[JSchulte]

As I understand it HDMI only adds digital audio on top of DVI which already keeps the video in the digital realm. So adding HDMI as a display connection just allows the digital audio to make it to the display so the display, assuming it even has speakers, doesn't need analog connections. Is this really important? Do many people care about the quality of sound put out by the display?


I can see the value of HDMI on tuners, cable boxes, receivers, etc. , but I don't see much value at the display end.

 

[Sean Max]

HDMI also allows for much longer cable runs than DVI. That alone should be worth it.

 

[rogo]

Most people's displays have audio. Most people want to one run cable not two. Many people like to hide their cables and the HDMI connector is much smaller, making it easier to hide. Sean's point is also valid. Finally, the cables themselves may wind up a tad thinner / more flexible.


Otherwise, I'm out of ideas.

 

[Brucer]

I think this will have something to do with it....


50 Watts per channel digital stereo amplifier (Cedia 2003 pic):


http://www.shows.soundstagelive.com/...x_hifi_amp.jpg

 

[quadad]

How much longer can HDMI cable runs be ? I have just ordered a 10 meter, extremely low loss, dual link cable DVI cable and will see how that performs shortly.

 

[JSchulte]

Thanks for the answers. I love the idea of fewer cables. So buy a DVD player with DVI, upgrade in a year or two, they get receiver with HDMI, get HDTV Tivo and they upgrade to one with HDMI . . . The one cable option seems far away.


Brucer, that's a fantastic looking amp. I asked about receivers with digital amps over in the amps and receivers forum because it seems strange that there are so few on the market, yet the smaller size and lack of heat seem to make them ideal for placement in cabinets etc.


But over on that thread, I think they don't consider it a real amp unless it weighs 100lbs and costs upwards of 1K!

 

[melechmet]

Will HDMI support embedded VGA ala DVI-I? I also cant understand how HDMI can have longer cable lengths than DVI, it's not compressed video/audio as I understand...can anyone explain this.

 

[rogo]

It has better transceivers, hence longer cables. It's not about compression, it's about re-inventing a standard that was originally designed for 1-3m cables between a PC and a display. Those never needed to be very long, and therefore the cable standard was simplistic, but fragile.


As DVI got adopted for video and had the potential to support Gb/sec data rates, the cabling became an issue. HDMI takes another stab at building the cables such that both ends (behind the cables, inside the devices) are better at the pushing and receiving of bits.


I believe 50-foot HDMI cables will be fairly easily achieved.

 

[Hemi]

Also, doesn't the HDMI standard include a serial connection between multiple devices? That is, one cable connection to the A/V receiver from each source and one connection to the display?


Dan

 

[melechmet]

Quote:

Originally posted by rogo It has better transceivers, hence longer cables. It's not about compression, it's about re-inventing a standard that was originally designed for 1-3m cables between a PC and a display. Those never needed to be very long, and therefore the cable standard was simplistic, but fragile. As DVI got adopted for video and had the potential to support Gb/sec data rates, the cabling became an issue. HDMI takes another stab at building the cables such that both ends (behind the cables, inside the devices) are better at the pushing and receiving of bits. I believe 50-foot HDMI cables will be fairly easily achieved.

Having no access to the HDMI spec, please excuse my ignorance.


Aside from HDCP revs, HDMI is still an implementation of SI's PanelLink derived TMDS protocol (like DVI) + what else? some advanced (DSPish) noise filtration above and beyond DVI? Its really hard for me to believe that the cable spec. has not been changed from DVI recommendations and only the Transceivers are changing. At least in the data world (which I am marginally familiar with :>), bandwidth jumps dramatically from cable types e.g., CAT3 (16MHz) to CAT5 (100MHz) to CAT6 (250MHZ) with commensurate increase in throughput (10BT->100BT->1000BT). While transceivers have something do with the troughput jumps, the pipes speak for themselves. I've heard that HDMI offers 2x the throughput (or is it Bandwidth?) over DVI, quite surprising if the cables stay the same...


There is a non academic question that I have as well: Given that DVI and HDMI interoperate (with a passive adapter correct?) how does a current DVI equipped plasma (for example) communicate with an HDMI equipped DVD player at (HDMI) distance of 50+ feet? Presumably a given DVI implementation meets one spec (say 10m at best) and HDMI necessarily meets another, would it be correct to say that having a HDMI Transmitter and a DVI Receiver (for the transceiver pair) limits you to the least common denominator: DVI at 10m.

 

[rogo]

Alex, unless both ends are HDMI, you won't get cable-length advantages. You'd be limited to DVI's cable lengths.

 

[markrubin]

HDMI should be a big step forward once products with this feature come to market: interface and operational issues between components and displays should become much easier in terms of hookup/ cabling/ and more 'plug and play' compatibility


in a way, I wish the DVI connection had never been compromised by HDCP: as early adopters of DVI/HDCP we unwittingly became a test market for this interface which may turn out to be an interim product to be replaced by HDMI: the DVI connector was originally conceived as a computer interface, and that is its best application

 

[JSchulte]

The Panny 6UY has a slot 1 available for a DVI connection to be added. Any reason this couldn't accept HDMI instead? Does anyone know if Panny has announced any plans to manufacture a HDMI blade?

 

[melechmet]

I'd still like to find out, if anyone knows, if HDMI will do analog (like DVI-I) in support of legacy equipment?


Slightly off the subject, and having done a bit of research online from the usual suspects, I found that DVI-D (pure digital) cables sell up to 15M lengths, while DVI-I cables top out at 9M. Is this just a marketing cap (supply-vs-demand) or is there a reason that DVI-I will not go the distance. At work, we drive VGA (SXGA @ 60hz) over 65' - the cables are extremely expensive though and are basically isolated mini-coax(es).

 

[melechmet]

Mark,


Thanks for the confirmation. Here is another academic question for any takers: so what does HDMI offer beyond well implemented HD-SDI, excluding RIAA and MPAA agendas (=HDCP)?

 

[rogo]

JSchulte. It could absolutely be done -- in theory. Whether it happens in the market or not, I don't know.


Pioneer's Elite 1000, which had a removable DVI card for a couple of years, now has the same display with an HDMI card in its place.


Alex, I'm not sure. I think the carriage of analog signals over the DVI cables is likely to be less effective, hence the DVI-I calling for shorter cables.


And as for HD-SDI vs. HDMI, HD-SDI is actually more expensive to implement. The transceivers are pricey. Furthermore, HD-SDI does not carry audio, nor does it allow for a device-control signal to be carried -- HDMI does both.


Mark