Just how important is HDMI 1.3?

by Darren Murph posted Mar 22nd 2009 at 12:54AM

Over the years, we've had all sorts of discussions surrounding HDMI, particular the latest and (supposedly) greatest version, v1.3. Aside from the fact that you'll need v1.3 in order to take full advantage of the hippest audio formats and such, why even care about what version you're using? The lovable geeks over at HomeTheaterMag broke it all down real nice like, explaining the benefits of HDMI 1.3 as well as what the prior versions of HDMI can / cannot do. There's far too much detail to cover in this space, but we'd highly recommend you checking out the read link if you're even remotely interested in learning something that any home theater junkie should know. In other words, don't miss out.

Filed under: Cables, Ports

Tags: cable, HDMI, HDMI 1.3, HDMI 101, HDMI 12, HDMI 13, Hdmi1.3, Hdmi101, Hdmi12, Hdmi13

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Neutral

YouFaceTheTick @ Mar 22nd 2009 1:41AM

For folks sporting older receivers with optical inputs, HDMI 1.3 is meaningless. I have my 9 year old 5.1 and so the HDMI running to my TV gets only video. Audio goes to my old receiver. For people like me, there are no benefits to the new HDMI, sadly.

Neutral

Harvey @ Mar 22nd 2009 9:58AM

There are 2 benefits here that I can think of:

1) If you have multiple components with HDMI components (HD cable box, HD satellite receiver, Blu-ray, HTPC, etc.) you only have 1 HDMI cable going to your TV (the one from your receiver) instead of a whole bunch of dangling cables.

2) You only need to do your switching at one source (the receiver) instead of twice (receiver & TV inputs).

Neutral

Nick Catalano @ Mar 22nd 2009 2:52AM

Is there any physical difference, at all, between a '1.3 Certified' cord and a regular 'not-1.3' cord?

I've yet to have any non-biased person/site give me an answer to that.

Highest Ranked

CompanyPresence @ Mar 22nd 2009 3:30AM

As your source of information, I have read the HDMI spec since version 1.2. It is not the most entertaining thing to read, but it is the thing you must do if you are involved in HDMI transmitters and receivers.
So let's talk about cables. The main difference is speed that the cable needs to support. The main trouble with HDMI cables is if their impedance do not match the 50 Ohm. If impedances are not matched, reflections occur and can disturb the bit stream sent. The higher the bit rate, the more difficult it is to achieve a case that is close to ideal.
Prior to 1.3, DeepColor did not exist, so only 24bit video could be transferred in 4:4:4 format (or 36bit in 4:2:2 mode). This means that the max throughput is at 1080p, so the cable needs to support a bitrate of 1425MHz per channel.
Now, for 1.3 (the a version is mostly a change in the compliance test) and DeepColor (that is optional!), cables need to support 48bit video, meaning twice the bitrate, 2850MHz per channel. As you can see, cables catalogued for version 1.3 supporting DeepColor need to be better built for the same distance.
What do those numbers mean to you? Nothing, as DeepColor is something you should not be worried about. As far as I know, most LCD screens support either 15bit or 24bit pixel representation (6bit or 8bit per channel), meaning that is the weakest link in your viewing experience. DVDs and BluRays only support 24bit colors, so you can only really get more colors at the source if you have some sort of processing.
But, generally speaking, TVs usually have a 30bit or 36bit processing chain. Why then do they need such level of precision if they are going to represent those in a 24bit format? That is because of the accumulated error due to arithmetic operations. Typical operations that you might need to be aware of are YPbPr to RGB conversion, and brightness and contrast correction. Let's say that if you have a +/-1 error at 10bit during those operations, when you truncate it to 8bit, you will not notice. If you have the same error at 8bit, a TV with a 24bit panel should be able to reproduce it. Having more data at the input can usually mean a better pixel representation. Still, I would bet on the fact that most people do not care of a deviation of 1 in the pixel representation.
If you have an HDMI 1.3 with DeepColor TV, you could try to turn it on and off from the DVD or BluRay player (sorry, PS3 folks, that is something that you can not select on a PS3). If you can see the difference, tell me, because then I need to go to the optician again.

Neutral

DrXym @ Mar 22nd 2009 6:20AM

Some early HDMI cables were only certified for 720p and 1080i because 1080p didn't exist at the time. I actually saw one on sale in a UK store called Poundstretchers last week. They might have shielding issues which prevent them working at higher bandwidths. I already own one cable which doesn't work at 1080p but works fine at lower bandwidt resolutions.

But modern cables should be fine assuming they're shielded properly. I have two more cables I bought in LIDL for 8 euros which work fine. There should be no need ever to buy a Monster cable at enormous markup to get an adequate signal. If ever deep colour and other features become more prevelant then you can bet monoprice will sell cables for a fraction of the cost.

Highly Ranked

CompanyPresence @ Mar 22nd 2009 4:00AM

There is one thing that is not mentioned in the article. One of the new optional features of HDMI 1.3 is the support of automatic lip-sync correction. This means that the player, the AVR and the TV can communicate between each other so that audio and video are in sync. You might not know, but most of LCD TVs have a 300ms delay because of all the tricks they need to perform nowadays. Those 300ms can be noticeable - just check what people have to say about "input lag". What lip-sync actually does is inserting a delay to the audio so that the video is in sync - at least that is what the HDMI spec says. Prior to that, people had to do this manually. If you do not believe me that this is a big issue, just check how many warnings appear in games like Rock Band.
The bad thing: your TV, your AVR and your source need to communicate properly. You just need to check all the devices before buying them.

Neutral

Gil @ Mar 22nd 2009 4:05AM

monoprice.com has some of the cheapest hdmi cables ive seen. I bought my hdmi cables from them. They are 4 bucks(plus shipping) for a hdmi 1.3a cable with deep color. Ive had fantastic results with them. http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2 They are perfect for short runs and my sony ps3. I would also buy these for my 7.1 surround sound system. They can handle Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA surround sound formats. They also do the "deep color" thing. Why spend 100+ dollars for a cable when these work great.

Neutral

CompanyPresence @ Mar 22nd 2009 5:31AM

Sure, if a cable works for you, that is fine. At 4 bucks, I suppose it is not a big deal if it does not work. And as with any digital transmission, it either works or not - no "it works better than" or "I have a clearer picture than" issues.
The big problem I see is with 30ft+ cables (example, you have a projector fixed to the ceiling). That is where you might need better quality cables, although equalizers tend to improve things at the receiver side. Certification is supposed to double check that it actually works with any transmitter and receiver, but you will never know until you actually have the setup.
By the way, Gil, the limiting factor for audio packets on HDMI transmission is not the HDMI cable, it is the video format you choose. That is because video is splitted into active and non-active video, and the video resolution plus DeepColor is the one that sets the how much bandwith is to be used. During the non-active video region, audio is sent. There is a limitation on how much audio data you can send depending on the video format you choose. On Table 7-5 of the HDMI spec (check www.hdmi.org), you can see that for 720p and higher resolution video formats, the bandwith is NOT LIMITING how much audio data you can send, as you can send any High Bit-Rate audio without problems. You could also send 8 channels worth of audio samples at 192kHz (for comparison, CDs are 2ch at 44kHz).
At the end, "better" cables do not give you more features (except for long cables and DeepColor). HDMI 1.2 short cables should work as good as 1.3 ones for most applications I have seen. Newer TVs, players and AVRs can give you newer features.

Neutral

CompanyPresence @ Mar 22nd 2009 5:46AM

The good (and bad) thing about HDMI cables is that they either work or not. So a crappy HDMI cable will get you no picture at all! It all depends on the receiver and transmitter, though. Equalizers, emphasis and de-emphasis circuits do a great job.
As far as I know HDMI audio is limited by HDMI video resolution plus DeepColor choice. Table 7.5 of the HDMI spec (www.hdmi.org) shows that for 720p onwards, you are not limited on the video format anymore (768000 audio frames per second), so I would say that any HDMI 1.2 cable that works with 720p should work with any audio format you choose. So, Gil, please, do not mix video and audio restrictions anymore. Audio format is only limited by receiver and transmitter if you watch anything that is HD (720p onwards)
Thanks for your time.

Neutral

michael smith @ Mar 22nd 2009 5:09AM

As I mentioned in my article on Upgrading to 7.1.. with Bluray - without jumping to audio over HDMI & an amplifier that supports it you're basically only going to get stereo. The new audio codecs in BD, which are basically on every BD, are too high bandwidth to go over optical or coax. So your audio has to be down-mixed to go over the old digital connections, and likely your BD player is set to downmix to stereo. Check it out at:

http://www.tomorrowland.com/2009/02/05/upgrading-to-7-1/

Neutral

chuckdaly @ Mar 22nd 2009 1:10PM

What uninformed BS!!!! BD players default to Dolby Digital over S/PDIF (Digital optical or coax). The audio isn't down-mixed over S/PDIF. There are separate audio tracks for LPCM, Dolby Surround encoded Stereo, Dolby Digital, and Dolby TrueHD. DTSHD-MA is different. It has a core of DTS from legacy products while new processors can decode the full bitstream.

S/PDIF protocol has no inherent bandwidth limitations. There are hardware limitations, For example, if BD used DTSHD-MA as its default codec, then old receivers would decode the core DTS track due to 20 bit limitations on its S/PDIF hardware, while new receivers could decode the full bitstream with updated S/PDIF hardware. The decision to use HDMI for audio was only a political decision based on DRM.

Neutral

michael smith @ Mar 22nd 2009 9:52PM

I'm sorry chuck.... I'm talking about practicalities. Protocols don't typically have bandwidth limitations, but real connections do. And implemented S/PDIF certainly does have a bandwidth limitation - which is 5.1 channels of COMPRESSED discrete audio. Take a little trip to best buy and look at a random sampling of Bluray titles. Most will have either Dolby True-HD or DTS Master Audio. These formats will not natively go over S/PDIF or Coax without being down mixed to some other format. But down mixed to what?

Most Sony standalone BD players default to down mix to Dolby SURROUND, which is stereo with a singe surround channel encoded in the pair. (Like old VHS movies) PS3 might be different - and have more options (including Dolby Digital) but it's still being down mixed and compressed. Player manufacturers assume that most people don't have the right equipment and default to downmix so they won't get support calls when customers can't hear anything.

Most people, including everyone that I've talked to about the subject, don't think to go into their player settings to turn off downmixing. And therefore they are listing to flat audio.

SO your point is that you need new hardware ("while new receivers could decode...") which is the same thing I'm saying: you need a new receiver. Political or not, audio over HDMI is the thing to embrace now.

I wouldn't call my option uninformed BS, but rather a practical reality.

Neutral

chuckdaly @ Mar 22nd 2009 11:15PM

Denon, Panasonic, and Samsung players all default to Dolby Digital when the SPDIF output is used. So it is fair to question the practicality of your presumption.

LPCM can be output over coax, but is restricted by BD manufacturers, so no hardware limitation there, only with lossless bitstream.

Actually I don't state or imply that new hardware is needed. All but the cheapest, lowest quality receivers, have a multi-channel input. This has been standard on AV receivers since the days of "Dolby Digital Ready". All BD manufacturers offer a model with multichannel output, and internal decoding. There is no evidence, technical or anecdotal, to say that the internal decoding of BD players are inferior to the decoding done in a receiver. Actually HDMI is a high jitter connection and an arguement can be made that internal decoding offers lower jitter, and therefore higher fidelity.

Why would your readers not feel the need to setup their BD player when it was needed with DVD. Panasonic and Samsung assumed consumers would not think to configure the settings, so their BD players ask you to configure audio and video settings when the unit is first booted up.

It is always good to have people advocate higher fidelity Audio and Video. I am not trying to discourage you from doing so. You just made some sweeping statements that aren't true in many instances. Don't take this personally, but it is obvious that you are young and you should take the time to learn more about the progess of home theater within the last 15 years. I would advise you to cherry pick some issues of AUDIO Magazine from 1995 - 2000.

Neutral

badweasel @ Mar 23rd 2009 3:12PM

Thanks for the comment about me being young, however it's sadly untrue.

I think you're correct that I made a few assumptions. I based my article (see link below) on the equipment that I was using - a sony S350. I also looked at the S300 and the PS3. However I did say "your audio MIGHT be worse than DVD," which is a true statement. My point was to raise the question and lead people to look at their settings - which from my feedback has happened.

I'm a fairly bright guy, but not an audio expert (while I am a video expert). And for the first few months after getting Bluray I did not check my audio settings in the BD player, no had any idea that the audio was being downmixed. I think MOST people don't. Testing HD streams with my popcorn hour is what first tipped me off on the limitations of SPDIF. I write about my experiences with technology.

It's good if the player asks you to do a setup on first boot. But still, many many people won't know what's what nor how to answer the questions. Thus bi-directional data and some handshaking (which happens with HDMI) is a good thing for the idiot-factor.

As far as multi-channel inputs go, good idea, but not all BD players have that as an output either. You seem opposed to HDMI, but it's been working well and sounds amazing, especially in 7.1.

I welcome you to comment on my site any time. I looked over your old comments here on Engadget HD and you are very knowledgeable. And thanks for the debate.

http://www.tomorrowland.com/2009/02/05/upgrading-to-7-1/

Smash TV creator talks potential sequel DDR purse is actually kind of neat Minesweeper adventure game in the works for OneBigGame	Droid Does... only have 256MB of storage for apps With AdMob purchase, there's really no escaping Google advertising now Windows 7 security defeated by 8 out of 10 malware applications
Confirmed: 10.6.2 removes Atom CPU support from Snow Leopard Wireless Keyboard Update 2.0 now available Shacking up: iPhone sales plan at RadioShack sparks rally	Ray of light: U.S. temp worker hiring increased by 34k in October Cameron International: Pull-back is an opportunity Twenty years ago today, economic freedom returned to Eastern Europe
Xbox 360 Fancast 142 -- ODSB XBLM Deal of the Week: Saints Row 2 DLC Crackdown HDD installation now available	VIDEO: BMW M3 GTS takes to the track CR&S DUU Concept is a mototerminator for the rest of us Daily U-Turn: What you missed on 11.9.09
PC game sales start hitting early New Left 4 Dead patch adds 4 on 4 competitive matchmaking Atari confirms February 2 launch date for Star Trek Online	Fed-Up K.C. Ownership Pushed to Act Larry Johnson Released, Redskins Already Expressing Interest Bengals a Win Away From Controlling AFC North