POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

Back to Article

  • kamleshrao - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link

    Hi,

    Your article (http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i...">http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i... was written few years back. Considering the fast growing technology, can you please provide a New Article on current HDMI support on Desktop PC's?

    Regards,
    Kamlesh
    Reply
  • Digital Prophet - Monday, January 24, 2005 - link

    First of all to those that can't see the advantages of putting audio and video on one cable here it is.
    If its all in one it has to be sent to an A/V receiver that decodes the audio plays it on your speakers and forwards the video to your display.

    Hdmi however is a big joke since firewire can carry a lot more audio and has been around for a while, if the video was sent compressed firewire would also be good for that.

    DVI Dual link has a bandwith of 9.9 gbps , hdmi is a step backwards for video and a step backwards for audio since firewire carries an order of magnitude more channels.

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1154746...
    Reply
  • Bugblatter - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link

    Those guys want us to buy the CD/DVD AND the DRM-protected download. They can go stuff themselves.

    If I buy a CD I WILL be ble to play it on my PDA. Likewise if I buy a DVD, I WILL rip it to DivX and play it on my PDA.

    They have no moral right to try to stop me. They may have the legal right, but we can always get around that.

    When they start building this crap into the hardware it's up to all of us to make sure that people know about it and don't buy it. If everyone buys the no-name brand that doesn't have the protection then the big players will soon come round.
    Reply
  • bersl2 - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link

    #50: That's not the point. Jon Johansen should have never been arrested. Nobody should have to go through what he did.

    And no, most copy protection is not broken purely for the satisfaction of it. Protection is broken both because someone wants to distribute it, and for interoperability purposes (it's my licensed copy; I'll do with it what I ought to be entitled to do).

    Go look up the term "fair use." Now, you go think about what chilling effects DRM will have on it.
    Reply
  • mosquiton - Friday, January 21, 2005 - link

    I don't want an integrated sound processor on my video card. I want an standard for internal passthrough. Standardizing on internal Optical or Coax links should suffice. a short, 3 inch cable should be all that is necessary. No, I just don't want it. Also, what will you do with onboard audio?
    Nope, I want an internal port on the video card. Fine,the video card will have to pass the signal on, but I don't want it to make the signal itself.
    Reply
  • Zar0n - Thursday, January 20, 2005 - link

    More copy protection crap!
    Don’t be fool all they what is control your data.
    I what to move my data freely to all my devices with no interference from more DRM
    I use Analog connection, and I'm not going to change anytime soon, it is still the best with CRT monitors.
    But I guess u can connect HDMI up your….
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - link

    #49- cracking encryption won't be illegal everywhere. Besides, unless they are intending to profit from the crack by selling software which uses it, they don't need to tell the MPAA, RIAA, and other evil entities who it was that broke the protection. Remaining very low profile if there is a risk of legal action makes sense.

    Most crackers break protection purely for the challenge and satisfaction of doing so, I'm sure whoever breakes HDCP will be intelligent enough to decide if it's worth taking the risk of releasing it like how the guy who broke CSS did.
    Reply
  • bersl2 - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - link

    #46: Correct.

    However, what happens if/when cracking said encryption becomes criminal?---and don't say it can't happen, because you (should) know very well what the lobbyists have already been able to accomplish...
    Reply
  • bhtooefr - Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - link

    I will never use HDMI, even when all of the VGA, S-Video, and DVI connections are outlawed.

    I like the connector of HDMI, but I don't like the DRM. Anyone want to bet that there'll soon be a proprietary Slim-DVI connector?
    Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    Thanks for clearing it up KristopherKubicki... i feel better now! except for the DRM stuff... heh Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    Combining audio and video onto one output is a non-issue really, even though it offers no benefit to most PC users and if anything is a slight inconvenience. If HDMI video-cards don't have their own audio-hardware, as someone said they'll just include suitable audio-in headers on the card so you can connect your soundcard directly to it.

    As for the output of the card, the obvious answer is a splitter-cable so you can connect it to both a monitor and amplifier/receiver. Here in Europe we've been using SCART cables for A/V connections for years and you just get the right cable to suit whatever inputs the device or devices on the other-end require. Problem solved.

    As for HDCP and other forms of DRM, yes it sucks. And yes it will arrive and be adopted despite the fact it probably reduces signal-quality (such as the unnecessary D/A then A/D conversion someone mentioned). Many protection methods impact the quality of the material so that is nothing new. However just as surely as HDCP will be adopted, when there is sufficient incentive to do so, it will be cracked. It doesn't matter how complex the protection is, nothing is uncrackable and HDCP is likely to be a prime target. It may take a while, it might require inside help from sympathetic people who work with HDCP (there are always some who don't agree with what they are working on who will anonymously spill the beans), but sooner or later HDCP will be cracked and you'll be able to do what you want with your movies on HD discs.
    Reply
  • Alphafox78 - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    Who cares how many cables are behind your TV, its not like everyone can see them. 1 cable or 4, who cares. im sure these new devices will have some older ports on them for component or svideo input or many people wont be able to use them. Reply
  • gonzo2k - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    I would want HDMI to go from the cable/sat box to CAPTURE HDTV video/sound on a HTPC. I would have no need for unified A/V transfer from HTPC to monitor/TV since the sound would be handled by a seperate audio receiver. An A/V receiver to handle switching between multiple HDMI connections would be nice... but that seems a long way off. Reply
  • crazyeddie - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    Is it really going to be necessary to combine audio and video onto a single card for the sake of HDMI? I would imagine that a simple coaxial digital feature connector from sound card to video card could solve the problem easily enough. The video adapter would simply have to grab the digital out from the sound card and patch it in with the video signal to the HDMI out.

    Of course getting the picture and sound to sync may or may not be a challenge, but that is another issue entirely...
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    endrebjorsvik: thanks for the catch - they should both read gigaBITS.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • endrebjorsvik - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    In the 2nd paragraph on page 1 you have written that the cable kan handle 5 Gigabit per second (Gbps), while you say it is okay to tranfer 1080p video and 8 channel audio who requiers 4 GigaByte per second (GBps).

    4 GigaByte will be approximately 32 gigabit, but the cable only takes 5. How do you figure that out?
    Reply
  • arfan - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    Anand, where is your newest article about Nvidia Ultra vs SLI ??? why suddently missing ??? What happen ???? Reply
  • Fluff - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    In a perfect world we would all be using HD-SDI and AES/EBU.

    Remember HDMI can support up to 12bit .
    DVI is upto 8bit.

    Reply
  • bersl2 - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    #30: One of the reasons why I voice my displeasure about DRM in places like here is because there aren't enough people aware that such a thing is taking place. Letters and emails are great and all, but unless people start *talking about it*, it's not going to get through politicians' thick skulls that we disapprove of their listening to the lobbying of the entertainment industries.

    I stick behind my earlier assertion that to allow DRM is to relinquish control of one's viewpoint on the world. It will lead to the Internet becoming like TV is, controlled by an oligarchy of "content providers," backed by law.

    And just out of spite, I'm putting this post in the public domain. :P
    Reply
  • quasarsky - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2290...

    This neat article I saw was about using GPU's to crunch audio. Worth a look as relates to HDMI :)

    9 - Posted on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:02 PM by Saist Reply
    when I first read the title here on Anand, I thought the article was going to be about how Creative Labs was spending more time creating and patenting IP instead of developing newer sound systems ( e.g. Carmark's Reverse).

    Another example is this story over at Xbit : http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mmedia/display/200409...

    some business has figured out how to get GPU's to crunch out high quality audio. Now, I don't know about you, but right now a Radeon 9600 XT or a Geforce FX 5700 is cheaper than a top of the line Audigy2. To think that I could use that in place of an audigy2 and get superior sound quality (and yes... I am aware of the physical issue of how to pipe that sound out of a graphics card, but at least the capability is there)

    I agree... Tweaktown really dropped the ball. There's a whole other place they could have gone to but didn't
    Reply
  • Tujan - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    The FCC and these proprieties mistake 1. The inaliable nature that 'broadcast in this way is 'illegal search and seizure...and 2.Representatives of 'media, are not representative of 'copyright law, or the authors of wich copyright law represents.

    A third can be added in wich would only 'mention of fact,but would actually deal with copyright itself. In that 'copyright is something relational to 'authors. It is not a business contract of a questionable 'first sale contract wich these broadcasts do their illegal deed through our premises,without our person to define them being so. Without our person to delegate the relationship of our equipment,or the functionality of person in wich this type of 'contract clause,deals usury within its blackmail of device,and copyright.

    The asset of copyright in second of person,is that of wich has its possession.Neither broadcast,nor FCC has this possession.And there is no specification known through copyright wich is tentative,or soon deliberated,wich is of and part of that assumed under copyright for author within its purpose.

    Conducting business association through this type of law,is still illegall search and seizure.While this is a physical connection in a specification true.The relationship of author/authors within copyright is the subject of the works copyright portrays solely for author in premise,and criteria. The subject of wich a criteria in media and device,the FCC should not be making itself party to without realizing its effects have resolved both author,and person of use in 'fair-use,of their own relationship to copyrighted materials conductive through them.In either asset (1),or asset(2).Author/person of use respecively.

    ))))))))))))))))) All comments and materials submitted to the Forums shall be considered non-confidential and the property of Anandtech, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by Anandtech. These Forums use moderators and administrators to monitor the content and appearance of messages posted in our Forums. However, considering the realtime nature of this bulletin board, it is impossible for us to monitor or review every message. Therefore, you agree that neither these Forums, nor any person or entity associated with them, will be held responsible for the contents, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information posted in them.< This statement as transposed is inproper english. If the FCC wishes to conduct the same procession w/o the person of its destinguishment in its 'effect. Then a relationship will have to be gained in its statement of effect. Since there is 'no effect,if there is no 'effect in its equivalency.

    Statements such as this are a 'null detail,of less importance here at a simple signing of a clause to enter a forum. However,when it comes to a person,this statement is an illegal one.When there is functional detail in an effect denied through its reception.

    Whatever Anantech does in its relationship to anantech for example remains its own person to do so. But without participation,a statement cannot be made so that an agreement lacks its person.Therefore cannot be an agreement.

    But Im discharging anantech of any responsibility for this agreement.Since certainly without my statement it would not matter anyway.

    Jan 16 2005
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    ShadowVlican: The cable design is mostly intended for inputs sources to a receiver - which just so happens to also have the ability to go to any other devices like a TV, DVD player, Tivo, whatever. It's just a newer idea to replace all of the cables in the back - RCA, S-Video, DVI, component - in one swoop.

    But then again the DRM things are a different animal on their own. I don't personally enjoy the idea of more DRM, but with so much of the industry behind the technology I have a hard time thinking it wont become universally accepted.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    oh yea. i agree with everyone that's saying Display devices (CRT, LCD, Plasma, etc) will never be combined with your sound setup... combining those 2 technologies are just plain stupid...

    how will we get surround sonud if the speakers are stuck to the damn TV.. what's the point of this stoopid new cable other than taking our rights away :@
    Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    what's wrong with dvi and separate audio connectors... they just want to make more money selling new useless products that actually DON'T benefit us now... i wonder what will happen to all those people who invested in HDTVs... Reply
  • shabby - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    #31 i'll bet the mpaa/riaa had something to do with that. Reply
  • ksnider - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I have a new LCD TV with HDMI input and HDCP support.
    It also comes with schematics (on CD).

    I studied the schematics and was astonished by what I found: the HDMI digital input is terminated at a special purpose chip that deserializes and deframes the data, decrypts the HDCP, and converts the R, G and B to ANALOG!

    So on the output of this chip there is a normal RGB (plus sync) signal. This is fed to the switching matrix (where it is combined with all other inputs the TV supports) and then this analog RGB signal is again digitized and fed to the scaler that scales it up or down to drive the LCD panel.

    Of course, they do this because the whole point of HDMI is to protect the *signal*, not the picture quality. If the HDMI chip sent a digital signal to the LCD, it wouldn't serve it's purpose. In order to protect the digital signal, it *has* to output analog.

    This means, you're actually going to end up with a WORSE picture!
    Reply
  • rika13 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    dont bitch about it here, bitch about it to your elected officials, dumping about 50,000 letters (yes letters, as in dead trees) on your senator's desk will get his attention

    problem isnt they are taking rights away, its that its being done steathily, and circuit shitty, best lie, and others arent refusing to sell that crap
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Noli: I believe all HDMI inputs are HDCP compliant.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • ProviaFan - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Once the CBDTPA passes, you can kiss your "rights" goodbye, because even if you try to exercise them, the RIAA will call the FBI on your rear, and they'll be carting you off to federal pound-me-in-the-@#$ prison for 768 years about 5 minutes after you download illegal free/open source software to make a backup of your new notCD so you can play it in your car.

    I'm sorry, but I just don't submit to this "you all must give up your rights to control your own equipment because a few people abuse the capabilities of said equipment." Bite me, RIAA! :disgust;
    Reply
  • bersl2 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    #26: You mean "former current laws." Reply
  • Klober - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I agree with archcommus87, even if they integrate audio and video onto a single card in the PC, my monitor and 5.1 speakers are still two separate pieces of equipment. So where is the cable supposed to plug in - the monitor or my sub? If it plugs into the monitor, then I still need the current cable I have running from my sound card to my sub. If it plugs into my sub, then I still need the cable running from my video card to my monitor. The integration makes sense for home theatre systems where everything goes to the receiver, but it sounds like a downright stupid idea for PCs. Either way though, I really can't stand the "secure" crap they're trying to push on us in order to take away our law given rights. They force us to crack the schemes to use our systems the way we should be able to according to the laws, and then they prosecute us for it. Just doesn't seem right to me. It's my equipment, I paid good money for it, and I'll use it how I like within the current laws. Reply
  • Googer - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I am an analogue fan, I love my CRT! Does HDMI support analogue? Reply
  • archcommus87 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    mcveigh: I'm talking about for a PC setup. I also don't understand the purpose of combining video and audio into one cable. No matter what future technologies ever come out, the sound system and monitor will ALWAYS be separate! Reply
  • epiv - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I do not get the idea of combining audio and video signal into the same interface. Currently audio and video come from different component in a pc and is sent to different device too. Are they going to combine the Monitor and speaker into one package too? Reply
  • Brian23 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    This is all crap. I don't even own a TV and I don't plan on getting one. The only shows I watch are the ones I play on DVD and the ones I download on the internet. Reply
  • stanmuffin - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Bleh. The trend toward manufacturing devices that disobey their owners continues. It won't be long before we're not allowed to change the channel without watching 10 minutes of commercials first. Reply
  • ceefka - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    #15 Maybe they think you'll use your THX or AC3 capable receiver for the sound and the TV as a display. You're not listening to your TV when you play a DVD, do you?

    Intergrating Dolby Surround 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, DTS and or THX in your PCI-E graphicscard: Nice idea. With the size of the HDMI-plug you'd even have room for the optical/coax digital out, 2nd display and ViVo. It could also save us from any crappy on board solutions.
    Reply
  • Koing - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    #12 KHysiek

    DVI suports 1920x1200. A Dual Link (DL) one will go up to the 30" 4MP display.

    The HDMI will go to a 'reciever' first then from the receiver to whatever you want. One run to the tv and speaker cable from the reciever.

    If you don't have a receiver you just go straight to the tv. BUT this crews the people who's receiver does not have HDMI :P

    Koing
    Reply
  • Noli - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Totally agree #16
    Many people who have just or are just about to buy expensive plasma/lcd tvs will be truly p*ssed off when they find out that their swanky dvi/hdmi connection is not HDCP compliant and so can't watch the content they've paid for! (only some of the latest models are HDCP compliant).

    Not sure yet if the panasonic AE700 projector I bought (has hdmi) a couple of months ago is HDCP compliant but it will be annoying if it isn't. (Anyone know?)

    Here in the UK it is not so bad - the BBC said that they won't be broadcasting in HDTV modes (a strong candidate for hdcp protection I think) until 2010, though some sports events in 2005/6 maybe HDTV resolution and some dramas in 2007/8. By then, plasma/lcd tvs should be even cheaper but i still don't see how you can force a nation *and* manufacturers to force the changeover.

    All this will do is force the knowledgeable and the keen to hack HDCP and everyone else will suffer...
    Reply
  • R3MF - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    oh well, their loss.

    we will crack it, just like we always have when vendor lock-in ensues.
    Reply
  • otemanu - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    By adopting HDCP we make it possible for the media producers to enable more restrictions than exist on DVD and digital broadcasts today. HDCP means to abandon most of the digital displays sold up to now. Virtually none of the computer screens and many older plasma-screens that support DVI but not HDCP/HDMI will not be allowed to show future BlueRay/HD-DVD movies or HDTV broadcasts. This will result in the same type of cracking that exists for DVD/Region/macromedia - not to copy - just to be able to buy and watch a movie on existing hardware/software. Were will it end? Should only certified "locked" media pc be allowed to display movies? Only certified companies be able to produce players. They are making the DVD/mp3 mistake again. Reply
  • shabby - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Whats the point of carrying audio to the tv when its the reciever that needs it?
    But i wouldnt mind a geforce 6800 with soundstorm, that would be sweet.
    Reply
  • Lonyo - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I would guess that graphics card manufacturers, chipset mfs and soundcard mfrs could work together using PCIe to manage a way to direct the sound card output through the graphics card.
    Since you can hook up two graphics cards, I would guess you could route sound through a graphics card.
    Still, it does seem a little unecessary to have this at all.
    To me, it seems to assume a total lack of discrete speaker systems?
    Reply
  • R3MF - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    agreed with 10 also.

    is there no way to strip out the content protection rubbish from what is a good connector?
    Reply
  • KHysiek - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I thought this interface was supposed to replace DVI, mainly cause DVI is too slow for high refresh/ high resolution displays. AFAIK DVI max is about 1600x1200/60Hz. Reply
  • elecrzy - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    agrees with 10. Reply
  • Woodchuck2000 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I'm sure there were rumours at one point that Soundstorm 2 might end up integrated into one of nVidia's graphics cards...

    That would make a lot of sense now, given this article!
    Reply
  • mcveigh - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Stefan as I see it right now it only affects the HTPC users. I would have it go out to my receiver which would then send one signal to my speakers and the hdmi video only to my TV.

    unless the come up with a hdmi monitor that outputs to speakers/receiver.
    Reply
  • bersl2 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    s/manage you/manage how you/ Reply
  • bersl2 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Uh, this "protection" crap is making me sick.

    And so is this vision of the future where I have even less control over my machines and the data in my possession.

    Media matter more than ever in culture, and you are going to hand over control to entities whose sole responsibility is to make money, in effect, giving up control of your culture? You are going to let someone who doesn't care what you believe in manage you make sense of the world?

    Think. Please. Think about what is going on. You choose what you want, but consider what it is you are slated to lose and how important that is to you.
    Reply
  • Stefan - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I'm feeling a little retarded at the moment...

    If video and audio are integrated on one card, and there is a single output... where does the output go? If it goes to the display, where is my receiver supposed to get a signal from?
    Reply
  • mcveigh - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    archcommus87: why would you have it going to your sub? if anything you'd have it going to your receiver then to you pseakers and TV Reply
  • Burbot - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    Hey you, fat media bastards! Good luck getting a single cent out of me if you want to limit me in ways I can use my machine. MP3 versions of albums are available weeks before release date, and to fix this problem, you disallow personal copying (explicitely allowed and taxed in our little Canadian commie heaven)? Reply
  • knitecrow - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    I sure hope next gen consoles use HDMI, as i've seen it on newer HDTV's
    Reply
  • archcommus87 - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    So if video cards starting having onboard audio capabilities, would there be TWO HDMI connectors on the the back of the card? One to go to the monitor and one to go to your sub?

    I like the sound of it. A single cable to carry my audio instead of three, and a smaller, screwless connector for video.
    Reply
  • mcveigh - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link

    So were any tier 1 manufacturers talking about it at CES? like a possible time frame? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now