Interesting comments from a former 950 beta tester

Some of you may recognize the initials RAF. RAF is a long-time member and administrator at HTF. He also was one of the beta testers enlisted by Outlaw in 2002 to put early samples of the Model 950 through its paces. Some years back, he upgraded from the 950 to a Lexicon MC-8, but he still dropped by Outlaw's room at the 2005 HE show to hear Peter discussing why Outlaw elected to go with DVI switching on the 990 and the 1070/970 rather than HDMI. After some recent research into the options for HDMI surround processors, RAF posted this interesting commentary on the state of HDMI and the merits of DVI even today. It's an interesting post from a member of the home theater community that I've respected for many years now.

gonk wrote:

RAF posted this interesting commentary on the state of HDMI and the merits of DVI even today

All outlaws please forgive me if I am too naive: but I must ask this question. Given that pre-pros handle various audio formats, and given that DVI handles video quite adequately...is there really a need for HDMI...or is it a marketing ploy to sell equipment.

I dunno.....

To me HDMI seems superfluous. Am I wrong?

In theory, HDMI can provide some useful capabilities. For example, you can carry multichannel PCM audio through a single cable rather than converting it to analog and using six or eight cables, or you can carry a digital bitstream for DVD-Audio or SACD, or you can (eventually) carry a digital bitstream for the new HD audio formats, and you can do any of those in the same cable that you carry HD digital video. That could be pretty darn handy. If HDMI had been more properly developed as a unified audio/video standard before being introduced to market, I'd consider it to be a pretty smart idea. The reality is that HDMI was pushed out to market long before it was of any real use (HDMI v1.0 was functionally identical to using DVI and a coaxial or optical digital cable when it was released in December 2002), then it was revised three times in about 24 months (versions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 were all published between May 2004 and June 2006). The result is a confused mess that is obscuring what is finally becoming a potentially useful interface. Give us another six to twelve months, and hardware might start providing some real opportunities for making HDMI useful - assuming compatibility problems can get resolved. So far, though, HDMI's been more headache than anything else.

RAF has posted many informative and interesting subjects on this and other forums. He is correct on his support of the Outlaw's design of the 990. I would have liked the 990 to have HDMI switching with a published disclaimer stating it was for video ONLY. However, I believe that this would have led to mass confusion, many support calls and posts. My display has two HDMI inputs so I do not need video switching, so in my case DVI/HDMI is a moot point.
I would not consider a replacement for my 990 until HDMI can drop all of its Audio capablities in the Pre/Pro, and let the video continue to a display.

Without meaning to demean audio-novices and HT-novices (for I, too, am a HT novice) it is the opinion of some that the virtue in HDMI over DVI may be for those not knowledgeable in cabling, routing, switching.

I don't know for sure, but it sure seems like that's a resonable explanation for its (HDMI's) virtue. Since we don't need to send audio in the same cable {ostensibly because of the pre-pro logic etc) it seems to me, at least, that HDMI---the audio portion is superfluous. What do you outlaws think?

I think that much of the initial marketing was aimed directly at the notion of simplified cabling, actually. It was a notion that didn't get much interest from the die-hard home theater crowd mainly because it over-simplified without bringing anything new to the table. The audio portion was no better than SPDIF, which was already pretty darned convenient.

With HDMI v1.1 and beyond, there actually is some value to HDMI's audio portion. Being able to pass eight channels of 192/24 PCM through a single cable is appealing, and having an avenue for a digital bitstream from DVD-Audio and (v1.2 or above) SACD in a standard that might actually show up on players and processors is something that's been begged for since those two formats were new. FireWire can also handle bitstreams for both formats, of course, but hardware support for FireWire was slow to appear and will now begin to disappear entirely (thanks to HDMI's support for the formats and to the slow death of both formats in the marketplace). Bitstream transmission for Dolby Digital Plus, DTS-HD, and Dolby TrueHD has been a sort of nearly-irrational holy grail for many people as HD-DVD and Blu-ray have evolved, and HDMI v1.3 will provide that - although I'm not sure how much practical benefit we'll see from this capability, as HD-DVD at least will still have to do the decoding of these formats internally to support some of the features it offers.

this is a novice opinion ...
my feeling is that HDMI was\is developped with intentions of preventing more than allowing...
it serves business interests rather than consumer's...maybe a little too much

all this dressed up in the promise of uncomparable images...and sounds coming from places we couldn't imagine...
yet we are the guinea pigs once again...

I can relate to eliminating execss wires...
but I also prefer to separate my video and audio signals...
DVI suits me fine on the very few 1080i signals I can get...
and for movie audio...
my UNTRUE Doldy Digital and my less than ''super-morphed''DTS do the job...
maybe less is more...
so no boat ride in sight for a while...

DVI was the safer and easier approach, especially when the only function was switching. With HDMI, they could have gone beyond simply switching digital video. It would have been an opportunity to receive hi-rez multi-channel audio signals digitally (as PCM via HDMI) and apply all the 990's audio functionality to those sources. But that would have been a more complex product and possibly not within their targeted pricepoint.

I also think that HDMI was done as an effort to shrink the connector size to something more manageable and was probably driven by manufacturing costs as well.

At any rate, the size of the DVI connector limits its usefulness in most receiver/prepros where real estate is already scarce.

Imagine trying to cram 5 or 6 DVI connectors and 1 out on the backplane of a receiver with all the other stuff that is back there already.

Although personally, I would have liked to have seen them go to a connector similar to RJ-45 used for networking. Alas this was not meant to be.

I like the DVI connection simply for the fact that it has screws on it. You plug it in and secure it so it has no chance of falling out.

As for Outlaw going with DVI instead of HDMI, I completely agree with their reasoning and with the thoughts that generated this topic. HDMI is just not a finalized connector. Though there are devices available that support multi-channel audio through HDMI, I have yet to read a review in which any of these devices performed without some sort of quirk within this type of connection. There's usually a "handshake" issue with the HDMI switching that is mentioned and also audio quality questions.

I understand the manufacturer's viewpoint in needing to get the "latest and greatest" on the market. I'm also, however, very tired of them not taking the extra time to develop a universal standard before shipping their products. Their miscues generate so much consumer confusion that it degrades the whole entertainment industry. The average consumer has no chance of experiencing the art as the artist intended if they can't figure out how to view it properly.

Ok, I feel better now that I've said that.