• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

This audio cable business is getting out of hand...

M00ndancer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
372
Likes
399
Location
Sweden
End of the day we still need interfaces for uncompressed video, simply because encoding video + sending it over a low-bandwidth interface + decoding a video adds latency. 30ms of input (e.g. mouse) to video latency can make your life miserable.
To add to the bandwidth requirements we going to cater for the 120 Hz Ultra-HD people. That's around 24 Gbit/sec @ 8 bits per pixel. So the high bandwidth interface are here to stay. Cheaper to keep the tooling (HDMI-contacts) and raise the standard to 2.1 than using CAT8 cables.... or USB4.
I just wish we could replace the HDMI with the DP, it's slowly coming to the higher end TVs. But our devices (consoles, AVR...) wont change.
 

solderdude

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
4,798
Likes
8,821
Location
The Neverlands
This audio cable business is getting out of hand...

It appears that not only cable business is getting out of hand... this (and other threads) do as well.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,391
Likes
3,095
Location
Hampshire
To add to the bandwidth requirements we going to cater for the 120 Hz Ultra-HD people. That's around 24 Gbit/sec @ 8 bits per pixel. So the high bandwidth interface are here to stay. Cheaper to keep the tooling (HDMI-contacts) and raise the standard to 2.1 than using CAT8 cables.... or USB4
USB4 already exists (on paper). It increases the data rate to 40 Gbps and introduces a protocol tunnelling concept. This allows the same link to carry USB, PCI Express, and DisplayPort traffic at the same time. I can't wait for all the fun bugs this will bring.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,391
Likes
3,095
Location
Hampshire
No its a seriuos question. Can you answer it, or are you really that much of an ahole.
Blu-ray video is compressed, as are streaming and all types of broadcast. Such compressed video uses on the order of 0.1 bits per pixel. HDMI carries uncompressed video at 24 bits per pixel. That's 240x more. Comparing cables designed for these different data rates is like comparing a jetliner to a kids' tricycle for speed. Those don't cost the same either.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
97
Likes
58
Location
Vancouver
You mean HDMI CAN carry 240x more. When does it,In a home system. the only thing that will put out higher data rate than 4k bluray ( 108Mbits/s) are computers. Is it more than 10Gbit/s (cat7). More than 40Gbit/s (cat8)? Why cant we compare these data rates?
 
Last edited:

bennetng

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
875
Likes
708
In a home system the only thing that will put out higher data rate than 4k bluray ( 108Mbits/s) are computers, and thats probably rare. Is it more than 10Gbit/s (cat7). More than 40Gbit/s (cat8)? Why cant we compare these data rates?
If you can only for example send 100Mbps to the TV, then it means the TV itself is required to decode the encoded video stream (e.g. H26x, VPx etc). So when a new format show up and there is no OS/firmware upgrade from the TV manufacturer, then your TV will not be able to play the new formats. Newer formats often have higher hardware requirements, so even if the TV is upgradable, it may not have enough processing power to decode in real time.

For example I have an old Samsung Smart TV with hardware H264 decoder, I can plug a thumb drive with video files to watch it without using an HDMI cable, if I want to watch videos in newer formats I can use a PC or something else which can decode the formats then send the decoded video data via HDMI, without buying a new TV, which is much more expensive than a cable.

Also, video game consoles generate uncompressed video data interactively, they don't use codecs, except for pre-recorded cutsenses and so on.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,391
Likes
3,095
Location
Hampshire
You mean HDMI CAN carry 240x more. When does it,In a home system. the only thing that will put out higher data rate than 4k bluray ( 108Mbits/s) are computers. Is it more than 10Gbit/s (cat7). More than 40Gbit/s (cat8)? Why cant we compare these data rates?
Uncompressed 4k HDR video at 60 Hz uses over 15 Gbps.
 

DonH56

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
4,081
Likes
6,155
Location
Monument, CO
Checking the math: 4096 pixels H * 2048 pixels V * 10 bits/pixel/color * 3 colors * 60 fps = ‭15,099,494,400‬ bits/s
 

DonH56

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
4,081
Likes
6,155
Location
Monument, CO
Isn't that why Don included an extra 1% of pixels?
No, that was just a mistake. I am not a video expert but rather deal with serial data transmission all the time (though just the analog side of it) so had a brain fart and mistranslated "4K" to 4 K-bytes or 4096. Forgot video is based on 3960 x 2160 pixels, not 4096 x 2048 bytes.

As @mansr said there is a lot of overhead in an HDMI signal.

Stoopid mistake, can't even claim ignorance because I knew better, sorry folk . - Don
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,391
Likes
3,095
Location
Hampshire
No, that was just a mistake. I am not a video expert but rather deal with serial data transmission all the time (though just the analog side of it) so had a brain fart and mistranslated "4K" to 4 K-bytes or 4096. Forgot video is based on 3960 x 2160 pixels, not 4096 x 2048 bytes.

As @mansr said there is a lot of overhead in an HDMI signal.

Stoopid mistake, can't even claim ignorance because I knew better, sorry folk . - Don
Cinema 4K is 4096 pixels wide.
 

DonH56

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
4,081
Likes
6,155
Location
Monument, CO
Cinema 4K is 4096 pixels wide.
So, I was right! :) It's possible I had that in mind but I really think it was just a mistake on my part for consumer video.

I can do math but need to stay out of video discussions.
 

M00ndancer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
372
Likes
399
Location
Sweden
So, I was right! :) It's possible I had that in mind but I really think it was just a mistake on my part for consumer video.
Easy to make, Ultra HD is not 4K (Despite what some people tell you). It's 4 FHD (1920*1080) panels together 3840*2160. Easier to make?
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,391
Likes
3,095
Location
Hampshire
Easy to make, Ultra HD is not 4K (Despite what some people tell you). It's 4 FHD (1920*1080) panels together 3840*2160. Easier to make?
Maybe, but there are other reasons for using that size. Using an integer multiple of the old resolution makes upscaled graphics from existing devices with a native 1920x1020 UI look nicer. Otherwise thin lines become more or less blurred depending on where they are on the screen.
 
Top Bottom