AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Everyone should boycott HDMI AUDIO!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone should boycott HDMI AUDIO!

post #1 of 89
7/8/09 at 7:10am
Thread Starter 
This is ridiculous. Just bought a new receiver. Found out to take advantage of the new Codecs I *HAVE* to go through HDMI. I would have no problems with that if it was a superior interface. But Optical cable is capable of carrying the same signal and they only do it because there scared someone will capture the video/audio.
This is so stupid I cant even put it into words. Because Blueray movies hd movies, there all over the net for pirates ANYWAYS. But we get punished by not being able to use Optical cables. This is the same crap that destroyed the divx player I hope people boycott this. So now if I want to hook up my receiver to my pc to take advantage of the codecs I have to buy a $250 sound card and use a crap player.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 89
7/8/09 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

But Optical cable is capable of carrying the same signal

Practically speaking, optical cables can't carry the same signal because there is no industry standard beyond 2-ch PCM, DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1.

Quote:


and they only do it because there scared someone will capture the video/audio.

HDMI is just a means. Not the root of the problem. Why don't you start with boycotting Blu Ray movies, or DVD movies in that matter, altogether. After all, those discs are the ones loaded with DRMs.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 89
7/8/09 at 7:34am
What makes you think that optical cables can carry the same signal? HDMI has a geater bandwidth than optical from what I understand.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 89
7/8/09 at 7:45am
And HMDI = less cable clutter.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 89
7/8/09 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkSmith View Post

What makes you think that optical cables can carry the same signal? HDMI has a geater bandwidth than optical from what I understand.

If true, our nation'd internet backbond should be running on copper wires instead of optical cables

BTW, OP, you're 5-year too late for boycotting HDMI. It's already taken foot hold in CE industries and unlikely to be unseated.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

I would have no problems with that if it was a superior interface. But Optical cable is capable of carrying the same signal

Umm, no. Optical is not capable of carrying the same signal. Do your research before complaining. Optical is limited in its bandwidth and can only handle the older codecs, hence HDMI.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

If true, our nation'd internet backbond should be running on copper wires instead of optical cables

BTW, OP, you're 5-year too late for boycotting HDMI. It's already taken foot hold in CE industries and unlikely to be unseated.

I was speaking in terms of the optical technology utlized in consumer electronics which is obviously quite different than the optical technology used to backbone the internet.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:14am
There is nothing technically to prohibit the expansion of consumer optical audio cable to carry more bandwidth. It's the lack of copy protection and hence the lack of studio support that spells the death of optical cable in new ages.

It actually started long ago before BD even showed up. Back in the days of DVD-Audio and SACD, players are often prohibited to output 96KHz PCM stereo over SPDIF (well within the bandwidth) for DVD-Audio discs. And no players are ever allowed to output any sound over SPDIF from SACD disc.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharel View Post

Umm, no. Optical is not capable of carrying the same signal. Do your research before complaining. Optical is limited in its bandwidth and can only handle the older codecs, hence HDMI.

We should be saying SPDIF can not handle the bandwith

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkSmith View Post

I was speaking in terms of the optical technology utlized in consumer electronics which is obviously quite different than the optical technology used to backbone the internet.

Your right optical and copper are both cappable of carrying the bandwith
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharel View Post

Umm, no. Optical is not capable of carrying the same signal. Do your research before complaining. Optical is limited in its bandwidth and can only handle the older codecs, hence HDMI.

You have no clue what your talking about. Fiber cables can carry WAY more than 1.5 mbs. 1000x more. But the interface on your component and receivers will cap it at 1.5 that's what their setup for. How do you think land based fibre can transmit at thousands of times faster than 1.5 mbs. The industry is not going to modify for optical output because they want to tell you what players, programs you can use because there scared there video/audio will get captured. I never cared about DRM on DVD's im not for copying them.
But when DRM dictates which players I can use, and forces me to use HDMI and to buy hardware thats 3x as expensive in the name of DRM that's when I will boycot. And get my friends to. You laugh, but look at the sales for DVD and Blueray, DVD destroying blueray. People dont like this proprietary crap, look at some beta. HDMI is not even stopping piracy at ALL!! people are pirating blueray movies as easy as VHS tapes that's the irony in it all.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

This is ridiculous. Just bought a new receiver. Found out to take advantage of the new Codecs I *HAVE* to go through HDMI. I would have no problems with that if it was a superior interface. But Optical cable is capable of carrying the same signal and they only do it because there scared someone will capture the video/audio.
This is so stupid I cant even put it into words. Because Blueray movies hd movies, there all over the net for pirates ANYWAYS. But we get punished by not being able to use Optical cables. This is the same crap that destroyed the divx player I hope people boycott this. So now if I want to hook up my receiver to my pc to take advantage of the codecs I have to buy a $250 sound card and use a crap player.

So use optical and be satisfied with DD 5.1 and DTS and stop whining.

Like others said, you're WAY too late for a HDMI boycott.

For $250 you can buy a standalone Blu Ray player and not have to use your PC at all!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:28am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike2060 View Post

And HMDI = less cable clutter.

HTPC Hdmi = 3x cost of sound card, have to use "certified players", run my HDMI card from pc, through sound card, to receiver to be "certified" give me a BREAK.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

HTPC Hdmi = 3x cost of sound card, have to use "certified players", run my HDMI card from pc, through sound card, to receiver to be "certified" give me a BREAK.

you've choosen the wrong hobby then and whats a certified player?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

So use optical and be satisfied with DD 5.1 and DTS and stop whining.

Like others said, you're WAY too late for a HDMI boycott.

For $250 you can buy a standalone Blu Ray player and not have to use your PC at all!

^^bingo, but hey i wonder how that 1080p is working without hdmi for him we've only heard the audio side of his problems.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandphan View Post

^^bingo, but hey i wonder how that 1080p is working without hdmi for him we've only heard the audio side of his problems.

Again I was complaining about the AUDIO portion of it.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:42am
I guess he's only concerned about getting hi-definition audio.

Why not just buy a standalone Blu-Ray player? Sounds like it would save a lot of trouble.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 89
7/8/09 at 8:49am
Exactly. Anyone into HTPC world for HDMI is nothing but asking for trouble. Not least of it is the industry wide dis-trust of PCs in general as a DRM safe component. Hence the need for certified players. On top of that the lack of proper HDMI support in both the OS level and driver department.

A standalone player is cheaper, easier to setup and use.

Besides, there is nothing to stop OP to use the plain ol' 5.1 analog connection from PC to receiver. I know some player software can fully decode the TrueHD if you can tell it to ignore the HDMI as the only audio output. Again, that's just the software and driver issue or OS support in general.

BTW, a standalone player can output audio via HDMI, SPDIF and analog all at the same time. There is nothing restricts you to use HDMI for audio only. The restriction is on your PC.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 89
7/8/09 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Besides, there is nothing to stop OP to use the plain ol' 5.1 analog connection from PC to receiver. I know some player software can fully decode the TrueHD if you can tell it to ignore the HDMI as the only audio output. Again, that's just the software and driver issue or OS support in general.

BTW, a standalone player can output audio via HDMI, SPDIF and analog all at the same time. There is nothing restricts you to use HDMI for audio only. The restriction is on your PC.

Yeah, digitalman, be an analog kid!

Sorry, couldn't resist.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 89
7/8/09 at 9:24am
HDMI is not perfect. Buit it's the standard, and I don't see where that's going to change for a few years.

There was another audio channel used for SACD. But the industry obviously was not interested enough in using it. It was also somewhat proprietary. Denon link I think it was called.

Practically speaking, I think most people's problems would be solved by HDMI working harder to companies to ensure compatibility. Why does my Tivo Series 3 change resolution? I don't know, but HDMI should be working with manufacturers to prevent such issues, IMO.

Instead, they are coming out with yet another version of HDMI - HDMI 1.4.

As I say though, not a lot you can do.

You COULD just stick with optical. Lossless is hardly mandatory. Are you aware that Blu-ray beats DVD audio-wise even when using optical?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 89
7/8/09 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

There was another audio channel used for SACD. But the industry obviously was not interested enough in using it. It was also somewhat proprietary. Denon link I think it was called.

It was iLink, a variant of FireWire. DenonLink is another proprietary variant.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 89
7/8/09 at 9:52am
This is why I decided to buy a standalone Sony BDP-S360... My HTPC is very powerful but its useless with out the HD Audio support. But its still good for other stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 89
7/8/09 at 9:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Exactly. Anyone into HTPC world for HDMI is nothing but asking for trouble. Not least of it is the industry wide dis-trust of PCs in general as a DRM safe component. Hence the need for certified players. On top of that the lack of proper HDMI support in both the OS level and driver department.

A standalone player is cheaper, easier to setup and use.

Besides, there is nothing to stop OP to use the plain ol' 5.1 analog connection from PC to receiver. I know some player software can fully decode the TrueHD if you can tell it to ignore the HDMI as the only audio output. Again, that's just the software and driver issue or OS support in general.

BTW, a standalone player can output audio via HDMI, SPDIF and analog all at the same time. There is nothing restricts you to use HDMI for audio only. The restriction is on your PC.

I see where your coming from. I guess my whole problem is I would like to use HDMI and the codecs on my pc hassle free. And the only thing thats stopping me is the DRM. The part that makes me mad though is the pirates are still pirating, there taking True-HD and converting it to PCM and it sounds the same basicly. Due to DRM it's a nightmare to use HDMI and new codecs through my pc to receiver. That really sucks. My whole point is it didn't even slow down piracy. It's people like me who have to suffer. I pay for all my software/multi media.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 89
7/8/09 at 10:13am
Quote:


I guess my whole problem is I would like to use HDMI and the codecs on my pc hassle free.

It will be that way... in a few years anyway. You're one of those early adopters that must suffer so that others don't have to 90% of the video card sold today are still not shipped HDCP enabled (HDCP Ready really means not ready or not there yet).


Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

My whole point is it didn't even slow down piracy. It's people like me who have to suffer.

It will always be that way. I feel your pain. Just look at all the bail outs our government gives out and the tax bills we will receive in coming years!
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 89
7/8/09 at 11:40am
Quote:


And the only thing thats stopping me is the DRM. The part that makes me mad though is the pirates are still pirating

this is true of ALL copy protection schemes, it's not endemic to HDMI. the pirates will always be ahead of the curve and the consumers are the ones who suffer

just the way it is, unfortunately.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 89
7/8/09 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

this is true of ALL copy protection schemes, it's not endemic to HDMI. the pirates will always be ahead of the curve and the consumers are the ones who suffer

just the way it is, unfortunately.

Yeah thats why I dont understand why more software companies dont start offering downloads to purchase software to save some money. I think the best way to combat piracy is with cheaper prices. But the software companies dont want to lower prices, they would rather spend the cash on protection that is worthless.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 89
7/8/09 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAISKI View Post

This is why I decided to buy a standalone Sony BDP-S360... My HTPC is very powerful but its useless with out the HD Audio support. But its still good for other stuff.

Yep, I stopped worrying about ripping my BDs and just bought a PS3 to play them.

I would love to play my BDs anywhere in my house like I do with over 400 DVDs but Im stuck for now...until the whole BD playback on HTPC is solved and easy Im not doing it.

Im still considering the Sony BD disc changer that holds I think 400 BDs. I can then play them anywhere in my house.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 89
7/8/09 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalman42 View Post

You have no clue what your talking about. Fiber cables can carry WAY more than 1.5 mbs. 1000x more. But the interface on your component and receivers will cap it at 1.5 that's what their setup for. How do you think land based fibre can transmit at thousands of times faster than 1.5 mbs. The industry is not going to modify for optical output because they want to tell you what players, programs you can use because there scared there video/audio will get captured. I never cared about DRM on DVD's im not for copying them.
But when DRM dictates which players I can use, and forces me to use HDMI and to buy hardware thats 3x as expensive in the name of DRM that's when I will boycot. And get my friends to. You laugh, but look at the sales for DVD and Blueray, DVD destroying blueray. People dont like this proprietary crap, look at some beta. HDMI is not even stopping piracy at ALL!! people are pirating blueray movies as easy as VHS tapes that's the irony in it all.

We're talking about optical on AV components, or as another poster stated SPDIF to be exact. SPDIF/Optical limits you to the older codecs. So, yeah I do know what I am talking about. You complained about HDMI in your new receiver. If SPDIF/Optical could handle the newer codecs, HDMI would not be necessary.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 89
7/8/09 at 12:11pm
but the point is it's not a limitation due to some physical properties of the optical cables themselves, the limitation is in the SPDIF spec.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 89
7/8/09 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

but the point is it's not a limitation due to some physical properties of the optical cables themselves, the limitation is in the SPDIF spec.

Right. That is why I re-mentioned SPDIF. The OP complained about HDMI in his new receiver. So I automatically assumed that when referring to optical in an AV/receiver sense, it meant SPDIF.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 89
7/8/09 at 3:17pm
My question is why are you limiting yourself? Why not buy a standalone Blu-Ray player instead of using your HTPC to watch Blu-Rays? This way you can save yourself a lot of hassle and you'll be able to take full advantage of both hi-def video and audio. What is the appeal of using the HTPC?

What type of television or monitor are you using for video? Are you getting hi-def video or are you viewing Blu-Rays on a standard non-HD television or monitor and you are only concerned with getting the hi-def audio?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Everyone should boycott HDMI AUDIO!