Quote:
|
I hate HDMI. Who designed this mess? Why could they not have used two separate feeds, one for audio and one for video, since the two signals will almost certainly need to go two different boxes. And, why make up yet another connector and protocol? Could they not have used ethernet?
|
Although manufacturers should have done a much better job testing compatibility, handshaking issues, and maybe used a connector that didn't fall out so easily, for what they wanted to accomplish (uncompressed, encrypted AV, simpler connections, backwards compatibility with DVI, a common computer video interface) it's a reasonable design. Common 100 Mbps Ethernet didn't have the bandwidth though I suppose they could use 10Gbps Ethernet now. The whole idea behind HDMI is to simplify connecting components, so one cable is preferable than 2 for most people, also a new connector type prevents people from plugging in the wrong thing into the wrong jack.
People without an AV receiver only have to connect one cable now, and with an AV receiver its fewer wires also. 3 AV components = 4 wires, including one from receiver to TV, instead of 6. There was that other thread complaining about inability to switch video/audio separately, but that could theoretically be handled in the receiver, it's just not a common function now. But this is only important to a minority of people.