HDBaseT Hopes to Take On HDMI in the Living Room - Page 2

I agree. It would seem more likely that they're using all four pairs for a (considerably) higher data rate and just muxing in the relatively low speed Ethernet traffic into that mix. I'd guess they're using three pairs for transmission, and one pair for the return path (Ethernet, HDMI handshake, etc.).

But I doubt the specification would include multiple video streams. I'd assume this is meant to be a point-to-point system, with individual links from a switching device to each display. Same topology as the matrix switches today. The big leap here would be interoperable displays and switchers (and built-in receivers removing the need for external baluns, etc.). It should be simple to use the HDMI-CEC protocol (or add some support if necessary) for switching between multiple sources from the display, futher increasing ease-of-use... (ok, ease of use is *never* simple)

Jeff

But if you ever wanted to transfer files to connected components it will take FOREVER![/quote]

I don't think this is meant as a PC or server-to-network connection replacement. This is source-to-display. Most displays don't (and probably won't) have local storage. Could happen, but if in that case, I'd expect the device to have a separate gig-e connection to the network...

Jeff

With some sensible buffering, it wouldn't matter. And we're not talking about traveling through walls. This is to travel 5 feet from a content provider to a display. There are lots of options to choose from (WiFi, bluetooth, WiDi, etc.).

Because it's not using 10/100 ethernet to do it, it's a proprietary method of doing video/audio/network/power/control over a Cat5e/6 cable.

I was referring to the bandwidth of HDMI. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

You're not going to transfer files to or from a HDBaseT device. This is for a TV, bluray player, entertainment device - Not a media storage server. You aren't going to be storing or transferring any files from these devices. For these devices, a 100Mb connection will be more than enough to be able to stream a 1080p MKV from your media server...if the device in question will even support decoding video files.

Existing WiFi could never handle the bandwidth of raw video. Keep in mind, HDBaseT is taking the raw, uncompressed video from a source (bluray player) to the TV. The video at this point has been uncompressed from h.264, vc-1, etc. The current standard for HDBaseT is 10gbps for the video. WiFi could never achieve this. HDbaseT can achieve this because it is a new technology that does not use Ethernet standards. All it is doing is making use of copper wires from an existing CAT5e/6 standard.

If this can eliminate the power cords for many of my devices then I am all aboard otherwise I just don't really see the point in switching. I also kind of wanted DisplayPort to gain some ground but maybe that will just be stuck in the PC world.

This

This sounds like a great idea, but considering how long it took for most people to adopt just HDTV's and then warm up to using HDMI, i highly doubt it's going to have a large impact. Hell, most people barely even use HDMI on their new tv's just forget about a new method.

Oh one other thing, i cant believe that HDMI has given any of you problems. It's so darn easy to use and on all my TV's in my house has never given any problems. Plagued with issues? What kind of equipment are you using, direct tv boxes, ps3, xbox360, laptops, av receivers, and the sort have never given me any trouble. It's about as PnP as anything I've ever used when it comes to digital equipment. This thread makes HDMI sound like it's a FORD or something with fix or repair daily problems.

You've been lucky to not have any handshake issues.

And Ford has been making great, reliable cars for over 10 years now.

I subscribe to a locally owned IPTV system that delivers HD thru cat5 in my home. The picture is nearly flawless and the cat5 seems to handle everything with ease. My IPTV based HD is even clearer than the HD I had previously thru Directv. Plus, I have an HD-DVR at each tv (I have 4) and its is all delivered via cat5 wiring. So eventually going to cat5 connections would be the cheapest solution for the customer without losing quality IMO.

IPTV is delivered via TCP-IP over Ethernet-on-Cat5. The decoding of the signal is still done at a set-top box, and then you (likely) have an HDMI link to your display. HDBaseT is a replacement for the HDMI link, not the IPTV Ethernet / TCP-IP link to your provider. Any quality differences you see are due to the provider and their implementation, not because of Cat5 vs. HDMI.

They use the same type of cable, but in very different ways. Your IPTV box receives packets of compressed video data (encrypted), decodes them and sends them over the HDMI link. That same box could use an HDBaseT link to allow a much longer connection between the set-top box and the display. Actually, with this solution, that box probably isn't "set top" anymore. It could be back in the closet, perhaps embedded in an IPTV gateway...

Jeff

It doesn't use the same methodology. It's a lower frequency modulation so think of it as a completely different monster in the same way that the limits of analogue audio over a coax cable have nothing to do with the potential for digital signal transfer via S/PDIF.


This is a non-issue as of course they will support HDCP (per my interview with the President of the HDBaseT alliance). They aren't interested in rewriting the copyright laws, just providing data in a way that is more flexible, less expensive and more convenient.


The signal is sent in a way that is completely different from what you use in 802.11a/b/g/n or 10/100/1000 networking.

HDBaseT already has a shipping product in some Gefen Baluns. What's incredible is that people look at this existing product - and instead of saying, "holy crap they are already a year into development before they even release the spec" - they say, "Oh, the existing product only works with HDMI and doesn't handle a spec that was just releases several months ago...."

And of course, interfacing with HDMI is a good thing - and was a requirement for the initial product... which went from a good idea to a complete protocol in about a year.

This spec is moving faster than lightning and it's going to be fun to watch as it encroaches on HDMI. The way I see it is this:

HDMI is a cable.
HDBaseT is a format. With the networking features alone it wins and is designed for the future, but with using standard Ethernet - it's like inviting a solar-powered Ferrari to a horse and buggy race in the 1800's. Sure there are more horse and buggies around, but give the thing a little time and soon everybody's going to want one.

At least that's my take on it...

If it truly uses standard ethernet specifications for transporting the content, then this will never fly because I bet you the MPAA will kill it due to the possibility of PC's intercepting the packets and possible piracy. I have always suspected that the reason HDMI was adopted was because it is uncompressed audio/video and therefore much harder to capture due to the data rates, and also there were/are very few options on the computer side with inputs. Heck the MPAA feelt DTCP is way too lax for content lock down in face of the fact that it has never been broken (to my knowledge) and avaliable on the consumer level.

It doesn't. It uses the Category 5 / 6 specification. Ethernet also uses that spec, but how they use the wires is completely different. For practical purposes, this should be thought of as HDMI-over-cat5 "standardized".

Jeff

Hate to bring up an old thread but I suppose this is better than starting a new one. Anyways, does anyone have any info on what's going with HDBaseT? They said products would roll out this fall but it's been almost 4 months since July's announcement and there has been no tidbit online since. I was determined to be patient and wait for a TV upgrade to include this, but this is kinda pushing it without any actual release date/quarter. Anyone have a heads up on this issue?