The next generation of HDMI actually adds some welcomed features
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Jan 6th 2009 9:59PM
posted Jan 6th 2009 9:59PM
Every year we stop by and talk to HDMI and every year there's not much new. But finally we are happy to say there are some cool new things coming to the HDMI spec in 2009. Of course it will carry more pixels than the old version and then there is a new smaller connection -- no not that one -- but neither of those really get us excited. The real interesting additions once again fit into the "why wasn't that there before" category. This includes an actual real high speed data Ethernet connection, and we're happy to report that unlike the current data HDMI supports, this isn't in the blanking interval. But that isn't the most interesting feature -- although it might end up being the most, depending on how it's implemented -- the most welcome addition is the audio return channel. Any who's attempted to use their TV's internal tuner knows all too well that currently although you have an HDMI cable running from your AVR to your TV, you still need another Toslink cable running back from your TV to get the surround sound out of your TV. Thankfully this will be the thing of the past, well, that is after the spec is implemented in upcoming products and you replace all your HDMI cables.
Maybe support for 120hz? Currently only 60hz progressive afaik. I'm dreaming.
120hz support would be pointless; nothing sources at that rate and only a relatively small percentage of display devices run at that rate. At any rate, as long as they just change the pin mapping and I don't have to buy new cables, I'll be happy.
Meh, as long as they release a 120hz LCD in the near future (24" and higher) I'll be happy as well. DVI should be more than ample for that, I believe. Of course, this is only applicable to games, but awesome either way.
120Hz TVs were not designed for a faster refresh rate, just for the sake of a faster refresh rate.
Too bad most marketing departments, and the general public have no clue about this.
They were designed to play 24fps video without any frame interpolation.
ALL Blu-ray disks play their video at 24FPS, which is the the same speed that films are recorded at.
If you do the math: 120/24 = 5, while 60/24 = 2.5
That means that if 24FPS content is player, either the TV has to drop half-a-frame and do some weird timing, interlace the half-frame with another, or a whole host of other possible methods to get that half-a-frame onto the screen.
Yeah Hdmi have great new lines in micro cables which I saw http://www.monstercable.com/.
... or you can update your receiver to something that was produced in the last 2 years and do what alot of us do. Hdmi-receiver-TV.
Exactly what I was thinking, but surely there is more to this than that...... if the tos link in the proposed scenario was going to a receiver to presumably decode the surround sound then it mustn't support hdmi at anyrate, so how's the new standard going to help?!?
I dont think you're getting the point. If I don't have or use a DVR/set top box and just watch tv straight from the built in tv tuner (qam, atsc, etc) I need to run a wire back from the tv to the receiver (toslink) to get surround sound. There are no 1 cable solutions currently.
@h0mi: So what was with the mention of the AVR (presumably Audio/Video receiver)? And isn't your 'tos link to the receiver' a one wire solution?
@Murdarer: Everything gets hooked up to the receiver which is then connected to the tv by an hdmi cable, typically. Your endpoints for sound are the speakers and the endpoint for video is the tv with the single hdmi cable but the tv is also an audio source if you don't use a separate tuner thus the need for two cables rather than one.
Yeah. The connection is this:
AVR connected to TV. Devices connected to AVR include DVD or blu-ray player, any HDMI consoles, whatever. TV watching is done through the TV though, not through a DVR so the TV audio has to go back to the receiver via toslink. 2 cables. 1 is HDMI from AVR to TV, other is TV to AVR.
Man... I get it now. You guys are using your "AVR" to switch the audio/video sources. One HDMI cable from the AVR into the HDTV. Then one HDMI cable from each source into the AVR. Right? Hence the need for the return of audio from that one HDMI cable back into the AVR from the HTDV tuner.
My receiver is so old it doesn't have HDMI inputs so I couldn't figure out what you guys were talking about.
My HDTV has four HDMI inputs, three of which, I use for each of my sources (XBOX360, HTPC, HD-DVR). Then I have a toslink or coax going from each source into the AVR. No wonder I have so many cables back there.
I would like a new receiver.
How will this affect PS3? And Xbox 360 for that matter...
It won't. All HDMI interfaces are backward compatible.
Isn't there a "new, smaller, connector"?
Ethernet through HDMI cable? Genius
Internet, Video and Audio over one cable! Wow!
We had it years ago, its called Ethernet.
Jeez.. you drunk already?? That was painful to read because of the grammar.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so
I wasn't going to post something because I thought only I was being nitpicky... but this was a very poorly written article...
haha, i'm glad that wasn't just me... one of the worst written articles i've ever seen on engadget.
although looking back through some of ben drawbaugh's previous work, there is some quite stiff competition :p
None of this really addresses the fact that HDMI isn't a very well engineered cabling design. I believe it was the guys at Bluejeanscable who detailed the shortcomings of the way the copper in the cable is arranged, and I have to question how well throwing all of these additions onto a weak foundation will work out.
A feature like no DRM at all, ever?
HOT
Little question here, what can supply more bandwidth an HDMI cable or an ethernet cable? If ethernet is less it's way cheaper or is around more, maybe we should just use ethernet for everything.
Well there's DisplayPort but if everything went through ethernet then that would be much more convenient and cabling would be heaps cheaper.
I think hdmi has greater bandwidth than gigabit ethernet, but I'm not sure.
A single high bandwidth interface for video/data/peripherals/basically anything that needs to send data down a tube would be nice. Cat-5e is cheap, fast and works over long runs, but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason (that I'm missing) why it isn't used for everything.
Well according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI HDMI 1.3 has a theoratical max bandwidth of 10.2 Gbit/s which is obviously significantly more then Gbit ethernet.
HDMI is probably wasting a lot of bandwidth by decoding the data and then sending decoded data over the wire (with some encryption added back in), while when you stream a movie over Ethernet the decoding will be done in the receiving device.
Why was HDMI made in the first place? When ethernet is so much better.........
Simple answer - to support DRM in the form of HDCP.
Ethernet doesn't have enough bandwidth to support HDMI-like levels of video and audio fidelity.
well now you know what the PS4 is gonna have.
I don't know about you guys, but I am really disappointed at the lack of any new DRM features. HDCP has been cracked and I am feeling the burden of having far too much freedom to use my content as I see fit.
How's about a fricken' clip to hold the bloody cable in.
What's with all the excitement around hdmi clips? Seems like everyone cares about this. 90 degree/rotating plugs I can understand, but not clips.
I'm really not being sarcastic, but can someone fill me in?
ok so i have my desktop connected to my television via hdmi and since there is no audio support i am running a y cable to the aux input, with the new features i would no longer have to use a y cable correct?
I'm guessing you have an nVidia graphics card. Radeon's actually CAN carry sound out the HDMI port, but not surround.
Under this new standard, you'd be able to get the full surround WITH your video out of ONE cable. Pretty slick, if you ask me...
Next challenge: HD video over an Ethernet cabl...oh wait.
does anyone know why ethernet isn't used for everything? there must be a reason
Ethernet can't handle uncompressed video, which is what HDMI does. Compressed HD video is obviously no problem.
Well...
Its widely supported and allows things like switches and stuff so it would be easier to bypass schemes like HDCP. Something like HDMI requires people to build new hardware, rather than adapting existing stuff. With Ethernet you might be able to just hook up a PC with two Ethernet ports, build a piece of bridge software from some open source, etc etc.
Bandwidth? Well gigabit ethernet can handle 1Gbps or so minus packet overhead, probably 95% or something realistically. In both directions. What's HD video? 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 samples. At 24 bits (only one option) each that's 49,766,400 bits. At 60Hz that's 2,985,984,000.
Oops. Well there's always 10Gbps Ethernet. Course that's still kind of expensive...
This article contains no information whatsoever. What version of the HDMI spec are they referring to, 1.3c? 1.4? More pixels? How many more? 1.3c has already been announced and the specs confirmed, so can I presume this article refers to 1.4???
Where was this information obtained? Did a major backer of HDMI announce something? What are the sources for this article other than "we are happy to say". Why are they mentionning this at this point in time, we all know the HDMI spec is going to improve...
"NEWSFLASH: We are happy to announce that his year computers will evolve".. what the...
The HDMI Licensing LLC during CES Unveiled. The press released won't be out until tomorrow. We obtain a paper copy, and no we're not going to scan or type it in.
If they can fit internet through HDMI now, I don't want to hear any excuses from them in regards to closed-captioning over HDMI.
I have a toy pony, he takes big SHlTS!!!
meh, who the hell even has surround sound out of their tv? get real, if you are serious about your home theater you have your cable/satelite going straight to a surround sound receiver, and component / toslink works 100% fine. i will never see the point of hdmi to the tv itsself, yeah i do like the bonus of having one cable, but shit component works the same for literally like $5.
Hows about heading over to the HDCP guys instead, and hit one or two of them over the head with an HDMI cable. Then ask them why the hell can't they make it work. Consistently.
Give me Power over HDMI and I'll be a very happy man.
I normally only read the articles and the comments and never leave comments, but after reading through the ones today, I felt like I just had to say something.
First off, Ethernet is a signaling and address standard, not a type of cable. The type of cables that many call "Ethernet cables" are actually CAT5 cable. The main difference between using a HDMI cable and an Ethernet cable are that they are designed for different purposes and situations. Ethernet cables are good for long distance transfers of large amounts of varying types of data (packets can be anything) where both ends have intelligent machines that can interpret the varying data. HDMI is better for transfers of very specific types of data (colors) where there are relatively dumb machines between the two.
The connectors are also very different (of course) and one is better designed for the situation. With TV you want smaller connectors and less cables, whereas the computer domain the size of the connector is less of an issue. It's all a matter of what situation you're in and what you're needs are.
Hang on... shouldn't HDMi die already, I mean Display port is out already. I am sure every company would love to have not only a better connector (slightly) for there TV, but also not have to pay royalties per device made or sold. My laptop has Display Port :)
Yea, but DP doesn't support all the audio streams that HDMI supports :)
I want Displayport nonetheless. Royalties are the way the mafia works.
My uncle got a 46 inch Samsung 1080p 120hz lcd and Samsung blue ray for Christmas. We watched parts of Hancock and The Day After Tomorrow. Fucking fantastic. So damn smooth, made your eyes jump keeping up with the movement. So current HDMI can hold 120 hz, can do of course 1080p, so what is the issue? This redesign every so often makes Blu ray and the way it connects, just unstable. Seriously, I thought we were about to hit a "standard", no? Blu ray isn't even at a standard and now the connections? They keep this up, people aren't going to move from DVD over, I know I won't till standards are put in place.
Why are you running a toslink from the TV and not from the cable box? You could also just run HDMI from the cable box to your receiver and call it a day.
RTFA
because not everybody has a cable box??
I want a standalone Hdmi DAC
I don't think this is right. You can't get surround out of a tv as it is only a 2 channel device. You would only run optical out the back of a tv if you want 2 channel. HDMI can carry 5 channel but you had better run it through a AVR that can take the audio and send it to your 5 speakers. The HDMI chip in the tv says it is 2 channel only and that is all it gets hence the need for a HDMI switching and audio handling AVR.