HDMI 1.1 & 1.3--which one?

[JoeSp]

I though I posted this in this forum but I posted this elsewhere and I think I should have posted here:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2006/04/multi-channel_a.php

While it does state that you can use analog inputs for transfer of 5.1 (and 7.1 if you receiver allows) most receivers except for the very newest will allow for anything other than direct passthru to your speakers. That is why I believe in order to stepup completely to the next generation of high def movie viewing you will need HDMI 1.3. I also believe you will eventually need a new receiver if your current one can not pass 7.1.

 

[John Kotches]

1) All players supporting DD+ / DD / DTS / DTS-HD etc have included decoders.

2) The output of these decoders is PCM.

3) The HDMI 1.1 interface is spec'd out to 8 channels of 24/192K audio in addition to 1080p @ 60 Hz (actually 1920x1200 @ 60Hz).

So really all you need is HDMI 1.1 on both ends. We as consumers have gotten into the mindset that we have to send a bitstream from the player to the receiver / processor. It's not necessary.

Waiting on 1.3 is actually slowing adoption.

Regards,

 

[JoeSp]

John, while I agree with your statement the following bothers me: "

"There are players that were announced with various combinations of optional codecs, one Blu-ray player was announced to support DTS HD but not Dolby TrueHD, another player supported True HD but just as a 2 channel feature. A manufacturer is not obliged to suit the player with optional codecs, so a closer look at the specs would help on the selecting decision of the player, or even the format."

This quote from my posting states that not all players will decode all HD audio formats. They might pass them but not decode them."

My rational for needing a new receiver comes from the following:

In September 2005, Dolby announced that A/V receivers capable of processing PCM over their HDMI 1.1 inputs should also be able to have sufficient bandwidth to accept the HD video and the PCM multi-channel audio decoded by the Hi-def DVD player. Any HDMI suited receiver should be capable to input the PCM and reproduce the higher bandwidth of the soundtracks. Initially, it was believed that those HDMI 1.1 suited A/V receivers would have to use analog cables from the multi-channel audio connectors (as with DVD-Audio), and wait until specification version 1.3 of HDMI be completed (and eventually change to a 1.3 compliant A/V receiver).

"According to Dolby, there should be no need to replace an HDMI 1.1 suited receiver to get the benefit of the higher-bit audio formats. However, when using the latest HDMI version 1.3 from player to receiver, the decoding would not have to happen in the player, the connection would stream the native mandatory and optional audio formats to the HDMI 1.3 suited A/V receiver, which would perform the decoding job. Reportedly, DTS intends to suit players as well as receivers with their decoders, Dolby was quoted as concentrating initially on players."

I would personally rather have a AV receiver do the decoding. I feel that I have better control over the sound field that my speakers deliver. I would rather have the player deliver the picture and give me adjustments there and allow a AV receiver to deal with the sound. I think there would be more options and then if the player does not decode the HD audio codec that I want to listen to then the receiver can do it( which as I stated earlier is where I would rather have it done anyway). By doing this I do not have to be concerned over which HD audio format a player decodes. All players will be able to pass all formats thru HDMI 1.3 to a HDMI 1.3 equiped AV receiver. Pick the right receiver and you will be able to play any format you want.

This is my reasoning behind the need for HDMI 1.3.

 

[gizzer777]

yeah right

After all the $$ I spent on a new Elite receiver w/1.1 pass thru and 2 new 1.1 HDMI HD Tv's...I am running out to buy 1.3 as soon as it shows up...NOT!!!..

Does Superaudio or DTS audio ring a bell?

It will take years to get this new format (both video and audio across to the mainstream...if ever!). I consider myself somewhat of a semi Video audiophile (Music still thru an old MacinTosh 6100 series tube integrated set and stereo only) and DTS thru omnipolar suits me just fine for a while! Of course the Velodyne MiniVee does not hurt either!

 

[JoeSp]

My problem is with those movie studios that do not provide all audio formats. So you could end up with a movie whose hd audio format your hd player does not decode. Then you would be listening to only the standard audio you would receive from a regular DVD.

I wonder if HDMI 1.1 could be updated to 1.3?

 

[Ilya]

HD DVD specification mandates that all players must be able to decode the new codecs. For example, all current (and future) HD DVD players can decode 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus (the advanced codec used on all HD DVD titles), and can send it out as multi-channel LPCM over HDMI 1.1. Dolby TrueHD is currently supported only on two channels, but there are posts on the Internet stating that the upcoming 2.0 firmware update will enable multi-channel Dolby TrueHD decoding. So, you will not need to wait for a new AV receiver to enjoy Dolby TrueHD sound. HDMI 1.1 will do just fine.

Unlike HD DVD, Blu-ray specification does not mandate decoders for the advanced codecs, and most of the first Blu-ray players will not be able to decode even Dolby Digital Plus. However, even for Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3 is not needed, as all current and announced upcoming Blu-ray titles do not use advanced codecs and use LPCM and Dolby Digital instead, and HDMI 1.1 can handle both.

HDMI 1.3 is a great specification, and it will have its advantages in the future: a year or two from now, when the first TV sets and receivers that can take advantage of it will appear. But today, it is not required and really doesn't give you any advantages as far as HD DVD or Blu-ray are concerned.

 

[Ilya]

I wonder if HDMI 1.1 could be updated to 1.3?

I don't think so. I believe a different hardware might be needed.

 

[John Kotches]

Correct, it is not a firmware update. It is a hardware update.

Cheers,

 

[John Kotches]

John, while I agree with your statement the following bothers me: "

"There are players that were announced with various combinations of optional codecs, one Blu-ray player was announced to support DTS HD but not Dolby TrueHD, another player supported True HD but just as a 2 channel feature. A manufacturer is not obliged to suit the player with optional codecs, so a closer look at the specs would help on the selecting decision of the player, or even the format."

This is just stupid audio codec design by the Blu-ray consortium.

Lowest Common Denominator is Dolby Digital and DTS. Not DTS-HD or DD+. So each disc must include one of these tracks which can be passed by a 1.1 interface.

In September 2005, Dolby announced that A/V receivers capable of processing PCM over their HDMI 1.1 inputs should also be able to have sufficient bandwidth to accept the HD video and the PCM multi-channel audio decoded by the Hi-def DVD player. Any HDMI suited receiver should be capable to input the PCM and reproduce the higher bandwidth of the soundtracks. Initially, it was believed that those HDMI 1.1 suited A/V receivers would have to use analog cables from the multi-channel audio connectors (as with DVD-Audio), and wait until specification version 1.3 of HDMI be completed (and eventually change to a 1.3 compliant A/V receiver).

"According to Dolby, there should be no need to replace an HDMI 1.1 suited receiver to get the benefit of the higher-bit audio formats. However, when using the latest HDMI version 1.3 from player to receiver, the decoding would not have to happen in the player, the connection would stream the native mandatory and optional audio formats to the HDMI 1.3 suited A/V receiver, which would perform the decoding job. Reportedly, DTS intends to suit players as well as receivers with their decoders, Dolby was quoted as concentrating initially on players."

I would personally rather have a AV receiver do the decoding. I feel that I have better control over the sound field that my speakers deliver. I would rather have the player deliver the picture and give me adjustments there and allow a AV receiver to deal with the sound. I think there would be more options and then if the player does not decode the HD audio codec that I want to listen to then the receiver can do it( which as I stated earlier is where I would rather have it done anyway). By doing this I do not have to be concerned over which HD audio format a player decodes. All players will be able to pass all formats thru HDMI 1.3 to a HDMI 1.3 equiped AV receiver. Pick the right receiver and you will be able to play any format you want.

Then you don't get it. You really don't get it.

The end result of a decode in player is... wait for it...

PCM.

Guess what the output of a decode in your player is? Wait for it...

PCM.

The same PCM that would come out of an internal player decode.

So here's what would happen in ugly block fashion.

HDMI 1.1
Internal decode in player --> PCM* across HDMI --> Processing in Receiver/Preamp-Processor

HDMI 1.3
Native bitstream passed from player --> Internal decode in Receiver/Preamp Processor --> PCM* output --> Processing in Receiver/Preamp-Processor

* By definition the decoders must get the same answer for the decodes regardless of format. Since this is the case, there really is no point to doing the decode in the receiver or Preamp/Processor other than convention. As someone who has had a distributed system where decoding has happened in the DVD player or DVD Player/Processor and passed to the Preamp/Processor for several years now I'm not stuck in the conventional mindset that you are.

I'm sorry that you aren't able to get out of this mindset.

This is my reasoning behind the need for HDMI 1.3.

Ok, but do you have something valid yet?

 

[vurbano]

The simple answer is JoeSP is wrong again. I wish he would stop with his BluRay HDMI 1.3 crappola.

 

[vurbano]

Moderator, so that people are not misled and runors started Please change the title of the thread to "Why you will NOT need HDMI 1.3"

 

[Ilya]

Please change the title of the thread to "Why you will NOT need HDMI 1.3"

I don't know. I am not sure I really want to take that route. The thread name expresses the opinion of its original poster. If he wants to change it - I'll be happy to do that. Otherwise, let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

Besides, we would have to rename almost all recent threads started by JoeSp

Why you will need HDMI 1.3 - No, you really won't!
Viewed BluRay at 1080p!! - just a demo disc and it was upconverted 1080i.
BluRay outselling HD-DVD since release? - The article states the opposite!
Sony is finally delivering 50GB BluRay Discs! - No, just BD-R media.
Price Alert - old news.
Hd-dvd/bluray combo player Announced! - old news and a false rumor.
Why you will need more space on those HD movie DVDs! - no valid arguments to back it up.​

 

[vurbano]

I don't know. I am not sure I really want to take that route. The thread name expresses the opinion of its original poster. If he wants to change it - I'll be happy to do that. Otherwise, let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.


Besides, we would have to rename almost all recent threads started by JoeSp

Why you will need HDMI 1.3 - No, you really won't!
Viewed BluRay at 1080p!! - just a demo disc and it was upconverted 1080i.
BluRay outselling HD-DVD since release? - The article states the opposite!
Sony is finally delivering 50GB BluRay Discs! - No, just BD-R media.
Price Alert - old news.
Hd-dvd/bluray combo player Announced! - old news and a false rumor.
Why you will need more space on those HD movie DVDs! - no valid arguments to back it up.
​

Joe has a new thread this morning. He's found the HD DVD site .LMAO

 

[JoeSp]

If you do not have a HDMI receiver right now and would like to purchase one why would you purchase a HDMI 1.1 receiver when you can wait and purchase a HDMI 1.3 receiver by next spring?

Sure, with HDMI 1.1 you will be able to pass the core of HD audio (Dolby Digital or DTS) but how will you get the rest if it is there? Hey, maybe 5.1 is all the sound you need. Maybe you don't care for 7.1. That's okay. Maybe you are not interested in the expanded bandwith of 1.3. BUT, if someone was deciding on making a purchase right now of a HDMI 1.1 receiver would it be of interest to know the new standard would be out within 6 months? Knowing that a new standard was coming out would you wait 6 months?

How many of you put off purchases when you found out that DVi or HDMI was going to be needed on your HDTVS? Why did you wait? What differance did waiting make (alot if you have a DLP or LCD).

This issue is not entirely with the BluRay camp or the HD-DVD camp. This issue is where technology is leading and the reasons one might want to wait to make a purchase for a few months. I heard these same type of statements when DVi was first announced. Those who did not wait were happy with their componet only HDTYs until the upconversion players came out and only worked on those digital inputs. Then they started crying fowl. But it is okay now, the movie studios have said they won't enforce the downconversion for analog until 2010 -- maybe even 2012. Now we are looking at HDMI 1.3. More bandwith for both audio and video signals to be passed. Of course those who do not have it try to reason that they are safe from any downconversion, you do not need any newer standards, you do not need HDMI, everthing HD will work on componet and analog. But the standards are still coming and the purpose of this post is to offer to those not as knowlegable as some of the posters here information about those new standards.

In case any of you don't know this, Sony does not own HDMI. They don't make the standards and they don't have any controll over changes to those standards. Neither Sony, nor Toshiba controls when the movie studios will start to enforce copy protection. They promised not to do this till 2010 but that is not in stone. Let there be widespread coping of HD movies and the studios could step up tommorow and without telling anyone, start enforcing copy protection and those using componet and analog inputs would be out in the cold.

Finally, where in my original post did I meantion BluRAy? Not anywhere I can see. I don't care what you guys infer, this is about a new digital standard. I for one am ready to purchase a new receiver. I have updated my speakers, and will eventually get a HD player (with HDMI 1.3) and I want a receiver to use with my new equipment. I can wait -- some others might want to wait too.

After all, we sure don't want to shell out thousands of dollars for new equipment like gizzer777 only to find out that there is a new standard that will be avalible withing 6 months. Not that gizzer777 did not get some fine equipment and that it rocks, but if you only had to wait a few more months to future proof your investment a few years longer -- would you wait? That's the question and the reasoning behind this post. People spend thousands of dollars and they don't like seeing a new standard creep up months after making a major purchase into a home theater system. BTW, congrats on your selection gizzer777, I have seen some of the equipment you purchased and it is very nice!

I just heard something -- 'DVI will be around for years --- you don't have to worry about HDMI!!" Wonder what happened to the DVI standard?

 

[T2k]

I think I'm getting it: Joe simply an attention-freak - he loves to be 'the center'...

 

[John Kotches]

Sure, with HDMI 1.1 you will be able to pass the core of HD audio (Dolby Digital or DTS) but how will you get the rest if it is there?

Decoded PCM from the player. See previous. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Hey, maybe 5.1 is all the sound you need. Maybe you don't care for 7.1. That's okay.

Read up on the specs. HDMI 1.1 carries 8 channels of PCM at up to 24-bit sampling depth @ 192KHz. What's the next bit of misinformation you want to pass along?

Maybe you are not interested in the expanded bandwith of 1.3.

There isn't any expanded bandwidth for consumer electronics. The "expanded bandwidth" is additionally supported modes for PCs. So, I guess we know what the next bit of misinformation is, don't we?

BUT, if someone was deciding on making a purchase right now of a HDMI 1.1 receiver would it be of interest to know the new standard would be out within 6 months? Knowing that a new standard was coming out would you wait 6 months?

Sure, and I'm here to correct all of your technical inaccuracies, and that seems like it's nearly a full time job.

How many of you put off purchases when you found out that DVi or HDMI was going to be needed on your HDTVS? Why did you wait? What differance did waiting make (alot if you have a DLP or LCD).

Based on history, not many did.

This issue is not entirely with the BluRay camp or the HD-DVD camp. This issue is where technology is leading and the reasons one might want to wait to make a purchase for a few months. I heard these same type of statements when DVi was first announced. Those who waited were happy until the upconversion players came out and only worked on those digital inputs. Now we are looking at HDMI 1.3. More bandwith for both audio and video signals to be passed.

Wrong.

Of course those who do not have it try to reason that they are safe from any downconversion, you do not need any newer standards, but the standards are still coming and the purpose of this post is to offer to those not in the know information about those new standards.

Those with HDMI 1.1 have no issue with this, so this too is wrong.

In case any of you don't know this, Sony does not own HDMI. They don't make the standards and they don't have any controll over changes to those standards. Neither Sony, nor Toshiba controls when the movie studios will start to enforce copy protection. They promised not to do this till 2010 but that is not in stone. Let their be widespread coping of HD movies and the studios could step up tommorow and without telling anyone, start enforcing copy protection and those using analog inputs would be out in the cold.

This just demonstrates your ignorance. There is no practical way to do this. You do understand that we're talking about capturing at roughly the same speeds as HDMI and sustaining it (> 200 Mbytes/second) and realtime encoding it so that you don't have a run rate of 12 GB / minute.

It's impractical and prohibitively expensive to do copying analog. If/when copy protection is broken, it will be done on the media, not on the digital output, and not on the analog output.

I would like not to have that happen but a fully functioning HDMI receiver would solve some of that problem -- One that I can count on to be able to pass the signals from a new HD player with no problems at all. And if there is a new standard right around the corner then I will wait and spend my hard earned money there. There might be others out there wondering if they should wait too. Hey, why wait, after all , we really didn't need that DVi or Hdmi connectors on our HDTVs anyway -- did we?

I don't have an issue with needing HDMI or DVI. But your posts are so full of technical inaccuracies that it if it weren't aggravating it would be hysterical.

Finally, where in my original post did I meantion BluRAy? Not anywhere I can see. I don't care what you guys infer, this is about a new digital standard. I for one am ready to purchase a new receiver. I have updated my speakers, and will eventually get a HD player (with HDMI 1.3) and I want a receiver to use with my new equipment. I can wait -- some others might want to.

Hopefully you'll spend some of your time waiting actually learning about this stuff.

I just heard something -- 'DVI will be around for years --- you don't have to worry about HDMI!!" Gee, I bet you the same crooners here were saying that just 5 years ago when DVI wasn't even out yet. wWnder what happened to that 'standard'?

I didn't realize they stopped manufacturing HDMI to DVI cables and HDMI to DVI adapters.

 

[teamerickson]

If you do not have a HDMI receiver right now and would like to purchase one why would you purchase a HDMI 1.1 receiver when you can wait and purchase a HDMI 1.3 receiver by next spring?

I don't think it's the 1.3 in the recievers you want, it's the new audio decoding built into the recievers. If 1.1 passes core audio won't the reciever decode? To me 1.3 looks more important for the video bandwidth capabilities.

 

[JoeSp]

John, is my understanding that you are saying all receivers have HDMI1.1? Can you name a upconversion player that was sold that did not require a digital connector? If there is no need for copy protection how come every HD piece of equipment is required to have downconversion technology inside -- why would anyone need this need this? You don't believe there will be any HD-DVD players with HDMI 1.3? You also don't believe that the additional bandwith will be used by any LCDs, DLPS , SLEDs in the future?

I don't have all the answers. I have questions, but I am glad to know that you do have the answers. Still, if I am purchasing a HDMI receiver (I am in the market) and I know that there is a new standard out there your posistion is there is no reason to wait? 1.3 will not offer me any more control (other than being able to decode and process the PCM in the receiver) than 1.1? It also will not offer me any more video capability because no one is going to use it? So, why the new standard if nobody is going to need or use it?

 

[JoeSp]

Tk2, sorry if I like to share info -- maybe I should just troll like you and flame everyone else (especially me, huh?). After all, all these sites I post must be fake -- right? I make them up --- right? Sharing information when it does not agree with the main group of folks of course must be taboo --- right! Purpose of this site is to share information, agree or disagree and provide others with a forum to debate said information. Man, this must be what true democracy is all about! The right to debate be you wrong or right!

This post was about HDMI 1.3 and why I thought it was needed. John Kotches, disagrees and points out why all you need is 1.1. His statements sound factural and I accept them as they are stated. I feel that if HDTVMagazine thought that it was important to point out some differances between 1.1 and 1.3 maybe there might be those who would like to know that information. That is why I posted this site. Folks can read and make up their own minds and as usually will vote with their money when they make their next big purchase for their home theater system. Information in the hands of the consumer is always a good thing.

 

[John Kotches]

John, is my understanding that you are saying all receivers have HDMI1.1?

Any product with HDMI has 1.1, correct.

Can you name a upconversion player that was sold that did not require a digital connector?

In addition to the HDMI connector. Hell, my $100 LG I use in the 2nd system (a very cheap player) doesn't require anything but the HDMI connector.

If there is no need for copy protection how come every HD piece of equipment is required to have downconversion technology inside -- why would anyone need this need this?

I said that it's impractical and unrealistic for consumers to copy the datastream coming out of either the HDMI port or the component video port. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Let me say it again with smaller words.

If Blu-ray or HD-DVD gets pirated it'll be from the discs, not from the HDMI or a component feed. Is that simple enough for you?

You don't believe there will be any HD-DVD players with HDMI 1.3?

No, I said that 1.3 isn't the absolute necessity that you have pictured it to be.

You also don't believe that the additional bandwith will be used by any LCDs, DLPS , SLEDs in the future?

Not with the existing formats, and not with HDMI 1.3 either.

I don't have all the answers. I have questions, but I am glad to know that you do have the answers. Still, if I am purchasing a HDMI receiver (I am in the market) and I know that there is a new standard out there your posistion is there is no reason to wait? 1.3 will not offer me any more control (other than being able to decode and process the PCM in the receiver) than 1.1?

No, it decodes the raw datastream. Do you understand that? What it does, is increase the cost of the receivers by having to throw more DSP into them.

But "we've always done it that way" so it must be better, right?

It also will not offer me any more video capability because no one is going to use it? So, why the new standard if nobody is going to need or use it?

See above. It's the model that everyone is used to.

I guess my line diagram was too complicated for you?