Print 160 comment(s) - last by mckirkus.. on Jul 8 at 2:53 PM

Grab your ethernet cables and get ready! Your TV will soon use them to communicate video and data. The new standard HDBaseT, despite its not exactly memorable name, should cut costs and simplify life. It will fully roll out in 2011, killing HDMI.  (Source: eHow)
New standard offers both lower costs, the potential to deliver more information and convenience

LG Electronics, Samsung Electronics, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Valens Semiconductor have been secretly conspiring to kill HDMI.  And today they set their plans into motion, introducing a brand new audiovisual standard, HDBaseT.  While that name may sound confusing, before you slap your head, this will not likely introduce a new kind of cable to your house.

Past A/V standards from industry groups have introduced a plethora of connectors (S-Video, HDMI, DisplayPort for example), so that makes this release all the more unusual.  Instead of a new connector, it is based on the Cat 5e/6 network cables, commonly referred to as "ethernet cables".

It supports cable lengths up to 328 feet.  The cable can pass HD and 3-D video signals, as well as data through an integrated 100MBit Ethernet connection.  That data feed should allow for new internet-connected TV services, such as Google TV which delivers advertising-funded services to TV sets.

The standard also has many other advantages.  For one, it will help declutter the growing mess of cables in the average household.  By repurposing ethernet cables, it should also dramatically lower costs, both for the manufacturer and the consumer.

About the only loser in the situation may be "premium" cable makers like Monster Cable Products.  However, it'll only be a matter of time before Monster finds a way to throw gold or other precious metals into a Cat 6 cable and release it as a "premium" HDBaseT cable.

About the only loose end is what mini-connectors will arise out of this new standard.  Currently many smart phones, such as the HTC EVO 4G offer mini-HDMI connections.  Perhaps more advanced mini-USB connections will answer that dilemma, though.

The standard will begin its rollout later this year.  The majority of its volume will hit in 2011.  

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ajfink on 7/1/2010 9:59:46 AM , Rating: 5
It's refreshing to see manufacturers do something that just flat-out makes sense .

RE: Refreshing
By gibb3h on 7/1/2010 10:01:20 AM , Rating: 4

RE: Refreshing
By wrekd on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Refreshing
By Hare on 7/1/2010 11:02:24 AM , Rating: 1
It has been done already. I think Intel had demos already in 2007 and other manufacturers also have their solutions. I think in the future we will see lots of ports that can be used for displays... I mean if you can plug in a printer, mouse or a scanner why not a display.

RE: Refreshing
By StevoLincolnite on 7/1/2010 2:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
I just wished they'd have gone the USB cable route due to connector size.

Ways around that! like the old PCMCIA dial-up and Ethernet cards you used to get like this one:

It's like a "slice" of the plug hole, where the connector plugs into, only a few millimeters thick so it could end up phones etc.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 6:56:26 PM , Rating: 5
Except that my house isn't wired with USB cables, but is wired with a lot of Cat5e.

RE: Refreshing
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2010 10:16:42 AM , Rating: 3
Same. I wired my house with Cat6 while it was being built.

RE: Refreshing
By Spivonious on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Refreshing
By MrAwax on 7/1/2010 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, especially when Cat6 is 8 connectors while HDMI requires 19 connectors (a STP Cat6 cable actually has 12 connectors but you are still missing 7 connectors and STP is not mandatory for Cat6).

And HDMI High Speed (1.4 name, former Category 2 in 1.3), mandatory for 3D at 1080p and 30fps, requires 340MHz while Cat6 is only 250MHz. Cat6a is 500MHz.

(And "Cat6e" does not exists. Cat5e or Cat6 or Cat6a but not Cat6e).

RE: Refreshing
By bmheiar on 7/1/2010 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 5
There is also now CAT 7 & 7a...


Category 7 cable (Cat 7), (ISO/IEC 11801:2002 category 7/class F), is a cable standard for Ethernet and other interconnect technologies that can be made to be backwards compatible with traditional Cat 5 and Cat 6 Ethernet cable. Cat 7 features even more strict specifications for crosstalk and system noise than Cat 6. To achieve this, shielding has been added for individual wire pairs and the cable as a whole. Category 7 is recognized for all the country organizations members of ISO.

The Cat 7 cable standard has been created to allow 10 Gigabit Ethernet over 100 m of copper cabling (also, 10-Gbit/s Ethernet now is typically run on Cat 6a). The cable contains four twisted copper wire pairs, just like the earlier standards. Cat 7 can be terminated either with 8P8C compatible GG45 electrical connectors which incorporate the 8P8C standard or with TERA connectors. When combined with GG45 or TERA connectors, Cat 7 cable is rated for transmission frequencies of up to 600 MHz .

Category 7a (or Augmented Category 7) is defined at frequencies up to 1000 MHz , suitable for multiple applications in a single cable (just like all other categories) including CATV (862 MHz). Simulation results have shown that 40 Gigabit Ethernet is possible at 50 meters and 100 Gigabit Ethernet is possible at 15 meters. Mohsen Kavehrad and researchers at The Pennsylvania State University believe that either 32 nm or 22 nm circuits will allow for 100 Gigabit Ethernet at 100 meters.

However, similar studies in the past have shown that Cat5e could support 10 Gbps, so these should be read with caution. Furthermore, as of June 2010, the IEEE is currently not looking into 40 Gbps or 100 Gbps for Cat7a in its draft 802.3ba. It may in the future, but there is absolutely no guarantee that such applications will ever exist.

Cat7a is currently in ISO standards for channel performance in Amendment 1, recently component performance has been ratified in Amendment 2. The formal names are ISO 11801 Amendment 1(2008) and ISO 11801 Amendment 2 (2010).

RE: Refreshing
By tastyratz on 7/1/2010 1:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
To further stress on this these standards are established speeds along long distances typically experienced in long run in wall cabling. For the typical AV home consumer these cables might only be 3 feet long. At short distances a standard cat5e cable *might* even test sufficient for their needs (although a cat 6 would be better)

These ratings are generally established at hundreds of feet.

I for one welcome this change. It also makes me happy I have not yet purchased a receiver with an hdmi port. I can continue to wait so I get hdmi AND ethernet.

RE: Refreshing
By puffpio on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Refreshing
By ebakke on 7/1/2010 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 1
ethernet != cat5 (or any other cabling, for that matter)

RE: Refreshing
By bbomb on 7/1/2010 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Digital signals cant travel on their own from what I understand. They piggyback on analog signals to be transmitted.

RE: Refreshing
By MrTeal on 7/1/2010 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
For RF you're right, as well as for things like the internet over cable (DOCSIS). Ethernet is baseband (hence 10baseT), so it isn't modulated onto a carrier.

It's still basically analog though. Because of how digital signals actually work (a square wave is actually a series of sine waves of the same and higher frequencies), your cable does need a certain amount of bandwidth to work properly.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Refreshing
By joex444 on 7/1/2010 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
It'd actually be 2.985Gbps, and you've left out audio BTW.

RE: Refreshing
By menace on 7/1/2010 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
why do you assume it would be uncompressed?

RE: Refreshing
By icanhascpu on 7/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 7:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does Cat 6 have 12 wires inside? Just like Cat 5, it only has 10 wires.

RE: Refreshing
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2010 10:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it has 8. Green, Green/white, orange, orange/white, brown, brown/white, blue, blue/white.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/3/2010 11:04:44 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, that's what I meant. 8. Course, I use a diff scheme.

Orange/white, orange, green/white, blue, blue/white, green, brown/white, brown.

RE: Refreshing
By Spivonious on 7/1/2010 7:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so you take 2 Cat6 cables and wire it to one HDMI port.

Cable ratings are nice, but most cables exceed the ratings by quite a bit. Any quality HDMI 1.3b cable can carry 3D signals just fine.

RE: Refreshing
By vagvoba on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Refreshing
By edge929 on 7/1/2010 11:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on the gauge. I have HDMI cables that are easily 2-3 times as thick as my Cat6a cables that are not in-wall rated (CL2). Then again I have other HDMI cables that are roughly the same thickness as Cat6a, just depends on shielding.

My house was built last year, phone tech used Cat5e as do most from what I've read, would have preferred Cat6a STP with 2 runs to every room.

RE: Refreshing
By Mitch101 on 7/1/2010 11:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
Im just about to do the very thing you all are talking about.

A single Cat5e cable can do 1080P HDMI 1.2 up to 6meg streams.

To do 1080P in deep color depth you need to run two cat5e cables.

The problem mainly is cable length HDMI does not do well over length.

RE: Refreshing
By Guspaz on 7/1/2010 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're a bit confused... There isn't nearly enough bandwidth that can be pushed through a Cat5e cable to run uncompressed HDMI video (which by the spec needs to be able to do up to 3.96Gbps)... Unless you're talking about electrically, in which case there just aren't enough wires in a Cat5e cable to do HDMI, unless that's what you meant by needing two cables, but in that case, deep colour depth doesn't change the number of wires required, it just changes the bandwidth required (HDMI 1.3 bumped video bandwidth up to 8.16Gbps)...

RE: Refreshing
By Mitch101 on 7/1/2010 3:22:47 PM , Rating: 3
Im doing this now. HDMI 1.2a Digital Audio/Video Transmitter
Comprehensive CHE-1 HDMI Splitter & Extender Over Single Cat5
* Extend 1080p Video Up to 50 meters
* Signal Rates Up to 1.65Gbps

This is the direction Im going with dual cat5e If I recall 10.2 Gbps is possible doing this and I should be able to to 3D over it.
* Supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p, 480i
* Supports Deep Color
* Supports Dolby True HD 7.1 and DTS-HD
* HDCP Compatible
* Extend HDMI Signal Up To 60m (196ft)

Technically I should run cat6 to be safer.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Just cause they want to use Cat5 cable, doesn't mean they'll push the signal over the cable according to the networking specs. I can guarantee they can push a hell of a lot more bandwith through it.

Like when we used telephone lines just for telephones. Then later, we found out we can use it for dial-up internet. After that, dsl.

I wouldn't be surprised if they can push like 10 Gbps over Cat5 in a different fashion.

RE: Refreshing
By jabber on 7/4/2010 7:17:12 AM , Rating: 2

Remember folks, they dont have to apply ethernet standards in this scenario.

They are taking a length of ethernet cable and treating it as a length of plain copper cable and then seeing what it can do for their scenario.

I bet you can push an awful lot of signal and bandwidth through that cable.

Remember often a lot of standards are not so much created for benefits to the consumer but for future market churn.

You dont turn the taps fully on day one. You give them an extra turn every few years instead.

In fact this could prove a little embarrassing for the ethernet development folks.

"Why didnt you let us have all that bandwidth years ago???!!"

RE: Refreshing
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2010 8:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
What to you keep meaning by saying "do HDMI" ? HDMI is simply a cabling standard, not an actual content format.

RE: Refreshing
By namechamps on 7/2/2010 4:28:27 PM , Rating: 1
No you are confused.

There is no set bandwidth for Cat5e.

100Mbps is a common protocol that utilizes Cat5e wiring however it doesn't mean that is the only protocol that can use Cat5e wiring.

Cat5e is simply a minimum quality standard for wiring. It has nothing to do with Mbps or Gbps.

Many companies have developed proprietary protocols to push HDMI data over Cat5e.

RE: Refreshing
By drewsup on 7/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Refreshing
By Strunf on 7/1/2010 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why does it have to be lossless? I haven't seen a single audio/video material on my TV that was encoded with a lossless codec and I don't think I will ever see it.

There's a protocol called DLNA that allows you to stream content over ethernet to all kind of devices including TVs, my TV only supports mpeg-2 if it supported mpeg-4 I wouldn't bother using my PS3 to decode it.

RE: Refreshing
By MGSsancho on 7/1/2010 5:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Loss-less audio comes on most blur-ray disc. You only see broadcast audio deliver 320kbps Dolby surround sound maybe even 640kbps DTS but I have yet to see it. Broadcasters will not be sending out 20mb loss-less audio anytime soon (DTS-MA for example.) They would rather use that bandwidth for video. You will be lucky to get more than 10mb for a HD video stream as it is.

RE: Refreshing
By JediJeb on 7/1/2010 6:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Kinda what I was wondering. How can the cable company send HD down over a cable that sends internet as speeds lower than 1Gb/s. If HD really requires 3+Gb/s and the cable companies are providing that over their wires, then we should be getting much faster internet connections, unless it is all being taken up by HDTV.

RE: Refreshing
By Silver2k7 on 7/2/2010 5:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
TV streams are using probably much harder compression than blu-ray does.. if you find a tv stream or ripped file to compare to your blu-ray you will clearly see a difference.

RE: Refreshing
By Flunk on 7/2/2010 8:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
Cable bandwith is about 850Mhz which is more than Cat5e or Cat6. Also cable is compressed, either with H.264 or MPEG2 (older SD tech).

Saying that, every single channel has to be encoded in the same cable, along with internet, analog channels and on-demand services so there is only so much that they can get in there. Don't expect to see cable internet much faster than 100Mbps down (and a lot less up) unless someone makes a huge breakthrough.

RE: Refreshing
By omnicronx on 7/7/2010 2:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Cable bandwith is about 850Mhz which is more than Cat5e or Cat6. Also cable is compressed, either with H.264 or MPEG2 (older SD tech).
Ughh.. Analogue cable is analog, its not encoded at all. Now of course your cable company will often send your digital cable box digitalized mpeg2 feeds for what were previously analog channels, but thats as far as it goes.

As far as digital cable is concerned, all cable companies still employ good old mpeg2 for their digital broadcasts. Right now I'm pretty sure only directTV uses h264, even services like FIOS are still mpeg2..
Saying that, every single channel has to be encoded in the same cable, along with internet, analog channels and on-demand services so there is only so much that they can get in there.

Thats not really how it works. You get a set amount of bandwidth and certain blocks will be reserved for different things. Each analog channel for example takes up a 6mhz space, that being said cable companies right now are also able to fit up to 3HD channels into one 6mhz space. This is done via digital compression schemes to get more out of each 6mhz space. So to say something will never happen when we can now fit 3 channels of 10 times the resolution into a space where previously only one analog channel could fit is completely unfounded.. The 'huge breakthrough' you mention happens day in day out, its called advancements in technology.

RE: Refreshing
By namechamps on 7/2/2010 4:21:31 PM , Rating: 4
Nobody said 100Mbps Ethernet.

Cable spec and Ethernet speed are not same thing.

Cat5e does not equal "fast Ethernet" (100mbps).

Cat3, Cat4, Cat5, Cate5e, Cat6, Cat6a, Cat7, Cat7a are wiring standards and specific minimum quality standards the wire has to comply with.

10mbps, 100mbps, 1Gbps, 10Gbps, 100Gbps or more correctly 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T, and 10GBASE-T are Ethernet standards are protocols for transmitting network data.

If you were smart enough you could design your own Ethernet protocol that transmits 27Tbits of a lamp cord. All depends on how good you are and how expensive the equipment on each end is.

Don't think it is possible.
100BASE-TX is a 100Mbps standard which requires Cat5 cable however 100BASE-T4 and 100 BASE-T2 are also 100Mbps standards that only require Cat3 cable.

So when something says Cat5e it means Cat5e. It doesn't mean 100mbps, it doesn't mean gigabit, it does mean anything about Ethernet. It means a cable that complies to the minimum quality standard defined in Category 5e wiring. Period.

RE: Refreshing
By bbomb on 7/1/2010 10:47:18 AM , Rating: 1
I envision that while it may use the same cable they will use a different connector.

I dont see how this will eliminate cable clutter as it is replacing one (hdmi), not several cables, so if you have nothing but hdmi cables back there it will still look like a clusterfuck, only it will be blue wires instead of black ones.

RE: Refreshing
By kattanna on 7/1/2010 11:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
im sure it will use the same ethernet connector.

i wonder though, since im sure it will be using the 4 unused wires on the ethernet cable, how it will handle POE and even switches for that matter.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 8:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you have a patch panel in your house, just patch 1 port to another. Ignore the switch.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 8:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's not for clutter, but cost. Cat-5 is cheaper than HDMI.

RE: Refreshing
By Flunk on 7/2/2010 7:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, you can get a 5' HDMI cable for about $6 if you don't just run to Best Buy and get ripped off.

RE: Refreshing
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2010 10:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
Its also cheaper for device makers. They pay per device to put an HDMI port on their device. They'll save millions by switching to using ethernet cable.

RE: Refreshing
By afkrotch on 7/3/2010 11:06:27 AM , Rating: 3
I can get a 100m box of Cat5 for $20-$30. Can I get the same for HDMI?

RE: Refreshing
By zmatt on 7/1/2010 12:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
+1 as long as they don't try to weigh it down with stupid drm and proprietary connectors that is awesome news. I always wondered why we didn't do this already.

RE: Refreshing
By mooncancook on 7/1/2010 2:50:19 PM , Rating: 3
Monster Cables will make some more sense out of it by selling you a 1080HD 3D Ultra Extreme Turbo Supersonic THX ethernet A/V cable for a mere $99.95.

RE: Refreshing
By Flunk on 7/2/2010 7:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not convinced that it does make sense. Most people don't have a lot of Cat 6 cable lying around like techies do and they've already bought a lot of HDMI equipment. Changing the cableing without any real technical reason to do so is just added cost.

To make something clear, the most people I'm talking about here is overall, not people who read DailyTech. If anything people here are more likely than not to have a whole bunch of extra Cat 6 cable.

RE: Refreshing
By Lerianis on 7/3/2010 7:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. This is a good 'future tech', but they would have to find a way to be compatible with people's older equipment.

Though, that is the problem every single time something 'new' comes out: the people who think that their old is 'good enough', and are sometimes right.

RE: Refreshing
By blueboy09 on 7/5/2010 8:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Quite a few people I know are STILL stuck on composite video for heaven sakes, so to say that they are killing HDMI, they're liable to ask you, "What the hell is HDMI, or even Cat5 cable?" They'll just shrug their shoulders, not knowing what the hell is going on. Personally, I think that using ethernet cables is good, but it another added cost to the consumer, and then that means that we will have to buy either a new TV or player with this format, and that's going to mean ever more added confusion for you average Joe or Susie. It's just too much, especially in the shape the economy is today. - BLUEBOY

RE: Refreshing
By Lerianis on 7/3/2010 6:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
To play Devil's Advocate, I am waiting for them to whine that "THERE IS NO CONTENT PROTECTION ON THIS!" and therefore we lose another promising technology to the stupid fear of 'analog piracy'.

RE: Refreshing
By rburnham on 7/3/2010 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I want to complain about this idea, but... I can't. It's actually a pretty good one.

By Motoman on 7/1/2010 10:12:07 AM , Rating: 3
That's fine with me. But honestly, unless you're stupid enough to buy cables at someplace like BBY or Radio Shack, an HDMI cable isn't all that expensive either.

Props to DT though for mocking Monster Cable. You can immediately tell someone is an absolute neophyte if you see them owning any products from the Unholy Trinity of consumer products: Apple, Bose, or Monster Cable.

By Hiawa23 on 7/1/2010 10:27:52 AM , Rating: 1
I bought HDMI cables for my PS3 & Xbox360 from $3.25 each, I also bought the $99 Monster cables from Best Buy to see if there was a difference. The only difference my eye could see was $96, as the pic looked the same so I returned the overpriced Monster cables. What kind of markup is that, talk about crazy profit margins. Alot of folks got ripped off thinking they had to buy the more expensive cables.

By Scabies on 7/1/2010 12:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I remember having this argument with a co-worker. He was most-ways through his computer science degree, touting his A+, CISCO, etc certifications, and swore that Monster HDMI was superior to the pack-in cable from his Xbox or the $4 guys from Monoprice. As long as all the bits arrive, digital is digital; no amount of extra connectivity or shielding will affect picture/sound quality.

He just couldn't wrap his head around that, for some reason.

By Motoman on 7/1/2010 1:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
All that demonstrates is that you can be plenty book-smart and still be an idiot.

Lots of otherwise smart people believe in/do really stupid things.

By knutjb on 7/1/2010 3:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well lets see is Cat 6 more capable than Cat5e? There must be a difference between the cables. They do have different properties. So why is it outrageous that some, not all, cables can provide better performance through design. I'm not talking marketing hyperbole.

Cables have different electrical properties and that does affect the equipment it is connected to. It does make a difference in digital cables too. The bandwidth a given cable has does have a direct impact on the data being transferred. I does not mean the spendy stuff is always better.

HDMI has shown itself, perhaps by standard and implementation, to be cable neutral. Other places choosing the right cable does make a significant difference. With analog and digital/video there are widely varying differences in electrical properties between manufacturers. Because of this difference cables do have a significant impact. Here again, price does not always dictate ability to integrate.

What HiFi some years ago had a cross comparison with budget, mid-range, and silly money equipment. Then used each set of cables on each system. In the end the spendy stuff made a difference on the spendy equipment and so on with the other equipment.

I don't like HDMI and most of the entry level consumer grade cables because they fit loosely or don't have any form of retention and in home theater a loose cable can cause mayhem. Usually the more expensive stuff has more secure, if not locking connectors. Here again price doesn't always make it better but it can and frequently in my experience it does.

I have heard and seen differences between cables and equipment. Knock it down if you like but if you just listen to highly compressed music you probably aren't sensitive enough to notice the difference. BTW I don't like Monster Cable cables, their power conditioners aren't too bad though.

By Motoman on 7/1/2010 4:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're confused.

Cat5, Cat5e and Cat6 are all built to different technical specifications. There *is* a difference between the cables. Note that they all pretty much cost the same anyway.

Take any kind of cable or wire you want - let's say speaker wire. Get yerself some $100 Monster Cable speaker wire, and a couple $1 extension cords from your local hardware store. Cut the ends off the extension cords, and use them for speaker wire. Compare that to the Monster Cable. There will be no difference. In fact, you could solder coat hangers in the middle of the speaker wire, and the difference would only be discernible to an oscilloscope.

Same goes for ethernet cable, HDMI cables, or anything else. HDMI being completely digital, it makes even less sense - but even in fully analog transmissions, like speaker cables, if you believe there is a discernible difference between $100 speaker wire and El Cheapo stuff, you are absolutely fooling yourself.

Enjoy your Bose "stereo" equipment.

By MGSsancho on 7/1/10, Rating: 0
By jkresh on 7/1/2010 6:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with you on the speaker wire issue (at least among cables with different gauges). I ran out of wire during a 5.1 run and used extra from another job, (may have been audiovox for that 1 and monster for the other 4), the sound from that speaker was different then the rest (and I tested that on some people who I didn't tell which speaker had the different wire). I can't say what was better or worse but they definitely did not sound the same. For hdmi or optical outside of issues with cable length there is no difference but on analog cables there can be real differences.

By Chocobollz on 7/2/2010 1:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
Take any kind of cable or wire you want - let's say speaker wire. Get yerself some $100 Monster Cable speaker wire, and a couple $1 extension cords from your local hardware store. Cut the ends off the extension cords, and use them for speaker wire. Compare that to the Monster Cable. There will be no difference. In fact, you could solder coat hangers in the middle of the speaker wire, and the difference would only be discernible to an oscilloscope.

Same goes for ethernet cable, HDMI cables, or anything else. HDMI being completely digital, it makes even less sense - but even in fully analog transmissions, like speaker cables, if you believe there is a discernible difference between $100 speaker wire and El Cheapo stuff, you are absolutely fooling yourself.

Wow, just wow! Coat hangers? Not affecting the sound's quality? Do you really expect me to believe that? What you said is only true IF those Monster Cable was a fake ones, means that they sold a cheaper cable as a premium priced cables. But if you do compare an El Cheapo cable to a good one, then there'll definitely a difference (unless if you're a deaf person). Do you know about "impedance mismatch"? That's what you get when you "solder a coat hanger to a cable". All cables have different impedance and different impedance react differently, so it'll affect the sound's quality, especially in analog. Even a semi-skilled ears would have noticed the difference!

In a digital connection, the effect is less pronounced but it does still affect the quality of whatever being transferred. You want a proof? Try to solder your "coat hangers" to your ethernet cables (or if that's too complicated, to your USB cables) and see if you got any trouble with your USB devices.

Now get back to your basement, start reading your junior highschool physics book and start soldering a "coat hanger" to a cable. You'll know what I mean.

By Motoman on 7/3/2010 11:04:58 AM , Rating: 3

I invite you now to go eff yourself. Can you tell the difference on your diagnostic equipment? Sure. Can you tell the difference with your ears? No.


By knutjb on 7/3/2010 4:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even read it? Maybe if I said I would rather drive a Ford GT than a Toyota Prius you would argue that they both get you from point A to point B equally well but the Toyota is cheaper so its better.

By bigsnyder on 7/1/2010 9:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
The issue here is price does not always equate to quality (edit: which you also said). Cat6 is what it is due to the specs it needs to meet, usually tighter windings on the twisted pairs and sometimes (not always)slightly larger gauge vs Cat5/5e. Now whether "brand a" is better than "brand b" for the exact type of cable (HDMI, ethernet, etc.) is not so cut and dry unless you can compare concrete specs. I will take a cheap 12 gauge speaker cable vs a high priced 16 gauge any day. In the digital era, most cables are all equal at short runs, it only has to carry a "1" or "0". I have had flawless performance from my "cheap" monoprice cables for a couple of years now.

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Digital cables don't matter. You either get your 1's and 0's or you don't. Monster cable's 1's and 0's aren't magically better than a $3 cable's 1's and 0's.

You can put think the Monster cable's connectors are better than the $3. That's fine. But gold plated, oxygen free copper, or whatever is just stupid gimmicks.

By knutjb on 7/3/2010 3:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
First off I said I don't like Monster Cable cables that I've tried. I think they sound flat on the highs. Kimber Kable PBJ & 8TC works amazingly well in my good system, my less expensive HT system isn't too picky but doesn't sound as good either.

If you had paid attention to what I said you would have read that with all of the input/output electrical properties that vary by manufacturer, different cables will have different results. The wrong impedance cable, even on a digital connection, will sound wrong. Try it if you have good equipment or go to someplace that does.

There is more going on than just 1s & 0s there is also timing (jitter) and attenuation among others. If a cable's electrical property acts like a filter in the band that the data is transmitted in it won't work too well. On analog a cable can act like a tone control and sound wrong if mismatched.

I also said price doesn't make one cable sound/look better than another, it's what works well electrically. Most marketing is gimmickry, not all products are gimmicks.

By afkrotch on 7/3/2010 11:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, jitter is a problem. At speeds of 1 gbps or higher. Let's see...oh, that's right. Not a freaking problem, seeing as we aren't pushing our video at those speeds.

By Silver2k7 on 7/2/2010 5:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
"All that demonstrates is that you can be plenty book-smart and still be an idiot.

Lots of otherwise smart people believe in/do really stupid things."

Yeah well all an IQ test really proves is some ability to solve problems faster or think about problems differently than other people perhaps. Its still perfectly normal to make stupid mistakes ;)

By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2010 6:46:13 PM , Rating: 3
Cable quality, when it comes to digital cables, is the biggest ripoff and source of general consumer ignorance out there.

A digital signal will either arrive at it's destination 100% intact, or it won't arrive at all. Cable quality, unlike analogue, is meaningless.

The absolute cheapest made cable, if functioning, will carry a digital signal just as well as a 100 buck "Monster" cable. I wish more people would understand this.

By Chocobollz on 7/2/2010 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
A digital signal will either arrive at it's destination 100% intact, or it won't arrive at all. Cable quality, unlike analogue, is meaningless.

Wrong. If it's a copper connection, it's still an analog connection, no matter how you say it. And as you might already know, any analog signal is susceptible to noise, and that noise could be very strong and hard to filter. And if the filter is failed in doing their job, your data might be "broken", ie. 0 could be intrepreted as 1, and vice versa.

If you want a proof, here is a quote from
The maximum length of a standard USB cable (for USB 2.0 or earlier) is 5.0 metres (16.4 ft). The primary reason for this limit is the maximum allowed round-trip delay of about 1,500 ns. If USB host commands are unanswered by the USB device within the allowed time, the host considers the command lost. When adding USB device response time, delays from the maximum number of hubs added to the delays from connecting cables, the maximum acceptable delay per cable amounts to be 26 ns.[24] The USB 2.0 specification requires cable delay to be less than 5.2 ns per meter (192,000 km/s, which is close to the maximum achievable transmission speed for standard copper cable).[25] This allows for a 5 meter cable.

If what you're saying is true, that "A digital signal will either arrive at it's destination 100% intact, or it won't arrive at all", then why do the manufacturers need to ensure that the delays is never more than 1,500 ns? Why do they need to drop a command even though it was being retrieved successfully ie. the signal was arrived (albeit longer than 1,500 ns)? It's because even though the signal was arrived at the destination, it were not reliable, and so they were dropped.

The same effect is happening in for example, a HDD. While the data itself is digital, the medium in which they store it is still analog (a magnetic media). And like I said, an analog medium is susceptible to noise, that's why they have the 8b/10b encoding scheme, to prevent those noise.

By Eris23007 on 7/2/2010 2:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, absolutely true. As I understand it, another one of the key reasons for length limitations and tight cable delay specs is jitter. If, for example, one wire or set of wires in a cable is of significantly lower quality / higher delay than another wire / set of wires, it could conceivably lead to sufficient jitter in parallel or differential signals to cause loss of data integrity.

That said, if the $3 cable passes the standard battery of data integrity tests for ethernet, HDMI, whatever, you better believe I'm not throwing down $100 either.

Even for analog cables, it quickly gets to the point of absurdity. If speaker wire is 99.99% oxygen free and has a decent dielectric in the center, it should do justfinethankyouverymuch®™©℠. There are plenty of inexpensive alternatives to the Monster Cables of the world.

That said, I will say one thing in favor of Monster: they make an extremely handly little travel power strip which I bought a couple years ago and has saved my rear end in airports many, many times:

Surprisingly, at < $10 it's not a complete rip-off!

By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2010 4:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. If it's a copper connection, it's still an analog connection, no matter how you say it.

Well then by that definition, NOTHING is digital and every connection is analog. Yes, electrical signals are interpreted as 0's and 1's, big shock. Thank you Mr. Science.

And if the filter is failed in doing their job, your data might be "broken", ie. 0 could be intrepreted as 1, and vice versa.

Didn't I already cover this? That would cause visible and/or audible corruption.

What I was referring to specifically is a company saying that a perfectly good cable isn't good enough, and theirs is superior. Sorry but with digital, it doesn't work that way. If the 0's and 1's are going across the cheap cable just fine, you will see NO DIFFERENCE in the more expensive cable. The only exception being if the cable lengths are extremely long. Then a "better" made cable would make a difference.

I'm well aware that there a bunch of extremely misguided audio/videophiles out there who try to justify thousand dollar cables, 10 grand receivers, and the like. They swear there is a difference etc etc. Sounds like you have been suckered in by this mentality.

By Chocobollz on 7/3/2010 4:04:09 AM , Rating: 1
Well then by that definition, NOTHING is digital and every connection is analog.

I'd say, yes. Except maybe for an optical connection like a fiber-optic for example. Here is some quotes from
In computer architecture and other digital systems, a waveform that switches between two voltage levels representing the two states of a Boolean value (0 and 1) is referred to as a digital signal, even though it is an analog voltage waveform , since it is interpreted in terms of only two levels.

Although in a highly simplified and idealised model of a digital circuit we may wish for these transitions to occur instantaneously, no real world circuit is purely resistive and therefore no circuit can instantly change voltage levels .

In other words, there's no such thing as a pure digital signal, you can't have instantaneous switching between a 0 and 1, so it can't be said as a pure digital. The waveform is still a sine wave, so it can be said as an analog signal.
Didn't I already cover this? That would cause visible and/or audible corruption.

No, you didn't. There's nowhere in this thread you're saying such thing.

All in all, I do agree with you that a more expensive cables doesn't always relate to better performance, it's just that sometimes, a more expensive cable do make difference. It's depends on the quality of the cable. And no, I have never bought an expensive cable before, I always use a cable which in $1 to $3 range xD~ It really depends on your needs. If you're going to fed the cables to an expensive equipments, then you might aswell buy a better cable. But remember that more expensive != better.

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 8:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're crazy Hiawa23. You can't tell that the Monster cables are $96 better. That's a whole lot of better.

By blueboy09 on 7/5/2010 8:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
But that's what Monster wants you to think: that you're getting some very good for the absurd price that they're asking. Most will be suckered, especially if they don't do their homework. I had a Monster Y-audio adapter, and for the $35 that I payed for it, you're not going to notice the difference if you bought a $8 Belkin at Wally World. It's all about profit margins, and how many people they can sucker in to reap those profits (Apple, I'm looking at you!) - BLUEBOY

By superflex on 7/1/2010 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 1
No highs, no lows, must be Bose.

Good Riddance.
By DarkElfa on 7/1/2010 10:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'll not miss HDMI one bit, though I can't wait for Monster Cable's $120 gold plated 2 meter cat 5 kit.


Pick a fricken standard, damned electronics industry.

RE: Good Riddance.
By Stacey Melissa on 7/1/2010 10:14:42 AM , Rating: 4
I present to you, the Denon AKDL1 1.5-meter CAT..., er, Dedicated Link Cable:

Only $2,499.99. Used.

RE: Good Riddance.
By dgingeri on 7/1/2010 10:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
Who would be enough of an idiot to actually buy that?

RE: Good Riddance.
By Mitch101 on 7/1/2010 12:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yea especially when they offer refurbished ones on the same page for $999. Obviously they have high failure rates to offer refurbs.


RE: Good Riddance.
By omnicronx on 7/7/2010 3:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Who would be enough of an idiot to buy Monster cables?

oh wait..

RE: Good Riddance.
By svenkesd on 7/1/2010 10:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Read the comments section...hilarious.

RE: Good Riddance.
By plowak on 7/1/2010 10:34:55 AM , Rating: 5
Dido, hilarious! Of the 371 buyer comments, all are fictional and up to DT quality. Here's an example:
"Transmission of music data at rates faster than the speed of light seemed convenient, until I realized I was hearing the music before I actually wanted to play it. Apparently Denon forgot how accustomed most of us are to unidirectional time and the general laws of physics. I tried to get used to this effect but hearing songs play before I even realized I was in the mood for them just really screwed up my preconceptions of choice and free will. I'm still having a major existential hangover. "

RE: Good Riddance.
By amanojaku on 7/1/2010 12:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Connector and cable structure designed to thoroughly eliminate adverse effects from vibration
What about the product description? Since when does a cable, copper or fibre, require protection from vibration? I'm pretty sure San Francisco doesn't change out its wiring infrastructure after an earthquake...

RE: Good Riddance.
By Helbore on 7/1/2010 12:45:58 PM , Rating: 3
That's because these guys did their cabling.

RE: Good Riddance.
By Spuke on 7/1/2010 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Read the comments section...hilarious.
God is that sh!t funny!!!!!!

But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
I about pissed my pants on this one.

RE: Good Riddance.
By bighairycamel on 7/1/2010 10:58:28 AM , Rating: 4
AudioQuest K2 terminated speaker cable - UST plugs 8' (2.44m) pair - $6800.00 With free super saver shipping!

Likewise, the user comments are cleverly entertaining.

RE: Good Riddance.
By johnsonx on 7/3/2010 6:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
that's the cheap stuff loser. If you don't have the AudioQuest Signature Line 20m rca audio cable pair for $52,800, why do you even bother listening to music?

RE: Good Riddance.
By johnsonx on 7/3/2010 6:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Good Riddance.
By mckirkus on 7/8/2010 2:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Gigantic PDF warning.

RE: Good Riddance.
By omnicronx on 7/7/2010 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
LoL, I've always laughed at high end cabling solutions, as though the cables within your speakers are of the same 'quality'. Yes even many high end speakers use basic wire internally thus pretty much throwing away any benefit of using higher end cable if even half of the tripe they claim is true ;)

RE: Good Riddance.
By inperfectdarkness on 7/1/2010 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
the reviews at the bottom of the page are priceless.

RE: Good Riddance.
By redbone75 on 7/1/2010 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love the attributes, also:

Dimensional rift capability
Cure Cancer
Dishwasher safe
Please my wife
Wolf powers
Conductivity for flux
Paranormal DJ skills
Ability to become self aware
Pure copper shiznit inside

and more. Just awesome!

RE: Good Riddance.
By MGSsancho on 7/1/2010 5:54:20 PM , Rating: 1
That is not exactly an Ethernet cable. The twist fer inch on the twisted are different than Ethernet cables. Yes I am sure it will work in your home LAN but I would bet money it has more loss than a similar cat6 cable at the same length for 350mhz signaling used for Ethernet. The Denon Link is over priced but it for their own propriatory signaling.

By GruntboyX on 7/1/2010 10:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
This is excellent news! I hope more people jump on board including Computer manufactures. This will make wiring video so cheep and better. Not to mention I am no longer limited by the silly transmission length limitations of HDMI.

Only unanswered question. What does this mean for HDCP? Will it work the same? Or the CES manufactures basically performing a unholy revolt and giving the finger to content makers.

The license costs for HDMI are not cheep and this allows them to increase there ever shrinking margins.

By Digimonkey on 7/1/2010 10:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Only unanswered question. What does this mean for HDCP? Will it work the same? Or the CES manufactures basically performing a unholy revolt and giving the finger to content makers.

Ff Sony Pictures Entertainment is involved with this, then yes, HDCP will still be around.

By Anoxanmore on 7/1/2010 10:26:16 AM , Rating: 1
HDCP is going to be very hard to put on the ethernet cable. After dealing with the headaches of HDMI 1.0 1.1. 1.2 1.3 1.4 etc etc etc.

This will be a welcome change, although I don't see how they are going to be able to enforce the HDCP unless it is coded into the one of the twisted pairs by itself.

Although they could do something similar to what they did with component.

By MrAwax on 7/1/2010 10:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
HDCP is part of the protocol, not the cable.

By Anoxanmore on 7/1/2010 10:46:04 AM , Rating: 1
It has to be carried on the cable, much like how component provided some measure of DRM. It will not be the same HDCP that is on HDMI.

By MrTeal on 7/1/2010 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's just the physical layer, it won't make a difference to the actual protocol should they choose to implement it that way. It's the same as running ethernet over 10baseT, 10base2, 10base5, etc.

By mindless1 on 7/1/2010 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, it doesn't. It is merely a host-client validation that could be done with pieces of string and two cups (given right RX/TX sender and sensor).

By Ammohunt on 7/1/2010 1:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Everytime these F'ers change the cabling i have to re-buy recievers, DVD players everything I really don't give a rats ass what the cable looks like as long as it can be a standard for more than 2 years.

RE: Grrr
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you need to buy all these different equipment if you have a receiver? You shouldn't need more than just a new receiver.

The receiver should receive all manner of connection from your devices. Then with the brand new connection, it goes to your new TV.

Why you'd bother replacing your working hardware with something that just has a new connection is beyond me. Gonna have to give me a hell of a lot more incentive to upgrade, then just a new connection.

Also, when hasn't a TV connection lasted more than 2 years? We've got coax, component, composite, and hdmi. There's even was that short s-video stint back in the 90s. All of them lasted 2+ years.

RE: Grrr
By Ammohunt on 7/2/2010 4:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
I want the best quality picture and sound if i took your approach i would still be running S-Video.

RE: Grrr
By afkrotch on 7/3/2010 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
A dvd player isn't going to look any better on HDMI, s-video, or composite. Unless you decided to buy an upconverting dvd player, even then, it doesn't look all that much better.

Not even sure why you'd want to buy a new one, if you can just buy a blu-ray player.

Anyways, you can get a brand new receiver that like uses HDMI, component, or this new HDbaseT. Just connect all your old crap to the receiver, then the receiver to the new TV with the new standard. It's not like this new standard is going to make some kind of 2160p. It's just a new way to push current HD content to a TV.

If it wasn't for HDCP, we'd probably just keep pushing HD over analog.

kill or coexist?
By dani31 on 7/1/2010 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
This would simply stream HD media between two network-conected devices.

I am not sure it is designed to replace any kind of a/v cable.

Not before my monitor will be lan-enabled and my videocard will be able to output video through a network card.

RE: kill or coexist?
By muddybulldog on 7/1/2010 1:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Kill. Read the announcement: "HDBaseT is the first to provide all-in-one connectivity, making it possible for a single-connector TV to receive power, video/audio, Internet and control signals from the same cable."

RE: kill or coexist?
By jdietz on 7/1/2010 6:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
TVs need far too much power to get it through a cable. If you have a frankenTV that needs 5W it will work. Otherwise you'll need a separate power cable. A device like a switch may be able to be powered by the cable.

How do you load a signal onto these cables? You need an audio and an NIC plugged into your video card to get the audio and data signals to and from the cable. Otherwise you need a muxer which is just another device that adds clutter, expense, and signal delay.

By phatboye on 7/1/2010 11:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
After reading an article about the ongoing war upon A/V connectors (displayport, DVI, HDMI, UDI, etc.) I remember getting modded down for suggesting that standard CAT5 cables be used as a digital A/V connector instead. Funny how that ended up becoming true.

Anyways that was some years ago. Now with USB3 and even more importantly, Intel's lightpeak on the way I'd see using them as the standard A/V connector provided they have enough bandwidth and the licensing terms are not outlandish.

RE: LightPeak
By phatboye on 7/1/2010 11:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
sorry for the double post.

RE: LightPeak
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see LightPeak, but not exactly a whole lot of ppl on board with it. It'd also free up more copper, as we wouldn't be using it in our cables.

By danobrega on 7/1/2010 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
I fail to understand how 100Mbit/s is enough. The current HDMI bandwidth is 10.2 Gbit/s.

Anyone knows the whole story?

RE: 100Mbits?
By alanore on 7/1/2010 12:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Its pretty confusing, they don't seems to give much in the way of particulars. They are claiming that you can get between 10.2Gbps and 20Gbps over a Cat5e or Cat6. I think the 100Mbps Ethernet is carried in addition to the TV signal. A bit like how broadband uses all the additional frequencies of a copper cable that 56K dial-up doesn't, and at the same time still lets the use the phone.

I there for assume that, mega cheap CAT5e might not work properly. Also you'll need a HDBaseT switch to connect multiple devices, a standard Ethernet switch would ignore all the TV signal.

RE: 100Mbits?
By MGSsancho on 7/1/2010 6:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
I think you are correct. I see this as more of a communication path between the player, display and receiver. Would be cheaper just to communicate with each other with TCP/IP or other widely used protocol. maybe say if the receiver or player is connected to the internet, other devices hooked up to it over this HDbaseT can get updates, status updates to each other, firmware updates, maybe the player can notify the receiver and TV that in 5 mins the video will be over, allow my to email my equipment im coming downstairs so it better be watching my programing? Just assumptions here

Forget ethernet cables, why not USB 3.0?
By supersi on 7/1/2010 5:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't they design USB 3.0 to handle this, ethernet and everything else? USB plugs and receivers have a much more friendly profile for designing slim, unobtrusive, low profile devices. They are also really easy to plug in and out. How many people have got RJ45's jammed in sockets because the brittle catch broke-off?

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 10:07:01 PM , Rating: 3
Some houses are already wired with cat-5. It's cheaper. It'll also carry the network connection over it.

Also RJ-45 connections breaking. Not like it's real hard to replace. Nothing more than 1 minute of work. Ever had a busted USB connection? Bring out the solder.

bye hdcp, hello possibilities
By Joshyouwaa on 7/1/2010 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
Thats sweet. Always hated dealing with

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
We'll still deal with HDCP. This isn't going to change anything.

Now people will get confused
By jimbojimbo on 7/1/2010 12:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
The strength of HDMI right now is that if you see an HDMI cable you plug it into the TV's HDMI jack. Now people are going to see this ethernet cable and plug it into the first ethernet jack they see in the back of their TV. 50/50 that they'll plug it into the data portion, meant for internet access, then complain that their TV isn't working.

RE: Now people will get confused
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
100% chance that there will only be a single ethernet jack that will do both your video and network.

By Geminiman on 7/1/2010 12:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
People please:

This is not ethernet, this is using CAT5e/6 wiring to broadcast.

Given that there are a number of (expensive) systems out there that can use a single Cat 6 cable to transfer HDMI, this isn't at all unexpected and is completely reasonable.

The 100 megabit Ethernet channel is IN ADDITION to the ability to transmit 3d 1080p.

The question still remains, are they going to finally define an inter-operable and reliable control system that everyone has to support and actually works so that I don't have to have a billion remotes and can have TV is multiple rooms of my house and control the damn Satellite Box without having to run additional wiring or use an IR repeater (which almost all of them suck)

If they can give us 3D Tv, 100 megabit ethernet channel, control of devices automatically that works unlike HDMI then they will have succeeded. And I'll be able to make cables for $2 without having to buy them from Monoprice :)

By skarn on 7/2/2010 6:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to be boring, but if you following the link to the HDBaseT webpage in the article and look at the technical spec's then you'll see what they are proposing they can achieve.

By Strunf on 7/1/2010 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
With DLNA we can do this already, I've never tried it but it seems to me that some TVs already accept streamed content using the ethernet connection.

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't talking about online streaming though. Instead of an HDMI cable between your PS3, 360, blu-ray, dvd, whatever. You'll use a cat-5 cable.

Why another cable standard?
By Slyne on 7/1/2010 1:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
While I was disappointed, when HDMI was released, that they based it on LVDS - which means it was doomed to short distances, I was impressed by how far they managed to take it with multiple revisions. I personally think the last iteration, with 10-bit colors, support for 3D, high quality sound formats, a reverse path for sound and, I believe, support for control, is plenty sufficient for any use we might have in the short term.

However, I was secretly hoping that this was the last A/V cable standard we'd ever see. So now I hope that this standard will only be necessary in some cases, which were not already addressed by HDMI, like long-distance A/V transfer, and that, just like WiFi has replaced Ethernet cables in many places, Wireless A/V protocols will replace A/V cables in the typical home. Bring on WirelessHD, I say!

RE: Why another cable standard?
By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Think we are a few years away from that. Just look how slow 802.11n is. Even at it's max bandwith, it's 400 mbits shy of Gig-E.

Still need HDMI for current devices?
By adrift02 on 7/1/2010 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if this has been answered, didn't see it.

While this is great and all (as some people already own this type of cable), it still won't work with any of our current devices right? Are we talking about a cable with a Ethernet plug on the end that is passing through AV? The device would need to be built to play AV from that port wouldn't it?

Or is this just an Ethernet cable with an HDMI connector on the end?

By afkrotch on 7/1/2010 9:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
No real mention. My assumption though, is that it'll use an RJ-45 connector. They'll find a new method to push more bandwith through it, on top of your network connection.

You'll need new switches that can handle pushing everything through it. The new switches will also be backwards compatible with just non-HDbaseT devices, so they'll just get network.

That's just my assumption though. Who knows how they'll do it.

By wiak on 7/3/2010 3:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
subject or should i repeat
"they are busting the wrong spies!, look at the movie industry that has infiltrated us goverment already"

just my comment :D

By wiak on 7/3/2010 3:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
damn this comment system :O

By dr4gon on 7/1/2010 10:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty impressive that this thing can push 100W of power while doing everything else. That could just about power most of the players/devices. I wish it had Gigabit instead of 10/100 though.

By PAPutzback on 7/1/2010 10:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
That I would run 6 CAT6 lines to a wall plate in each room. TV,XBOX, WII, and a HDHR takes five. This brings us a lot closer to distributed video in the home. If use use an IR repeater you can easily put all your tuners in the basement and if the signal can go 300+ feet that should cover the size of about 99 percent of the homes built.

No Details Yet
By gduzan on 7/1/2010 11:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Their web site is extremely light on details, but from what they are saying my guess is that they are taking a number of existing standards and agreeing to use them. A mention of power provision brings to mind Power over Ethernet. I expect that content protection (not quite DRM, but still annoying for open systems advocates) would be accomplished using DTCP-IP, which is part of DLNA, and roughly comparable to HDCP, but for IP.

By phatboye on 7/1/2010 11:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
After reading an article about the ongoing war upon A/V connectors (displayport, DVI, HDMI, UDI, etc.) I remember getting modded down for suggesting that standard CAT5 cables be used as a digital A/V connector instead. Funny how that ended up becoming true.

Anyways that was some years ago. Now with USB3 and even more importantly, Intel's lightpeak on the way I'd see using them as the standard A/V connector provided they have enough bandwidth and the licensing terms are not outlandish.

By inperfectdarkness on 7/1/2010 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
About the only loser in the situation may be "premium" cable makers like Monster Cable Products. However, it'll only be a matter of time before Monster finds a way to throw gold or other precious metals into a Cat 6 cable and release it as a "premium" HDBaseT cable.

Be the first on your block to have the all new Monster Cable Cat-6 HD cables. These HDBaseT cables are made under special contract license from RDA Corporation. For only $793,995 you can have the absolute highest in quality for your HD viewing pleasure.

Our precision crafted, gold-plated connectors are paired with the absolute best housings available; platinum. Even more amazing, our cables are crafted from the highest quality, pure-grade unobtanium for an unprecedented .00000000002 micro decibels of distortion!

Don't wait! Order today!


I Wonder Why...
By mmatis on 7/1/2010 12:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
Apple and Microsoft were not part of this group working to develop a new AV cable standard?

By LifeByTheHorns on 7/1/2010 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
...the high-end audio/video cable makers gear up their $200+/foot cables that dramatically improve sound and image quality.

By sprockkets on 7/1/2010 4:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Monster cable jokes? Try buying a Belkin or other cable in Best Buy; the whole "monster cable" scam already exists.

$20 for a 5 foot cable? GFY!

Royaity fees?
By pugster on 7/1/2010 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just going to say that I'm skeptic about this kind of cabling format. Nowhere in their website mentions about royalty fees. You can get a $2 ethernet cable instead a $10 hdmi cable, but it depend on the royalty fees for putting these adapters on their devices.

By NA1NSXR on 7/1/2010 4:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
What is the point now that HDMI has reasonably penetrated the market?

In the future of course, they should try to consolidate the number of different connectors on electronics like this and expand the uses of existing cable and connector standards, but in this particular case I think it comes a bit late to be helpful, especially since ethernet cables are mostly gone from residential applications.

Monster Cable Ethernet Game
By johannesburg on 7/1/2010 5:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Monster Cable is currently manufacturing Category 7 (10Gbs) Ethernet cable and selling it as 'super' Cat6. By the way ;)

Best Buy
By btc909 on 7/1/2010 10:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
So now Best Buy canb charge $900 for a certified home audio/video ethernet cable I can get from Monoprice for 2 bucks.

Display Port just pissed me off & i'm glad it didn't catch on. HDMI, these moronic never ending revisions are just a money grab. Oh now you can combine your audio, video, & now ethernet all on the same cable, get out of here.

hdmi vs cat5
By digitalreflex on 7/2/2010 6:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to use cat5 over hdmi any day.

10x cheaper and 100x more flexible to maneuver behind the entertainment center!

By RaynorWolfcastle on 7/2/2010 9:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
Since I assume that this is all fancy trickery over Ethernet, it should be noted that currently 10Gbase-T NICs sell for north of $500 and require significant amounts of power. This seems like the biggest issue, not the cables...

By WinstonSmith on 7/2/2010 9:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
I really like this idea and wonder why they didn't do this to begin with.

But since you beat me to the MC comment, I post a comment about some of the funniest reviews on for audio accessories. Do a search on for "Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable" (2 used from $2,499.98) and read the reviews. I didn't post a link because it's a typically huge one and I don't know if they allow TinyUrl links here because of the potential malware problem associated with them.

So how long before ...
By callmeroy on 7/2/2010 10:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
Best Buy starts selling "Monster Ethernet" patch cables for $35-$50 each?

I hope not
By masamasa on 7/2/2010 5:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
About the only loser in the situation may be "premium" cable makers like Monster Cable Products. However, it'll only be a matter of time before Monster finds a way to throw gold or other precious metals into a Cat 6 cable and release it as a "premium" HDBaseT cable.

Sad that companies bilk consumers for $150 HDMI cables when you can get one for $10-15 at the local tech store. While it may not be Monster, you would be hard pressed to see any difference in image quality. Waste of money buying those ridiculously expensive cables.

HDBaseT is great news! Cheap cables using existing infrastructure. Love it!

What about lag time?
By jdr123 on 7/2/2010 5:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Can't see how this would work for gaming

By namechamps on 7/2/2010 4:07:18 PM , Rating: 1
There is no way to create HDMI cables in the field. So either they have to be custom made or complex & expensive converters need to be used.

This will be a boom for structured wiring. Simply increase the number of cat5e cables to each room. They can be used for internet/phone/security camera and how HDTV all depending on how they are terminated in wiring closet.

One could for example change an Ethernet port in a bedroom from internet connection to HDTV feed simply by changing the other end from network switch to HDTV switch.

Oh brother
By YashBudini on 7/3/2010 1:18:02 AM , Rating: 1
Another connector "standard."

Video card drivers have a longer life expectancy that this bs.

RE: Oh brother
By icanhascpu on 7/3/10, Rating: 0
Nice but....
By monkeyman1140 on 7/6/2010 5:31:32 PM , Rating: 1
It will still have DRM and encryption.

By monkeyman1140 on 7/6/2010 5:33:47 PM , Rating: 1
Now Monster Cable will be charging us $200 for an ethernet cable!

Hey Mick
By bill4 on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hey Mick
By bill4 on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hey Mick
By Hydrofirex on 7/1/2010 12:48:24 PM , Rating: 3
Uhm, guys, the wacko political arguement thread is on another site...

I hear they are currently debating a new conspiracy that Obama is really a clone and has replaced the millitary with a clone army... now when the Jedi's are busy he can strike for his dark lord!

Hurry on over so you don't miss all the fun!

RE: Hey Mick
By geddarkstorm on 7/1/2010 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 3
All that oil sure is keeping the light side users busy. Dark side, indeed.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki