AVS Forum banner

HDMI.org: what a mess

32K views 152 replies 29 participants last post by  Ratman 
#1 · (Edited)
Here is the thread where you can vent your frustration on the terrible state of the HDMI 'one connector' solution

With the advent of 4K and HDR, the issues of getting a stable, reliable HDMI connection are so bad, that I fear many average consumers will return their new products and simply refuse to participate. Here are some problems I read on AVS everyday:

-HDMI cables marked certified do not always work
-HDMI cables longer than (insert your distance here: say 20 feet) do not work
-AVR's/processors used as repeater devices are problematic: now you need two HDMI cables: wonder who thought that one up?
-ARC/CEC poorly implemented
-setup of a new 4K display, and HDR sources, cannot be easily done by the average consumer

this is only a partial list: why would the HDMI organization make it so difficult? the idea of the HDMI connector was to simplify cabling so all devices would require only a single cable and it would be plug and play? it is a real mess and I think the industry should be ashamed

Feel free to vent your frustrations here: but please keep it civil and stick to technical issues
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Two of the biggest failures with HDMI are HDMI/CEC and HDMI/ARC. The former has limited functionality (even when all of your devices are from the same manufacturer), and the latter is virtually useless due to its lack of support for advanced audio codecs like DTA-HD MA & Dolby TrueHD. Try using both features at once, and you're likely to encounter random input switching on your AVR, along with episodes of complete loss of audio from some of your devices.
 
#3 ·
^^^^^ lack of standardization on the CEC protocols. It certainly would have been nice if HDMI.org settled on one set and told hardware mfrs if they wanted to use ARC/CEC, there would only be one set approved . It took HDMI 2.0 with the CEC Extensions to take care of that but too little too late.
 
#4 ·
...why would the HDMI organization make it so difficult? the idea of the HDMI connector was to simplify cabling so all devices would require only a single cable and it would be plug and play?
HDMI.org sets the "standard", they don't make the cable(s). I don't think they "test/certify" every HDMI hardware/software interface from every potential device either. They just "set the rules" collect a fee and it's up to those that pay a licensing fee to adhere/comply. I'm sure that many cut corners or use their interpretation.


The "HDMI" complaints go back well before UHD and 4K. Nothing new and it ain't gonna get better IMO.;)
 
#5 ·
HDMI.org sets the "standard", they don't make the cable(s). I don't think they "test/certify" every HDMI hardware/software interface from every potential device either. They just "set the rules" collect a fee and it's up to those that pay a licensing fee to adhere/comply. I'm sure that many cut corners or use their interpretation.
the blame falls squarely on HDMI.org for setting standards that are unobtainable, and not providing sufficient guidance or test certification to help enforce their standards, in my opinion: I would not give them a pass on this mess: they helped create it
 
  • Like
Reactions: avs2099
#6 ·
By no means am I suggesting they get a pass!


I don't think I would agree that the blame falls squarely on HDMI.org


Their piece of the market is the "standard" setter and licensing fee collector, not the "enforcement" patrol. AFAIK, there is no "official" compliance/certification process, so that is part of the problem. Secondly... if that was mandatory, the cost(s) would be passed on to the consumer.


Thirdly, the consumer has some skin in the too. Seems like everyone wants to have ungodly distances, switches, splitters, active/passive cables, PC's, AVR's..... etc.




Don't get me wrong. I sympathize and agree that HDMI isn't all it was/is cracked up to be. And... hasn't been for well over a decade. How does this get resolved? I don't think HDMI is going away. Other than possibly Display Port (which doesn't seem widely available), it is the only port in this storm. :)
 
#7 ·
HDMI.org took a small step in the right direction by coming up with certification standards that are followed by various Authorized Testing Centers (ATC's), and registered the name Premium High Speed HDMI, with a counterfeit proof (so far) label so the consumer has a vague idea of what they are purchasing, but unfortunately their testing protocols are not universally accepted so "certification" can mean just about anything. HDMI has been a problematic technology since its inception (a good idea but poorly implemented). HDMI.org should have been more proactive in licensing and testing but it is what it is. I do find them at fault for the mess we are in today and I just don't see it getting any better. Panel technology has far outpaced connection technology and unless something changes on the mfr side of things (Display Port, MHL, etc) it's only going to get worse especially for folk who need a reliable and stable connection longer than about 20'- 25' for the high end video standards.
 
#8 ·
I think the Hollywood group that is behind these HDCP protocols should be called out on this debacle: each member should be required to setup his own 4K HDR system without assistance as a start to see what they created

These HDCP protocols are so out of control it is going to turn off the average consumer: if every AVS member responds 'that is the way it is' then it will only get worse

I started warning about copy protection flags and HDCP over 10 yeas ago: but never imagined it could get this bad: this is a bureaucracy out of control: I protest and say this must be fixed
 
#9 ·
-HDMI cables marked certified do not always work
-HDMI cables longer than (insert your distance here: say 20 feet) do not work
Agree, there should have been better testing & certification from the beginning. It almost too late to even do anything about it now. Of course, the core problem is the attempt to preserve cabling standards as bandwidth increased.

-AVR's/processors used as repeater devices are problematic: now you need two HDMI cables: wonder who thought that one up?
I am not sure I understand this point here? Are you saying that AVRs shouldn't be used as repeaters or are you talking about the fact that older AVRs can't support the new standards so you need two connections?

If it is the latter, I am not sure what you do about that. Bandwidth needs are changing at a meteoric rate and content providers continue to insist on changing the ineffective copy protection schemes.

-setup of a new 4K display, and HDR sources, cannot be done by the average consumer
Is this really an HDMI issue?

Two of the biggest failures with HDMI are HDMI/CEC and HDMI/ARC.
I agree with this. Moreover, this seems to be getting worse not better as time passes. Not only does ARC have serious bandwidth limitations but the intermingling of ARC with CEC causes havoc with all the varying implementations.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I am not sure I understand this point here? Are you saying that AVRs shouldn't be used as repeaters or are you talking about the fact that older AVRs can't support the new standards so you need two connections?

If it is the latter, I am not sure what you do about that. Bandwidth needs are changing at a meteoric rate and content providers continue to insist on changing the ineffective copy protection schemes.
not at all: I am saying 4K HDR devices should work properly with HDMI repeater devices such as receivers and processors: it should be plug and play: that was the promise of HDMI

edit: I understand the bandwidth issue but even the latest processors are having issues with HDR: all the manufacturers blame incompatibility issues on other connected devices: there is zero accountability on making it work
 
#15 ·
there is another option...look here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...y-player-owner-s-thread-159.html#post45516201

you should not need to buy a $2k meter to get EDID's set up properly:

consider a cloud app that reads all connected devices, and automatically adjusts settings as needed, and provides detail steps for user intervention as required:
HDMI.org or some other company e.g. HD Fury could develop this app and charge for it
 
#18 · (Edited)
The unfortunate part is that there are soooo many permutations/configurations for HDMI. I really sympathize.
Wait till 8K becomes available. The only HDMI cable that will work will probably be limited to 3' and must be 18AWG. And.... incompatible with all of your existing (perfectly working) gear purchased a few years ago.


Perhaps a new president will make "A/V Great Again". :eeksurprise:




EDIT:
There are a few "contributing editors" from trade rags that participate on AVS. Maybe they can help?
 
#19 ·
another idea is for an AVS member who is an expert on HDMI could start an FAQ thread on HDMI best practices:

for example first FAQ item might look like:

--avoid using CEC/ARC labeled HDMI inputs if you are not using CEC/ARC functions, and be sure all menu settings are off for CEC/ARC

if anyone is interested PM me :)
 
#21 ·
I actually started to work on a FAQ for HDMI cabling etc quite some time ago but gave it up because there were just too many permutations with setups, expectations, and user knowledge. That became particularly complicated when some folks were claiming 4k, 4:4:4 @ 60Hz over 25' with a particular cable. Other folks would purchase the same cable and get nothing, even at the same length. I gave up. Until the Industry comes out with a distance claim (certification, what ever you want to call it), and some way to reliably extend that distance (upgraded, compatible chipsets in active terminators like Redmere or HDBT), this is going to get worse before it gets better. It's almost as if we, the consumers, have to put together some sort of consortium like HDMI.org did so many years ago and push for standardization on a given platform, and then make sure the device mfrs follow that.
 
#20 ·
The technology underlying HDMI is actually super simple. Basically, it's a 19-pin connector. A lot could be done with that with pure simplicity, but nnnnooooooo. HDCP has to go and totally foul it up. That, and cable manufacturers not adhering to some simple standards. Anybody else miss the good ol' days of RCA connections? Technical limitations aside, they were no fuss, no muss. It just worked. Wanna toss on splitters, couplers, whatever? Need to run a bazillion feet of cable? No problem.

At the root of it, HDMI had the potential to be just awesome. Digital audio and hi-def video passed through one standardized connection. Shouldn't be nearly as difficult as the industry (and Hollywood) has made it out to be. The idea of CEC/ARC was great. No clue why every TV/AVR manufacturer saw fit to do it all completely differently. Just get on the same page, everybody!!! (which yes, I know pretty much never happens)
 
#22 ·
#26 ·
Lest we forget Firewire

What I find amazing is how apparently short the memory of how HDTV came to be is, or how few some realize what had happened in the Firewire (1394) verses HDMI debacle several years ago.. There was a time when 1394 was the standard for connection and transport of HDTV signal (2001).

http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...rewire-equipped-hdtv-sets#WivghuSIU5dlTOOy.97

Firewire It was already a well excepted standard, allowed for transport of compressed video, along with audio and control signal between equipment, all of the things HDMI is still trying to achieve today. Secondly, every engineer worth their salt knows that transporting the video in a compressed format (as it comes off of the player) and uncompressing it at the final point of display is a superior method to transporting video. The signal remain unmodified until the moment it is needed for display, and the bandwidth necessary to support the video stream is significantly reduced. This reduced bandwidth can thus also carry the signal further on a given cable than uncompressed video. We would not be facing the length limitations of HDMI that we are today. The blame is with SONY and others of the HDMI consortium who, for the sake of copy protection, decided that extremely high bit rate of an uncompressed bitstream would be almost impossible to re-record, and all of the bits of hardware and software between the source and display would have to be licensed by them. HDMI is the most anti-consumer technology foisted on the unsuspecting public in many years. Again, lest you forget, the old SONY (the electronics company) fought for your right to record and copy material (SONY BetaMax supreme court decision). The new SONY (media conglomerate) fights to keep you from recording or maximizing the enjoyment of your equipment. You can complain all you want now. I just wish there had been more voices back when when we could have truly had it all.
 
#27 ·
Didn't evolve. Manufacturers didn't embrace the technology for one reason or another.
Any thoughts as to if HDMI never existed, do you think that there would be no problems with DTCP and distance issues with the 2016 technologies (or especially consumer's high expectations with exotic setups for under $100) ?
 
#28 ·
DTCP didn't have to exist

So I don't know for sure, but since firewire is a serial connector, I don't think the opportunity for conductor length skew would exist (as it does in HDMI or DVI). Firewire was designed a a two-way connectivity standard, unlike HDMI. The FCC even saw the sense in this and mandated 1394 connectors - for a time. But maybe more importantly, if DTCP didn't need to exist at all, along with all of the other issues brought to you by your control freak HDMI consortium, we would not have these connectivity issues. HDMI is like a bad dream that I hope we wake up from soon.
 
#29 · (Edited)
I'm no expert at either HDMI or HDCP but I believe that in order to advance this discussion, we need to separate the physical wiring standard (HDMI) from the communications protocol standard (HDCP). Again I don't know for sure but having read some of the threads, I believe that most of the interconnect issues that the OP mentions are most likely the result of failures of the protocol between devices. Anyone who has studied successful I/T or communications protocols knows that you need to have a mechanism for understanding what went wrong when something doesn't work as expected .. and that seems to be a fundamental flaw in HDCP .. the user has no idea why things don't work.

If this was an I/T system, you'd just dive into the error log; look at the handshakes; and figure it out .. but there is no HDCP 'error log' that I know of that you can consult to try to understand why the handshake is failing. Ideally, someone needs to create a small, preferably handheld HDMI to HDMI device (that you could buy at BB or your favorite retailer) which you could insert at any connection point that would 'watch' the protocol flow for anomalies and then output an error code that you could look up in the chart that came with it (or online) which would be the best guess as to why the handshake failed.

This wouldn't be a 'repeater' as much as it would be an 'inline sniffer' and diagnostic unit in one. It wouldn't be like the auto OBD II diagnostic machine because OBD assumes that your car has already saved some error states that the diagnostic machine just analyzes .. in the HDCP scenario, I don't believe there are any 'error codes' saved anywhere .. and even if they were, they'd likely be inside a component (AVR; UHD player; projector; etc) and you'd likely need a brand engineer to extract them. What I'm suggesting is a device which analyzes the flow in real time and attempts to diagnose what the likely cause is. I think the communications industry has tools like this that they've been using for years although I don't know if they're using them to look at protocols (eg. TCP/IP).

The beauty of something like this is that you could plug it in at either end of any cable in the chain so you if you had a UHD player connecting to an AVR outputting to a TV, you could determine whether the protocol failure was between the player and the AVR or the AVR and the TV. Plus you could determine that the AVR was "within protocol spec" at the AVR output connection but at the other end of the cable (TV or projector), it was not within spec. I think only a couple of the many twisted pair with the HDMI connector are used for protocol so it's not like the 'device' would need to monitor a huge number of cables ... and if I recall correctly, the pair or two that are used for HDCP handshakes are at a much lower freq than the 3 that are used for the actual video signal so likely easier/cheaper to monitor. However, to diagnose the sync/desync issues mentioned earlier, you might need a more expensive/capable device to do that as well (the 'deluxe version') although that may be more for industry integrators rather than typical consumers. Heck, maybe even the simple one might be too much for typical consumers .. but I bet people would pay to have the BB Geek squad come out and figure it out for them. Maybe places like Magnolia could offer that as 'part of the deal' to avoid returns.

My recommendation would be to convince the HDMI organization to work with an electronics developer to bring this to market. The developer would design the device; manufacture it; and make it available to the market and HDMI org would provide the expertise on the protocol symptoms and what the most likely error condition is. That way you wouldn't have to deal with all the AV vendors out there plus HDMI gets to put some teeth in whether or not their protocol standards are being met. If vendors are toeing the line, they get called out by the device. Assuming it's an HDMI implementation problem (as opposed to a bad component), the vendors could probably fix it with firmware the same way they do today. If it's a cabling issue, you can probably return the cable and get a different or better one. If it's a length issue, then you move the source closer to the target or invest in a technology which gives you longer length.

.rant off
...Ian

No sooner had I posted this than I discover that someone already builds a similar device: http://www.murideo.com/analyzers.html which appears to be way more than I was asking for (eg.does HDR) and is probably for professionals with a professional price. Now someone needs to scale it down in function and price to something a serious AVSer can afford.
Edit2: Or maybe we just need one of these upgraded to HDCP 2.2 and UHD: https://www.hdfury.com/shop/otherhdfuryhardware/dr-hdmi/
 
#30 · (Edited)
Our 2 cents, is that you guys in the US should just setup a class action to stop the hdcp non sense, which appears to be just an excuse to force you to buy new gear. You can use generosity by indiegogo to collect funds and signature for that.

It's not just only between revision that interoperability problem occurs, they are volontary removing support within a same revision, like 4K30 output is volontary disappearing so you are forced to buy 4K60, etc...
 
#31 ·
My sense is that the current HDMI and HDCP solutions appear cumbersome and perhaps unworkable. There would appear to be at least three parties with skin in the game: software and media producers, equipment manufacturers and users. A class actions suit seems like a costly and lengthy solution.

I plan to use my 1080 plasma as long as it holds out or until I am assured that any UHD products I buy will work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bimmaguy and Ratman
#33 ·
Is there a alternative connector plug/play technology that meets the needs of 4k uhd, arc equivalent, and all the latest audio codecs along with future codecs for the next 10 years? Don't get me wrong, I just dropped a jaw dropping investment in my home theater to be future proof, and the last thing I want to do is sell it all and upgrade to a new plug/play technology. Just to have it all work together harmoniously.
 
#36 · (Edited)
I have no issues with the HDMI connector itself: I think it will be around a while: I do miss the good old days of component video connections: they always worked :)

it is the HDCP copy protection that is the issue: and you may never achieve 'future proof'...I am sure 2.2 will not be the last version of HDCP we will see: I bet they are working on newer codecs that will cause more incompatibility issues and render more gear obsolete: it is what they do.

for example I bought a Krell Foundation 4K thinking it would be future proof: and now I learn it will not pass HDR and cannot be upgraded
 
  • Like
Reactions: King Richard
#34 ·
Not really. The only way you can "future proof" your system is to use a conduit if your wiring is in-wall. Cable technology is way behind the video technology so you'll need a way to update the connectivity as needs dictate. The best way, so far, is to use a conduit and install a couple of solid wire CAT-6a cables. I would never install HDMI cables in-wall if there was not a way to easily remove/replace them.
 
#35 ·
My sense is that the media creators hire lawyers and technical staff to create a rip proof system and threaten any equipment manufacturer who does not comply with HDCP. I do understand the importance and fairness of copyright laws. Those who write the standards are charged with building a fortress that cannot be breached and not necessarily a system that works. Originally it was a protected audio path and everyone had to buy new equipment. Those who wrote the standards had no idea about cables which would work over more than 20 feet and compression artifacts. Their goal seems to be only streamed material and everyone pays for each view. Personally I believe everyone would be happier and make more money with a more accessible delivery system. UHD is going to be still born without significant changes.
 
#37 ·
I agree that the connector it self is a good looking connector.

I am a little confused. Lets say you have 1080P/I content that is being sourced from the TV. The design of the tv and spec. is it will deliver full surround, DD+, True HD, Dolby Atmos from tv to AVR. But you only get stereo to AVR. HDCP 2.2 doesn't matter, or shouldn't because the 1080 content. Also the bandwidth is much lower, at least it is not 4k data that needs to be passed in this scenario. So why is the audio only stereo? Why is the HDMI, ARC, CEC robust in this scenario and working? Why only certain oem AVR's work in this scenario? Even if all of the AVR'S are HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0.

If the hardware providers tell the content providers to pound sand with HDCP 2.x. What would the content providers do if none of the hardware in the marketplace can deliver there content. Seems to me the content providers pocket book would be hurting, and the content providers would have to comply with hardware manufacturers. But then again we don't call the movie industry customer service if we can't play a movie, we call the hardware mfg.

Even back in the day, the early HDMI. I never had a issue with it. It would just work. How hard would it be to add additional pins and wires to the current hdmi cable for additional bandwidth. Make the pipe bigger. Make the AWG bigger for longer distances, or increase the voltage for longer distances. I thought HDMI was a digital technology. So why so many problems with distance. On or Off should have no issue with distance. Or why not do what they did with micro usb 3.0. Add another connector to HDMI, even though it's a ugly connector. Add additional pins.

The other option that comes to mind is, why not go fiber optic? Fiber seems to me the correct pathway possibly for larger bandwidth. You could still have HDCP 2.2 chips in all your devices. The down side I see with fiber is how fragile it is.

Is there a ethernet version in the marketplace that offers the bandwidth needed for 4k uhd, 8k, and all the audio codecs?

What about a wireless system. Where audio/video devices connect ot each other on a dedicated wireless channel. Completely different and separate from Wifi enet. Kind of like the smart home wireless connectivity z-wave and zigbee. I understand this would not be idea for say gaming.

Are the HDMI/arc/cec problems we are seeing today from a perfect storm? Meaning the hdmi/hdcp/arc/cec/audio specs poorly written? Are the communication flags in this specification poorly written? MY line of questioning is where is the true bottle neck? Is it software/firmware. Is it the AWG of the wire? Is it the # of pins? Is it the type of pin? What is the bottle neck in the connector, and what will it take to open up the pipe on HDMI?
 
#38 · (Edited)
an HD -SDI connector would have been a better option to carry video in my opinion

the main issues with HDMI are implementation: incorrect EDID's, poor implementation of ARC/CEC, and repeater devices such as AVR's, processors et al: there are so many possible combinations of gear that full testing is not possible

all the OEM's make their boxes/displays, and claim it meets HDCP 2.2 or whatever, and self certify it to HDMI.org: and from there we are on our own. When I see what knowledgeable AVS members go through to get an HDR picture with HD sound through a receiver controlled by ARC....well you see the mess created

The industry has made the whole thing needlessly complicated, and failed to be sure integration testing was fully done: and the best they offer is a second HDMI port for audio: and we thank them: in fact they sell more cables this way
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichiganTim
#39 ·
ARC/CEC, while a great idea in theory, is just fraught with problems. The issue is non-standardization of the protocols, even within the same mfr. Makes no sense to me but that's the way it is. CEC Extensions, a "standardized" set of protocols was supposed to take of the CEC issues in HDMI 2.0 but it appears that not all hardware mfrs have implemented/upgraded that in their devices. ARC is limited to 5.1 and Atmos, in some cases, apparently because of bandwidth requirements in HDMI cables. However, HDMI cables can easily carry 4k/HDR over a given distance. I think the system is hobbled when it comes to bi-directional transmission for whatever reason.

I gave up on ARC/CEC a long time ago and went with an optical cable and a Harmony remote. I've learned to live with 5.1 when watching tv broadcasts (OTA) and I'm ok with that. I don't stream 4k, yet, so the HD Audio aspect is not a problem for me, at least not yet. I've never been a fan of smart tv's, I would much rather use a STB like an AppleTV or a Roku because they seem to be much more robust that what is built-in to panel and are easier, and cheaper to upgrade as need be. I realize that I'm in a minority but to me, that's a small compromise that I'm willing to make to have trouble-free tv at this point in time.

Cable certification (real certification not just plugging the cable in and if you get a 4k signal, it's "certified") is supposed to give the consumer some sort of reliable guideline and real expectation of cable performance. But we've seen that's not always the case due to the myriad of equipment designs and setups as mentioned. Laying out a cable in a straight line for 50', connecting a pattern generator at one end and some sort of display device at the other end is not the same as winding a cable thru a wall and angling the sink end to fit in an HDMI input. Not to mention the HDMI chipsets that are in use.

HDCP is a whole 'nuther matter that bothers me to no end as well. But I won't go into that here because my post is already long enough.

It all seems to me that the consumer has been purposely mislead and screwed by the device mfrs with this push to the higher video standards. There's always going to be early adopters, which is fine, but once they start talking about how wonderful HDR (DV, HDR10, whatever) is, other folks get excited and want the same. The device mfrs know that so they push real hard with marketing, labeling (purposely confusing with different terms for the same thing), etc to get the consumer to buy what they think is the latest only to find, just like computers, that you're close to being outdated 6 months later.

Of course the cable mfrs fail to mention the connection issues and how far behind that technology is compared to the current audio/video technology. I don't want to sound like a conspiracist (sp?) but it's almost as if both industries (device and cable) are working together to put it to the consumer in getting us to buy the latest devices (because we have to have them) and then saying, oops, that cable won't work at that distance but if you buy this cable ( at an unreasonable price) it MAY work better.

The longtime folks here are aware of that and go into it with eyes wide open. But I think we're in the minority, and the bulk of the folks who come here and post, or just lurk, are wondering why they can't achieve what they salesperson said they could.

Sorry for the rant. I guess I shouldn't have had that second cup of coffee before I started my post.
 
#40 ·
And... there should be some blame on the consumer. Poor homework, assumptions and false expectations with elaborate, sometimes complex, Home Theater setups/cabling adds to the problem(s).
 
#46 · (Edited)
^^^^^ absolutely!

oops, I see I rolled over to the next page. I agree with Ratman.
(edited)

I don't. Keep in mind that there is nothing on any box that indicates that you gotta be steeped in AV knowledge to plug a TV into an amp or a BDP or anything else HD related.

These things are sold to folks as turnkey solutions. There is absolutely no culpability on the consumer's part for this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bimmaguy
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top