Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hdmi 2.0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hdmi 2.0

    Some of the specs on 2.0 have been released. Supports up to 32 audio channels. I just can't imagine that in home use. Or the cost involved.

    http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/h...channel-audio/

  • #2
    Re: Hdmi 2.0

    Perhaps we've hit the point of diminishing returns on video playback. Take phone screens for example. The human eye can only differentiate up to 300 ppi, yet the phone manufacturers keep pushing well past that because they want to out-spec each other.

    I would say we hit the point of diminishing returns at 44 KHz/16 bit audio, but that would just lead to a massive online argument. ;)
    Isn't it about time we started answering rhetorical questions?

    Paul Carmody's DIY Audio Projects
    Twitter: @undefinition1

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hdmi 2.0

      I could see maybe a use for 15 channels plus 2 sub channels for audio, but I couldn't imagine 32 channels.

      The only way I could see it taking advantage of 32 channels is if they encoded the sound like a video game. It would give the sound sample, volume, and position of each channel, and the receiver would determine which speaker(s) to play from and how loud.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hdmi 2.0

        Dolby Atmos is going to be something like 63 channels, IIRC

        I imagine we'll start seeing home-based systems similar to Atmos in the next few years.

        रेतुर्न तो थे स्रोत
        return to the source
        leviathan system thread
        deadhorse thread
        shockwave build thread

        instagram :: greywarden_13

        in war, victory . . . in peace, vigilance . . . in death, sacrifice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hdmi 2.0

          Man... why? The speaker and amplification costs are already into diminishing returns above 5.1. Consider the hassle in placement, wiring, and acoustic treatment needed to realize the potential. Or the complexities of recording and mixing a dozen or more channels.

          Not to mention the physical limitations of serial data transfer at bitrates high enough to carry HD (or better) video, 60fps, 3D, >8-bit color depth, so many audio channels, Ethernet, and whatever other kitchen sink they feel like tossing in.

          Sounds like feature-itis to me. Anyone know how something like that could be justified?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hdmi 2.0

            I imagine the cord is going to be 3 inches thick with a max length of 3 feet. And it's going to cost $300.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hdmi 2.0

              Is any of this related to mini dsp?
              Kenny

              http://www.diy-ny.com/
              DIY NY/NJ 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGwA...ature=youtu.be
              Man does not live by measurements alone, a little music helps.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hdmi 2.0

                I would think with the cost of digital amps coming down and DSP becoming more ubiquitous the 32 channel standard would be pretty easy to accomplish. I don't see an occasion where 32 sets of 5-way binding posts clutter the back of an AVR or processor, but I could see 32 individual analog outputs and 32 active 3-4" full range speakers around the listening room.

                Of course, probably 90% of personal listening spaces will probably not benefit.
                Don't listen to me - I have not sold any $150,000 speakers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hdmi 2.0

                  I think I rather deal with speaker wires and binding post then RCA cables and electrical wire to each speaker.

                  Perhaps 32 channels can down mix to 7.1/2 and 9.1/2 really well. I just can't see a home environment with more then that.

                  15 pairs of monoprice cheapest in wall speakers would be about $600. Anything high end would be off the scale.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hdmi 2.0

                    I wish HDMI would go away all together.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hdmi 2.0

                      I was very much against it too. Having all in one cable is nice, but I don't like that they keep pushing specs way past available tech. Blu Ray doesn't even support true colour.

                      In a perfect world, we wouldn't need HDCP and 1080p could be digital or analog and the best format would win without intervention from Wal-Mart. I feel we are in the dark ages with too many companies getting early licensing for movie releases and not being able to get everything from one source. I guess a different topic, but I miss a lot of movies because they aren't easily legally available and I don't torrent movies.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hdmi 2.0

                        Well, the US is the "odd-man-out" in the World-wide video format game. The Japanese have gone to their version of D-PAL and so has most of the "modern" World. Their TV's will play ANY current or foreseeable video format, with at worst, the installation of now an SD chip or such. The Japanese and German (and other) D-PAL 4K system isn't compatible with the US cobbled-up quasi-4K video, which is REALLY ONLY a computer monitor display protocol. TV or video in 4K will be the "Ultra-Violet" format discs, the 100mm discs that use a true blue (not blue-green) laser to read them. If you look at the specs of the newest top-of-the line DSLR cameras that shoot true "grab frame" video (from a 60 fps video, you can "grab" any frame and make a full resolution hard copy photograph from it, with your tag-along 6-9 TB SSHD in your pocket!) you can see what the "World Specs" are for "4K" video. They aren't anything like we are going to be getting. We're getting shafted on S/N ratio, pixel refresh rate, color space and depth. Color space and depth are the biggest differences between the 60" $599 TV and the 60" $5999 TV. The Munsel International Color Standard World Color Space, says the average person can differentiate between 25600-odd different shades of colors and 64 shades of those colors from lightest to darkest at high Noon in Bern Switzerland on a Sunny day. A good video card and monitor reproduces 256 colors in 8 shades of depth. This is 1/1,000,000th of what the human eye can perceive. Projected film could reproduce 1/10,000th (at best) of what the eye could perceive (NOT MOVIE PRINTS!) A very,very,very good four color LED TV can reproduce about 4500 colors and 12 shades of color depth in a totally black room. CRT's can still do better, and the Japanese prefer them 8 to one over any other type of TV. Cheap color TVs also don't turn the screen completely black for 3 thousandths of a second after each frame (there are 30 FRAMES per second in US TV, consisting of two FIELDS per FRAME). This lack of "blanking" smears action in sports, reduces the contrast and apparent differences in brightness and purity of color even more beyond the "compression" used in broadcast TV and the "ultra compression" used in cable TV. If you could see in "Master Control" at a TV station what the "closed circuit" or satellite/fiber optic feed looks like on the typical 32" Blondell/Williamson CRT monitor compared to the "ON AIR" picture on an identical perfectly matched monitor, after compression, limiting,clipping, AVG "stair-stepping" (for old TVs), etc., not to mention the audio, you'd go away crying.
                        If you have Satellite TV, your LNB and indoor box limit you to no better than a "poor" broadcast signal quality picture. Your dish just isn't big enough for the 17,600 mile trip. You get a pico-volt signal with 26dB of noise (of the Universe) on top of it. They dither away the noise (ala Dolby), but your LNB has a built-in noise figure of at least 21 dB, plus the noise of the coax. You're watching a copy of a copy of a copy of an MP3 file that wasn't done well ever if it was audio.
                        If the "best format" would win, how come VHS became dominate? Even S-VHS on SP mode is lower quality than my standard Beta-Max on SXP (super extended play, 9 hours recording time) and with a $110 circuit board anyone can convert any Beta into a D-(digital) Beta machine that will record 18 hours on a standard tape with better than Blu-Ray quality? (1280P/85 dB S/N ratio-better than any video source available for under $30,000,00).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hdmi 2.0

                          VHS won because of cheap licensing and cheaper products. It wasn't porn, it was because consumers could get cheap recorders, players, and blank disk. Sony screwed up. Simple as that, in the home market anyway. Its my understanding that broadcast used batamax until everything became digital. They required the higher resolution and quality that VHS couldn't support. Sony is good at creating useful products (sometimes) and horrible at marketing and making standards. JVC decided to let anyone make a VHS player and tape from what I've heard a few pennies per VHS logo and the market was flooded from low end cheap to higher end players and everything in between. Even though it was lower quality, TV sizes were still small. 32" being pretty much the biggest TV you could buy, so they didn't really look that bad. I know that home projection existed, but even the ones I saw were small compared to today's screens. Looking back, it would have been nice if batamax was more popular, but I've NEVER seen a rental store that had a single batamax tape. Only VHS.

                          When it came to blu-ray vs HDDVD, the studios were split and it was kind of a mess. From the way I recall it. Wal-Mart announced that it would only sell blu-ray players and HDDVD died over night. The market already had a fix. Players that could play both. They were just taking off, but I really don't see why both couldn't exist. In this case, consumers or the porn market (if you believe that story) had zero impact in who won. A corporation did. Before Wal-Marts announcement, it really looked like they both would have co-existed with multi-format players.

                          Another problem with a single winner, where would HDMI be if their was a second source a input? They seem to be a little loose with updated versions that end up costing the consumer more money. I don't need anything beyond 1.3 myself.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Hdmi 2.0

                            VHS won because of cheap licensing and cheaper products. It wasn't porn, it was because consumers could get cheap recorders, players, and blank disk. Sony screwed up. Simple as that, in the home market anyway. Its my understanding that broadcast used batamax until everything became digital. They required the higher resolution and quality that VHS couldn't support. Sony is good at creating useful products (sometimes) and horrible at marketing and making standards. JVC decided to let anyone make a VHS player and tape from what I've heard a few pennies per VHS logo and the market was flooded from low end cheap to higher end players and everything in between. Even though it was lower quality, TV sizes were still small. 32" being pretty much the biggest TV you could buy, so they didn't really look that bad. I know that home projection existed, but even the ones I saw were small compared to today's screens. Looking back, it would have been nice if batamax was more popular, but I've NEVER seen a rental store that had a single batamax tape. Only VHS.

                            When it came to blu-ray vs HDDVD, the studios were split and it was kind of a mess. From the way I recall it. Wal-Mart announced that it would only sell blu-ray players and HDDVD died over night. The market already had a fix. Players that could play both. They were just taking off, but I really don't see why both couldn't exist. In this case, consumers or the porn market (if you believe that story) had zero impact in who won. A corporation did. Before Wal-Marts announcement, it really looked like they both would have co-existed with multi-format players.

                            Another problem with a single winner, where would HDMI be if their was a second source a input? They seem to be a little loose with updated versions that end up costing the consumer more money. I don't need anything beyond 1.3 myself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Hdmi 2.0

                              Originally posted by generic View Post
                              VHS won because of cheap licensing and cheaper products. It wasn't porn, it was because consumers could get cheap recorders, players, and blank disk. Sony screwed up.
                              Porn played a part .. but the biggest hit to Beta came in recording time. VHS came out with 2 hour recording a year before Beta. At the time, the big events on TV were the Movies of the Week and Miniseries .. all which ran 2 hours a night. By the time Beta could record 2 hours, VHS was up to 4 .. and that meant users could record football games and other sporting events.

                              So longer recording time combined with lower licensing (and porn) = VHS win.

                              And yes, Beta always did look better, but remember TVs back the the early days or VCRs were not exactly hi-rez monitors. The biggest screen was 25" and composite video inputs did not really become a thing until the mid 80s .. so your VCR was hooked up through a RF modulator and you put your TV on channel 3. I think I still have the RF switch I used to switch between antenna, the VCR, and my Atari 2600.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X