What is all the hype with HDMI and DVI??? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What is all the hype with HDMI and DVI???



gorilla196635
01-20-2006, 03:56 AM
What is all the hype with HDMI and DVI???
My Mits doesn't have the capability on it so I haven't had any experieince with it..but
The way i understand it is that it is a single cable connection for audio and video. One of my questions is, Is that all digital?
If so is one to assume that the DAC's in his TV or AMP are better than in the source player? Also most people running HT use the AMP for audio so does that mean you have to get an AMP to support HDMI or DVI and run everything through your AMP first and then to your TV for video?
Assuming that is true, is it really better to do all of that video switching vs. a direct connection to your TV?
And what about 6 channel audio DVD-A and SACD.... Still need to connect those analog...
I will stop now because I have way too many assumptions going on here....
OMG this is insane........
Also people I have spoken to have seen no video improvement by using HDMI or DVI...

Thanks

evil__betty
01-20-2006, 10:18 AM
To answer your questions (if I am mistaken, feel free to correct):

1) the hype with HDMI/DVI is that it is going to be the universal connection for all things digital in the future. Because it is digital, you won't have to worry about any digital-to-analog picture loss, plus there is no need for heavy shielding. It will be able to carry copyright protected information in a much bigger role than it currently is (HDMI, that is - DVI is pretty much extinct on any new tv to come out this year).

2) yes, HDMI will be able to carry 7 channels of audio within the same cable. Currently, tvs and recievers do not have the ability to decode the audio any other way than 2 channel. This is because there is no standardized software that manufacturers agree on. So what you have to do in order to recieve you DD or DTS is to still use an optical or digital coax from your dvd player to you reciever.

3) Your reciever does not have to have the HDMI switching on it, you can run directly into your tv - you won't loose anything if your were to go to your amo first, then tv because it is 100% digital - no signal loss. (see above regarding audio)

4) DVD-A and SACD still need to have a six or seven channel analog output via RCA cables. This might change down the road as HDMI matures.

And finally, HDMI/DVI will give you a better picture than component - it is not like the jump between HD television and SD television, but more like the difference between 480i and 480p. But the difference is still there.

gorilla196635
01-20-2006, 10:44 AM
Okay, I understand the one cable thing... I was somewhat being sarcastic in my note, not to anyone in particular, but more to the manufacturers.

Here is the hypothetical scenario. I have a HDTV, A state of the art RECEIVER say the Yamaha RXZ9, and a HD DVD player with SACD and DVD-A.

Great, now I want to run my DVD player through my AMP for the surround sound and then obviously to the TV. I need to run the HDMI cable throught the AMP because it is single cable. Which means their is some type of video switching going on, whether it is digital to digital or what it is still not a direct signal to the TV for video.. If I use your theory about running my optical to the receiver then, I have just wasted my HDMI single cable advantage...

The problem I have with doing things for the future is exactly what you have said here.
"DVI is pretty much extinct on any new tv to come out this year"
What happens if tomorrow someone says "Hey we can do this all better with XXX cable it is faster supports more bandwidth and has all of the copy protection we will ever need.

Also, from what I just read about the future and HD is that any TV's made with 1080P today will not be able to support 1080P programming when it is available.. Not this has anything to do with my original questions but just another reason to not trust all of this "In the future stuff...

So to me this is all about the big movie studios worrying about copy protection.

I am a skeptic when it comes to this stuff. I know it is because we are in the infant stages of modern technology and things are always advancing but with TV and video and music things on the programmnig side seem to develop too slowly for the equipment so that when it finally hits the shelves, the original equipment that was made to support the programming is obsolete in one way or another.
Are you sure the difference of HDMI vs.component is like 480P to 480I.
I have only heard at best the difference is subtle. IMO the difference between 480I and 480P is huge and more like composite and S-video....
If that is the case I really don't know what I am missing...
Sorry to be such a skeptic but someone is making a whole lot of $$$$$$$$ off of guys like us....

edtyct
01-20-2006, 12:05 PM
I don't presume to speak for the inestimable wooch, but I was in the neighborhood. I don't think that there's any reason to feel had. Yes, it may be in mfgr's interests, to some extent, to steer you wrong--or, more accurately, not to steer you right. But there's enough information in circulation out there to fill in any blanks about new technologies.

True, it's not exactly an HDMI world yet, in the sense that HDMI audio is more promise than reality, and TVs aren't the best ultimate receptacles for HDMI audio. At this point, many people have to use a supplementary audio cable, or cables, to complement their HDMI video. That's the way it goes. If you bypass HDMI, you'll still have to run separate audio cables. No real loss. The video situation is better, though some hitches still exist in the handshake. By and large, however, HDMI video has something to offer, beyond a mere conduit for HDCP. More below.

DVI was a good idea, but it was essentially a computer product. If you followed some of its problems when it was introduced to the video world, you'd have seen that many of them were due to computing standards that weren't compatible with HT. HDMI is an A/V product pure and simple; it did not originate in another context. If history has anything to do with it, HDMI won't last forever, but it has a good foothold in the foreseeable future, though its standards will evolve in ways that will certainly leave people behind from time to time. But workarounds will exist for many of the hitches that have, and will, crop up.

HDMI video is perfectly suited to HDTV broadcasts, as well as DVD material; it isn't otiose at all. Moreover, as a digital format, it has the ability to circumvent D/A conversions that can degrade a signal. Whether you, or anyone else, can see the difference between component and HDMI depends on a number of factors: your viewing relationship with a display, your knowledge of what to look for, the degree to which you really care, and the performance of the components involved. In some cases, HDMI, or DVI for that matter, can have a palpable impact on PQ; in other cases, regardless of who's watching, it doesn't. Also, I'm not convinced that the difference between 480p and 480i is an adequate, or even measurable, standard. Too many hidden variables are involved. And the superiority of composite and S-video often hinged on which component had the better comb filter, as many of us in the old days discovered. Even if the ultimate justification for HDMI may have been more copy protection than improvement in performance, we aren't just robotic victims of it, handing over our hard-earned cash on a wing and a prayer. Advances are inevitable, and HDMI is one of them. Even without copy protection, HDMI has the scientific values of simplicity and elegance.

Woochifer
01-20-2006, 12:42 PM
The others have already done a fine job of outlining the pros, cons, and reasons behind HDMI. From what I've seen, HDMI has become the de facto digital TV connection standard in less than two years. Every HDTV introduced within the last year has HDMI connectors on board, and it's rapidly becoming standard issue on DVD players and set-top boxes as well. Analog component video connections will work fine with those devices as well. So why all the fuss?

Well, HDMI's not really a matter of the here-and-now, but the soon-to-be. And that soon-to-be is HD-DVD and Blu-ray. The studios have put a lot of pressure on manufacturers to copy protect any HD video signal, and HD-DVD/Blu-ray will both require a secure digital video connection in order to play the video at HD resolution. And the secure digital video connection of choice is currently HDMI. The analog component video connectors on those players will be limited to 480p resolution, basically the same as current DVD technology. That same copy protection pressure that the studios put on HD-DVD and Blu-ray might soon also affect other HD components. As the HDTV market moves to HDMI, you might soon find other devices like HD satellite receivers, and DVRs restricting the resolution that gets outputed through the component video outputs.

As others have said, HDMI is still relatively new, and the audio implementations are just starting. HDMI 1.1 allows for DD, DTS, and high res DVD-Audio signals to travel on the same cable as the video signal. If both your DVD player and receiver/processor are HDMI 1.1 compliant, then you only need one cable to go from your DVD player to the receiver. Currently, you would need a set of three component video cables, a digital audio cable (either coax or toslink), plus a set of six analog audio interconnects for DVD-A coming out of your DVD player to handle all of that.

Upcoming versions of HDMI will allow for one-bit SACD signals and the upcoming DD+ and DTS-HD lossless multichannel audio formats to also pass along the same cable.

If you don't have HDMI on your TV, then you're still fine with your existing devices. But, just know that you won't be able to watch HD-DVD or Blu-ray at full resolution without a conversion device of some kind.

Supamike
01-20-2006, 02:53 PM
The frustrating thing to me is that HDMI is, as you stated, not the "here-and-now, but the soon-to-be". In my window shopping for an upper-mid level reciever (I now have the cash to buy one, but am saving for speakers), I am faced with the fact that while many people say "make sure it supports HDMI", the reality is that HDMI 1.1 is/was NOT ready for "prime time" and it's ridiculous to pay money for a feature version that is going to be outdated in the next 3-6 months (http://hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20060103.asp).

If I am indeed interested in purchasing a tv or receiver that accomodates HDMI, I'd almost be foolish to make that purchase now with the next version (assumedly 1.3, since the 1.2a specification is already released http://hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20051227.asp but the link above states a new version in the first half of this year?) so close on the horizon. While I think HDMI is great in concept and will probably be mature enough with the next release, I find it almost silly that it has taken since 2004 for the next version release. I also believe that if something like this is going to be version dependent, vendors are going to have to take extra precautions to ensure that they are forwards and backwards compatible (so we don't end up with something akin to the USB 1.1/2.0 stuff again). I would also think that component manufactorers need to develop ways to enable those devices to be firmware upgradable (via a PC-based connection or something).

Geoffcin
01-20-2006, 03:08 PM
The frustrating thing to me is that HDMI is, as you stated, not the "here-and-now, but the soon-to-be". In my window shopping for an upper-mid level reciever (I now have the cash to buy one, but am saving for speakers), I am faced with the fact that while many people say "make sure it supports HDMI", the reality is that HDMI 1.1 is/was NOT ready for "prime time" and it's ridiculous to pay money for a feature version that is going to be outdated in the next 3-6 months (http://hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20060103.asp).

If I am indeed interested in purchasing a tv or receiver that accomodates HDMI, I'd almost be foolish to make that purchase now with the next version (assumedly 1.3, since the 1.2a specification is already released http://hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20051227.asp but the link above states a new version in the first half of this year?) so close on the horizon. While I think HDMI is great in concept and will probably be mature enough with the next release, I find it almost silly that it has taken since 2004 for the next version release. I also believe that if something like this is going to be version dependent, vendors are going to have to take extra precautions to ensure that they are forwards and backwards compatible (so we don't end up with something akin to the USB 1.1/2.0 stuff again). I would also think that component manufactorers need to develop ways to enable those devices to be firmware upgradable (via a PC-based connection or something).

HDMI is fully spec'ed out for HD video. There will be NO change in the HDMI cabling for HD Audio, but your Receiver will have to have the decoding processor for these new formats, and I don't think any receivers are available yet with this. The press release you are indexing has to do with testing of cables prior to HDMI compliance, and length of cables.

HDMI, will be the ONLY way you can get HD quality from a removable media period. If you want HD from your BlueRay or HD-DVD player there is no other choice.

evil__betty
01-20-2006, 07:24 PM
...In my window shopping for an upper-mid level reciever (I now have the cash to buy one, but am saving for speakers), I am faced with the fact that while many people say "make sure it supports HDMI", the reality is that HDMI 1.1 is/was NOT ready for "prime time" and it's ridiculous to pay money for a feature version that is going to be outdated in the next 3-6 months....

If I am indeed interested in purchasing a tv or receiver that accomodates HDMI, I'd almost be foolish to make that purchase now with the next version... I find it almost silly that it has taken since 2004 for the next version release....

I do agree that having a reciever that does not accept HDMI multi-channel audio might not be the 'best' choice right now. But how many people jumped at the oportunity to have component video switching in their reciever long before any kind of decent and reliable componet video up conversion was availible? Having HDMI switching is a big advantage to any tv out there because most only come with 1 HDMI input. So if you can add another one, then you are still at an advantage by having that switching in your reciever. Unfortunatly, the entire electronics industry is alive because of 'bigger and better' For a good example have a look at this link (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/oldharddrive.html). There must be a premium to be paid in order to have the latest and greatest toy. Will the price of your toy go down in the next year? Sure. Probably quite a bit, actually. And it will be replaced by a much shinier and better machine for less than what you paid for the orignal.

You mentioned that its taken so long for the next HDMI upgrade, I would actually find it comforting that the purchase I am about to make will at least be up to date for a while. For a lot of people (like us), who are caught up with all the latest and greatest, they will probably change over equipment every 4-5 years, if not sooner.

As time progresses, and the newest version of HDMI becomes availible, I am sure that it will be able to astound many with all the bells and wistles that come with it, but the reality is that most people won't care about the newest HDMI version. And I am temped to put money on it that the newest version will have zero affect on PQ or audio, but rather copy protection. (that is, after HDMI audio software becomes standardized for A/V recievers and DVD players).

But then again, who knows what the future has in store. Remember, we have to live with whatever the industry gives us. And there is no real way to stop it because there will always be someone with their money in their hand, eagarly waiting for the newest gadget to be released (oh, and I'm sure they'll pay full price too!).

Supamike
01-20-2006, 08:10 PM
Yeah, but that was for 15 MEGAbytes!! :)

I agree with and understand what you're saying... I'm still frustrated that my 40Gb G4 iPod was only a month old when they announced color screens, and only 6 months old when they announced video.

My hesitation right now is that I know "better" HDMI is coming, and so I don't feel like it warrants the premium that is being placed on getting it right now. Hopefully, as you noted, those prices will come down. My concern is that older (1.1) devices won't be compatible with newer devices. And as long as HDMI does not offer 5.1 audio, it almost seems pointless for anything other than video.

The real question begs -- at what point (2000dpi? 5000dpi? 3D?) do you reach the point of maximum returns, where the human eye and brain can not differentiate the increased quality? Especially from 8-10 feet away in a dimly lit room. There have been more than a few one-night-stands based upon those fallacies. lol!

gorilla196635
01-21-2006, 08:13 AM
Hey guys, awesome feedback from all. Really this is enlightening...
Now for the really tough ?????
To upgrade to an HDMI TV when I have a perfectly good $3000 TV for today's technology.
I remember that Mitsubishi was offering upgrades I believe to DVI for $1,000 but now with DVI out of the picure that is not an option.
Do you know of any HDMI add ons for TV's like mine. Or if they will have upgrades available...

Like I said you guys have a wealth of knowledge and it is a pleasure to get feedback from you all. As well as the information you give out in some of the other forums here on this website...

Woochifer
01-21-2006, 10:47 AM
Hey guys, awesome feedback from all. Really this is enlightening...
Now for the really tough ?????
To upgrade to an HDMI TV when I have a perfectly good $3000 TV for today's technology.
I remember that Mitsubishi was offering upgrades I believe to DVI for $1,000 but now with DVI out of the picure that is not an option.
Do you know of any HDMI add ons for TV's like mine. Or if they will have upgrades available...

Like I said you guys have a wealth of knowledge and it is a pleasure to get feedback from you all. As well as the information you give out in some of the other forums here on this website...

Mitsubishi discontinued that DVI upgrade I believe in 2004, and has not come out with any other comparable upgrades to their previous analog HDTVs. So long as the HD devices that you use come with analog component video outputs that pass the HD signals at full resolution, you will be fine.

You will hit the sticking point when HD-DVD and Blu-ray come out, since those formats will only pass the HD signals through a copy-protected output such as HDMI. The studios are pressuring hardware manufacturers to put similar restrictions on other HD devices in the future, but in the meantime, existing devices will work fine with component video. If you're not in any hurry to upgrade to those formats, then you should just enjoy your TV in the meantime. You'll only need to consider upgrading the TV if you decide to replace or add HD devices that now require secure digital video connections.

gorilla196635
01-21-2006, 12:22 PM
I agree...

Also if the HD DVD and BluRay work their way in as slowly as Hi Def and SACD DVD-A, i would be willing to bet I have some time before I have to replace equipment.
As long as they don't send a signal for Hi Def TV that is only displayed through HDMI, I should be good for a while.
Right now I am only receiving the off air Hi Def signals Direct TV not offering enough for the $11 a month.
Currently getting CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, and on occassion ABC... Maybe if I put the 14' antenna on the roof instead of in the attic I will get ABC better...

westcott
01-21-2006, 04:12 PM
HDMI is ALL backward compatible. There are no reasons for concern of the new support additions made in the last two revisions.