Is HDMI doomed already?

[Andrew]

http://www.dailytech.com/So+Long+HDMI+New+Standard+for+AV+Uses+Ethernet+Cables/article18902.htm

Hmmmm! Interesting!

[dotVIBE]

yeah, I read that this morning and I thought WTF? surely not in this lifetime?

[Andrew]

What I can't work out from the article is whether or not they can use existing connectors for the cable - say, for example, using an HDMI connector, which would make sense. If not, then the discovery is kind of pointless for most of us, as we'd have to wait until a new generation of TVs/AV receivers/etc. came out with the correct connection built in. But then this is the AV world, and I wonder at times if there is any logic at all! 

[naughty]

well it isnt surprising because ethernet cables can work for up to 250 metres before requiring a repeater whilst the lower calibers of HDMI could drop signal from even as long as 5 to 7 metres ..... okay the high quality and newer stuff doesnt but i still would hesitate to go over 10 metres with HDMI cabling

so considering you get those HDMI over ethernet transceivers (transmitters and recievers) for long runs it probably doesnt require a rocket scientist to figure out that some company was going to cotton onto those and include the circuitry in their equipment design someday

so a logical move IMHO - how widespread it becomes and how quickly is anyones guess but im getting tired of the HDMI nonsense anyway because it was supposed to be a standard - but it becomes is a limitation when going on to the newest technology "or the next big thing" ie for example now my perfectly okay receiver cannot transmit 3D signals so to get proper HD audio with 3D i need a new receiver costing big bucks to upgrade to HDMI 1.4 ...... HDMI is a big bunch of nonsense IMHO - better to have it die a horrible death as long as they create some form of connectivity that wont get updated every 6 months like HDMI 

[Andrew]

Agreed, Naughty. But we've seen these rapid progressions so often in the audio and video world as 'newer', 'better' formats and such came out, and as many have pointed out over the years in similar discussions - most of the time it's the average consumer who comes short. Not everyone can afford to upgrade key components of their systems every year. I wonder whether consumer fatigue (irritation) will set in, where we just become so jaded by the flood of technology coming at us, that we turn away and decide to be comfortable with what we have?

Blu-ray is a good example - elsewhere in the forums you'll find accounts of frustrated owners who have found their BD players won't play the latest BD film, because the film company behind it has changed something on the disc, meaning that a software upgrade is necessary before they can watch. That is not the way to get people to switch across to a new format - it's a way of putting them off it.

[Prince]

 

-It was bound to happen, like with China who bought HD DVD's rights because the blu-ray format is too expensive. I agree with Andrew's statement above. I don't just upgrade the technology I use in my house, because the latest is not always the greatest. I still have my trustworthy 72cm GoldStar CRT and will only replace it once it finally dies, as I don't see the need to waste money on buying an LCD TV with an analogue tuner, when even DOC is still fighting as to which digital tv standard to use. I apply the same rules to my computer needs and other appliances in the home. If it ain't broke why replace and also why do I need to buy another gadget I won't use.

 

[Andrew]

Comparison here:

http://hdbaset.org/files/HDBaseT_Comparison_Table_Nereus.pdf

[Andrew]

Also, this might go some way to explaining why there is this move to 'kill' it:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx

[leonsound]

It's about time! 
I haven't been up to date for a number of years, and my facts may not be 100%, but even in the days of digital co-ax or optical from CD transport to DAC we've been ripped off by R1000+ digital cables, while cat5 network cable at R5/meter was transporting more data much faster over longer distances with 100% reliability. Digital works or it doesn't.
On the (very interesting) TNT website there is an article on the digital standard between e.g. CD player & DAC, and it boils down to the fact that the interface was so badly & cheaply designed (missing out on e.g. a clock sync signal) that it opened the door for ridiculous claims & products which cost 100's of times more than the internal part of the interface itself.

From the comparison chart it seems as if the the speeds required for HD still doesn't require such an expensive proprietary cable, since PC networks are still moving more data faster / further / 100% accurately. And when you have 100% accuracy, you can't improve no matter how much snake oil / silver / copper / gold you add!

Regards
Leon

[Neil]

I agree with whats happening, think about it, i work in i.t. - if you think about the internet been just data flying round the world all connecting up to your pc with ethernet cables - the data ethernet cables can carry is very similar to hdmi you can run 10gbit on ethernet cables...

The only other option is firewire...which is already here.

and if you hold out your hand and drop something to the floor (as the saying goes, at the drop of a hat) - by the time that item leaves your hand and hits the floor, a packet of computer data can travel round the WORLD 5 times!!!  The same concept is been used in audio.

In fact audio is going the computer route - especially when cable and connections are been used

[joel]

Few people seem to remember that one of the main reasons HDMI being introduced had little to do with its performance.
It had more to do with the copy protection that was bundled within the cable specification.
We the buying public were told (conned) into believing that HDMI offered perfect connectivity, flawless "digital" data transfer and that it would be the last cable we would ever have to buy.

In reality HDMI was (is) nothing more than a DVI cable with a few extra wires tacked  that could be used for Audio, handshaking and HDMI copy protection verification, and more recently, audio return and LAN connections.
Being based on a video cable meant that audio was always going to be compromised. HDMI uses the video clock and audio data has to fit somewhere within this frequency and this leads to jitter (and this is the reason some companies now strip the audio data out of HDMI, re-clock it and send it down another HDMI cable).

DVI itself was never designed to run over long distances and this is a legacy passed over to HDMI.

All this being said, I believe that as long as content protection is the main reason for a connection being used, and as long as content providers believe that we are all thieves whose only goal in life is to copy every bit of media we can get our dirty little hands on, we will be stuck with HDMI or other compromised cable.