• HDMI to be replaced with an ethernet cable?
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=roflcakes;23153252]HD content over 802.11g is fine.[/QUOTE] 802.11g = theoretical max of 54Mb/s, not that you'll ever get that in reality, which is one way by the way, so if you're sending anything back the other way you're eating into the 54Mb/s. Oh and that's shared between different devices too. Oh and it's jittery and can have high latency. Oh and even streaming over Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s) can be problematic at times too. So yeah, HD content over 802.11g is fine...if you're copying the entire file over it to another device first. I have at minimum 2 bonded gigabit connections in any of the HTPCs in my house specifically for jitter/jerk/freeze free HD streaming. And when I talk about HD content, I'm talking about 1080p BD rips at minimum which have a bitrate of 15Mbp/s or more going up to BD .ISOs.
[QUOTE=Panda X;23157855]Out of curiosity, how's this late? There's no other thread about it.[/QUOTE] This was on Slashdot a week ago
[QUOTE=Justice;23178757]Monster Brand Premium Diamond-Studded Ethernet Cables - 1000$ a foot :allears: At any rate, this is definitely a step forward. HDMI is way impractical.[/QUOTE] how is hdmi impractical?
Eventually everything is going to be standardized. I like it.
[QUOTE=liquid_phase;23175763]802.11g = theoretical max of 54Mb/s, not that you'll ever get that in reality, which is one way by the way, so if you're sending anything back the other way you're eating into the 54Mb/s. Oh and that's shared between different devices too. Oh and it's jittery and can have high latency. Oh and even streaming over Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s) can be problematic at times too. So yeah, HD content over 802.11g is fine...if you're copying the entire file over it to another device first. I have at minimum 2 bonded gigabit connections in any of the HTPCs in my house specifically for jitter/jerk/freeze free HD streaming. [B]And when I talk about HD content, I'm talking about 1080p BD rips at minimum which have a bitrate of 15Mbp/s or more going up to BD .ISOs.[/B][/QUOTE]Ah okay then. Was confused until you got to that part. I was thinking "I can stream 1080p just fine over Wireless-G?" until I read that part. Mine are far more compressed with each movie being about 4 GB. Looks fine to me though. I'm not a huge quality nut.
Hopefully they won't force this upon us. Maybe give us a choice between HDMI, and Ethernet. If they plan on making this the standard, I bet it will be forced upon us and be plagued with DRM, and not to mention the price of the now "cheap" Ethernet cables rising. *edit Found this [url]http://www.octavainc.com/HDMI%20ethernet%20converters.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;23178284]This was on Slashdot a week ago[/QUOTE] Well I don't read /. And others might not.
It was news to me. Sounds pretty good though.
[QUOTE=aualin;23174860]Im gonna rock all night long with cheap [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Gigabit_Ethernet]100 gigabit ethernet[/url][/QUOTE] That shit sounds EPIC. :dance:
[QUOTE=Panda X;23190130]Well I don't read /. And others might not.[/QUOTE] But it was still on a fairly major tech news website a week ago. Don't moan if people rate you late
as far as the home is concerned, HDMI 1.4 pretty much does all of this already, so this isn't specifically new. and seeing as pretty much EVERYONE is already on board with HDMI 1.4, I'm quite suspicious of the proclamation that they're "working to kill HDMI". the idea is pretty cool though [editline]03:21PM[/editline] oh yeah not to mention we now have Wi-Fi enabled consoles, BD-players, BOXEE/Hulu/Roku/Netflixy things, and fucking Wi-Fi enabled TVs, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to suddenly revert back to actually using/needing an ethernet cable. in fact you can get by successfully and use just about every function of the internet perfectly fine without even owning an ethernet cable.
[QUOTE=M_B;23213910]as far as the home is concerned, HDMI 1.4 pretty much does all of this already, so this isn't specifically new. and seeing as pretty much EVERYONE is already on board with HDMI 1.4, I'm quite suspicious of the proclamation that they're "working to kill HDMI". the idea is pretty cool though [editline]03:21PM[/editline] oh yeah not to mention we now have Wi-Fi enabled consoles, BD-players, BOXEE/Hulu/Roku/Netflixy things, and fucking Wi-Fi enabled TVs, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to suddenly revert back to actually using/needing an ethernet cable. in fact you can get by successfully and use just about every function of the internet perfectly fine without even owning an ethernet cable.[/QUOTE] Unless you work with servers or at data centers, then the only wireless you'll typically be using are satellites that make a home router look like a baby. Wireless is great and all for a consumer, but when you need reliability, security, and something robust you use physical cables. Also this is feasible, according to my Cisco networking book only two pairs in a ethernet cable are used.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;23157751]Off the shelf ethernet, no chance. They are [B]developing[/B] it, so maybe they are going to get 10gbps or even 100gbps in to an ethernet cable?[/QUOTE] ethernet can already do 10gbps in theory
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;23214683]ethernet can already do 10gbps in theory[/QUOTE] The 40/100gbps spec is being finalized this month on the 17th. There already exists devices that can fart out 40.
Yaay, now it's gonna be impossible to find a normal Ethernet cable because they will all be gold plated and gas injected, sigh. Sorry. I'm a pessimist.
I'm glad. Ethernet cables are cheaper and longer. Another benefit is that standard Ethernet ports is that they offer input and output, whereas HDMI are usually one or the other.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;23214445]Unless you work with servers or at data centers, then the only wireless you'll typically be using are satellites that make a home router look like a baby. Wireless is great and all for a consumer, but when you need reliability, security, and something robust you use physical cables. Also this is feasible, according to my Cisco networking book only two pairs in a ethernet cable are used.[/QUOTE] uh...you're confusing coax cable for ethernet cable [editline]05:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Edthefirst;23216898]I'm glad. Ethernet cables are cheaper and longer. Another benefit is that standard Ethernet ports is that they offer input and output, whereas HDMI are usually one or the other.[/QUOTE] HDMI has actually always been input and output in the same exact way, they're just cables, really. spec 1.4 supports internet sharing. one device can be connected to the internet, and the other devices connect to the internet through it. you could have your A/V receiver hooked up to the TV, and everything else directly to the TV, and the A/V receiver can still get all of the audio. as well as internet for internet radio i guess
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;23192292]But it was still on a fairly major tech news website a week ago. Don't moan if people rate you late[/QUOTE] I wasn't moaning. I was simply curious.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;23214445]Also this is feasible, according to my Cisco networking book only two pairs in a ethernet cable are used. [QUOTE=M_B;23217038]uh...you're confusing coax cable for ethernet cable[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] In a 'Cat 5', Cat 5e or Cat 6 cable you have 4 pairs, for gigabit you need all 4, but for fast ethernet you can use 2, indeed a lot of people use both sets of pairs for 2 sets of fast ethernet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.