Active HDMI 2.1 Cables Might Be More Common

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,881
With active cables my concern is with input lag.
Don't notice any just moving my mouse with my 35ft optic hdmi cable. Might be different in game, haven't played too many first person games since setting it up.

Edit: doh! Mine aren't fiber optic, somehow got convinced they were at some point. Well, they work fine so I won't complain.
 
Last edited:

joobjoob

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
543
I use a fiber hdmi. I get full RGB 4K@60 from 50 foot run. These are often informally called hdmi 2.0b/c. See link below. At this cost and trouble of returning it makes me care even less of running a new cable for a new TV.

I already can't read many programs menus etc. at 4k. I'm normally an early adopter but almost all my content are DVD and blu ray rips so 480p-1080p. Sitting 15 feet from my TV I can barely tell difference between blu ray amd 4k anyway. I'd bet my experience is pretty common.

Upside? This will make high end 4k tv cheaper. If 8k flops, then those could price crash as well.

Fiber hdmi cable I referred to:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07287LTRZ/ref=psdcmw_3236443011_t1_B077D37MT3?th=1&psc=1
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Meh, question is, how many precious hdmi "8k" inputs you are going to get? 1? Then, its a switch, those are mostly crap at 4k, can't imagine the situation will get better at " 8k"
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,437
What a neat opportunity to multi quote!

Add more conductors with a new connector designed to accommodate them. Not that hard guys.

And since I apparently need to explain everything, yes the cables will need to be bigger, but you know what? They'll be passive. Hell they could make it so the additional conductors are only needed on longer runs so they can be omitted from short cables to keep them thin. It didn't even require revoking the laws of physics either.
The clue is in the thread title, it needs to be an HDMI cable.
Add more conductors and it is no longer HDMI, backward compatibility will be lost.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
Don't hurt yourself when you climb off that horse.

Let me explain this to you in hopes you can understand it. I'll preface this by saying it helps if you first realize you're not all knowing and everyone else isn't a moron.

The very first part of my suggestion was to add more conductors. That means more individual wires making the cable a thicker, not increasing the size of individual wires. This accomplishes something very simple that you clearly missed. Triple the conductors from HDMI 2.0 and you have triple the bandwidth (actually more than HDMI 2.1) without changing any other properties. We're turning a 2 lane highway into 4. This means the length you can make the cable stays the same because you're not required to tinker with the signaling rate.

I guess you also ignored the part of my post where I said normal size cables could still be made to support short runs, so they'd still be cheap. People who have long runs will have to pay more, which they'd have to do anyways, and it wouldn't be $100 by a longshot. Nice comparison with cables that cross an entire fucking ocean though.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
Don't hurt yourself when you climb off that horse.

Let me explain this to you in hopes you can understand it. I'll preface this by saying it helps if you first realize you're not all knowing and everyone else isn't a moron.

The very first part of my suggestion was to add more conductors. That means more individual wires making the cable a thicker, not increasing the size of individual wires. This accomplishes something very simple that you clearly missed. Triple the conductors from HDMI 2.0 and you have triple the bandwidth (actually more than HDMI 2.1) without changing any other properties. We're turning a 2 lane highway into 4. This means the length you can make the cable stays the same because you're not required to tinker with the signaling rate.

I guess you also ignored the part of my post where I said normal size cables could still be made to support short runs, so they'd still be cheap. People who have long runs will have to pay more, which they'd have to do anyways, and it wouldn't be $100 by a longshot. Nice comparison with cables that cross an entire fucking ocean though.

Uhm...simple principle buddy you still can't ignore basic physics, adding extra wires does not allow increased length, thus it doesn't solve the problem, you still have a degradation of signal and need to either add more juice to the signal or add a repeater, and adding additional wires increases the capacity for cross talk as emi shielding can only do so much.............it's not about knowing everything, I never climbed on a high horse, but for an example let's take the original SLI where you could run 2 DVI cables to a monitor, that doesn't increase the length the cable can run before signal drop off, sure it can help with crosstalk but copper is still copper and it has limitations, yes it will increase the bandwidth bit it doesn't mean you can run over 50ft without issues.
 

Anemone

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
902
So which would people prefer you think (kind of forward if 8K gets moving), 8K@60 or 4K@120?
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,437
So which would people prefer you think (kind of forward if 8K gets moving), 8K@60 or 4K@120?
To get the full benefit of 8K you need to sit a fair bit closer (or have a MASSIVE screen), you already need to be quite close to a 4K screen to get the best from it.
4K 120Hz is fine by me.
I will move to 8K if that is the new standard and another feature makes my wallet twitch. Otherwise I am happy where I am.
Bear in mind that most 8K 60Hz screens will do 4K 120Hz anyway, not native but at that res, will you care?
 

jnemesh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
1,084
Yeah, but custom installations are - what - 0.001% of the market?

Most people just buy a TV and a TV stand from IKEA to stand it on, and use the internal TV speakers, and are done. At most they will have an external cable box or Roku sitting right next to the TV as a source, if it doesn't have everything built in. (It is difficult to buy a non-"smart" TV today) Most people could probably even get away with a 1.5ft cable.

Those of us who demand more from our TV setups are a distinct minority, and often seen as frivolous and silly by the majority.

Is more common than you think. I sell just as many TVs in a day as your average best buy...
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
Uhm...simple principle buddy you still can't ignore basic physics, adding extra wires does not allow increased length, thus it doesn't solve the problem, you still have a degradation of signal and need to either add more juice to the signal or add a repeater, and adding additional wires increases the capacity for cross talk as emi shielding can only do so much.............it's not about knowing everything, I never climbed on a high horse, but for an example let's take the original SLI where you could run 2 DVI cables to a monitor, that doesn't increase the length the cable can run before signal drop off, sure it can help with crosstalk but copper is still copper and it has limitations, yes it will increase the bandwidth bit it doesn't mean you can run over 50ft without issues.

You're trying way to hard here. I don't know why, but you're taking everything I say and going the completely wrong direction with it.

Add conductors to HDMI 2.0 to increase bandwidth (not messing with signaling) and the cable distance limit stays the same as HDMI 2.0. This article was about HDMI 2.1 having shorter lengths for passive cables than HDMI 2.0. My suggestion does that.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
You're trying way to hard here. I don't know why, but you're taking everything I say and going the completely wrong direction with it.

Add conductors to HDMI 2.0 to increase bandwidth (not messing with signaling) and the cable distance limit stays the same as HDMI 2.0. This article was about HDMI 2.1 having shorter lengths for passive cables than HDMI 2.0. My suggestion does that.

No offense, but I don't think you are not getting it, for every conductor you add it increases possible crosstalk between the cables thus distorting or losing the signal on a passive cable, which is my whole point this entire time.
The people doing this for a living probably have PHD's if it was as simple as adding extra conductors within the wire bundle it would have been done.
USB/eCat/ and many others have already went through these stages, the higher the bandwidth the less cable you can run, just adding conductors doesn't solve all the other problems, like I said for EVERY additional wire you introduce you also introduce other issues.

There are 2 major problems to tackle, bandwidth has always been a major issue especially considering Backwards compatibility and supplemental technology is essentially a driving part of that, like TV internal scaling input circuitry has also been an issue I mean How many TVs can accept a native 120htz signal at 1440p let alone 1080p?...…...not many after all these years you can probably count them on 2 hands as an example.

Making the cable an active one means you can preserve the standard without modification meaning more devices can be updated to support the new standard, with only needing a possible USB power brick or a USB power connection near HDMI ports. Honestly its probably the only real solution they can come up with without introducing a completely new standard.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
No offense, but I don't think you are not getting it, for every conductor you add it increases possible crosstalk between the cables thus distorting or losing the signal on a passive cable, which is my whole point this entire time.
Twisting or shielding.

The people doing this for a living probably have PHD's if it was as simple as adding extra conductors within the wire bundle it would have been done.
USB/eCat/ and many others have already went through these stages, the higher the bandwidth the less cable you can run, just adding conductors doesn't solve all the other problems, like I said for EVERY additional wire you introduce you also introduce other issues.
I'm sure they do, but they're also working within economic constraints, those of industry standards and backwards compatibility. Hence why I wondered if it might be time to start considering a new standard because you'd need new connectors and all. This would be bad, because it would break compatibility with every HDMI device out there, but this situation is clearly getting worse, not better. Eventually we'll have to take more drastic measures.

There are 2 major problems to tackle, bandwidth has always been a major issue especially considering Backwards compatibility and supplemental technology is essentially a driving part of that, like TV internal scaling input circuitry has also been an issue I mean How many TVs can accept a native 120htz signal at 1440p let alone 1080p?...…...not many after all these years you can probably count them on 2 hands as an example.

Making the cable an active one means you can preserve the standard without modification meaning more devices can be updated to support the new standard, with only needing a possible USB power brick or a USB power connection near HDMI ports. Honestly its probably the only real solution they can come up with without introducing a completely new standard.
You say this stuff like I hadn't spoken about backwards compatibility in my original post. TV's at 1440p? What TV's even have a native 1440p resolution? It's 1080 or 4K and the industry has no interest in 1440p.

Lastly, active cables are only a bandaid on the underlying problem. My whole point was maybe its time to loko at this completely new standard you speak of. I'm glad you were finally able to catch up with me.
 

mtrupi

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
756
Actually there might be a way, but it's not possible unless you do some physics voodoo in a very specific environment under 10000000000% unideal conditions for the actual minuite event to take place that can ignore the principle of the law. Law of Conservation would be a corner stone of the process.
Just to round this out, don't forget about things like video over ethernet. Different encoding schemes can allow for faster throughput. Maybe even wireless. Those that really need more bandwidth will be willing to pay more. I am your below average budget consumer so for me they are not necessary.
 
Top