Why HDMI?

[LazyGit]

I've been confused by HDMI for a while now but only just managed to ask the question of anyone. Why is HDMI the way it is?

I understand that a higher bandwidth connection was needed for HD output and I like the compact connection but why the hell does it carry the audi signal as well?

I have never, ever seen a TV with an incorporated surround sound set. I don't know what you're supposed to do with it. Do you plug your BD drive or PS3 into the TV then use a separate cable to take the sound from the TV to your amp, or go straight from the source as I do now?

It's a nice idea to have everything on one cable but completely impractical. Does anyone have an explanation?

[Funkstar]

it's actually quite clever and simple.

A 'perfect' setup would have HDMI from your HiDef player, xBox, PS3, etc feeding into your AV reciever. This the feeds your TV with the correct video depending on which source you are using. The reciever deals with the audio. All this is done in a lossless fasion in the digital domain with content protection and a secure path.

You can also add a remote to the mix that is picked up by the TV and the signals sent over HDMI to the correct device. For example, you change the volume and the reciever does that, you control a DVD and the DVD player does that, so everything else can be hiden away and there is no need to IR recievers etc.

I think Panasonic has a setup you can do all this with.

It also means you don't need different cables for different things, one cable does everything.

[LazyGit]

That does sound great but apart from that Panasonic setup, I don't know of any others that are coming to market with systems like that. TVs appear to be the ones with all the HDMI ports, how long is it going to be before AV receivers are full of HDMI ports? A very long time I reckon because they still need all the phono, coaxial and optical ports for legacy devices. By the time manufacturers are dedicated to the HDMI connection we'll be streaming everything by wifi anyway.

[Fabula]

HDMI has everything integrated as it is intended to stop people copying signals, either video or audio. It is easier to digitally protect one cable/device, rather than two.

[TheAnimus]

its also quite nice because you don't have to buy expensive interconnect cables. Optical Audio cables drive me nuts with the extravogant prices (£10+). Ok, so i spent £700 on my reciver, but i like the fact i'm not been taken for a ride with the cable prices of HDMI.

HDMI are so cheap they give them away with PS3s, thats good.

Also i quite like it because people who had bought some monster branded AV cables, and failed too admit that its not going to be better (see placebo) are finally forced too admit that the company sells snake oil. £125 for a 3m HDMI cable anyone?

[Funkstar]

Another thing about HDMI, it can handle 7.1 lossless surround sound. I don't think there is any other standard out there other than Firewire (firewire being incedibly rare in the AV market, although some setups do have it) that can handle this amount of data. So ignoring the HDCP and simplicity arguments, they would have needed a new cable/standard for audio anyway, so why not piggy back on HDMI.

It is a pretty good cabling standard, despite the DRM provisions. The fact it is a very compact connector makes a lot of sense too. There is a lot of potential for very small devices to have it integrated as opposed to having seperate audio and video outputs. Think portable media players and PDAs that can connect directly with AV setups and TVs.

I agree that there isn't a lot of uses at the moment, but give it a couple of years, once the standards have settled down (i think 1.3 will be the last for a while) and the cost of the controllers drops you could see it in loads of places.