AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › hdmi 19 pin layout problem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

hdmi 19 pin layout problem

post #1 of 28
5/20/12 at 9:08am
Thread Starter 
Hi

I am connecting a new hdmi connector.

Do not have the old piece with the attached wires anymore.

Maybe a stupid question.

on the fron view of the female hdmi conn. the hot plug is on the left side no 19 on the upper side and tmds channel 2 begins on the right side on nb 1. with the wider section on top.

When do I begin on the rear side should I connect the Hot plug nb 19 on the same side , now on the right side and the tdms 2 on the left side?

It should go straight acording my opinion as a technician told me I should turn them to the other side, for then it will not go straight .

I do have literature about this , see under for a stetement .


It's not necessary to understand what each wire is for, but it is important to understand which wire goes to which pin. If you make a mistake and wire the wrong wire to the wrong pin, you risk damaging your components. This diagram shows the pin layout, as if you're standing in front of the connector. The wider section of the connector is the top of the connector, and contains the odd pins 1 - 19. The lower section, the narrower part of the connector, contains even pins 2-18. Make sure to keep these locations straight when looking at the HDMI connector from the reverse side.

Appreciate your thought and maybe a view from the back of the connector .

God bless you

Bob
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 28
5/20/12 at 10:36am
http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf8...&q=hdmi+pinout

Curious why you are splicing an HDMI cable. It's generally considered to be more trouble than it's worth.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 28
5/20/12 at 12:12pm
Thread Starter 
Hi

The reason was that I had to pass it through a very narrrow pvc tube and I lost the other piece , so I could not copy.

By the way which one is considered female , the cable or the connecter in the unit(TV)?

Bob
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 28
5/20/12 at 1:00pm
You really need to toss that HDMI cable that you cut the end off, and pull Cat-6 for HDMI over ethernet, which is becoming the now preferred method for any run over 10 feet.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 28
5/20/12 at 1:19pm
10' is a pretty low cut-off point. You can go up to 50' with a good in-wall cable (always have cat5/6 as backup though).

Or buy a Rapidrun digital cable (that's the brand name) which is designed to pull through 3/4" conduit. You can then attach HDMI leads to both ends (which screw-lock in place) and you're good to go.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 28
5/20/12 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

You really need to toss that HDMI cable that you cut the end off, and pull Cat-6 for HDMI over ethernet, which is becoming the now preferred method for any run over 10 feet.

Never heard that before. Why would that be when there are 25' certified high speed cables?

FWIW even gigabit ethernet is not capable of transporting HDMI. Perhaps you are thinking of HDMI over cat cable that uses a different method like HDBaseT or one of the other proprietary methods? That is not the same as HDMI over ethernet.

That said, using cat 5e/6 cable with a media adapter would have been the easy route in this case, although more expensive.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 28
5/20/12 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCR07@CURLINK View Post

...which one is considered female , the cable or the connecter in the unit(TV)?

The male is the plug, the end on the HDMI cable. If that is what you are trying to wire, it is simple. Each wire in the cable goes to the same pin on both ends, 1-1, 2-2, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 28
5/21/12 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

Never heard that before. Why would that be when there are 25' certified high speed cables?

FWIW even gigabit ethernet is not capable of transporting HDMI. Perhaps you are thinking of HDMI over cat cable that uses a different method like HDBaseT or one of the other proprietary methods? That is not the same as HDMI over ethernet.

That said, using cat 5e/6 cable with a media adapter would have been the easy route in this case, although more expensive.

I'm also curious about this new standard of HDMI over ethernet.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 28
5/21/12 at 11:28am
10 Gigabit Ethernet is common now in data centers. 40GbE and 100GbE were standardized in 2010. HDMI over Ethernet can't be that far off! HD video and audio over Ethernet has been around for quite some time, of course.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 28
5/21/12 at 2:45pm
Not that it's probably applicable to the current conversation but I just installed a 65' section of solid UTP CAT-5e cable for live video (security cameras) from the DVR to my router and it works great.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 28
5/22/12 at 6:57am
Quote:


Ethernet can't be that far off!

According to greg, it's here today

Quote:


Not that it's probably applicable to the current conversation but I just installed a 65' section of solid UTP CAT-5e cable for live video (security cameras) from the DVR to my router and it works great.

Baseband? composite? component? SDI? IP?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 28
5/22/12 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

According to greg, it's here today



Baseband? composite? component? SDI? IP?

Sorry Sam64, I'm still in the learning phase of security cams but they are not IP-based, that I know. It's a simple enet connection to my router (via the CAT-5e solid UTP) with port forwarding to a dedicated ip address so I can access the cameras from either my own local network or remotely (computer, iPhone, iTouch, etc).
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 28
5/22/12 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Sorry Sam64, I'm still in the learning phase of security cams but they are not IP-based, that I know. It's a simple enet connection to my router (via the CAT-5e solid UTP) with port forwarding to a dedicated ip address so I can access the cameras from either my own local network or remotely (computer, iPhone, iTouch, etc).

By definition, "port forwarding to a dedicated ip address" means that they're "IP based." In other words, they do not transmit using analog signals or a proprietary networking protocol.

FWIW, in general it's best to put networked security cameras and their associated file servers on their own separate subnet so that only their control signals traverse the main network. Each camera generates the equivalent of a continuous HDTV stream. That constant real-time throughput both interferes with and must not be interrupted by generic network traffic.

Most home networks have so little traffic most of the time that they'd be OK, I think. Attempting to run additional streams of HD video from a media server to one or more A/V systems over the same network would not cohabitate with them so well, though.

Edited to add: I trust you've discussed the legal issues with your lawyer.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 28
5/22/12 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

By definition, "port forwarding to a dedicated ip address" means that they're "IP based." In other words, they do not transmit using analog signals or a proprietary networking protocol.

FWIW, in general it's best to put networked security cameras and their associated file servers on their own separate subnet so that only their control signals traverse the main network. Each camera generates the equivalent of a continuous HDTV stream. That constant real-time throughput both interferes with and must not be interrupted by generic network traffic.

Most home networks have so little traffic most of the time that they'd be OK, I think. Attempting to run additional streams of HD video from a media server to one or more A/V systems over the same network would not cohabitate with them so well, though.

Edited to add: I trust you've discussed the legal issues with your lawyer.

Thanks for the explanation. Like I said, I'm still learning. For some reason, I thought that IP-based cams were different. So far, we haven't seen any issues on our home network at all with the cams and any streaming we do thru the same router, if that's what you mean.

It's interesting that you mention the legal aspects. This is for my home, not a business, and in California, the expected privacy I believe is not applicable to home protection as long as the cameras are not in what's considered a "private" area. Outside is public.

My apologies for changing the direction of this thread. Didn't mean to.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 28
5/22/12 at 12:22pm
It has drifted quite a ways from wiring an HDMI connector

I know essentially nothing about how one goes about assembling HDMI cables. While my personal experience is with soldering cable connectors, my impression is that most modern data cables use crimp-on connections -- which are both cheaper and more reliable than manually soldered connectors.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 28
5/22/12 at 2:33pm
Yeah, I discovered that with the enet cable. Adding a connector to the end was very difficult until I discovered keystone jacks. 2 minutes and it was done, and solid. I don't know if there is something similar for HDMI cables.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 28
5/22/12 at 6:19pm
HDMI over IP Ethernet network routing is another way, and it is already here http://www.markertek.com/Home-Theate...I-108POE.xhtml , and has been for some time. Then again, there are some out there that act like stuff is still a fantasy when they did not think of stating it first.

As for the term "HDMI over ethernet", it is just a generic term, like Coke, Pop, etc. HDMI over ethernet is just making it easier to state that you are just using category 5e or 6 to connect two devices, so that you are not running HDMI cables over long runs. HDMI has a limit of up to 5 meters, before you start seeing problems.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 28
5/22/12 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

...Just-Add-Power...

...products are not true HDMI over ethernet devices. They compress the signal. They have to to transmit it over a 1Gb or slower ethernet link. You don't get the same signal out as you put in. Their most recent devices claim to be "visually lossless". That means they are lossy, just not enough to notice.
Quote:
..."HDMI over ethernet", it is just a generic term...to state that you are just using category 5e or 6 to connect two devices.

Unfortunately it is inaccurate if used that way, and misleading. It is normaly not used that way by those who understand the difference. HDMI over ethernet is something a lot of us would like to have, but it isn't available yet. HDMI over cat 5e/6 cable is.
Quote:
HDMI has a limit of up to 5 meters, before you start seeing problems.

Nonsense. There are 25' certified high speed cables capable of handling any currently defined HDMI bit rate. If you will settle for 1080p60 2D or 1080p24 3D, 50' is quite doable, even more depending on the hardware and environment involved.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 28
5/23/12 at 7:55am
Quote:


Then again, there are some out there that act like stuff is still a fantasy when they did not think of stating it first.

Funny, based on the posts you make, you live in an alternate universe.
You're condecending and most often very wrong...as evidenced in this thread alone.
Everytime you're called on your garbage posts, you simply ignore...proving that you're not willing to learn anything, but simply spew nonsense...over and over again.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 28
5/23/12 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post


Funny, based on the posts you make, you live in an alternate universe.
You're condecending and most often very wrong...as evidenced in this thread alone.
Everytime you're called on your garbage posts, you simply ignore...proving that you're not willing to learn anything, but simply spew nonsense...over and over again.

Easy folks - let's stick to the technical facts rather than opinions.

One thing that people always overlook in Ethernet discussions is that Ethernet never guarantees delivery of the data due to collisions. The greater the amount of data on a network the more likely collisions occur.

That's one of the reasons we don't have true HDMI using straight Ethernet. Instead we use dedicated Cat 6 (5e) cables so there is enough bandwidth available for the HD signal. If you look at time triggered (TT) Ethernet that is an attempt to completely eliminate collisions but I can't see how that would allow enough remaining bandwidth to allow a packetized verision of a true HDMI signal to be sent.

Anything that attempts to use a share Ethernet network for distributing HDMI is, at best, an engineering compromise and the buyer should beware and know the limitations. Even the new HD over IP televisions are often prone to frozen pictures when put on a large *dedicated* network. If you go to Rangers Ballpark in Arlington you can see firsthand the advantages and disadvantages of HD delivery with IP.

Andy
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 28
5/23/12 at 12:24pm
Ethernet is one thing, IP another. Lets not confuse them.

A dedicated ethernet link of appropriate speed running through a switch should have no problem. There is no contention. Probability of dropped packets is extremely small. It will work if you put IP on top of it as well. This seems like the natural application to me.

If the source and sink are not on the same network, or on the same poorly designed network, it becomes more problematic. But given sufficient bandwidth and a big enough buffer on the sink, it is doable. It is already being done today on services like Netflix, albeit at nowhere the bandwidth required for uncompressed HDMI. But I don't think we are going to see that kind of bandwidth for the average internet connection any time soon.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 28
5/23/12 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

Ethernet is one thing, IP another. Lets not confuse them.

A dedicated ethernet link of appropriate speed running through a switch should have no problem. There is no contention. Probability of dropped packets is extremely small. It will work if you put IP on top of it as well. This seems like the natural application to me.

If the source and sink are not on the same network, or on the same poorly designed network, it becomes more problematic. But given sufficient bandwidth and a big enough buffer on the sink, it is doable. It is already being done today on services like Netflix, albeit at nowhere the bandwidth required for uncompressed HDMI. But I don't think we are going to see that kind of bandwidth for the average internet connection any time soon.

Big buffers will overcome a lot. It gets more interesting if you're trying to do this in real-time with low latency.

But, what you said makes sense given the network is designed for the task. Most home user's would not have that type of network to work with uncompressed HD.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 28
5/23/12 at 3:24pm
Just Add Power has been shipping HDMI over IP encoders/decoders since 2009. Before then there were already DVI+Audio over IP encoders on the market from companies like SVSI. The HDMI over IP product on Markertek that Gregzoll linked to earlier in this thread is made by Just Add Power.

We are really sending HDMI content (including full 1080p from Blu-Ray players) across real Ethernet/IP LAN's. This is not fiction, it is a fact. The encode/decode latency is 37ms. You can find HDMI over IP installations in large venues like Sports Stadiums, Convention Centers, Factories, Televsion Studios, Power Plants, and Sports Bars. Smaller venues include homes for HDMI over IP Matrix configurations (which sometimes have 20+ screens), and commercial venues like stores with a Video Wall (HDMI over IP does Video Wall processing also). One of the more interesting HDMI over IP configurations we have delivered was for some horse track betting parlors in Europe. They typically have about 26 HDMI sources (live HD camera feeds from other race tracks around the globe) going to over 100 HDMI TV's in the gamblers lounges.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 28
5/23/12 at 5:00pm
Nobody has implied that your company's second generation product is not real. It is just a question of whether it is really HDMI over ethernet. It transmits a compressed version of the HDMI signal, not the original uncompressed HDMI signal. There is no guarantee that for a given signal what the sink sees is exactly what the source sent. So it is HD over ethernet, not HDMI over ethernet. Your company went to the trouble to trademark "HD over IP (HD/IP)" after all.

That said. Such a product should be able to provide very good results most of the time. I have no doubt that it does very well with BD. It really isn't that hard because BD is highly compressed to start with. Undo the decompression and ethernet bandwidth is hardly an issue.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 28
5/23/12 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

Most home user's would not have that type of network to work with uncompressed HD.

I think most home users would not have an appropriate network simply because the wiring isn't up to gigabit ethernet standards. There is more to it than just using the appropriate category wiring However, I suspect the network topology would not be the problem for many. I think most folks have everything home-runned to a single switch. Bigger systems might have to be re-thought, though.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 28
5/23/12 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

Nobody has implied that your company's second generation product is not real. It is just a question of whether it is really HDMI over ethernet. It transmits a compressed version of the HDMI signal, not the original uncompressed HDMI signal. There is no guarantee that for a given signal what the sink sees is exactly what the source sent. So it is HD over ethernet, not HDMI over ethernet. Your company went to the trouble to trademark "HD over IP (HD/IP)" after all.

The owners of the Registered HDMI Trademark (www.hdmi.org) kindly asked all of the companies with certified HDMI products to not include "HDMI" in their product names or company names. That is why we changed the name printed on our devices, and the words used in our marketing materials from "HDMI over IP" to "HD over IP". It was a professional courtesy out of respect to the HDMI Trademark owner. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is HDMI we are sending over the Ethernet LAN. You can always go to www.hdmioverip.com if those extra 2 letters will help you believe it is HDMI.

Quote:


That said. Such a product should be able to provide very good results most of the time. I have no doubt that it does very well with BD. It really isn't that hard because BD is highly compressed to start with. Undo the decompression and ethernet bandwidth is hardly an issue.

Most so called "HDMI Enthusiasts" don't realize just how compressed all of the HDMI content on the market is.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 28
5/23/12 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post

Most so called "HDMI Enthusiasts" don't realize just how compressed all of the HDMI content on the market is.

I bet most foks here do. I am not sure what an "HDMI Enthusiast" is. I sure am not one, and I cannot say I have ever met one. I could go on for hours about what is wrong with HDMI and what we should have as a general purpose A/V interface. But we have to live with it.

FWIW I think the Just Add Power HD/IP products are neat, just not true HDMI over ethernet devices.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 28
5/24/12 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post


The owners of the Registered HDMI Trademark (www.hdmi.org) kindly asked all of the companies with certified HDMI products to not include "HDMI" in their product names or company names. That is why we changed the name printed on our devices, and the words used in our marketing materials from "HDMI over IP" to "HD over IP". It was a professional courtesy out of respect to the HDMI Trademark owner. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is HDMI we are sending over the Ethernet LAN. You can always go to www.hdmioverip.com if those extra 2 letters will help you believe it is HDMI.

Most so called "HDMI Enthusiasts" don't realize just how compressed all of the HDMI content on the market is.

I hope you aren't considering many of us as "HDMI Enthusiasts" because I'm certainly not. For me, it's more of "know thy enemy". We're stuck with HDMI which was mostly developed to prevent A/V transfers rather than help the user. But it's not going away so we might as well learn what we can.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › hdmi 19 pin layout problem