[Info-vax] OT: "HDMI 2.0 cables"

[Dirk Munk]

MG wrote:
> Dirk Munk schreef op 26-jan-2015 om 02:06:
>> You really didn't look at the technical details, now did you?
>
> Are you up for the bet?  I can make some serious money off a
> stubborn one like you.
>
>
>> Here's a link to a page on hdmi.org describing the 5 different cable
>> types and qualities that are defined today:
>>
>> http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx
>
> Find "HDMI 2.0" cable.  Can you find it for me?  Because I don't see
> any mentioned there, do you?

No, that's exactly the point. HDMI 1.4b specifies a maximum clockate of 
340MHz, and cables up to match that clockrate. However HDMI 2.0 
specifies a clockrate of maximal 600MHz, without specifying matching 
cables. Difficult to understand isn't it?

>
>
>> The high speed cables are defined in the HDMI 1.4b standard, and are
>> tested for a clock rate of 340MHz. These cables are sufficient for any
>> consumer equipment that is on sale today.
>
> Show me a "HDMI 2.0" cable.  (At this point I'm starting to think you
> may own some stock of some electronics retailer...)
>
>
>> The quality of the cables becomes important when they get longer. If
>> you look for it you will find test with long HDMI cables, and then
>> it becomes clear that indeed there are differences in cable quality.
>
> /Ah ah/, don't try to change the subject now.  We were talking about
> cable types, not about cable lengths.  For the final and last time,
> show me an "HDMI 2.0" cable or admit that you're horribly wrong and
> made a terrible of yourself.

No, not really. A short cable of a certain type may be capable of 
handling a certain clockrate, a longer cable of the same type may not. 
So quality, clockrate, and cable length influence each other.

>
>
>> The HDMI 2.0 standard however also defines the 8k TV standards etc.
>> and for that the clock rate can be as high as 600MHz, well in access
>> of the 340MHz specification of today's high speed cables as defined
>> in HDMI 1.4b.
>
> Now, where are these mythical "HDMI 2.0" cables I wonder...

Why don't you ask the HDMI organization where they are? What's the use 
of specifying a clockrate of 600MHz without specifying cables for that 
clockrate. I'm sure you will have a very good reason, telepathic HDMI 
for instance.

>
>
>> Now don't you think that at some point there must be a new cable
>> standard for the 600MHz clock rate?
>
> "At some point", I'm talking about the here and now.  Do you live
> in the here and now or "at some point"?

I haven't tested the cables (obviously), but it may be possible that 
some companies actually have produced such cables. Do you know with 
absolute certainty that no one has produced them?

>
>
>> Same thing happened with multi-mode fibres. There is an OM3 standard,
>> but some companies also had an unofficial OM3-plus standard with much
>> better specifications. Later on that became the OM4 standard.
>
> No, you're wrong and don't change the subject.  We're talking (copper)
> HDMI cables, not fiber-optical cables.

Find a dictionary, and look for the word "analogy".

>
>
>> I'm not saying that the cables that are advertised as HDMI 2.0 cables
>> today are tested for 600MHz. But if they are produced by a reputable
>> company, they just might be.
>
> You still haven't shown me any "HDMI 2.0 cables"...  Want to bet?
> Maybe that will cure you of your selfrighteous stubbornness.
>
>   - MG
>


I don't have to show you a HDMI 2.0 cable. I'm merely stating that it 
may be possible that companies produce HDMI cables that can be used with 
a 600MHz clockrate. If such a cable exists today, I would call it a HDMI 
2.0 cable. I'm sure in time it will get another name.