bit-tech.net

New Ethernet A/V standard aims to take down HDMI

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 guys over at DailyTech are reporting on an up and coming new A/V standard that, unlike most new A/V standards, actually makes sense.

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.

97 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
capnPedro 2nd July 2010, 11:39 Quote
Sounds good. As long as HD content doesn't sap bandwidth from the network. I wonder how it supports QoS?

Who 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?
eldiablo 2nd July 2010, 11:43 Quote
So will it be able to transmit its video over a home network? (supposedly gigabit) Or isnt it ethernet but it just uses UTP cables? If so, what will happen in you plug it into the home network.
In either case sounds like a good idea, cheap to cover a large distance to a projector or something :)
lacuna 2nd July 2010, 11:45 Quote
You can spend as little or as much as you want on current AV cables and this will be no different. Unless there are some performance advantages over HDMI then its not particularly exciting. My NAS is already connected to my PS3/PC/AV amp by ethernet so its nothing new in that respect. Having the connector actually lock into the socket has its pros and cons of course
proxess 2nd July 2010, 11:49 Quote
Reading the article, it seems like they'll just be using the UTP cables for A/V systems, and not other your LAN. Really, how would you do the routing? I think some people are being missing the point. It's like connecting your screen to your PC with an UTP cable instead of a VGA or DVI or HDMI.
yakyb 2nd July 2010, 11:52 Quote
i have always like the convenience of ethernet cables specifically relating to the socket size and the clip mechanism iif this is able to replace agp / dvi i would be happy, if it were also to replace HDMI (i hate that they have no clips) i would be ecstatic

also they are alot more flexible than most cable and would allow for far better cable management
capnPedro 2nd July 2010, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by proxess
Reading the article, it seems like they'll just be using the UTP cables for A/V systems, and not other your LAN. Really, how would you do the routing? I think some people are being missing the point. It's like connecting your screen to your PC with an UTP cable instead of a VGA or DVI or HDMI.

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.
[USRF]Obiwan 2nd July 2010, 12:05 Quote
So you got a tv with ethernet and HDbaseT and you plugin you'r powered HDbaseT cable into your Ethernet port and in the process blow up your ethernet controller chip inside the tv. (since power over cable is one of the items of HDbaseT)

I am also wondering what you pay for a 20meter Goldplated, triple twisted angel hair wired "Monster" cable. :P
mrbens 2nd July 2010, 12:32 Quote
would the picture and sound quality be as good as an expensive HDMI cable tho?
RichCreedy 2nd July 2010, 12:55 Quote
ever bought an ethernet cable from pc world, they aint cheap from there, cheaper to support your local indi pc store. or order online(delivery charges apply though)
Bakes 2nd July 2010, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
ever bought an ethernet cable from pc world, they aint cheap from there, cheaper to support your local indi pc store. or order online(delivery charges apply though)

35ft cable inc. delivery for £2.99 on the Amazon Marketplace.

If that's not a good deal I'm not sure what is!
RichCreedy 2nd July 2010, 13:01 Quote
i image routing wouldnt be a problem, as they will make av routers/switches, then all those peeps with 19"racks can use the standard ethernet sockets they had installed all over their house, using the patch panels, simples.

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
RichCreedy 2nd July 2010, 13:02 Quote
@Bakes, free cable just paiying for delivery, lol, you cant beat that
Bauul 2nd July 2010, 13:29 Quote
HDMI cables really aren't expensive if you don't purchase the silly priced ones from DGSi. My 360 is currently hooked up to my TV via a cable that cost me an eye-watering £1.50 from Amazon.
LJF 2nd July 2010, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
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).

I bought 2x 1.2m hdmi cables (admittedly not 328ft!), delivered, from amazon for under £1.50... they do the job.
RichCreedy 2nd July 2010, 13:39 Quote
i suggested to my sister that next time she wants to buy a hdmi cable to speak to me, as i didnt think the £70 3mtr cable she got from DSG was good value for money
yakyb 2nd July 2010, 13:56 Quote
jesus did you make her take it back
crazyceo 2nd July 2010, 14:13 Quote
I picked up 300m of Cat6 cable on ebay for £35 and have at least 2 wired connections in every room, inc the bathroom! Picked up a Dell 42U server rack for £30 and a 24port Gigabit switch and patch panel for £29.

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?
daletur328 2nd July 2010, 14:25 Quote
The good thing about this solution is the fact that it may prevent signal drop that occurs on HDMI at lengths over 7-10m. I have about 15-20M, 30M with good routing, from my AV to other rooms and if it means that i can get HD 1080P pictures to my bedrooms TV without the need for either buying a new AV setup or SKY multiroom I will have saved a lot, and more importantly stay in bed longer.
sandys 2nd July 2010, 15:33 Quote
You can buy this sort of stuff already, these guys are just standardizing it and integrating it into devices I guess, no good for your home network as your network is not going to be fast enough to send 1080p around the place.

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
saspro 2nd July 2010, 15:33 Quote
So they've merged this with a standard network card then?
Spraduke 2nd July 2010, 16:29 Quote
I paid £15 for a 10m HDMI cable from scan (or play have them aswell). Digital cables do not need to be expensive, as long as the signal reaches the end then no information is lost. Analogue cables the material quality has a larger impact due to the possibility to knock information off of the waveform.
saspro 2nd July 2010, 16:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spraduke
I paid £15 for a 10m HDMI cable from scan (or play have them aswell). Digital cables do not need to be expensive, as long as the signal reaches the end then no information is lost. Analogue cables the material quality has a larger impact due to the possibility to knock information off of the waveform.

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.
wafflesomd 2nd July 2010, 17:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by saspro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spraduke
I paid £15 for a 10m HDMI cable from scan (or play have them aswell). Digital cables do not need to be expensive, as long as the signal reaches the end then no information is lost. Analogue cables the material quality has a larger impact due to the possibility to knock information off of the waveform.

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.
g3n3tiX 2nd July 2010, 17:56 Quote
Oh but expensive (VERY) ethernet cables are already there.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.
amacieli 2nd July 2010, 18:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
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.

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.
yakyb 2nd July 2010, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX
Oh but expensive (VERY) ethernet cables are already there.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.

FFS that should be illegal
Guinevere 2nd July 2010, 18:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by saspro
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.

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.
Bionic-Blob 2nd July 2010, 18:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amacieli
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.

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?
HourBeforeDawn 2nd July 2010, 18:36 Quote
I already do this, its called HDMI over Ethernet and I recommend using Cat6 for it. Works great, crystal clear 1080p and 7.1 audio with no noticeable signs of degrade or noise.
Guinevere 2nd July 2010, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX
Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.

Cool! I added my own ;)
capnPedro 2nd July 2010, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amacieli
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.

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.
wafflesomd 2nd July 2010, 19:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX
Oh but expensive (VERY) ethernet cables are already there.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.

I spoke too soon...
Tulatin 2nd July 2010, 21:16 Quote
I just can't wait to see $557 Monster HD-e cables in best buy. 120 feet, with gold plated connectors, you see!
HourBeforeDawn 2nd July 2010, 21:21 Quote
you know what I loved is that Best Buy Rocket Fish brand 50ft HDMI Cable that sells for $125-$150 at cost if you work there is $14 lol but hey thats how these companies make money is on cables not on hardware.
Noob4ever 2nd July 2010, 22:21 Quote
meh, I just buy cat5 in spools and plug the ends on myself, easy quick and exactly the length i need it to be
flaming_goat 2nd July 2010, 22:41 Quote
This will be a disaster for non technically mined people. I can imagine people plugging their tv into their router and complaining it dosent work. Also what about blu - ray player which have ethernet, everyone will be plugging the tv into the ethernet instead of the same connector hd output!
Noob4ever 2nd July 2010, 22:58 Quote
I imagine goat, that they'd have some specific colored cat 5 to fix this issue, or striped in someway w/e, were talking about some of the biggest companies in the business, their not idiots :D
HourBeforeDawn 2nd July 2010, 23:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob4ever
I imagine goat, that they'd have some specific colored cat 5 to fix this issue, or striped in someway w/e, were talking about some of the biggest companies in the business, their not idiots :D

not completely but to agree to have HDCP was a big dumbass move on their part such a stupid standard...
Bakes 2nd July 2010, 23:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaming_goat
This will be a disaster for non technically mined people. I can imagine people plugging their tv into their router and complaining it dosent work. Also what about blu - ray player which have ethernet, everyone will be plugging the tv into the ethernet instead of the same connector hd output!

Just as everyone plugs their Xbox 360 into their PS3?
azrael- 3rd July 2010, 00:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
You can spend as little or as much as you want on current AV cables and this will be no different. Unless there are some performance advantages over HDMI then its not particularly exciting. My NAS is already connected to my PS3/PC/AV amp by ethernet so its nothing new in that respect. Having the connector actually lock into the socket has its pros and cons of course
Well, for one the RJ45 connector actually clicks into place, unlike HDMI connectors which good likelihood of dropping out of the port (not unlike SATA connectors). That's a plus in my book.
wafflesomd 3rd July 2010, 05:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
You can spend as little or as much as you want on current AV cables and this will be no different. Unless there are some performance advantages over HDMI then its not particularly exciting. My NAS is already connected to my PS3/PC/AV amp by ethernet so its nothing new in that respect. Having the connector actually lock into the socket has its pros and cons of course
Well, for one the RJ45 connector actually clicks into place, unlike HDMI connectors which good likelihood of dropping out of the port (not unlike SATA connectors). That's a plus in my book.

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.
The_Beast 3rd July 2010, 06:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Well, for one the RJ45 connector actually clicks into place, unlike HDMI connectors which good likelihood of dropping out of the port (not unlike SATA connectors). That's a plus in my book.

You gotta get locking sata cables, they're really nice until you get in tight spaces and need to unlock them
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
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.

eSata is terrible about falling out of the sockets but then again it might be the cheap socket it's plugged into
azrael- 3rd July 2010, 10:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
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've got locking SATA cables. It's the general lack of foresight when creating these standards that annoys the hell out of me. Honestly, how little imagination does it take to foresee that it'd be a good idea having connectors with locking mechanisms.
mclean007 3rd July 2010, 12:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX
Oh but expensive (VERY) ethernet cables are already there.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.
That's outrageous. As for whether more expensive cables yield any benefit over cheapies for digital signals, can someone call the emperor? His new clothes are ready for collection.
Fizzl 3rd July 2010, 16:17 Quote
Anything that encourages Ethernet (and PoE) into homes is a good thing!

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...
Malvolio 3rd July 2010, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulatin
I just can't wait to see $557 Monster HD-e cables in best buy. 1.2 feet, with gold plated connectors, you see!

There, fixed it for you!
knuck 3rd July 2010, 20:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX
Oh but expensive (VERY) ethernet cables are already there.
http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Check the amazon reviews, hilarious.

Quote:

817 of 846 people found the following review helpful:
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0._V192240867_.gif Solved Global Warming Locally, June 16, 2008
By Daniel A. Kobloshhttp://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/carrot._V192251235_.gif (Redondo Beach, CA USA) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1U5IJHJK84S54/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview" target="_blank">See all my reviews
[URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_rn_bdg_help?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#RN
This review is from: Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable (Electronics)
After I took delivery of my $500 Denon AKDL1 Cat-5 uber-cable, Al Gore was mysteriously drawn to my home, where he pronounced that Global Warming had been suspended in my vicinity.

Yes, I had perfect weather: no flooding, no tornadoes, the exact amount of rain necessary, and he pronounced sea levels exactly right and that they were not going to rise within five miles of my house.

Additionally, my cars began achieving 200 mpg and I didn't even need gasoline. I was able to put three grams of cat litter into the tank and drive forever.

What's more, the atmosphere inside my home became 93% oxygen and virtually no carbon dioxide. In fact, I now exhale oxygen.

One heck of a cable.

Didn't notice any improvement in audio quality though.

The $800 Apple iCable is clearly superior.
Quote:

515 of 521 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Why did it have to be blue?, June 28, 2008
By Harmless Gryphon (Nowhere worth mentioning) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable (Electronics)
I knew my day was going to improve when the truck pulled up at my home with this cable deep within. No ordinary truck, this one was Holy White, and the gold Delivery logo sparkled like a thousand suns reflected through shards of the purest ice formed with unadulterated water collected at the beginning of the universe. The driver, clad in a robe colored the softest of white, floated towards me on the cool fog of a hundred fire extinguishers. He smiled benevolently, like a father looking down upon his only child, and handed me a package wrapped in gold beaten thin to the point where you could see through it. I didn't have to sign, because the driver could see within my heart, and knew that I was pure. Upon opening the package, an angelic choir started to sing, and reached a crescendo as I laid this cable on my stereo system. Instantly, my antiquated equipment transformed into components made from the clearest diamond-semiconductor. The cable knew where to go, and hooked itself into the correct ports without help from me - all the while, the choir sang praises to the almighty digital god. With trepidation, I pushed "play," and was instantly enveloped in a sound that echoed the creation of all matter, a sound that vibrated every cell in my body to perfection. I was instantly taken to the next plane, where I saw the all-father. I knew with my entire soul, that all was good in the world.

But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
leexgx 3rd July 2010, 21:04 Quote
be nice if all comments had pages wareing me screen out
memeroot 3rd July 2010, 22:30 Quote
hdmi always sucked as a standard... was designed soley in the interests of the companies... who the heck plays audio through their tv or monitor?
Farting Bob 3rd July 2010, 23:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
hdmi always sucked as a standard... was designed soley in the interests of the companies... who the heck plays audio through their tv or monitor?
Youd be surprised at how many people buy a big HDTV and then dont bother buying surround speakers because it already has 2 built in.
capnPedro 3rd July 2010, 23:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
hdmi always sucked as a standard... was designed soley in the interests of the companies... who the heck plays audio through their tv or monitor?

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.
Bakes 3rd July 2010, 23:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
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.
capnPedro 4th July 2010, 00:17 Quote
Good point. I was thinking the audio stream was transmitted separately to the video.
knuck 4th July 2010, 00:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farting Bob
Youd be surprised at how many people buy a big HDTV and then dont bother buying surround speakers because it already has 2 built in.

I know I do.

Why you ask ? Because I'm not rich that's why
LAGMonkey 4th July 2010, 03:25 Quote
of course i happen to have an amp that dosnt strip the HDMI audio out.... so if i use HDMI itll play on my TV speakers and not through the 5.1 setup (connected to the amp that the sound passes by!)

As for the Uber-cable..... 24/7 support line!!!

"help me... i need help to connect the cable"
leexgx 4th July 2010, 06:07 Quote
most devices that have HDMI norm have 5.1 optical pass thou (sky and the virgin media box seem to and tvs so you can out put to an amp i know due it working at one of my friends house)
HourBeforeDawn 4th July 2010, 08:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
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.

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.
rollo 4th July 2010, 09:20 Quote
Any moniter in the last 2 years will be hdcp compliant, if you brought a 22inch screen this or last year your blueray rdy

Very few people have the money or space for 30inch screen

And as with all tech gotta upgrade eventually.
HourBeforeDawn 4th July 2010, 09:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Any moniter in the last 2 years will be hdcp compliant, if you brought a 22inch screen this or last year your blueray rdy

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.
memeroot 4th July 2010, 10:22 Quote
"In fact, HDMI supports lossless compressed audio streams as well as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master, which is superior to analogue cables."

balls...

"lossless compressed"

double balls
steveo_mcg 4th July 2010, 10:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghys
I know I do.

Why you ask ? Because I'm not fcking rich that's why

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.
memeroot 4th July 2010, 11:58 Quote
if your happy thats fine but even 100 quid on a 2nd hand amp and speakers would change the quality of the sound inordinately.
steveo_mcg 4th July 2010, 13:14 Quote
And the space, the set up, the wat (wife acceptance test) the list continues
knuck 4th July 2010, 20:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
if your happy thats fine but even 100 quid on a 2nd hand amp and speakers would change the quality of the sound inordinately.

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...
Bakes 4th July 2010, 23:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
"In fact, HDMI supports lossless compressed audio streams as well as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master, which is superior to analogue cables."

balls...

"lossless compressed"

double balls

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
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.

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.
TheMusician 5th July 2010, 00:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
crazy to use tv speakers.... wife effect be dammed and get some of those kef sats or heck fit the cones to a fake doggie...cones are what 40 euro?

tv's sound is sh*t and you should genuinely be ashamed

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.
Bindibadgi 5th July 2010, 01:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMusician
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.
HourBeforeDawn 5th July 2010, 03:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes

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.

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.
XKR 5th July 2010, 05:35 Quote
Hard data is hard to come by. I requested a full spec from the HDbaseT.org web site. Reading between the lines on their “Comparison Table” document it certainly appears that they are running the cable in standard 100base PoE configuration. Which makes perfect sense. Why would they develop a new physical layer at this point?

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 haven’t seen any IEEE or IEC standardization activity in this area. Anyone know of that?
Tulatin 5th July 2010, 06:06 Quote
To be fair, most of the "Problems" you have with Blu-ray can be solved by using a PC to play them back, and having AnyDVD HD running.
HourBeforeDawn 5th July 2010, 07:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulatin
To be fair, most of the "Problems" you have with Blu-ray can be solved by using a PC to play them back, and having AnyDVD HD running.

yes because spending $100+ to hack something you own is just oh so worth it...
mattbailey 5th July 2010, 08:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
FFS that should be illegal

It is illegal - its called extortion!
capnPedro 5th July 2010, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
yes because spending $100+ to hack something you own is just oh so worth it...

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.
memeroot 5th July 2010, 09:46 Quote
@ TheMusician and @ Bindibadgi
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?
yakyb 5th July 2010, 10:17 Quote
just added my own review
Quote:
I tried listening to a lossless Midi file using these cables and it sounded awful

so went back to MP3 using my old cables not really worth the money
Phil Rhodes 5th July 2010, 11:25 Quote
The irony of all this is that both DVI and HDMI are expected to suffer a certain amount of error. It's a display device; small value errors aren't something that'll make the rest of the computer system fall over. Having worked on a specialist system which used DVI as a high speed data protocol, it is actually quite difficult, even if you go and buy your cables from Lindy at some exorbitant price, to make DVI or HDMI truly bit for bit reliable. And no, it doesn't usually matter.
memeroot 5th July 2010, 11:38 Quote
@Phil Rhodes

just out of curiosity why choose dvi for transporting data? Was it a decision regretted later?
Phil Rhodes 5th July 2010, 11:47 Quote
Not at liberty to go into it too deply, but it was graphics data, it just didn't make much sense if you viewed it on a monitor. No it wasn't regretted, it worked very well.
Bakes 5th July 2010, 19:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
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.

Yes, that's a given and should be obvious. Nevertheless, many people find their TV audio perfectly acceptable.
Quote:
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!!!!

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.
Quote:
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?

You should probably talk to Dolby or DTS about that.
Quote:
Bakes sir you are a fool

Insulting won't get you anywhere.
memeroot 5th July 2010, 21:13 Quote
the basic point of this article is that hdmi was a rubbish standard and other better standards already existed.

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?
Bakes 5th July 2010, 21:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
the basic point of this article is that hdmi was a rubbish standard and other better standards already existed.

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.

Yes, that is correct.

Quote:
"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?

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.
memeroot 5th July 2010, 23:27 Quote
@Bakes

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 ;-)
Bakes 5th July 2010, 23:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
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.
memeroot 5th July 2010, 23:53 Quote
sorry bakes

in the last 3m 2*no speakers regardless of cabeling

hdmi only good if you have a decent dac
Bakes 6th July 2010, 00:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
sorry bakes

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.
TheMusician 6th July 2010, 05:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
@ TheMusician and @ Bindibadgi
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.

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?
memeroot 6th July 2010, 11:00 Quote
@Bakes

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."
TheMusician 6th July 2010, 15:48 Quote
But they're NOT rubbish speakers! They're not great, but they're not crap! Honest! Obviously if you plug in a decent stereo to it, things'll sound much better, but my point is that the audio that the Vizio gives is perfectly acceptable.
Bindibadgi 6th July 2010, 15:58 Quote
Removed the flames and elitism. Unless you've used EVERY TV and heard their speakers then don't paint everything with the same brush. /review journalists tip ;)

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 ;)
memeroot 6th July 2010, 16:12 Quote
sorry just noticed the mod remark.. I honestly wasnt intending to have a flame war.
lacuna 7th July 2010, 14:56 Quote
Spending a lot on a tv and sticking with the inbuilt speakers seems fairly silly to me. Sure, they work and they're fine for conveying the news but you would be selling yourself short on the experience if you didn't get at least a basic 5.1 system. I would suggest spending a minimum of at least the cost of the tv on an a/v system to go with it.

Manufacturers used to sell plasma screens without speakers and its a shame that this is no longer an option
Bakes 7th July 2010, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Spending a lot on a tv and sticking with the inbuilt speakers seems fairly silly to me. Sure, they work and they're fine for conveying the news but you would be selling yourself short on the experience if you didn't get at least a basic 5.1 system. I would suggest spending a minimum of at least the cost of the tv on an a/v system to go with it.

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.
Riddick 7th July 2010, 22:38 Quote
Rather amusingly I was talking to my Dad earlier about running Audio/Video to the TV from the computer, this would make life easy... providing it's affordable
chrisb2e9 7th July 2010, 23:08 Quote
In all honesty I would replace my tv if it ment I could just run a cat 5 cable to it.
My tv already has the input but its old(2007) so I don't know if it would support this...
Bakes 7th July 2010, 23:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisb2e9
In all honesty I would replace my tv if it ment I could just run a cat 5 cable to it.
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.
lacuna 8th July 2010, 09:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Spending a lot on a tv and sticking with the inbuilt speakers seems fairly silly to me. Sure, they work and they're fine for conveying the news but you would be selling yourself short on the experience if you didn't get at least a basic 5.1 system. I would suggest spending a minimum of at least the cost of the tv on an a/v system to go with it.

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.

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.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums