WTF is up with HDMI 1.4????

[Groundbeef]

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/28...readercomments

What is HDMI doing introducing a "NEW" connection size, and 5 (FIVE) new 'rungs' of cable from the basic up to ethernet connectivity?

Why can't we just have 1 cable that does one spec and be done? This is a boon for Monster, a bane for the rest of us. What a crock of crap.

[GMichael]

Maybe they are just trying to boost audio sales and with that, the economy. We should all thank them.

[nightflier]

If anything, this has a very high market-failure potential. Only time will tell.

[GMichael]

If anything, this has a very high market-failure potential. Only time will tell.

But if they go to a new HDMI std, we will all need to buy new AVR's, TV's and DVD/BR players.

[nightflier]

But if they go to a new HDMI std, we will all need to buy new AVR's, TV's and DVD/BR players.

...let's hope really hard that they fail. I'll boycott it for as long as I can, for sure.

[Woochifer]

Two words: adaptor plug

In actuality, the HDMI connector is poorly designed and ill suited to working in tight spaces. Unfortunately, HDMI is the standard and will remain so for quite a while (I seriously doubt that the DisplayPort standard will make any inroads beyond the computer sphere).

Differentiation in the physical cable is probably a welcome development, and the new mini plug is long overdue. I doubt that differences in the physical connector will prevent consumers from connecting their HDMI devices together. DVI retained a degree of interoperability with HDMI using a simple adaptor plug.

As the HDMI standard evolves, issues will have more to do with the signal format rather than the connector shape. DVI became obsolete not because it used a different connector than HDMI, but rather because it did not support HDCP copy protection. As HDMI's more advanced features get adopted, then some of the older devices might run into compatibility issues. But, that will take a while, and most devices continue to include legacy connections.

[Woochifer]

But if they go to a new HDMI std, we will all need to buy new AVR's, TV's and DVD/BR players.

Doubtful. With every new iteration of HDMI (version 1.3 has been around since 2005, with the first devices coming out in 2006), some degree of backwards compatibility has existed. It's primarily the advanced features that require the newer HDMI version, and those have not come onto the market yet. For basic video and audio output, I doubt that anyone with HDMI 1.3 devices will have any issue with that functionality when plugged into a HDMI 1.4 device.

Even today, DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD require HDMI 1.3 for digital output. Yet, Blu-ray players can transcode the audio into uncompressed PCM, which only requires HDMI 1.1.

[nightflier]

Even today, DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD require HDMI 1.3 for digital output. Yet, Blu-ray players can transcode the audio into uncompressed PCM, which only requires HDMI 1.1.

If the player supports it, one can use analog RCA outputs (for the really non-conformist hold-outs out there, like myself).

[Woochifer]

If the player supports it, one can use analog RCA outputs (for the really non-conformist hold-outs out there, like myself).

Well, it's getting to a point now where you gotta pay extra to be a holdout. The single HDMI cable takes the place of six analog audio connectors and three analog video connectors. And the BD players with internal audio decoders typically cost $100 more. You can do the math on the how much that extra cabling and audio decoding will cost. And in general, the audio decoding on BD players is nowhere near as capable as what a receiver provides. Even the entry level receivers now do high res format decoding.

[nightflier]

And in general, the audio decoding on BD players is nowhere near as capable as what a receiver provides.

Are you referring to specific players?

[Woochifer]

Are you referring to specific players?

Nope, just noting that a typical BD player will not have anywhere near the same flexibility as a receiver in terms of the bass management, delay offset, level controls, etc. They can do the basic decoding, but can't handle the post processing functions nearly as well.

[nightflier]

What about the higher-priced ones like the Pioneer, Denon and NAD ones?

[Kevio]

Why can't we just have 1 cable that does one spec and be done? This is a boon for Monster, a bane for the rest of us. What a crock of crap.

My understanding is that 1.4 does two things:
1/ Introduces the option for Ethernet onto the existing 1.1 (low res) and 1.3 (high res) HDMI standards.
2/ Adds some sort of automotive version of HDMI

[Woochifer]

What about the higher-priced ones like the Pioneer, Denon and NAD ones?

If these companies handle the analog audio similarly to how their high end DVD players did, then you're still better off with letting a receiver handle the post processing.

My understanding is that 1.4 does two things:
1/ Introduces the option for Ethernet onto the existing 1.1 (low res) and 1.3 (high res) HDMI standards.
2/ Adds some sort of automotive version of HDMI

It also includes an audio return channel, which allows for an intermediate device such as a TV to send an audio signal back to a receiver for decoding/processing. I would guess that this comes in handy for people who currently watch TV using a cable or OTA connection.

It also increases the bandwidth to allow for 2k resolution video signals. 2k is the current resolution used in most theatrical projection systems.