«

An interesting article, IMHO, explaining why DVI/HDMI is electrically a
poor format for a cable connection between two digital devices.

http://www.audioholics.com/education...tter-with-hdmi

"" Consider, by contrast, what the broadcast world did when it needed to
route digital video from point to point. The result was HD-SDI,
high-definition serial digital interface. One coaxial cable can route an
HD SDI signal hundreds of feet without errors, with no repeater hardware
or EQs in the line. Had the consumer industry opted for a coaxial-based
standard, we'd be able to do the same in our homes. ""


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:

> An interesting article, IMHO, explaining why DVI/HDMI is electrically a
> poor format for a cable connection between two digital devices.
>
> http://www.audioholics.com/education...tter-with-hdmi

I don't understand what the big deal is. We computer folks would never think
of running dedicated cables all over the place just to feed audio or video
signals, so the limitations of DVI or HDMI in that respect are moot.

Instead, the only kind of data cables we would run are Ethernet (currently
1-gigabit or 10-gigabit, your choice). And that can carry universal comms
protocols like TCP/IP, that can transmit audio, video or any other kind of
data. Convert to a video-specific protocol (and connector) only when you
get near a video device. And similarly for other devices. Problem solved.

In article <f2md7s$hq3$>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

> In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
> > An interesting article, IMHO, explaining why DVI/HDMI is electrically a
> > poor format for a cable connection between two digital devices.
> >
> > http://www.audioholics.com/education...tter-with-hdmi
>
> I don't understand what the big deal is. We computer folks would never think
> of running dedicated cables all over the place just to feed audio or video
> signals, so the limitations of DVI or HDMI in that respect are moot.
>
> Instead, the only kind of data cables we would run are Ethernet (currently
> 1-gigabit or 10-gigabit, your choice). And that can carry universal comms
> protocols like TCP/IP, that can transmit audio, video or any other kind of
> data. Convert to a video-specific protocol (and connector) only when you
> get near a video device. And similarly for other devices. Problem solved.

100% agreed. I am already using 802.11g to transmit the audio from my
Mac laptop to my stereo, Apples "Apple TV" will be using 802.11n to do
AV.

On Sat, 19 May 2007 20:43:08 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> I don't understand what the big deal is. We computer folks would never
> think of running dedicated cables all over the place just to feed audio or
> video signals, so the limitations of DVI or HDMI in that respect are moot.

.... unless you're wiring up a studio where the PC is not located in the
same room as where the editor will be working, or where the monitor needs
to be located in a place where it is not practical to put the computer, or
where a person simply wants the PC in another room (like, maybe, a server
room on the other end of the floor in order to reduce noise.

But anyway, be that as it may. the cable between the monitor and the video
card has to cope with very high data transmission speeds. and HDMI cables
are simply unable to cope with runs of more than a few metres.


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:21:26 +1200, whoisthis wrote:

> 100% agreed. I am already using 802.11g to transmit the audio from my Mac
> laptop to my stereo, Apples "Apple TV" will be using 802.11n to do AV.

You've missed the point.

The HDMI cabling standard in use in consumer electronics equipment for
connecting video signals to display equipment such as TVs or monitors, is
substantially inferior to the cabling standard used in professional
equipment.


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:

> The HDMI cabling standard in use in consumer electronics equipment for
> connecting video signals to display equipment such as TVs or monitors, is
> substantially inferior to the cabling standard used in professional
> equipment.

That cabling system designed for professional equipment would cost a
fortune. Probably even more than 10-gigabit Ethernet. Guess which one gives
you more flexibility for the future?

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:39:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> That cabling system designed for professional equipment would cost a
> fortune. Probably even more than 10-gigabit Ethernet. Guess which one
> gives you more flexibility for the future?

The cable format that was already in use, that uses standard coaxial
cables, and that is capable of runs substantially greater than the pathetic
few metres that DHMI cables can do before degradation of the signal occurs
to the point where the signal is unrecognisable at the destination?


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:39:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> That cabling system designed for professional equipment would cost a
>> fortune. Probably even more than 10-gigabit Ethernet. Guess which one
>> gives you more flexibility for the future?
>
> The cable format that was already in use, that uses standard coaxial
> cables...

....that Ethernet tried and gave up on, over a decade ago.

On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:33:25 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>> That cabling system designed for professional equipment would cost a
>>> fortune. Probably even more than 10-gigabit Ethernet. Guess which one
>>> gives you more flexibility for the future?
>>
>> The cable format that was already in use, that uses standard coaxial
>> cables...
>
> ...that Ethernet tried and gave up on, over a decade ago.

Have you ever wondered why it is that all very high frequency video
equipment EXCEPT for equipment using the consumer grade HDMI interface
uses coaxial connectors.

Of course, Ethernet is a serial connection, whereas an RGB video
connection is a parallel connector.

Heh heh. And lets not forget that high-end monitors also have the 4
coaxial connectors to enable it to connect to professional video equipment.

I have a monitor that uses those connectors.


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:39:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> That cabling system designed for professional equipment would cost a
>>> fortune. Probably even more than 10-gigabit Ethernet. Guess which one
>>> gives you more flexibility for the future?
>> The cable format that was already in use, that uses standard coaxial
>> cables...
>
> ...that Ethernet tried and gave up on, over a decade ago.


Cable costs, since twisted pair is cheaper it allowed for a much cheaper
move to a switched environment then a separate coax run to each computer