DVI & HDMI questions

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

I'm about to get a CRT HDTV, and all the models I'm considering have at
least one HDMI input. I'm also interesting in one day replacing my old Sony
DVD player with a model that can upconvert to 1080i. Both models I found
after a quick seach -- the Toshiba SD-5970 and Samsung DVD-HD481 -- have DVI
outputs. I assume there's a DVI-to-HDMI cable out there somewhere (how much
would it cost?), but would it be better to wait for a DVD player with an
HDMI output, assuming there will be such a thing?

Mark

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

"Mark Hanson" <myspamhole2004@yahoo.com> wrote
> I'm about to get a CRT HDTV, and all the models I'm considering have at
> least one HDMI input. I'm also interesting in one day replacing my old
Sony
> DVD player with a model that can upconvert to 1080i. Both models I found
> after a quick seach -- the Toshiba SD-5970 and Samsung DVD-HD481 -- have
DVI
> outputs. I assume there's a DVI-to-HDMI cable out there somewhere (how
much
> would it cost?),

DVI-HDMI cables for less than $10
http://www.monoprice.com

>but would it be better to wait for a DVD player with an
>HDMI output, assuming there will be such a thing?

There will be, but it won't be a standard definition DVD player. It'll be
HD-DVD and/or BluRay. Unless you really need a new DVD player, I'd say to
save your cash and wait for high definition DVD (HD-DVD and.or BluRay).
They are both on the horizon and could see daylight by the end of this year.
(Probably more like 18 months though.) Upconverting 480i/p to 1080i makes
little sense (you don't have enough data in a 480 signal to fill a 1080
resolution) -- and in my experience, actually looks horrible compared to
keeping it at it's native 480 resolution...

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

"Eras" <none@nospam.none.not> wrote in message
news:s45Gd.3390$re1.2780@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Too add to my previous post:
>
> Plus, more than likely HDMI (or DVI) isn't really going to give any
> 'advantage' over component cables with a CRT. A CRT is analog, so any
> 'benefit' with using digital cables over component comes down to which has
> a
> better D/A conversion: the device (STB, DVD player, etc) or the TV
> itself.
>
> I also have a CRT HDTV and can't note any difference in picture quality
> between using an DVI-HDMI cable versus component cables. (That is, with
> the
> cable STB as the source.) The only reason why I'm using an HDMI-DVI cable
> between the TV/STB is simply to free up one of the sets of component
> inputs
> as I have all of it's component inputs being used by DVD player and game
> consoles...
>
Wrong; there are cheap enough units out there already. Sony has one that is
even reviewed this month is Sound & Vision. But you might be better off
using the interconnect with the player set to 480i and let the TV do all the
conversions in digital mode.


Richard.

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

"Dick" <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rlfiu0900ooecgj7cikm2cv3qk3tcsumhb@4ax.com...
> The Toshiba SD5970 has HDMI output not DVI and comes with a 1 meter
> HDMI cable. The video that is upconverted by the dvd player looks
> better than letting the TV do the conversion IMHO.

It outputs HDMI? I looked a a photo on Crutchfield.com, and it has a DVI
plug. Is that photo wrong, or has the unit been upgraded?

Mark

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

Dennis Mayer wrote:

>
> I'm reading that HDMI only carries Dolby Digital 2.0,
> not DD 5.1??

You are reading something that is wrong. All DD audio has the same
carrier frequency. The cable has no idea what the channel configuration is.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

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

> Wrong; there are cheap enough units out there already. Sony has one that
is
> even reviewed this month is Sound & Vision. But you might be better off
> using the interconnect with the player set to 480i and let the TV do all
the
> conversions in digital mode.

I went back and re-read both of my replies twice, yet can't conclude exactly
what "cheap enough units out there already" devices you are refering to.

Are you refering to a DVD player now available that is actually employing
true HD media? If so, I'm interested in which model this Sony is -- not to
mention where true HD media for it is available. (Not refering to D-VHS, of
course.)

If you are refering to a standard DVD player that upconverts standard DVD
media to HD, I don't recall stating that they didn't exist. I've seen them.
I simply questioned the purpose of such a player. Using both my TV and a
STB, I took a look at upconverting my DVD's output to 1080i and found it be
much better just to keep it at 480p. A standard DVD player capable of
upconversion seems to me more like a "gimmick" and a way for the
manufacturer to justify slapping "High Definition" on the player. What good
is 1080i coming out if the source (standard DVD) is 480?

Just trying to see where you are coming from... (?)

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

"Mark Hanson" <myspamhole2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2EbGd.3806$qu2.1212@trndny08...
> "Dick" <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:rlfiu0900ooecgj7cikm2cv3qk3tcsumhb@4ax.com...
>> The Toshiba SD5970 has HDMI output not DVI and comes with a 1 meter
>> HDMI cable. The video that is upconverted by the dvd player looks
>> better than letting the TV do the conversion IMHO.

If that is true than that Toshiba set has a poor quality chip set for this
conversion function. Many sets do a superior job.

Richard.

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10uita49h6a345d@corp.supernews.com...
> Dennis Mayer wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm reading that HDMI only carries Dolby Digital 2.0,
>> not DD 5.1??
>
> You are reading something that is wrong. All DD audio has the same carrier
> frequency. The cable has no idea what the channel configuration is.
>
> Matthew

I believe that was correct (HDMI only carried 2-channel audio) but that
something was coming (or was already here) to rectify that.

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

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
>
> Steven de Mena wrote:
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:10uita49h6a345d@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Dennis Mayer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm reading that HDMI only carries Dolby Digital 2.0,
> >>> not DD 5.1??

HDMI promises both high definition video and audio. But don't be fooled,
HDMI does no
We are just starting to see new high-end HDTV’s, DVD players, and audio
products including HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface)
connectivity. HDMI, which was conceived as the successor to DVI, for the
passage of digital video signals also has the capability to carry
uncompressed digital audio and video signals together through the use of
one cable and connector. This means that it has the potential to bypass
all other digital audio connectors including coax and optical (TosLink)
and 1394. Wow! The implications are staggering. With 5.1 HDMI included
in A/V Receivers, DVD players/recorders (including future Blu-ray and HD
DVD players), Satellite Receivers and Cable HD Receivers, it eliminates
the need for digital audio – coax and optical – and 1394 entirely to
carry digital audio signals. It also makes it easy for the consumer to
attach one cable instead of several from their Satellite/Cable HD
Receiver, and DVD player to A/V Receiver to TV.



However, I was very troubled at the recent C.E.D.I.A. Expo to find out
that one has to be careful about HDMI these days. Why do I say this?
Both Audio and Video products currently on the market that utilize HDMI
only passes 2.0 digital audio, and not full-blown 5.1 surround sound
audio. These products include A/V Receivers, DVD players/recorders, and
HDTV’s. Of course, to be fair, Silicon Image – the creator of HDMI --
claims that it can do 5.1 audio easily. However, the hard fact is that
none of the connections currently on the market today are passing 5.1
audio! In an ideal world, HDMI has the capability to carry all HD video
and digital audio signals including Dolby Digital, DTS, DVD-Audio and
SACD via one connector plus full-blown HDTV and HD-DVD signals as well.
This is a terrific scenario as is anything that will cut down on cabling
clutter is a great thing. The back of my home theater looks like
hundreds of strands of spaghetti wires.



I’m just warning caution right now, and making you aware of the
limitation of current products in the marketplace. We haven't eliminated
everything just yet, and you should be aware of it. Clearly, it will
take time for the audio companies to include full-blown HDMI switching
capability as it took several years for component video switching to
become commonplace. Today, several manufacturers now include component
video switching with up conversion (from composite and S-Video) on
numerous models, which is pretty neat.



Several upscale HDTV’s now include HDMI input(s), and a handful of DVD
players include HDMI output. Sending both digital audio and video
signals directly to the TV via HDMI does simplify matters up converting
those already pristine DVD images to near HD quality. Audio, on the
other hand, from that DVD player will only be sent at Dolby Digital 2.0
quality to be handled by the TV’s internal audio system. And, if you're
using the TV’s speakers and Dolby Digital processing, you won’t know the
difference.

However, if you thought that by sending those audio signals via HDMI to
an A/V Receiver using HDMI inputs, it would process full-blown Dolby
Digital and DTS, you’d be mistaken. Today, those products only
pass/receive Dolby Digital 2.0 audio. To obtain full-blown surround
sound, you would have to use either the digital audio connectors or 1394
(if available) from your DVD player or Satellite Receiver. Of course, to
obtain the best digital video and digital audio signals overall, you
would simply send video HDMI signals to the display directly, and
digital audio signals directly to the A/V Receiver or Processor using
the digital audio connectors of both products. You’ve lost the
ease-of-use switching capability, but retained pristine signals.



Going forward, 2005 versions of satellite and cable HD Receivers may
include 5.1 audio HDMI capabilities. You will have to double-check to
make sure. Within the audio community, HDMI switching capability will
follow later in 2005 and 2006. Ultimately, it can be expected from all
of the major brands. Initially, HDMI switching capability will only be
available on a handful of high-end audio products. In turn, those audio
manufacturers that started including HDMI will follow with HDMI up
conversion from all other video sources. Presently, only two audio
manufacturers have announced A/V Receiver products with true 5.1 audio
HDMI switching capabilities – Denon and Pioneer -- that will reach
market early next year; although, it should be noted that both models
are quite pricey costing several thousand dollars.



Going in a different direction, other companies like Harman and Yamaha,
for example, are including Faroudja circuitry to enhance standard
definition video signals from their A/V Receivers. Denon has just
announced the inclusion of Silicon Optix’s Realta HQV video enhancement
chip on their new DVD-5910 universal DVD player utilizing HDMI output.
Will it pass 5.1 audio? We’re not sure as it won’t be available until
next year. While it’s not totally clear if TV manufacturers will start
including 5.1 HDMI capability with 2005/2006 sets, they will start
adding multiple HDMI inputs to accommodate numerous video products with
HDMI outputs. TV companies like Hitachi and Toshiba have already started
adding multiple HDMI inputs on the backs of the top-end HDTV’s.



So, for the time being if you are passing digital audio from your DVD
Player or Satellite Receiver, I suggest that you use the either the
digital coax or digital optical output found on the back of the product.
The bottom line -- potential buyers of new DVD and audio products with
HDMI capability will have to ascertain if it passes 2.0 digital audio or
truly 5.1 digital audio. It could be years before true 5.1 HDMI reaches
the masses. Digital audio and 1394 are here today, and are proven
technologies that can pass all types of digital audio signals. These are
the connectors of choice to pass all types of stereo and surround sound.
As an aside, 1394 will also pass HD signals from a display device to a
recording device retaining pristine image quality.


__________________
Gregg R. Lengling, W9DHI






> >>
> >>You are reading something that is wrong. All DD audio has the same carrier
> >>frequency. The cable has no idea what the channel configuration is.
> >>
> >>Matthew
> >
> >
> > I believe that was correct (HDMI only carried 2-channel audio) but that
> > something was coming (or was already here) to rectify that.
> >
>
> If HDMI is carrying only two channels then it would make sense that they
> would be analog. There is no (reasonable) way to restrict the content of
> a digital carrier.
>
> Of course, if you have a citation, I'd be happy to read it.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game

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

Sorry, I see what you were refering to now:

>> but would it be better to wait for a DVD player with an
>> HDMI output, assuming there will be such a thing?

> There will be, but it won't be a standard definition DVD player.

When I wrote that reply I was thinking only about HDMI. At that time, I
knew there were SD-DVD players with DVI out, but didn't know there were any
with HDMI.

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

Richard wrote:

>
> But it is related. Reports are that some hardware has not fully implemented
> the audio side of HDMI. This, if true, is really going to add only that much
> more fog and mist to the issues the consumer must cope with. First they are
> told that HDMI will be an advance over DVI because it will carry digital
> audio, including 5.1 DD and DTS and SACD/DVD-A; not it looks more like a
> pipe dream. It's a jungle out there.
>

The fundamental issue is that it would cost the manufacturers more money
to convert everything to DD 2.0 than to pass the signal unmolested. Why
would the manufacturer want to add complexity and cost in order to
reduce functionality?

Matthew (my guess is there is a configuration problem somewhere)