or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › HDMI 2.0 officially announced
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDMI 2.0 officially announced

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Only just after it leaked out, the folks at HDMI Licensing are announcing HDMI 2.0 officially.

Arriving just in time for the wide rollout of a new generation of Ultra HDTVs, it adds a few key capabilities to the connection standard.

With a bandwidth capacity of up to 18Gbps, it has enough room to carry 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at up to 60fps.

It also has support for up to 32 audio channels, "dynamic auto lipsync" and additional CEC extensions.

The connector itself is unchanged, which is good for backwards compatibility but may disappoint anyone hoping for something sturdier to support all of those suddenly-popular dongles.

The cables won't change either, as the group claims current high-speed Category 2 wires can handle the increased bandwidth.

Some companies have suggested upgrade paths for their UHDTVs already on the market -- hopefully we'll find out more about those plans this week at IFA 2013.

SOURCE: engadget
post #2 of 24
http://www.hdmi.org/index.aspx
post #3 of 24
Great! (and it was about time)

Unfortunately this means this forum will be getting lots of questions from people who are using Standard Speed cables or cables labeled as High Speed that aren't. Of course, that assumes UHDTVs take off.

I will have to investigate the 32-channels of audio to see if that means dual streaming (which would be useful) or 25.6 audio (which would not be useful) or Dolby Atmos (which would be somewhat useful).
post #4 of 24
Thread Starter 
Why do some people say that there's no such thing as version numbers for hdmi cables just standard speed and high speed?

Each new version number brings something new that wasn't even capable on the previous version of cable correct?

This has always confused me.
post #5 of 24

HDMI 2.0 officially announced: 18Gbps bandwidth, 60fps 4K, 32 channel audio

I know Panasonic is all for 4K and is leading the HDMI 2.0 march to production. This may be silly but is there any chance of 4K plasma? Last I heard there were no plans but it never hurts to find out if there are any new rumors or facts.

I hear good things about OLED ( I don't like LCD motion even on the latest sets I've seen in both professional AV stores and BB). I doubt I'll be able to afford a 65" OLED 4K in the near future but 4K plasma could keep plasma around for another 5 years - particularly if we finally start seeing 75 and 85" screens.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/hdmi-2-0-official-4k-60fps-32-channel-audio/

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/panasonic-ifa-4k-hdmi-2.0-wt600-leak/
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by calearne View Post


The cables won't change either, as the group claims current high-speed Category 2 wires can handle the increased bandwidth.

Won't stop BB salesman from telling customers they need to buy a new MONSTER ULTRA HD EXTREME cable in order for their new TV to work.
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by calearne View Post

Why do some people say that there's no such thing as version numbers for hdmi cables just standard speed and high speed?

Each new version number brings something new that wasn't even capable on the previous version of cable correct?

This has always confused me.

High speed HDMI cables are up to say 25 feet and the lower the gage # the longer a cable can be, a short 26 gage can be high speed but at 25 feet it may not even work. The speck has to do with the device that sends and receives the bits and backward compatible has to do with the new generation understanding the older versions. The cable and connecter stays at 19 count wire strands to care the digital bits.
And BB has a whole new flock of sheep to clip.
post #8 of 24
Interesting thanks for posting, everything I have read indicates no 4k Plasma
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

I will have to investigate the 32-channels of audio to see if that means dual streaming (which would be useful) or 25.6 audio (which would not be useful) or Dolby Atmos (which would be somewhat useful).

Yeah, I'm hoping the same thing - the lack of a "compatibility" audio stream in addition to the main audio stream (which is likely using optionally-supported codecs or multi-channel audio), would fix the major issues in HDMI matrix distribution. Offering a choice of even two streams (best or compatible) would be a big step forward. But only if it can be addressed without upgrading all the pre-2.0 displays. Otherwise, I'm afraid the problem will have taken care of itself as display makers incorporate the DD/DTS codec support.

One would hope that 11-channel or dodecaphonic support (credit: Steve Martin) could be handled within the codec definition and therefore be completely opaque to HDMI - so adding that shouldn't require an HDMI spec upgrade...

(if it was done properly! biggrin.gif)
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by calearne View Post

Why do some people say that there's no such thing as version numbers for hdmi cables just standard speed and high speed?

Each new version number brings something new that wasn't even capable on the previous version of cable correct?

This has always confused me.

Because the version numbers refer to the hardware spec, not the cable spec. High speed cables meet all of the current, and some future specs that hardware version 1.4, 1.4a are capable of, and are backward compatible with previous hardware versions. I think previously cable mfrs were allowed to use the version numbers on their cables but that became very confusing for the consumer. So HDMI.org put a stop to that when hardware version 2.0 was released because the High Speed (certified) cable name covered all of the specs, so one didn't have to know the differences between 1.3, 1.3a, 1.4, etc. Maybe HDMI.org will call hardware version 2.0 something like Ultra High Speed? But yeah, there is going to be a flood of questions here very soon and as someone aptly pointed out, a whole new crop of sheep to fleece.
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by calearne View Post

Why do some people say that there's no such thing as version numbers for hdmi cables just standard speed and high speed?

Each new version number brings something new that wasn't even capable on the previous version of cable correct?

This has always confused me.

Yes, but the cable doesn't need to change to support the new features. The cable is dumb. Really dumb. It doesn't know what the bits mean that go through it. It just has to handle getting those bits from one end of the cable to the other without the bits changing.
post #12 of 24
More info here...

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/index.aspx

On the plus side, multiple streams of audio are supported (yeah!) as are dual video streams over a single cable. So with HDMI 2.0 (and all components must be 2.0 spec'ed) you could have a 1080p and a 720p video going out over the same cable. One of those could be 7.1-channel audio and the other 2 channel audio. That will solve most lowest common denominator issues. That is a tremendous step forward.

Then there are the stupid specs. I have to admit I don't understand the 32 channels (appears to mean unique audio channels and not streams). I've been to one show with 25.5 channel audio and there wasn't much difference between that and good 11.2 channel audio. Some difference but not much and that only occurred because the theater space was relatively large which would not be true at home. Maybe Dolby Atmos would have made sense but 32 unique audio channels??

And then for really stupid specs, 1,536kHz audio sampling rate is included. 1,536kHz! That means ultrasonic frequencies of 768kHz audio can be played back. That's not only above a human's hearing, it's above a dog's hearing. Maybe a bat can hear (sense) that. Maybe...

It's not DSD, since that is already covered in the earlier HDMI 1.x spec.

I expect that it will take at least a year before we see the first trickle of HDMI 2.0 components. It will be at least 3 years before HDMI 2.0 becomes mainstream.
Edited by alk3997 - 9/4/13 at 10:02am
post #13 of 24
Does HDMI 2.0 carry power?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0JsC2Tk4Sw&feature=player_embedded

About 9 mins. in.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

Yes, but the cable doesn't need to change to support the new features. The cable is dumb. Really dumb. It doesn't know what the bits mean that go through it. It just has to handle getting those bits from one end of the cable to the other without the bits changing.

Of course, you might need to add a caveat as this being "non-active cables".
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by budwich View Post

Of course, you might need to add a caveat as this being "non-active cables".

I'm not sure one way or another. Does the cable actually have to "know" what the signal is in order to recover the bits? I doubt it with Redmere, but I have no proof. Redmere could simply be restoring a waveform without actually interpreting the bits. Send more squigley 1s and 0s and it restores those to 1s and 0s without actually reading the words. Of course, part of the smarts could be that it knows where different parts of the data fields reside which helps it restore the bits. I really don't know.

On an adapter that converts to cat 6, for instance, I believe that actually has to "know" what the bits mean in order to translate properly.

In terms of AC power on the HDMI cable, I've seen no mention of that in the HDMI 2.0 releases. So, I wouldn't hold my breath for AC power over HDMI for a TV. However, for low voltage devices (somewhere in the +5VDC range), it looks like they have added that capability, much like USB can do.
Edited by alk3997 - 9/14/13 at 1:14pm
post #16 of 24
Just a quick question...I'm going to be picking up the Panasonic ZT60 along with a new receiver.. Do I need to use 2.0 cables (if you can even get them yet) or do the 1.4's get the job done to maximize the picture? Just want to make sure I'm using the right equipment...
post #17 of 24
No such things as 2.0 cables, or 1.4 cables. There are just standard and high speed. No reason to use anything but high speed for lengths up to 25'.
post #18 of 24
Thank you sir...as evidenced by my question, my knowledge is quite short in this particular department. Thanks for setting me straight Colm
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

I'm not sure one way or another. Does the cable actually have to "know" what the signal is in order to recover the bits? I doubt it with Redmere, but I have no proof. Redmere could simply be restoring a waveform without actually interpreting the bits. Send more squigley 1s and 0s and it restores those to 1s and 0s without actually reading the words. Of course, part of the smarts could be that it knows where different parts of the data fields reside which helps it restore the bits. I really don't know.

On an adapter that converts to cat 6, for instance, I believe that actually has to "know" what the bits mean in order to translate properly.

....

:-) and at what clockrate would that be at???
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by budwich View Post

:-) and at what clockrate would that be at???

Budwich, your point is very good. *If* a different clock is included with HDMI 2.0, then can Redmere handle that clock? We just don't have enough information yet to know.
post #21 of 24
I don't believe you can achieve the higher bit rates without changing clocking... kind of the "physics" of "data transfer". Of course, those "physics" aren't involved in "non-active cables" but certainly become design considerations for active ones... but of course, Redmere is aware of this.... hence the choice in some of their cables.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by budwich View Post

I don't believe you can achieve the higher bit rates without changing clocking...
Sure you can. Just change the encoding mechanism. Of course, the current Redmere products would probably not know how to handle it.
post #23 of 24
yes Colm, but let's keep this in the context that these comments were made (ie. Andy's comment about the hdmi cable not "knowing" about the bits) which is certainly true about a "non-active" hdmi cable.
post #24 of 24
What does the clock rate have to do with that? You took the thread off on a tangent, not me.

FWIW neither passive nor active HDMI cables are content aware.
Edited by Colm - 9/16/13 at 6:23pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › HDMI 2.0 officially announced