Active HDMI 2.1 Cables Might Be More Common

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by AlphaAtlas, Jan 18, 2019.

  1. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    5,866
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Considering full duplex optical transmission is what runs basically everything, shouldn't be an issue.
     
  2. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,029
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    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: Jan 19, 2019
  3. joobjoob

    joobjoob Gawd

    Messages:
    544
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    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
     
  4. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,035
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    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"
     
  5. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,735
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Ryoohki360

    Ryoohki360 Gawd

    Messages:
    605
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    HDMI lenght is more of problem for Projector owner imho
     
  7. 1Nocturnal101

    1Nocturnal101 Gawd

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
     
  8. 1Nocturnal101

    1Nocturnal101 Gawd

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    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.
     
    DanNeely and Arcygenical like this.
  9. Anemone

    Anemone Gawd

    Messages:
    892
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    So which would people prefer you think (kind of forward if 8K gets moving), 8K@60 or 4K@120?
     
  10. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,735
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    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?
     
  11. jnemesh

    jnemesh [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,084
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Is more common than you think. I sell just as many TVs in a day as your average best buy...
     
  12. Ultima99

    Ultima99 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,888
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    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.
     
  13. 1Nocturnal101

    1Nocturnal101 Gawd

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    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.
     
    DanNeely likes this.
  14. Ultima99

    Ultima99 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,888
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Twisting or shielding.

    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.

    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.
     
  15. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,032
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Heh I quoted the wrong post. There was a post about ohms law being the limiter...my yet was that we have not "yet" found a way around it. Someday it might be possible...
     
    1Nocturnal101 likes this.
  16. mtrupi

    mtrupi Gawd

    Messages:
    727
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    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.
     
Tags: