DIYHiFi.org

For the sake of audio
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:05 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:09 am
Posts: 342
I realize that most readers here are only concerned with 16/44.1... rightly so for the most part. However, as the next generation of video formats become more popular, HDMI is making a big push and I can see a day when SPDIF no longer exists on new players. The problem with this is that HDMI tx/rx ICs will likely be difficult to get since it is also a video interface and implements HDCP DRM, making distribution tightly controlled.

This won't be a problem for a long while, but I think it's something to think about. There will always be analog, and the big hi-fi companies that can afford the quantities and licences needed to buy these ICs will have no problem.. but small outfits and DIYers may have problems. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:26 pm
Posts: 4927
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
chris719 wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?


I have.
I still listen to a TDA1541A. :finga:

That jittery HDMI interface will not have a place in my audio system.

_________________
Carlos Filipe

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
chris719 wrote:
I realize that most readers here are only concerned with 16/44.1... rightly so for the most part. However, as the next generation of video formats become more popular, HDMI is making a big push and I can see a day when SPDIF no longer exists on new players. The problem with this is that HDMI tx/rx ICs will likely be difficult to get since it is also a video interface and implements HDCP DRM, making distribution tightly controlled.
Chris


The chipsets are available with and without HDCP are aren't difficult to get. What are impossible to get without a license and then are easily revoked are the keys to load into the chips that do implement HDCP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
carlosfm wrote:
chris719 wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?


I have.
I still listen to a TDA1541A. :finga:

That jittery HDMI interface will not have a place in my audio system.


It is considerably superior to anything currently used in audio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:26 pm
Posts: 4927
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
rfbrw wrote:
It is considerably superior to anything currently used in audio.


When it is only transmitting/receiving audio?

_________________
Carlos Filipe

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
carlosfm wrote:
rfbrw wrote:
It is considerably superior to anything currently used in audio.


When it is only transmitting/receiving audio?


Doesn't matter. As far as the channels are concerned it is all just data. And the channels can support data rates considerably higher than the pedestrian rates found in audio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
rfbrw wrote:
It is considerably superior to anything currently used in audio.


What in the world are you basing this on?

This is a silly, unfounded assertion. You apparently know very little about HDMI. For example, there is no audio clock whatsoever. Instead the audio clock is derived from the video clock. There are a myriad of performance issues with HDMI.

For video, DVI is better. For audio iLink is better, but even that is stupidly implemented. There are much better ways to go, but unfortunately none of them are standardized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:10 pm
Posts: 395
Charles Hansen wrote:
There are much better ways to go

Low voltage differential I2S Enhanced?

( http://www.anthemav.com/OldSitev1/pdf/i2Srev1.pdf )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
Charles Hansen wrote:
rfbrw wrote:
It is considerably superior to anything currently used in audio.


What in the world are you basing this on?

This is a silly, unfounded assertion. You apparently know very little about HDMI. For example, there is no audio clock whatsoever. Instead the audio clock is derived from the video clock. There are a myriad of performance issues with HDMI.

For video, DVI is better. For audio iLink is better, but even that is stupidly implemented. There are much better ways to go, but unfortunately none of them are standardized.


O woe is me, there is no audio clock. Here we go with the usual clock fetishism and paranoia, not to mention rudeness typical of denizens of the Audioasylum.
HDMI is little more than a hop, skip and a jump from DVI. TMDS underpins both of them.
As a method of getting data from point A to point B intact TMDS offers a far more robust method than SPDIF. Yes the audio clock is derived but there is nothing stopping you from using the derived clock as a reference to a PLL in an audio only system. I will never understand this absurd obsession that the clock must be contiguous from source to dac.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:09 am
Posts: 342
HDMI offers far more bandwidth (v1.3 and higher) than a single link DVI connection. I have an HP LP3065 monitor and it requires dual-link TMDS transmitters to achieve the 2560x1600 resolution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
chris719 wrote:
HDMI offers far more bandwidth (v1.3 and higher) than a single link DVI connection. I have an HP LP3065 monitor and it requires dual-link TMDS transmitters to achieve the 2560x1600 resolution.


Point is they both use the same transmission protocol, TMDS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:09 am
Posts: 342
Of course, I was replying to the assertion that DVI was superior for video.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
chris719 wrote:
Of course, I was replying to the assertion that DVI was superior for video.


Yes, of course DVI is superior for video. HDMI is just DVI with some extra junk added in that you don't really want:

a) Sub-standard audio. Anyone interested in high-quality audio shouldn't be sending it to their TV set. They should be sending it to a surround-sound processor. And don't tell me that you can send HDMI to your surround-sound processor. Of course you can do that, but all that high frequency video noise will degrade the audio quality of the processor.

b) "Content Protection". It's just a polite way of saying, "Bend over buddy, we're going to screw you and limit the ways you can watch the discs you paid for on the equipment you paid for!"

c) A smaller, less reliable connector that doesn't stay in place as well as a DVI connector.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A, B, or C????????
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:29 pm
Posts: 4180
Location: Tralfamadore
I vote for all 3.

Amen, bruthah.........

Jocko


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
Maybe the world will stop so the old fogies can get off but I doubt it. HDMI is going away anytime soon.Work with it or around it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group