[emillika]

What is AA's stance on HDMI? Will there be a HDMI version coming out anytime soon?


Thanks.


Elmer

 

[mrl8zyboy]

They say they can't because of HDCP rules and it's hard to send HDMI over long distances. I don't think anytime soon.

 

[emillika]

What does this mean in real-life? Will any adopters be SOL in the future? How far in the future? I don't follow the HDCP/HDMI happenings very closely.


I guess at the end of the day I don't want to throw away $4k in 12 months.

 

[jkseger]

What would be your purpose for needing HDMI?


There is a pasthrough DVI jack that allows for a 7th out which would be able to do HDMI (via an HDMI to DVI converter) but as far as sending the signal across cat5 all they can do is send component right now.


John


PS. Trent, Murray, or RxMan1 please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[emillika]

I guess I was thinking about the availability of HDMI ports on future gear... but I guess a $20 HDMI-DVI adapter will solve that.

 

[MurrayW]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jkseger /forum/post/0


What would be your purpose for needing HDMI?


There is a pasthrough DVI jack that allows for a 7th out which would be able to do HDMI (via an HDMI to DVI converter) but as far as sending the signal across cat5 all they can do is send component right now.


John


PS. Trent, Murray, or RxMan1 please correct me if I'm wrong.

John, You are right. Only component is going to the wall plates. DVI can pass through to a local source. I'll let Trent answer the question about all the challenges of sending DVI or HDMI to the remote locations via the wall plates.


Murray

 

[Audio Authority]

Hello,


The main reason the AVAtrix doesn't have HDMI is that when we began design of the 1166 (part of the AVAtrix head end), DVI was the dominant connector format - HDMI was a bit of an upstart.


Transmitting component video over Cat-5e is easy - it can be sent long distances, in a balanced line configuration, and easily gain-equalized to correct for loss over those long distances. Doing the same to HDMI and DVI is harder, partially because those formats are distance-challenged anyway, and partially because there are so many conductors inside HDMI/DVI cable.


Let's do some math - HDMI cable has 19 conductors inside. Cat-5 has 8 wires, twisted into four pairs. Two Cat-5s equals 16 conductors.


Existing HDMI over 2xCat-5 solutions don't used a balanced line configuration, because to do a balanced line, you need two copies of each signal. That would take 38 wires (5 Cat-5s) to do. A non-balanced solution is vulnerable to noise, and a 5-cable system wouldn't be practical, so right now we're looking for another solution. Also considered are HDMI's continued problems with compatibility - inserting a matrix into the mix makes for some problems on some sources/displays. (There are some 2 x Cat-5 solutions that use 10gb Ethernet, which seems to be a more reliable way transmit HDMI over UTP).


So I guess our stance is that "we're working on it". Just remember that HDMI/DVI play by different rules than Component, and that means that solutions that work nicely for component may not work at all for HDMI. Keep checking the website!

 

[Audio Authority]



Quote:
Originally Posted by emillika /forum/post/0


What does this mean in real-life? Will any adopters be SOL in the future? How far in the future? I don't follow the HDCP/HDMI happenings very closely.


I guess at the end of the day I don't want to throw away $4k in 12 months.

The reason you aren't seeing much in the way of HDMI matrix products is because they are still unreliable due to inconsistencies in source and display HDCP implementations. HDMI still has handshaking problems (mainly with legacy products), and is simply not the best choice for whole-house distribution because of those compatibility issues and distribution distance limitations.


I don't believe the broadcast flag (downrezzing component) or the HDDVD/Blu-Ray ICT will be activated any time soon, and those items are the only real risk to component video. I understand not wanting to risk four grand on a system that Hollywood could partially cripple, but rest assured that there are a lot of people working to prevent that from happening. Almost all of the major companies in switching/matrix systems are still exclusively building component video matrix products, and most professional integrators only use component. Surely Hollywood/the government won't ignore that fact.


Trent

 

[Audio Authority]

On the topic of our stance on HDMI, our HDMI 2x1 and 4x1 switchers are now available

. So we're not totally averse to the connector...


Trent

 

[harrisonbound]

What happens if you have more than 6 components? Is there any way to expand the number of inputs?

 

[stepmback]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Authority /forum/post/9496860


Hello,


The main reason the AVAtrix doesn't have HDMI is that when we began design of the 1166 (part of the AVAtrix head end), DVI was the dominant connector format - HDMI was a bit of an upstart.


Transmitting component video over Cat-5e is easy - it can be sent long distances, in a balanced line configuration, and easily gain-equalized to correct for loss over those long distances. Doing the same to HDMI and DVI is harder, partially because those formats are distance-challenged anyway, and partially because there are so many conductors inside HDMI/DVI cable.


Let's do some math - HDMI cable has 19 conductors inside. Cat-5 has 8 wires, twisted into four pairs. Two Cat-5s equals 16 conductors.


Existing HDMI over 2xCat-5 solutions don't used a balanced line configuration, because to do a balanced line, you need two copies of each signal. That would take 38 wires (5 Cat-5s) to do. A non-balanced solution is vulnerable to noise, and a 5-cable system wouldn't be practical, so right now we're looking for another solution. Also considered are HDMI's continued problems with compatibility - inserting a matrix into the mix makes for some problems on some sources/displays. (There are some 2 x Cat-5 solutions that use 10gb Ethernet, which seems to be a more reliable way transmit HDMI over UTP).


So I guess our stance is that "we're working on it". Just remember that HDMI/DVI play by different rules than Component, and that means that solutions that work nicely for component may not work at all for HDMI. Keep checking the website!

I will take this opportunity to rant. If you exclude the issue of distance ( I am fortunate to live in a townhouse, my longest HDMI run is 35 feet) a reliable HDMI over HDMI matrix solution should be achievable. Is the source does not work with the TV over HDMI directly, that is not the switches fault. But if the source works with TV, but when a switch is introduced, does no work, that is the switches fault.


I would love a 8 x 4 HDMI matrix switch in the 1K range. I have so much content on my PC/basement server I would love to access from other TV's in my house. Right now I subjected to plugging and unplugging from current switch whenever I want to watch something on a different TV.

 

[pmilin]

Has there been any changes recently to Audio Authority's stance or progress? Their original post is over a year old. I see they have some HDMI switching capability 1x switches only. Is matrix swiiching getting closer?