Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDMI v. DVI

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 11:21:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
replace DVI but is it a major difference?

More about : hdmi dvi

Anonymous
June 20, 2004 1:21:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

They are compatible but you will need an adapter since the connecters are
different. HDMI combines digital audio and digital video in one connecter,
while dvi is digital video only and the audio is connected seperately. Its
mainly to minimize the mulitple cable mess. Dont think much of it though
since you are likely to have a seperate unit for the audio anyway.

Richard R.



"Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> replace DVI but is it a major difference?
>
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 3:26:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> replace DVI but is it a major difference?

But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a separate
sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?

HDMI transmits what audio? DD 5.1 or just stereo?
Related resources
June 20, 2004 3:59:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

How dare you categorize the demands of the Hollywood film industry as
"stupid connection". Jack Valenti wants it...and you WILL love it.


"LionOfJudah" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4WhBc.126$6k7.105@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
> news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> > replace DVI but is it a major difference?
>
> But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a
separate
> sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?
>
> HDMI transmits what audio? DD 5.1 or just stereo?
>
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 5:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in news:%VaBc.18975
$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> replace DVI but is it a major difference?
>
>
>

I believe the HDMI includes audio signals, whereas DVI doesn't.
June 20, 2004 8:02:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"LionOfJudah" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4WhBc.126$6k7.105@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
> news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
>> replace DVI but is it a major difference?
>
> But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a
> separate
> sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?
>
> HDMI transmits what audio? DD 5.1 or just stereo?
>

These responses miss the point.

HDMI is designed to carry digital video, digital audio, control information,
and European Code compatibility.

The digital audio goes beyond current digital interconnects. It is approved
(much like FireWire/iLink) to carry current and future high resolution audio
formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio. It is also capable of two way
communication between components.

The use of analog component and digital FireWire/iLink and DVI is a first
step while the component industry makes the conversion to HDMI (at least
that is the plan).

Think of it, a DVD/SACD/DVD-A and HD-DVD player, where HDMI is used to
transfer the data to a component that does all the conversion in the digital
format of choice, with no analog steps or conversions along the way.

Richard.
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 8:02:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_xiBc.367024$M3.27571@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "LionOfJudah" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4WhBc.126$6k7.105@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > "Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
> > news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> >> replace DVI but is it a major difference?
> >
> > But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a
> > separate
> > sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?
> >
> > HDMI transmits what audio? DD 5.1 or just stereo?
> >
>
> These responses miss the point.
>
> HDMI is designed to carry digital video, digital audio, control
information,
> and European Code compatibility.
>
> The digital audio goes beyond current digital interconnects. It is
approved
> (much like FireWire/iLink) to carry current and future high resolution
audio
> formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio. It is also capable of two way
> communication between components.
>
> The use of analog component and digital FireWire/iLink and DVI is a first
> step while the component industry makes the conversion to HDMI (at least
> that is the plan).
>
> Think of it, a DVD/SACD/DVD-A and HD-DVD player, where HDMI is used to
> transfer the data to a component that does all the conversion in the
digital
> format of choice, with no analog steps or conversions along the way.

So you think people will dump their high-end sound receivers and replace
with one that supports HDMI?

>
> Richard.
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 9:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_xiBc.367024$M3.27571@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "LionOfJudah" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4WhBc.126$6k7.105@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > "Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in message
> > news:%VaBc.18975$Y3.3056@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> What exactly is the difference between HDMI and DVI? It seems HDMI will
> >> replace DVI but is it a major difference?
> >
> > But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a
> > separate
> > sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?
> >
> > HDMI transmits what audio? DD 5.1 or just stereo?
> >
>
> These responses miss the point.
>
> HDMI is designed to carry digital video, digital audio, control
information,
> and European Code compatibility.
>
> The digital audio goes beyond current digital interconnects. It is
approved
> (much like FireWire/iLink) to carry current and future high resolution
audio
> formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio. It is also capable of two way
> communication between components.
>
> The use of analog component and digital FireWire/iLink and DVI is a first
> step while the component industry makes the conversion to HDMI (at least
> that is the plan).
>
> Think of it, a DVD/SACD/DVD-A and HD-DVD player, where HDMI is used to
> transfer the data to a component that does all the conversion in the
digital
> format of choice, with no analog steps or conversions along the way.
>
> Richard.

Once receivers incorporate HDMI, this will be a nice feature. Your receiver
will then be able to do all the audio and video switching without any loss
of quality. You'll have fewer cords to deal with and less work to do with
the remote (i.e. you won't have to change the receiver's audio input and the
tv's video input - it will all be done in the receiver).

Another advantage of HDMI is that it is supposed to be cheaper and the
cables can be made longer than DVI.

That will be really good if they can carry SACD/DVD-A audio. Right now I've
got a bunch of expensive cables to carry the analog signal from my DVD-A
player to my receiver. So I have SIX audio cables plus a digital coax cable
plus the component video cables (essentially 3 cables there)! With HDMI
those 10 cables could be replaced with ONE. Pretty darn nice if you ask me!

Brad

Brad
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 11:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"LionOfJudah" wrote:
> So you think people will dump their high-end sound receivers and replace
> with one that supports HDMI?

Not right away...but when the time comes for them to upgrade or replace,
they sure will get a receiver with HDMI when they realize the number of
cables eliminated. As for new HT folks buying their first equipment, this
is where HDMI will have it's biggest growth over the next 5 years.

borromini
June 21, 2004 3:13:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <_xiBc.367024$M3.27571@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> The digital audio goes beyond current digital interconnects. It is approved
> (much like FireWire/iLink) to carry current and future high resolution audio
> formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio. It is also capable of two way
> communication between components.

This is something new. What kind of two-way communication?

Firewire has this capability but only Mitsubishi implemented it. So
having the capability doesn't mean anything unless companies put it to
use and also offer interoperability between brands.

Otherwise, it would be ludicrous to have to connect Sony TVs to only
Sony receivers via HDMI.

Now, there are HDMI to DVI adapters. Is it possible to have DVI to HDMI
adapters at all? Where would the control data be carried?

And what's happening to Firewire? Is it pretty much dead?
June 21, 2004 4:40:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Otherwise, it would be ludicrous to have to connect Sony TVs to only Sony
receivers via HDMI.

[Interoperability is a major component of this standard. Sony was hired by
the industry to achieve this goal with iLink and now a group has taken this
on with HDMI. But only time will tell.]

Now, there are HDMI to DVI adapters. Is it possible to have DVI to HDMI
adapters at all? Where would the control data be carried?

[Yes there will be a way to use a DVI interconnect with an HDMI
interconnect, but the two way communication, digital audio and European code
features will be lost.]

And what's happening to Firewire? Is it pretty much dead?

[The FCC has mandated that hardware include either Firewire/iLink or HDMI
for the next few years and then a mandate for HDMI will be a mandated
feature. DVI and Firewire/iLink will be included as optional interconnects
for quite some time, as will some use of composite, component, analog video,
Firewire, and DVI].

Richard
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 5:30:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote (in part):

>How dare you categorize the demands of the Hollywood film industry as
>"stupid connection". Jack Valenti wants it...and you WILL love it.
>
>
>"LionOfJudah" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:4WhBc.126$6k7.105@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> But isn't HDMI a pretty stupid connection? Won't most people use a
>>separate sound system using digital coax or optical anyway?

Actually, I've come to value what Jack Valenti has to say. Of course,
the most valuable opinions are those of someone who is reliably right,
but such people are hard to find. Nearly as valuable, though, are the
opinions of someone who is reliably wrong. Jack Valenti is such a
person. Not because he advocates what's best for the movie industry
to the detriment of all others (that's his job, after all) but because
his efforts work against the movie industry as well. Find out what he
thinks, and the right answer is sure to be the opposite.

I think I first realized this when prerecorded videotapes began to get
popular. Valenti was against the rise of the mom-and-pop video rental
stores because they bought one or two copies of a tape and rented them
out at a buck or two a day. He thought consumers should be happy to
shell out $50-$70 to own copies of these great works of art. The
industry responded by keeping the prices very high until the video
stores had bought their copies, then dropping them to sell to the few
individuals who were still interested. They continued that with tape
even after a few experiments showed they would make more money by
releasing the tapes at a consumer-friendly price in the first place;
video stores bought more copies, and there was more consumer demand
for just-released tapes.

Of course, far from being a threat to the movie industry, video rental
turned out to be its salvation. Not the first nor the last. Arguably
its first salvation, seen as a threat, was (drum roll, please) . . .
Television! Where would the industry be today without TV and videos
you could rent or own? Movies would essentially disappear after their
theater runs, many without making back their production costs.
Restoration of old movies wouldn't be cost effective without sales to
the video market. But Hollywood saw television as a threat, and one
response was the mess of different aspect ratios we have today.
Wide-screen movies were introduced for one reason: the industry wanted
something that wouldn't play well on TV.

Now we have this digital copy protection scheme, and special cables
and connectors to enforce it, that promise to cause all sorts of
hassles whether you're trying to copy a show or not. Nothing is
simple because it all has to support the copy protection dialog or it
won't work. So you can't route things as easily as you could with
NTSC. I want to run a feed to my projector and another to a TV in the
kitchen and maybe to one or more TVs elsewhere. That's easy and
inexpensive with analog, difficult and very expensive with digital.

But it didn't have to be that way. TV stations and networks couldn't
have tolerated that, so they used a different standard, SDI (Serial
Digital Interface). I won't argue the relative merits of SDI vs.
DVI/HDMI (I don't know enough about either to do so anyway), but SDI
has one big advantage: you can send it where you want without hassles.
It can go over coax, cut to length with BNC connectors attached. The
sort of thing TV stations have been working with forever (conveniently
forgetting the brief dalliance with PL-259 connectors, for the
old-timers out there). Split it to as many feeds as you need with a
distribution amp, ship it a couple hundred feet (maybe with booster
amps) or switch to fiber for longer runs. As easy to work with as
analog video was, except for the inevitable learning curve. And yes,
one SDI cable can carry video and several channels of embedded audio.
At least six, maybe eight; I forget the spec. At home, I wouldn't
attempt to run DVI cable, cut it to length and attach connectors, even
if I knew where to buy the parts.

The high hassle factor means that home theater enthusiasts will tend
to buy less equipment because they can't hook it all together easily
and get it to do what they want. Right now you're pretty much limited
to the number of source devices you can hook to your primary display
all at once. Otherwise you have to swap cables, and nobody is going
to put up with that for long. Less equipment slows the demand for
media to work with it (DVD-HD, D-VHS or what have you). So Hollywood
shoots itself in the foot again. Each shot hurts, but they think the
pain is caused by all those pesky customers trying to rip them off.
So they cry, "Ouch!" and keep on shooting.

E. Ogden <eoyymm@nycap.rr.com>
where yymm is the current year and month (spam that!)
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 6:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Now, there are HDMI to DVI adapters. Is it possible to have DVI to HDMI
> adapters at all? Where would the control data be carried?

I doubt it. Everything I've read says it's backward compatible. Some future
products that have HDMI will supposedly include an HDMI -> DVI adapter, at
least I know this is the case with the upcoming Samsung DVD-941 dvd player.
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 8:49:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

LionOfJudah wrote:
> So you think people will dump their high-end sound receivers and replace
> with one that supports HDMI?

The audio/videophiles always will. That's what makes them
audio/videophiles. Gotta have the latest and greatest at any cost!
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 1:58:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> wrote in
news:7_rBc.20430$Y3.5414@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>> Now, there are HDMI to DVI adapters. Is it possible to have DVI to
>> HDMI
>> adapters at all? Where would the control data be carried?
>
> I doubt it. Everything I've read says it's backward compatible. Some
> future products that have HDMI will supposedly include an HDMI -> DVI
> adapter, at least I know this is the case with the upcoming Samsung
> DVD-941 dvd player.
>

The DirecTV HD Tivo came with a HDMI to DVI adapter.
!