Linked by David Adams on Fri 9th Jul 2010 17:04 UTC, submitted by fran
Multimedia, AV It's really more than an HDMI competitor, it's a cable specification that "converges full uncompressed HD video, audio, 100BaseT Ethernet, high power over cable and various control signals through a single 100m/328ft CAT5e/6 LAN cable." That's an idea that I can really get behind. No new proprietary connectors, no expensive cables needed, consolidation of all necessary signals into one cable. The founding companies include LG Electronics, Samsung Electronics, and Sony Pictures Entertainment.
Order by: Score:
Comment by _xmv
by _xmv on Fri 9th Jul 2010 17:44 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

you mean a generic cable that does it all? i'm buying

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by _xmv
by Alex Forster on Sat 10th Jul 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

A generic cable that does it all....that's already widely used and cheap to manufacture.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by _xmv
by tyrione on Mon 12th Jul 2010 22:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

you mean a generic cable that does it all? i'm buying


Which will ultimately either drive the pre-existing price of Cat6 cable or create a modified version and ultimately you'll be paying 2 or 3 times as much as you already do for just Cat6.

Count on it.

Reply Score: 2

v sure
by Ikshaar on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:06 UTC
RE: sure
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Jul 2010 00:00 UTC in reply to "sure"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

name one connector in AV that is proprietary.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: sure
by Lobotomik on Mon 12th Jul 2010 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: sure"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

HDMI

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by fretinator on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:16 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sounds like a monster cable. I'll have to shope around for the best buy when it comes out.

Reply Score: 3

DLNA, Power Over Ethernet
by gduzan on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:33 UTC
gduzan
Member since:
2010-05-17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet

Between these two I think you have all you need to make this work. It seems to me this is likely just an industry agreement to actually use existing standards.

Reply Score: 3

RE: DLNA, Power Over Ethernet
by Wintermute on Sat 10th Jul 2010 13:43 UTC in reply to "DLNA, Power Over Ethernet"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Don't quote me on this, but as far I know DLNA has severe limitations like not being able to support srt subtitles. Some implementations also have issues with the MKV container format and a lot of the implemenations don't support things like vorbis audio.

While it might be suitable for some people, I'd imagine DLNA wouldn't be good enough for a significant portion of osnews' readership.

Reply Score: 3

Cool
by darknexus on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:38 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Considering how many cables are needed to make home theaters work (and wireless is nowhere close to being as high quality) having everything down into one or maybe two ethernet cables would rock. Now, we just have to hope Sony doesn't screw it up by demanding ridiculously high royalties to implement it. Hopefully LG and Samsung can reign Sony in.

Reply Score: 2

Fat
by Eugenia on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:45 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

I love this new standard, however, there's a single problem with it. Thin, mobile, devices, and even consumer cameras, won't be able to carry this "thick" plug. I think we'd still need a "mini" to "normal" adapter, like we do with the new HDMI-mini. And I personally dislike that... but hey.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fat
by Ikshaar on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:57 UTC in reply to "Fat"
Ikshaar Member since:
2005-07-14

[deleted post]

Edited 2010-07-09 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fat
by umccullough on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "Fat"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I think we'd still need a "mini" to "normal" adapter, like we do with the new HDMI-mini. And I personally dislike that... but hey.


Simple: Bring back the dreaded PCMCIA "dongles"

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=ethernet%20dongle

God I hate those things.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fat
by reconciliation on Fri 9th Jul 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "Fat"
reconciliation Member since:
2009-07-02

from making those cables myself I know that the actual wires are pretty damn small around 1mm, making a flat connector about 2mm high and some 15mm or so wide should be a piece of cake

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Fat
by Eugenia on Fri 9th Jul 2010 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Fat"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yeah. But you still need a different adapter on the thin device's side. It won't be a *standard* plug on both sides. This is what I don't want: adapters, and "mini" versions. I want the same plug on all the devices, be it a TV/BD player, or a cellphone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fat
by JLF65 on Fri 9th Jul 2010 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fat"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

That's silly. "One connector does all" doesn't work as you yourself pointed out. Putting a mini connector on a full-size device is just as silly as putting a full-size connector on a small device. You NEED different standards for different uses. A regular connector for regular needs, and a mini connector for mini needs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fat
by Eugenia on Fri 9th Jul 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fat"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

No, I don't "need" that. Instead, it's imposed to me. The more standard the cable on both sides, the easier and cheaper it is for me (so I could have a single cable for all my usages, instead of different ones).

I feel the same about USB, mini-USB and micro-USB btw. I want a small connector that fits on all kinds of devices. This is 2010, we should be able to design a connector with enough pins to do all the jobs we want it to do in a small/thin plug.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Fat
by umccullough on Fri 9th Jul 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fat"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I feel the same about USB, mini-USB and micro-USB btw. I want a small connector that fits on all kinds of devices. This is 2010, we should be able to design a connector with enough pins to do all the jobs we want it to do in a small/thin plug.


I agree with the annoyance of the multiple USB connectors, but I appreciate that the larger "standard" USB connector is more sturdy and can survive a little abuse whereas the smaller versions are a royal PITA and always getting bent or falling out with only very slightly rough use. If every device had small fragile connectors like that, it would drive me bonkers.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Fat
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 10th Jul 2010 00:24 UTC in reply to "Fat"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, I don't want that. So if we each have a vote, I vote against your objection.

Reply Score: 2

Which raises a question...
by MechR on Fri 9th Jul 2010 18:46 UTC
MechR
Member since:
2006-01-11

Why didn't they just do this in the first place instead of reinventing the connector with HDMI?

Reply Score: 5

Ethernet to tv
by vivainio on Fri 9th Jul 2010 19:04 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

I'm not sure I'm terribly excited about getting the ethernet connection all the way to the tv. Television would optimally be just a dumb display device, and all the "smarts" would be in the set-top box. TV shouldn't be something you update to get new intelligent features, it makes more sense to update the cheap set-top box instead (by buying a new one, or upgrading the software).

Moving more intelligence to the TV seems to be a trick to create artificial obsolescence for a class of products that used to be "good enough" for 5 years or more. I even thing DVB receiver in the TV is redundant ;-).

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ethernet to tv
by reconciliation on Fri 9th Jul 2010 19:21 UTC in reply to "Ethernet to tv"
reconciliation Member since:
2009-07-02

personally I dislike tvs completely, which is why I would get a passive cooled pc and an led beamer if I would want a large screen, it would give me more than any tv at that price could.
Unless you want a bright room (who likes brightness anyway) you can have a decent setup this way that does just about anything.

Reply Score: 0

oh my
by poundsmack on Fri 9th Jul 2010 20:58 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

"...hdBaseT would allow "a single-connector TV to receive power, video/audio, Internet and control signals from the same cable."

While i really like the hdBaseT idea, and hope it succeeds, there is one issue I have.

is there going to be something that prevents it from burning out other cables? i mean if it's going ot be a standard eithernet cable, and you plug it into some random eithernet device, sending that much electricity into something could fry the hell out of it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: oh my
by umccullough on Fri 9th Jul 2010 21:35 UTC in reply to "oh my"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

is there going to be something that prevents it from burning out other cables? i mean if it's going ot be a standard eithernet cable, and you plug it into some random eithernet device, sending that much electricity into something could fry the hell out of it.


I'm sure it will work similar to PoE: namely, the device connected will receive a very small amount of initial power voltage/wattage - and will then negotiate with the "host" (supplying the power) which power level it needs. Edit: Actually, it seems to be done with a passive resistor (I was thinking of how USB works)

"High Power" is defined as 12.95W - 25.50W @ ~50V per wikipedia.

There's nothing new about this technology - I work in a building that provides PoE to all network jacks in order to support Cisco IP phones, and any ethernet device can be plugged into these jacks just the same.

Edited 2010-07-09 21:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: oh my
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 10th Jul 2010 00:29 UTC in reply to "oh my"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Made that mistake before. Working with an embedded system that had two 6 wire phone cables that plugged in right next to each other. One carried a large amount of current to provide power to some part of the system. The other was a real phone line. I plugged the powered line into the modem and melted the board. I was pretty proud of it. I'm sure I wasn't the first one to do that with our product.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: oh my
by phoenix on Sat 10th Jul 2010 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE: oh my"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

There's lots of people who've fried their analog modems by plugging them into the digital PBX jacks in hotels. I remember some hotels had large "DO NOT USE WITH LAPTOP MODEMS" signs over all the phone jacks back in the 90s.

Reply Score: 2

Monster Cables nothing read this...
by poundsmack on Fri 9th Jul 2010 21:00 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6P...

read some of the reviews.

"Transmission of music data at rates faster than the speed of light seemed convenient, until I realized I was hearing the music before I actually wanted to play it. Apparently Denon forgot how accustomed most of us are to unidirectional time and the general laws of physics. I tried to get used to this effect but hearing songs play before I even realized I was in the mood for them just really screwed up my preconceptions of choice and free will. I'm still having a major existential hangover.

Would not purchase again."

Reply Score: 7

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Holy pope on a pogo stick!

I am in shock, in awe... I don't even know what to say.

Thanks for the link (and death to audiophilia, the world's dumbest religion).

Reply Score: 2

How about a link or two?
by JLF65 on Fri 9th Jul 2010 21:22 UTC
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06
RE: How about a link or two?
by David on Sat 10th Jul 2010 08:23 UTC in reply to "How about a link or two?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Doh! Thanks for noticing I messed up the link.

Reply Score: 1

phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Great. So now we're going to have people plugging their TVs into their home routers and complaining that the routers no longer work as 100w (or volts or whatever) of power is pumped down the cable.

Here's hoping they're smart, and configure the power side of things to be "start with PoE checks, then negotiate power envelope, then start power", and not just "connection made, dump 100w on the line".

IOW, making it optional and starting it only if both ends can handle it.

If they don't, then they really should not be overloading cables and connectors for completely different uses.

Reply Score: 3

[Video] Demonstration
by blixel on Fri 9th Jul 2010 23:08 UTC
blixel
Member since:
2005-07-06

The original post didn't include any links, so here's one I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfbiILDmw-I

Reply Score: 2

RE: [Video] Demonstration
by Ventajou on Sat 10th Jul 2010 00:17 UTC in reply to "[Video] Demonstration"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

Interesting video, but it looks like Valens really needs to hire a native English speaking salesman!

Reply Score: 2

Well that's pretty dumb
by Ventajou on Sat 10th Jul 2010 00:07 UTC
Ventajou
Member since:
2006-10-31

The idea is great but the information is a bit vague. They're not talking about how many simultaneous videos could go through the wire for example. Plus it looks like those of us with a fairly complex home network will have to replace our network switches for that signal to go through. And watching videos on the PC would require a new NIC.

Why not go with the obvious and established solution instead? Just stick everything over IP and be done with it. This would have the following benefits:
- any PC on the network could consume audio/video.
- any PC on the network could produce audio/video.
- the signal could also go wireless with a WiFi access point.
- anybody with network knowledge could do awesome things with that.
- A/V devices would become part of the managed network.

The only reason I can think of to send uncompressed video is that it keeps the receiver from having to decode a compressed format. But considering most video entering the system will be compressed in the first place then it doesn't seem to make much sense in term of picture quality. So we could stick to compressed video and fit a heck of a lot of channels on a gigabit network.

I suppose this would only appeal to the type of people that frequent OSnews though...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well that's pretty dumb
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Jul 2010 12:39 UTC in reply to "Well that's pretty dumb"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Video over IP is not a new idea and will be used more and more over time, but it has limitations. Sure you can send the video over wireless, too, but what if it's not fast enough? Stuttering/slow playback will get you returns even if it is the end user's fault. Uncompressed video is virtuous because it is not controversial. What compression algorithm would you choose? If you say h264 then you're going to get yelled at, if you say Theora or VP8 then you're going to get yelled at. I'll yell either way!

Also, with PoE you don't get gigabit since the extra wires are used for power instead.

Still I never liked hdmi and I absolutely detest the constant connector-of-the-month churn. DVI? HDMI? One of the two or three newer ones? I prefer plain old HD-15 and composite video! Simple, consistent, did not change every other year. We need the high capacity digital equivalent of these plugs and we need to stick with whatever we choose for at least 10 years.

Reply Score: 2

Power over cable
by dvhh on Sat 10th Jul 2010 03:56 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

I can't wait for user to blow their ethernet equipement with power over ethernet.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Power over cable
by umccullough on Sat 10th Jul 2010 06:01 UTC in reply to "Power over cable"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I can't wait for user to blow their ethernet equipement with power over ethernet.


I've plugged countless machines into PoE jacks without every blowing them.

A PoE switch delivers no power until its known that the device on the other end needs it.

Reply Score: 3

Hmm
by Moochman on Sat 10th Jul 2010 08:01 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Looks like they're picking up where HANA left off....

http://www.1394ta.org/about/HANA/index.html

Reply Score: 2

Motherboard
by lego on Sat 10th Jul 2010 08:06 UTC
lego
Member since:
2008-03-25

The problem is there is not motherboard maker in the pool.

And the RJ-45 connector is with experience rather fragile.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Motherboard
by Moochman on Sat 10th Jul 2010 13:27 UTC in reply to "Motherboard"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

And the RJ-45 connector is with experience rather fragile.


Agreed--the plastic nib that's supposed to hold it in place has a tendency to get messed up over time (either it fails to spring back into place enough or it falls off--either way the cable is able to come loose very easily). On the other hand, this is probably just due to cheap cables--prime opportunity for Monster Cable to step in ;) .

Anyway, ethernet ports are already standard on most Bluray players, game consoles and other set-top boxes these days, so it's not like it's asking the consumer to use anything unfamiliar...

Edited 2010-07-10 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

This is how you make money off those cables
by Googol on Sat 10th Jul 2010 11:41 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

Print "Monster" all over them and you can easily get 170 USD for a 3m cable ;)

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Anyone willing to spend that much on cables deserves to have their money taken and redistributed. Best Buy is performing a public service by selling Monster cables.

Reply Score: 4

Same purpose as Light Peak?
by Dano on Sat 10th Jul 2010 12:20 UTC
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

I just read an article about Intel's new Light Peak system...this standard is supposed to do a similar thing over fiber. Sony was reportedly excited about Light Peak also...what gives? The only problem with CAT 5 is that installers believe that CAT 5 is "super cable" that can be used for all uses. Besides this concern, it sounds like using cat 5 connectors and cables in this manner is a neat application. I wonder how much more data and power can be shoved through CAT 5/6 cable?

Reply Score: 1

100 watt power limit
by nt_jerkface on Sat 10th Jul 2010 13:39 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

So one cable won't be enough for devices that could use it the most, namely big HDTVs that are wall mounted.

Interesting tech but I doubt it will be worth the cost of having a non-standard psu.

Edited 2010-07-10 13:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Or even multimode fiber
by Priest on Mon 12th Jul 2010 01:47 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

I wouldn't even care if they used multimode LC fiber for the spec. At least then we could be done changing it.

You can buy 10 foot multimode jumpers for about $20 each which isn't much more costly than an HDMI cable.

Some of the new 3D formats will already max out HDMI. Now there is just the problem of building cheap enough lasers ;)

Reply Score: 2

Another Change?
by BeOSJim on Mon 12th Jul 2010 16:49 UTC
BeOSJim
Member since:
2010-01-20

So....I had good AV gear with composite connectors, then I upgraded to SVideo, then I bought an HDTV as an early adopter. That HDTV set used analog component video inputs for 1080. But the industries blocked HD from most sources on those connectors in favor of DRM enabed HDMI connectors. I now have an HDMI based system.

Now I may get to change it again...? That sucks. I don't care if it uses standard cables and connectors, I am getting of changing my connectors/cables/systems.

I can get HDMI cables for about six bucks, it is one cable and it works fine for me. Leave the RH-45 connector for computer networking and the occasional phone system.

End rant

Reply Score: 1