous is twofold. Firstly, analogue signals are lossy, and when errors are introduced, the errors stay in the pipeline. It's like a computerized version of Chinese Whispers, as the audio goes along the cable it slowly degrades. Whether you notice this or not depends entirely on the length and quality of the cable, but it can get quite significant, especially with cheap cables. It's much easier with digital since you can do simple error correction to restore the signal back to it's original state, and unless the signal has degraded massively, there will be no data loss.
Secondly, digital signals have a much greater bandwidth than analogue signals. If you want to transfer five audio signals, you're going to need at least five different wires (one for each) and perhaps an earth. This means that an analogue signal can be hard to set up. On the other hand, given a proper digital system, you could transfer all the data, identically using a single conductor, or even just transfer it with the image.
Lossless compression? 'double balls'? It's a well known technology, which is used in many mainstream audio formats such as FLAC and Apple Lossless. Just because 'compressed' and 'lossless' might seem to be mutually exclusive does not mean that they are - FLAC files are far more useful than simple waveforms.
I never said that it's a good standard, or that it's useful at preventing copyright theft, merely that to not include it in this specification would be commercial madness because it would restrict the device to non-HDCP content, thus leaving HDMI without any real competitors.
I hope you realise that at least.
He is perfectly happy with the sound quality of his TV speakers and while he acknowledges that they may be inferior to that of a dedicated sound system, he has assessed what he has and does not feel the need to purchase one. He should be ashamed of that?
Stop acting like a 5-yr-old and grow up.
Amen to this. We don't judge people if they run an old Athlon 64 or a Core i7 here. It is what it is.
Dropping HDCP would not eliminate HDMI, in fact the first generation of HDMI capable TVs didnt have HDCP as it was prior to that standards creation which by the way screwed a lot of people who had bought those TVs over as it made their Hi-Def ready TV useless. I think it would just open the market more and give the consumer more freedom and more choice which in the end drives cost and thats always a good thing.
They say that HDBaseT can move 10.2 Gbps but that is uncompressed video and therefore a meaningless spec for a physical layer. Their maximum cable length is the same 100 m as for 100baseT and their data rate for Ethernet is also 100 Mbps. So their real rate is 100 Mbit raw. Since the HD cable bandwidth per channel is 38.78 Mbit, this should provide plenty of raw bandwidth headroom for video, analog, and other data.
They say they can scale up to Gigabit Ethernet which suggests a simple upgrade to 1000baseT on cat6.
Another reason to think they running standard Ethernet is their claim that they can use commercial and industrial installations, and star topologies, which suggests standard Ethernet switches.
I have NO idea where they think they can run up to 100W of power through AWG-24 copper wire. PoE (IEEE 802.3af-2003) provides for 12.9 Watts, or double this in the new PoE+ spec. Ethernet cable is 8.422 ohms per wire for a full-length cable. At the 44 volt source voltage, the laws of physics limit power to about 28 watts. Maybe to get to their 100W number you have to run four parallel ethernet cables?? Although, as a comment, there are serious UL and building code violations running this much power over Ethernet wire.
USB-over-Ethernet already exists, so it is nice they are bundling that in. However, I havent seen any IEEE or IEC standardization activity in this area. Anyone know of that?
yes because spending $100+ to hack something you own is just oh so worth it...
It is illegal - its called extortion!
AnyDVD has paid for itself in my time and lack of annoyance by skipping all the adverts and anti-piracy warnings at the beginning of discs.
And it's $78.
It was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek to be honest but I will reiterate that listening to audio through tv speakers is an 'interesting choice', esp given there is often a perfectly good stereo nearby and the connect would cost you 2 quid.
However…
@Bakes
“Please think before you comment. Honestly, it will help you a lot.”
It would seem despite your wordy reply that I think a great deal more than yourself….
Look at your sound system… just take a look…
If your listening to audio from your TV then the quality of the audio is dictated by the quality of your speakers and amplifier contained in the TV… take it from me they will be sh*t and sound worse than a 1970’s amp connected to 1970’s speakers by the sh*ttest cables from mediamart.
If however you have a decent modern processor with hdmi that can take advantage of lossless audio (so were looking excess 2k on the processor) then that’s hooked to your amp how… by wires? Then the amp is lets face it a set of coils of… well wires… then how are your speakers hooked up? … ****ing long wires If you have a room of size enough to give decent audio separation.
So in the broad scheme of things you’ve managed to reduce your analogue wiring a tiny % of the distance, not only that but you reduced it in the section that it is easiest and cheapest to provide a high quality wire.
****ing great!!!!
Now lossless compression…. Sure for file transfer it’s a good idea but what is the point when you’re not restricted on band width between your source and your amp? Are you downloading files through HDMI?
just out of curiosity why choose dvi for transporting data? Was it a decision regretted later?
This is my point, that not using HDCP would be a commercial disaster for this, leaving HDMI (or DVI, but that's slightly different) as the only viable standard.
Yes, that's a given and should be obvious. Nevertheless, many people find their TV audio perfectly acceptable.
That's not the main point of using a digital connection, although it is a minor advantage. Digital connections allow you to reduce the number of inputs needed massively. For example, with a 7.1 audio system, to transport the data from your computer to your amp you'd need I think 16 (I forget the specifics) conductors simply for the audio. This is obviously a massive pain in the ass, since it means that you're using a large number of wires for the audio signal.
On the other hand, HDMI transfers all it's data through 9 pins, with 10 ancillaries. This means that it's extremely easy to make a compact, flexible cable, since you can transport data quickly. in a compact connector.
If you transfer it through analogue pipes you'd have a much trickier time due to the much larger number of connections.
You can argue all day about the semantics but the fact is, transporting data that's been stored digitally in a digital way is superior to converting it into an analogue signal, which is why data transfer techniques such as S/PDIF exist and are widely used.
You should probably talk to Dolby or DTS about that.
Insulting won't get you anywhere.
it was invented soley to serve the missdirected aims of distrubuters which as it happens failed utterly leaving the consumer to pick up the tab(s) for a series of insufficient inadiquate and unnecessary connection standards.
"transporting data that's been stored digitally in a digital way is superior to converting it into an analogue signal"
there isan argument for converting it centrally, but in the last 100m there is no argument for transporting it.
"is superior to converting it into an analogue signal"
for 99% of the time its in that last 100m it is in analogue form.
"For example, with a 7.1 audio system, to transport the data from your computer to your amp you'd need I think 16" hdmi has 19 pins... ethranet has?
Yes, that is correct.
Exactly, you'd need half the number of pins to transport your entire HD film across an ethernet cable than you'd need to transfer an analogue 7.1 audio stream alone, never mind the image data.
I think we're agreed then :-)
well aside from the fact that you still need 16 (long) wires to connect your speakers but that'd just be splitting cables ;-)
Only if you actually had 7.1 speakers. That's the beauty of digital (well, in HDMI and this standard) - each channel is only used if it's necessary - you aren't carrying around a thicker cable merely so that it offers 7.1 support if you just have 2.0 speakers.
in the last 3m 2*no speakers regardless of cabeling
hdmi only good if you have a decent dac
That's not what I was saying.
What I was saying is that if the signal from your PS3 to your amp/tv was 7.1 in analogue form, you'd need 16 separate conductors for the audio in every scenario, even if you only had a 2.0 telly. This would constrict flexibility massively.
(it's important to note than in this case I'm assuming that like HDMI, USB, COM, LPT, D-SUB etc, all of the wires are in one plug).
Because it's digital, whether there are 2 or 7 channels in use, there are no physical changes (in the wire), so the wires are universal and can just be hot swapped, whilst being a lot more flexible.
I don't see how it's an 'interesting' choice... do you live in some bizzaro world where all TV speakers have been replaced by Vuvuzelas? or am I missing something- because my dad's 42" Vizio has perfectly good audio with reasonable response in all audible frequency ranges. Is that rare or am I deaf?
so your point is that the only advantage of hdmi is that you have one cable? if that is the case then fine you have my agreement... however please note that the following statement does not refer to audio quality but only the requirement to plug in cables....
"In fact, HDMI supports lossless compressed audio streams as well as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master, which is superior to analogue cables."
Also, meme, I removed ANOTHER flame above. Post again in this thread and I'll send you packing.
Stop trying to convince each other too, it's like arguing whose mum loves them most.
The answer is, obviously, both your mums love me the most ;)
Manufacturers used to sell plasma screens without speakers and its a shame that this is no longer an option
Most people don't have the money for that, and the difference to many people, whilst noticeable, is not worth £400-500.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/Y/254122/original/Screen%20shot%202010-07-01%20at%2011.59.51%20AM.png
http://www.tomshardware.com/gallery/Screen-shot-2010-07-01-at-11,0101-254122-0-2-3-1-png-.html
My tv already has the input but its old(2007) so I don't know if it would support this...
It wouldn't, since the specification hasn't been finalized yet no TVs have been produced that would run it.
I am certain that in a blind comparison between a £1000 TV and £500 TV with a £500 AV system, the great unwashed would always prefer the experience offered by the latter. There is obviously a price point where it is no longer applicable, of course.