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

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 15:04:08 UTC, MG  wrote:
> Dirk Munk schreef op 26-jan-2015 om 20:56:
> > 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?
> 
> You still haven't shown me a "HDMI 2.0 cable".  Wasn't my question
> clear enough?  (On the subject of difficulty to understand things...)
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Why do you keep trying to change the subject?  Also, can you prove
> that?  (With anything other than your own prattle, i.e. something
> authorative.)
> 
> 
> > So quality, clockrate, and cable length influence each other.
> 
> Oh really?!  I would've never guessed.  But, here's some news for
> you, that wasn't the subject matter.
> 
> 
> > Why don't you ask the HDMI organization where they are?
> 
> Because HDMI Licensing (that's the organization you're probably
> thinking of) has already answered that, oh stubborn one.
> 
> It's actually fairly humorous how you're not 'giving up'.
> 
> 
> > I don't have to show you a HDMI 2.0 cable.
> 
> Sure, you don't 'have' to... more importantly, you simply can't.
> 
> Here, I'll just end your torment here.  This is from the president
> of HDMI Licensing:
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtDpFXVWSgU#t=137>  (From 2:17
> onward.)
> 
> But I'm sure you know it better.
> 
>   - MG

Around 4:20 in the video
"We don't define a cable quality, but we do define a required signal
strength at the far end" (marginally paraphrased).

Want to go further? Use lower loss (better quality?) cable. Gosh, who'd
have thought that.

Just as any engineer or physicist might have expected, cable quality
can matter, especially if you want to take the technology close to its
limits.