The Truth Behind HDMI 1.4a

[admin]

Way back on May 28, 2009, HDMI Licensing released the HDMI 1.4 spec. But wait, it's less than a year later (March 4, 2010) and here comes HDMI 1.4a. The big change from 1.4 was that 1.4a mandated two new 3D formats for broadcast on top of game and Blu-ray content. While some manufacturers would like you to believe that only their receivers/products sporting HDMI 1.4a will handle these formats, is it true? Depends.

Discuss "The Truth Behind HDMI 1.4a" here. Read the article.

 

[ratso]

"The real concern should be for people with new 3D displays. They are going to want to make sure that their display will support all four of the 3D formats in order to take advantage of, in particular, any broadcast 3D possibilities that may come up in the near future."

another harsh reminder. perhaps you should add this to the 10 commandments, Tom: thou shall not be an early adopter.

 

[Tom Andry]

Actually, it should read, "If thou art an early adopter, thou shalt not complain when HDMI or Apple screws you... 'cause they will."

 

[its phillip]

Actually, it should read, "If thou art an early adopter, thou shalt not complain when HDMI or Apple screws you... 'cause they will."

Very true, and applies to a lot of other tech as well.

 

[BMXTRIX]

It would be really nice to know if our existing HDMI 1.3 cables will support all the 3D aspects of the new format and have that properly covered for our expectations. I've got more than a few HDMI 1.3 cables which I would like to keep using for my installations, but I don't want to install, or use, outdated cabling.

It's worth noting that I spoke with Emotiva and they indicated that their current pre-pro is going to be firmware updated for HDMI 1.4 specifications, so anyone with one, or looking to buy, should be covered for 3D.

 

[Stereodude]

It would be really nice to know if our existing HDMI 1.3 cables will support all the 3D aspects of the new format and have that properly covered for our expectations. I've got more than a few HDMI 1.3 cables which I would like to keep using for my installations, but I don't want to install, or use, outdated cabling.

None of the data I've seen shows any sort of increased video bandwidth requirement between the high bandwidth 1.3 (340MHz) and 1.4. So a high bandwidth 1.3 cable (340MHz) should do 3D just fine. However, it won't do Ethernet or offer the audio return channel.

 

[JohnA]

None of the data I've seen shows any sort of increased video bandwidth requirement between the high bandwidth 1.3 (340MHz) and 1.4. So a high bandwidth 1.3 cable (340MHz) should do 3D just fine. However, it won't do Ethernet or offer the audio return channel.

From what I understand, the "1.3" cable will work for all features of "1.4" including the Ethernet channel and the Audio Return, because it is using the 4 TMDS pairs for those features, the cables construction does not change only the chips for the transmitter and receiver are changing.

 

[Stereodude]

From what I understand, the "1.3" cable will work for all features of "1.4" including the Ethernet channel and the Audio Return, because it is using the 4 TMDS pairs for those features, the cables construction does not change only the chips for the transmitter and receiver are changing.

That is definitely not correct. They added an additional TMDS pair in HDMI 1.4 called HEC Data into the specification that is used for Ethernet (Home Ethernet Channel).

Prior to HDMI 1.4:
Pin 14: Reserved
Pin 19: Hot Plug Detect

HDMI 1.4/1.4a:
Pin 14: HEC Data-
Pin 19: Hot Plug Detect / HEC Data+

I'm not sure where / how the return audio is implemented. My guess would be on the CEC/DDC serial wires so a 1.3 cable will work for that feature.

So, while HDMI 1.3 cables may have pin 14 electrically connected end to end, unless they used shielded twisted pair wiring between pin 14 and 19 equivalent to the STP wiring on the other TMDS channels, a HDMI 1.3 cable is not going to work for HDMI 1.4's Ethernet because the wiring won't adequately pass the high speed signals sent over those pins.

 

[JohnA]

OK so it looks like you only need a new cable IF you want to use the Ethernet channel... Right?

 

[Stereodude]

OK so it looks like you only need a new cable IF you want to use the Ethernet channel... Right?

That's basically what I said before.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I don't need the return channel or the Ethernet - ran separate wiring to all my locations with mini-HR cable and multiple CAT cables, so I'm covered there. Mostly I don't want to have to repull a lot of HDMI right after I finished my basement and I do want to implement 3D at some point. Probably via PS3 through a Denon 2311 then to whatever projector I decide to roll with later this year or next year.

 

[TRT]

I wish all of the suckers would hurry up and spend the money on 3-D technology so we can get past this fad. New TV, new receiver, new BD player, new cables, new glasses...good grief! Child please!

 

[Audioholics]

We've been getting some emails and questions, so just to clarify... At this point in time the major physical change in 1.4 cabling is the Ethernet line, which is an actual rework of the wiring that involves taking two otherwise (v1.3) straight wires and making a twisted & shielded pair to support the required bandwidth for bi-directional Ethernet signal transmission. Adding 3D technology to HDMI, or even 4K resolution, doesn't actually change bandwidth going through the line from v1.3 specs.

Currently no hardware supports Ethernet, and no (real) software supports 3D, so it's unlikely an installer can/will be held liable for something that simply didn't exist at the time.

The correct order is: 1) wait for hardware to appear, 2) wait for customer demand, 3) happily charge them money to come back and update them.

The installer isn't evil or neglectful here, HDMI is - for not having a clue where they are going in all this and simply trying to outdo VESA's DisplayPort and pony up to the strange dreams of 3D in the living room...

 

[Stereodude]

It looks like there are a few HDMI 1.4 cables available out there. Firefold seems to have 3, 6, & 12 foot HDMI 1.4 cables with explicit mention of ethernet support. I haven't seen any others (at Monoprice or other), but I also haven't gone looking either.

Frankly adding ethernet support to HDMI seems like the answer to a question no one was asking.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Frankly adding ethernet support to HDMI seems like the answer to a question no one was asking.

I don't know...

HDMI is touted as a one cable solution. Yet, almost all the new TVs, with more and more coming to market, have Ethernet capabilities built into the display. This is actually something that I've mentioned in years past, but the concept of everything being separate is silly.

Why not a TV which can connect to a receiver with a single cable (HDMI 1.4) and the receiver to the Internet and your home network and from that single cable connection you get access to your home library of music, photos, and videos along with online content such as Netflix, Hulu, Pandora and others?

The limit for the network connectivity will be up to display manufacturers, but the consumer is no longer required to run a network cable right next to their HDMI cable to get that functionality, and manufacturers could drop the Ethernet port from their display if they wanted to. (not likely)

The audio return channel actually interests me more as it potentially eliminates the need for HDMI cabling to be home run for local sources. That is, if you put your A/V receiver in a closet in another room with your set top box, you may still want your Blu-ray player, or PS3 sitting in the room with you. So, you connect that source locally to your TV then the audio is fed into the TV, and back down to your A/V receiver for best possible audio.

Potentially people could get far cheaper receivers and let their TVs do all the connectivity and A/V receivers would turn into audio only receivers, dumping a TON of extra work which receivers have had to do for years. It will definitely be interesting to see how things progress over the next ten years.

 

[Stereodude]

HDMI is touted as a one cable solution. Yet, almost all the new TVs, with more and more coming to market, have Ethernet capabilities built into the display. This is actually something that I've mentioned in years past, but the concept of everything being separate is silly.

Why not a TV which can connect to a receiver with a single cable (HDMI 1.4) and the receiver to the Internet and your home network and from that single cable connection you get access to your home library of music, photos, and videos along with online content such as Netflix, Hulu, Pandora and others?

The limit for the network connectivity will be up to display manufacturers, but the consumer is no longer required to run a network cable right next to their HDMI cable to get that functionality, and manufacturers could drop the Ethernet port from their display if they wanted to. (not likely)

This about it from a networking standpoint. First of all, Onkyo, Denon, Sony, etc are not networking companies. They're being asked to implement something they have very little experience with.

Then lets ask some basic questions.

• Will a HDMI receiver act as a dumb switch or a hub?
• Does that work for people who don't have another device that acts as a DHCP server? / Does the receiver has a DHCP server?
• Can you manually assign an IP address?
• Can you turn off the DHCP server if you've already got a router with DHCP functionality?
• Does the receiver itself pull an IP?
• If so, does it then also do NAT for devices that are plugged into it?
• If it does NAT can you forward ports?
• Does it do QoS?
• Does the networking functionality work if the receiver is turned off for peripheral devices?
• Do they support IPv6?
• Do they support TCP/IP and UDP?

The list goes on and on...

I think by now it should be pretty clear that it is indeed a terrible idea.

 

[3db]

This about it from a networking standpoint. First of all, Onkyo, Denon, Sony, etc are not networking companies. They're being asked to implement something they have very little experience with.

Then lets ask some basic questions.

• Will a HDMI receiver act as a dumb switch or a hub? Most people only have one receiver acting as a switch..between components. Throw ethernet into the HDMi and teh behaviour doesn't necessarily havbe to change.
• Does that work for people who don't have another device that acts as a DHCP server? / Does the receiver has a DHCP server? Why does the receiver have to have DHCP capabilities? Most people don't interconnect mutliple HT systens together so the pointis moot.
• Can you manually assign an IP address? Very easily implemented at the interface.
• Can you turn off the DHCP server if you've already got a router with DHCP functionality?
• Does the receiver itself pull an IP? Using the KISS rule elimienate the neeed for DHCP and in most HT applications don't require it.
• If so, does it then also do NAT for devices that are plugged into it? What??? Your talking about multiple subnets now? Moot point.
• If it does NAT can you forward ports? Moot
• Does it do QoS?
• Does the networking functionality work if the receiver is turned off for peripheral devices? Thats your 1ts real question. This should be addressed.
• Do they support IPv6? IPv6 People actually use that?
• Do they support TCP/IP and UDP?

Again TCP/Ip and UPD can all be handled at the interface.
The list goes on and on...

I think by now it should be pretty clear that it is indeed a terrible idea.

No...I think the idea has merit but you are overly complicating a basic install which BMX is referring to and to what point?

 

[Stereodude]

No...I think the idea has merit but you are overly complicating a basic install which BMX is referring to and to what point?

No offense, but I don't think you don't get it. Those are all perfectly valid questions related to their ethernet implementation. It comes down to whether the receiver is an ethernet switch (nothing like traditional HDMI switching) or a router. There are plenty of valid use case for both paths, and regardless of which way they go it isn't going to work for everyone. Once they go a particular way it opens Pandora's box which is full of follow on questions.

Ask a receiver maker who claims they've implemented HDMI 1.4 and their eyes gloss over when you ask them the most basic ethernet / networking question about what their receiver does and they don't know.

 

[3db]

No offense, but I don't think you don't get it. Those are all perfectly valid questions related to their ethernet implementation. It comes down to whether the receiver is an ethernet switch (nothing like traditional HDMI switching) or a router. There are plenty of valid use case for both paths, and regardless of which way they go it isn't going to work for everyone. Once they go a particular way it opens Pandora's box which is full of follow on questions.

Ask a receiver maker who claims they've implemented HDMI 1.4 and their eyes gloss over when you ask them the most basic ethernet / networking question about what their receiver does and they don't know.

Do you honestly think that the Onkyo, Denons, and Yamahas are all experts in video processing or do you think they hired on the expertise? Video processining is immensely far more complicated then throwing a modified network card into a receiver.

 

[BMXTRIX]

This about it from a networking standpoint. First of all, Onkyo, Denon, Sony, etc are not networking companies. They're being asked to implement something they have very little experience with.

Then lets ask some basic questions.

• Will a HDMI receiver act as a dumb switch or a hub?
• Does that work for people who don't have another device that acts as a DHCP server? / Does the receiver has a DHCP server?
• Can you manually assign an IP address?
• Can you turn off the DHCP server if you've already got a router with DHCP functionality?
• Does the receiver itself pull an IP?
• If so, does it then also do NAT for devices that are plugged into it?
• If it does NAT can you forward ports?
• Does it do QoS?
• Does the networking functionality work if the receiver is turned off for peripheral devices?
• Do they support IPv6?
• Do they support TCP/IP and UDP?

The list goes on and on...

I think by now it should be pretty clear that it is indeed a terrible idea.

Well, you are definitely convinced.

Cisco owns Scientific Atlanta... Yes, the bonding of the home network and the video world is colliding and it every question you asked has not one thing to do with HDMI, but the components made.

I would bet that Cisco is one of the companies that pushed for this as video over IP, from a cable television perspective opens the door to new content and interactive capabilities, especially when tied into displays which are setup for this type of content.

Really, current A/V receivers have IP addresses, and current TVs do as well. The question is more about how the two can interact over a HDMI connection instead of a standard Ethernet connection.

That, it seems, would be up to the company implementing the product in the first place. My guess is that most items would act as dumb switches, not as routers. IP information would flow, as it normally does, from your router.