HDBaseT Hopes to Take On HDMI in the Living Room - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 03:44 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bob Hetherington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
HDBaseT Hopes to Take On HDMI in the Living Room


LG Electronics, Samsung and Sony all backed the HDBaseT Alliance this week, a new wired standard for the living room that hopes to replace the ubiquitous HDMI cable. With the finalization of the specification, the HDBaseT alliance said that it envisions other companies licensing it during the second half of 2010, with first products (most likely from the member companies) appearing by the end of the year. More widespread adoption could take place in early 2011. Unlike HDMI, which merely transfers uncompressed audio and video data, HDBaseT uses what it calls 5Play: the transfer of audio and video data, plus 100BaseT Ethernet, and even power, plus control signals.

For links and more stories visit the Hot Stories section at HomeToys.com
Bob Hetherington is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 05:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Kyuu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Necropolis
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I always wondered why they didn't simply use an extension of the existing ethernet cable technology to transmit data between home theater devices. Hopefully one day it'll just be a few ethernet and power cables behind my entertainment center and that's it. Well, plus the speaker cables of course.
Kyuu is offline  
post #3 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
moviegeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 1,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I prefer RJ-45 connectors but HDMI is the defacto standard and I doubt CE manufacturers are going to change it. Another issue is DRM, if HDBaseT cannot deliver HDCP video then the studios won't sign up.
moviegeek is offline  
post #4 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 07:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
kciaccio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pearland TX
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why not gigabit? Damn, I hate when they do things half assed.
kciaccio is offline  
post #5 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 07:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jautor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,029
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by moviegeek View Post

I prefer RJ-45 connectors but HDMI is the defacto standard and I doubt CE manufacturers are going to change it. Another issue is DRM, if HDBaseT cannot deliver HDCP video then the studios won't sign up.

Would be really interesting if the HDBaseT transceiver could detect a 'normal' 10/100 Ethernet connection and pass it through. That would allow the TV designers to keep just a single RJ45 on the set that would work in either configuration...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kciaccio View Post

Why not gigabit? Damn, I hate when they do things half assed.

Because HDMI v1.4 only specified 10/100, which is more than enough for distributing HD video or streaming content. It's also lower-power than gigabit, which would also be a consideration for Energy Star compliance...

Jeff

Rock Creek Theater -- CIH, Panamorph, Martin Logan, SVS PB2000, Carada Masquerade, Grafik Eye, Bar table, Green Glue, JVC RS50 
Theater build photos: http://photobucket.com/autor-ht
jautor is online now  
post #6 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 08:19 PM
Member
 
nwrsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post

I always wondered why they didn't simply use an extension of the existing ethernet cable technology to transmit data between home theater devices. Hopefully one day it'll just be a few ethernet and power cables behind my entertainment center and that's it. Well, plus the speaker cables of course.

These cables carry power too so with a HDBaset T switch you might not need power cables either.
nwrsx is offline  
post #7 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 08:23 PM
Senior Member
 
sanne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The only saving grace is that all the big TV manufacturers are behind this technology.

I think we all share a universal hatred of HDMI. It has been riddled with setup problems since its inception and about as far from plug and play as you can get. Overall, IMHO HDMI has been an absolute disaster as far as implementation goes.

Just give me something that works reliably 100% of the time with no handshaking issues.
sanne is offline  
post #8 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 08:51 PM
Just add water and stir
 
zuluwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 467
Now how do I explain this to the girls I work with, who I have finally convienced HDMI is not as complicated as they think...?
zuluwalker is offline  
post #9 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 08:54 PM
 
sgvZ4roadster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Maybe because it is cheaper and easier to make than HDMI cables? Another way for CE companies to make even more money with higher profit margins...
sgvZ4roadster is offline  
post #10 of 47 Old 07-06-2010, 11:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Digitally challe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanne View Post

the only saving grace is that all the big tv manufacturers are behind this technology.

I think we all share a universal hatred of hdmi. It has been riddled with setup problems since its inception and about as far from plug and play as you can get. Overall, imho hdmi has been an absolute disaster as far as implementation goes.

Just give me something that works reliably 100% of the time with no handshaking issues.

amen!!!!
Digitally challe is offline  
post #11 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 01:58 AM
Member
 
CyberDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Abingdon, MD, USA
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by moviegeek View Post

I prefer RJ-45 connectors but HDMI is the defacto standard and I doubt CE manufacturers are going to change it. Another issue is DRM, if HDBaseT cannot deliver HDCP video then the studios won't sign up.

If Sony is behind it, you can rest assured that it supports HDCP, or whatever defacto standard will be acceptable to the major studios. As Sony has always been a big proponent of copy protection!
CyberDude is offline  
post #12 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 03:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
kciaccio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pearland TX
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Because HDMI v1.4 only specified 10/100, which is more than enough for distributing HD video or streaming content. It's also lower-power than gigabit, which would also be a consideration for Energy Star compliance...

Jeff[/quote]

But if you ever wanted to transfer files to connected components it will take FOREVER!
kciaccio is offline  
post #13 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 04:51 AM
Newbie
 
IJMacD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kciaccio View Post

Why not gigabit? Damn, I hate when they do things half assed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jautor View Post

Because HDMI v1.4 only specified 10/100, which is more than enough for distributing HD video or streaming content.

Although there is relatively little known about the specification right now I don't necessarily think it will be ethernet based at all. It is likely in my opinion there will be a different physical layer and possibly data link layer so 10/100/1000 is slightly irrelevant as the new standard would use its own link speed.

What has been said is that it will use existing Cat5e/6 cabling and RJ45 connectors but that doesn't mean the signalling won't be different. I don't see this as a downside as I'm sure the specification will be designed specifically to be able to cope with multiple video streams for different TVs and 3D applications of course. With this set up it should be possible to encapsulate ethernet packets in order to provide the internet access which has been promised.
IJMacD is offline  
post #14 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 05:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stepmback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
They mention that this cable can carry power. Anyone know what amp of power the standard supports? If the idea is truely one cable (not including speaker cables) it would have to go to 30 amps or maybe a low as 20 amps to handle stereo receivers.

I like the idea, but would like to know how this going to help distribute my content, wether on a server or player to my TVs... that is what I want and that is the major shortfall of HDMI and it copy protection protocols in my opinion.
stepmback is offline  
post #15 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 06:00 AM
Senior Member
 
misterkit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
When will will all just move to wireless technology and stop using cables to connect everything?

I am not looking forward to yet another connector, which of course doesnt exist on any of my equipment, thus forcing me to upgrade yet again.

At least with newer versions of HDMI I can still use older equipment.
misterkit is offline  
post #16 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 06:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Electone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't see how they will be able to carry power within the cable. You need a minimum of 18 gauge wire to carry AC to a disc player or receiver. Also, those wires would need to be heavily shielded to prevent EMI/RFI leakage into the adjacent A/V/data wires. How thick is this cable going to be?
Electone is offline  
post #17 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 06:43 AM
Newbie
 
Chris Freeland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Collegedale TN
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterkit View Post

When will will all just move to wireless technology and stop using cables to connect everything?

I am not looking forward to yet another connector, which of course doesnt exist on any of my equipment, thus forcing me to upgrade yet again.

At least with newer versions of HDMI I can still use older equipment.

I suspect their will be some sort of adapter or balun that will allow connection of HDMI and Component legacy tv's, BR-D, cable and sattelite STB's etc to a HD-BaseT network. This may allow some wireless networking too by using a HD-BaseT compliant router. I am excited about the possibility of cheaper and easier whole house A/V networks in the home that this technology may provide.
Chris Freeland is offline  
post #18 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 06:47 AM
Newbie
 
IJMacD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electone View Post

I don't see how they will be able to carry power within the cable. You need a minimum of 18 gauge wire to carry AC to a disc player or receiver. Also, those wires would need to be heavily shielded to prevent EMI/RFI leakage into the adjacent A/V/data wires. How thick is this cable going to be?

Cat5e/6 cable uses 24 guage wire. Current PoE implementations can supply around 25W on either data pairs or on 'spare' pairs. Some non-standard implementations claim to be able to supply 50W by using both.

The claim from the HDBaseT alliance is that eventually 100W will be able to be supplied over the cable.

The power will be DC by the way.
IJMacD is offline  
post #19 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Raistlin_HT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY area
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kciaccio View Post

Why not gigabit? Damn, I hate when they do things half assed.

It's listed as being expandable to gigabit.

That said, the current implementation isn't a question of being half assed, it runs via Cat5E/6, ie. your existing network. Obviously you can't achieve gigabit and HD video and HD audio and control and power over a cable that is designed to only support the bandwidth of gigabit.
Raistlin_HT is offline  
post #20 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 10:23 AM
Member
 
ramimac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is great news. to bad HDMI had to come out first. but look at it this way it will be much cheaper to run cable from one room to another.

I do not believe Wireless is up to the task of realy supporting all the video standards. It needs to go along way before it is able to handle HD signals properly.

your wireless-N at 300mbs is slow compared to 10/100 nevermind gigabit.

The way I read this it tells me that MRV from Directv will not be as needed because you can control the boxes in multiple rooms from one location.
ramimac is offline  
post #21 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
imprez25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Now I am glad I prewired my HT with lots and lots of Cat 5e!
imprez25 is offline  
post #22 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 03:42 PM
Newbie
 
downsouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Forgive me if I am wrong but as long as Sony don't get involved in setting the standard I don't see how it matters whether the studios like it or not. How can they dictate how you connect your components together when they won't know ? Are they going to stop selling DVDs/BD disks to anybody who cannot sign a document saying that they have HDCP compliancy ? Which would be good because I think that if anything would make a change happen quick this would.
In fact about the only way to make the new standard have HDCP is for the (whoever licenses that stuff) to refuse further licenses to any company that is dabbling in new technology ie blackmail.
HDCP has interfered so much in allowing me to set up my audio/video the way I want, and cost me a lot extra, that anything that would allow me to dump it I would be interested in. Anybody who wants to pirate does it in spite of HDCP. In fact, although I don't bother, if I ever did decide to make backup copies of my DVDs/BDs it would only be to get rid of the stupid Anti-Pirate message beginning on most disks. If you add up all the time people spend wasting time having to watch it you could add 1% to the GDP.
China doesn't seem to have this problem and look at their economy.
downsouth is offline  
post #23 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 03:52 PM
Newbie
 
downsouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We are screwed. I see that Sony is a founding member. A brief (not exhaustive !) scan of HDBaseT sees no mention of HDCP. This is worrying because my experience is that anything not mentioned is done specifically to hide something. So I would pick that HDCP will be there with spades on and be even more restrictive.
Mind you if they use network cabling this will make wiring up for 1984 easier. Maybe Sony wants to manage this side in the future. Better check all new TVs for hidden cameras.
downsouth is offline  
post #24 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 07:21 PM
Member
 
gobigbyrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
if this helps anyone, I ran cat6 through the whole house and i have them connected to my att uverse cable not using hdmi. I get execellent picture and sound. this is great news!!!!
gobigbyrd is offline  
post #25 of 47 Old 07-07-2010, 07:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lvthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think this is taking the place of the cable between your uverse box and the TV.

Now what's Monster going to do when they can't sell $100 HDMI cables.
lvthunder is offline  
post #26 of 47 Old 07-08-2010, 12:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
iansilv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So... just to be clear here... we will be able to just use ethernet cables to connect everything?
iansilv is offline  
post #27 of 47 Old 07-08-2010, 06:19 AM
Newbie
 
Chris Freeland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Collegedale TN
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvthunder View Post

I think this is taking the place of the cable between your uverse box and the TV.

Now what's Monster going to do when they can't sell $100 HDMI cables.

Monster will sell $100 cat 6 cable instead.
Chris Freeland is offline  
post #28 of 47 Old 07-08-2010, 07:15 AM
Member
 
MrJKuta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
finally a real cable for us GEEKS an everything-connection like this could change home entertainment, whole house A/V networks,
if content providers (cable box/sat, blu-ray, streamers) adopt the spec. ;media center in 1 location (server) & all A/V connected remote
Remote/tablet/electronic-whatever would request/schedule/program data from the media center via wireless

Wireless "HDMI", & everything else connected w/o wires, is for now just a dream
It would be nice to bring home an electronic device & have it connect to everything w/o cables, automatically?
I'd rather much rather have a much more POWERFUL cable : HDBaseT !
MrJKuta is offline  
post #29 of 47 Old 07-08-2010, 07:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spivonious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If they can use 10/100 ethernet, why can't they use 802.11n for wireless transfer? It can handle 100Mbps easily. I would love to be able to turn on my receiver and my HTPC and say "hey receiver, here's the HTPC. It's sending you video and audio."
spivonious is offline  
post #30 of 47 Old 07-08-2010, 07:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lvthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by spivonious View Post

If they can use 10/100 ethernet, why can't they use 802.11n for wireless transfer? It can handle 100Mbps easily. I would love to be able to turn on my receiver and my HTPC and say "hey receiver, here's the HTPC. It's sending you video and audio."

WiFi drops in and out too much.
lvthunder is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off