Originally Posted by duc135
In my opinion, this doesn't seem like a good idea. Most people with a system that would require the RMC-1 would most likely have a rack somewhere for their equipment. I can't imagine having to run multiple HDMI cables from the rack to the display. HDMI 2.0 for 4K resolution is already a challenge for >~25' unless you go with active fiber cables or extenders. I'd much prefer to do multiple 3'-5' runs from the source device to the RMC-1 than to have to deal with signal quality of multiple cables >25' inside a wall.
Even if their equipment was sitting just below the display, trying to hide a bundle of HDMI cables could be a challenge if the display is mounted on a wall or the feet are slender. Now let's consider how many people who have this unit may also be running it in theater room with a projector. Not many projectors (if there even are any) would have more than 2 HDMI inputs. Any new projector models would require adding multiple HDMI inputs and adding to their already astronomical prices for the high end units. Workaround to that would be using some type of HDMI switch in between the source devices and the projector.
The only benefit I can see to this is for people who have different display settings per input for things like game consoles. Game consoles/gaming PCs are the only thing off the top of my head that may necessitate the use of a direct connection to the display for low input lag. I know my current AVR has a specific input for gaming consoles/PCs that can disable video processing for lower input lag. I'm not a gamer so I have no idea how effective that is.
HDMI 2.1, including eARC, allows added flexibility in an installation. These new standards don't force you to do anything that doesn't make sense, and are designed to be backward compatible with previous versions of HDMI.
HDMI 2.1, when it arrives, if it works, etc., will (should) allow four 6MShps channels for video on today's Premium HDMI cables. This takes the raw data rate to 24MSh/s vs. 18MSh/s today. With the more the efficient encoding used with HDMI 2.1 the effective data rate will increase this by another 10% or so. Display Stream Compression (DSC) may allow another 3x in effective "visual" throughput. Potentially this takes the delivered visual performance to the area of 70+MSh/s. This is 24MSh/s plus compression. If HDMI 2.1 really is able to work in this manner, it may allow delivery of much high resolutions to more remote devices such as projectors.
HDMI 2.1 cable runs will have to be very short, say a meter or two. If HDMI 2.1 can't be used as described in the previous paragraph then access to very high digital video data rates will require equipment to be located close to the display device or additional auxiliary transfer methods, such as are used today with HDMI 2.0 will have to be developed. This is a non-trivial exercise at the higher HDMI 2.1 raw data rates (up to 48MSh/s).
For TV's, a potential advantage of HDMI 2.1 is to connect sources that are delivered by wired Ethernet or Wi-Fi to flat panel TV's to take advantage to the user interfaces offered by flat panel TV's. Full bandwidth digital audio could then be transferred to the rack using eARC via the HDMI cable that is already in place. Please understand, that such a source could still be connected in the rack if desired and the digital video transferred via HDMI to the TV. There are no limitations, just added options.
We would be saved from all this, if the content providers would allow the original compressed data from sources, (Internet, Blu-Ray, cable TV, etc.) to be taken to the final display devices. Such a change of heart would allow transfer via switched Gigabit Ethernet or Wi-Fi, with modest use of the available bandwidth. Of course the likelihood of this happening is in the, "When pigs fly," category.