The A/V cable market
 

The URL first:

http://techluver.com/2007/11/12/sony...v-cable-range/

And this isn't even a complete set of cables. Computers are highly
involved in many home enternatinment media systems, including the use
Cat5+8P8C, eSATA, Firewire, and USB. Different cable types and different
connectors are needed for different kinds of connections. You can't use
HDMI, for example, to connect a hard drive to a PC.

This results in waste, confusion, and in some cases price gouging. What
we really need to have is a single type of cable with one common connector
for everything. The digital world (and video is a part of that, now) is
mostly going with serial bit streams. This one type of cable would then
be used for any interconnect purpose:

- PC to external disk drive
- PC to video monitor
- PC to PC
- DVD player to TV
- DVD player to PC
- DVD player to DVD recorder (for your own content)
- Camera to TV
- Camera to PC

Different kinds of signals would use different formats. The bit stream
encoding should be the same (plus also have the original encoding as an
option if the chosen standard is also an existing system, such as 75-ohm
coax with BNC connectors which would also support SDI, NTSC, and RF).

That doesn't necessarily mean 75-ohm coax is the best choice. There may
be a better one instead. Feel free to suggest your best idea. But I think
we need to have something chosen and encourage its universal adoption.
While the industry that wants to gouge consumers may never play along with
this, what is certain is if we don't try, there will never be a single
simple interconnect between devices.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

The A/V cable market
 

wrote:
The URL first:

http://techluver.com/2007/11/12/sony...v-cable-range/

And this isn't even a complete set of cables. Computers are highly
involved in many home enternatinment media systems, including the use
Cat5+8P8C, eSATA, Firewire, and USB. Different cable types and different
connectors are needed for different kinds of connections. You can't use
HDMI, for example, to connect a hard drive to a PC.

This results in waste, confusion, and in some cases price gouging.

And if only you were allowed to make all of the decisions, the world
would be a much better place.

MORON!!

There are many reasons that there are many different kinds of
inter-connection cables. Not the least being that technology improves,
bandwidth increases and physics works.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

The A/V cable market
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:36:51 -0500 Matthew L. Martin wrote:
| wrote:
| The URL first:
|
| http://techluver.com/2007/11/12/sony...v-cable-range/
|
| And this isn't even a complete set of cables. Computers are highly
| involved in many home enternatinment media systems, including the use
| Cat5+8P8C, eSATA, Firewire, and USB. Different cable types and different
| connectors are needed for different kinds of connections. You can't use
| HDMI, for example, to connect a hard drive to a PC.
|
| This results in waste, confusion, and in some cases price gouging.
|
| And if only you were allowed to make all of the decisions, the world
| would be a much better place.

I'm glad you figured that out. Actually, a subset would do.


| MORON!!

Haven't got back on the meds, eh?


| There are many reasons that there are many different kinds of
| inter-connection cables. Not the least being that technology improves,
| bandwidth increases and physics works.

In case you haven't noticed, they use similar kinds of technology in the
wide variety of cabling. The principle technology issues are coaxial vs.
twisted pair, shielding (or not), and encoding. What they are doing is
juggling cable _configurations_ to drive up more cable sales through a
need to have many different kinds of cables on hand (as opposed to just
one kind that can work everywhere).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

The A/V cable market
 

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:36:51 -0500 Matthew L. Martin
wrote:
| wrote:
| The URL first:
|
|
| http://techluver.com/2007/11/12/sony...nce-av-cable-r
| ange/
|
| And this isn't even a complete set of cables. Computers are highly
| involved in many home enternatinment media systems, including the use
| Cat5+8P8C, eSATA, Firewire, and USB. Different cable types and different
| connectors are needed for different kinds of connections. You can't use
| HDMI, for example, to connect a hard drive to a PC.
|
| This results in waste, confusion, and in some cases price gouging.
|
| And if only you were allowed to make all of the decisions, the world
| would be a much better place.

I'm glad you figured that out. Actually, a subset would do.


| MORON!!

Haven't got back on the meds, eh?


| There are many reasons that there are many different kinds of
| inter-connection cables. Not the least being that technology improves,
| bandwidth increases and physics works.

In case you haven't noticed, they use similar kinds of technology in the
wide variety of cabling. The principle technology issues are coaxial vs.
twisted pair, shielding (or not), and encoding. What they are doing is
juggling cable _configurations_ to drive up more cable sales through a
need to have many different kinds of cables on hand (as opposed to just
one kind that can work everywhere).

I wonder if it would be economically feasible to route everything
through a device via a fiber optic cable, either a single fiber optic
or multiple bundle? Everything would be fed into a "router" where it
would be sorted and sent on to each device. Just wondering.

The A/V cable market
 

"Heinrich Galland" wrote in message
...
I wonder if it would be economically feasible to route everything
through a device via a fiber optic cable, either a single fiber optic
or multiple bundle? Everything would be fed into a "router" where it
would be sorted and sent on to each device. Just wondering.

I would like to see a standard converge on fiber for another reason:
lightning. A good strong lightning bolt, or any surge, can travel through
any kind of copper, and it will always find its way to the most expensive
piece of equipment and kill it.

Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon. Right now, it
appears that most of the R&D is focused on wireless solutions. The good news
is that wireless works just as well as fiber when it comes to reducing the
probability of lightning damage and surges. The bad news is that no matter
what the claimed bandwidth of any wireless solution, the actual bandwidth
probably will be much less, especially as more devices crowd into the same
frequencies, and it will have a hard time keeping up with the demand. Also
it will have to deal with privacy issues and hackers.

The A/V cable market
 

Kimba W Lion wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

MORON!!

Do you ever post anything worth reading?

Yes, but you can easily kill-file me if that would make your life easier.

He is a moron, you know.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

The A/V cable market
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:52:54 -0500 Nick Danger wrote:

| "Heinrich Galland" wrote in message
| ...
| I wonder if it would be economically feasible to route everything
| through a device via a fiber optic cable, either a single fiber optic
| or multiple bundle? Everything would be fed into a "router" where it
| would be sorted and sent on to each device. Just wondering.
|
| I would like to see a standard converge on fiber for another reason:
| lightning. A good strong lightning bolt, or any surge, can travel through
| any kind of copper, and it will always find its way to the most expensive
| piece of equipment and kill it.

Yes, fiber would be better, and this is an important reason I agree with.


| Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon. Right now, it
| appears that most of the R&D is focused on wireless solutions. The good news
| is that wireless works just as well as fiber when it comes to reducing the
| probability of lightning damage and surges. The bad news is that no matter
| what the claimed bandwidth of any wireless solution, the actual bandwidth
| probably will be much less, especially as more devices crowd into the same
| frequencies, and it will have a hard time keeping up with the demand. Also
| it will have to deal with privacy issues and hackers.

When we have every component of a home media system plus all the computers
communicating with built in wireless, things are going to be a mess. Even
one person can saturate the 2.4 GHz band in their home by themselves.

What might be better for a lot of things is a cable-less optical system.
That's not a solution for everything, since cable-less optical will need
a line-of-sight path. But for things that stack together, having them
interface each other via an optical window would work. Trouble is, there
are unlikely to be any useful standards in this.

So it's back to fiber optic. One thing I wonder is if making a single fiber
bi-directional is practical at the consumer grade level (split wavelengths,
not ping-pong). If the whole A/V industry can agree on standards, including
the connector type, fiber size, wavelengths, encoding and modulation, then
we could use ONE type of fiber cable for everything (meets my original goal).
It should be auto-negotiated in some way. For example, when connecting two
recorders so one can record what the other plays, or connecting two computers
for any purpose, they should just settle on one wavelength for one direction
and another wavelength for the other. That way we don't have to worry about
separate input and output ports and making sure the are connected together
in the appropriate way. Just one single fiber between devices should be
enough.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

The A/V cable market
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:55:28 -0500 Kimba W Lion kimbawlion wrote:

| "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
|
|MORON!!
|
| Do you ever post anything worth reading?

Nothing I post ever has 100% interest to everyone. What about you? Do you
think even _some_ of your posts might ever be interesting to 100% of readers?

Read the thread and you will see there are people who have an interest in
the post that started this thread.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

The A/V cable market
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:09:00 -0500 Matthew L. Martin wrote:
| Kimba W Lion wrote:
| "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
|
| MORON!!
|
| Do you ever post anything worth reading?
|
| Yes, but you can easily kill-file me if that would make your life easier.

Why would I ever want to do that?


| He is a moron, you know.

Deja vu.


| Matthew

Deja you.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

The A/V cable market
 

wrote in message
...
When we have every component of a home media system plus all the computers
communicating with built in wireless, things are going to be a mess. Even
one person can saturate the 2.4 GHz band in their home by themselves.

What might be better for a lot of things is a cable-less optical system.
That's not a solution for everything, since cable-less optical will need
a line-of-sight path. But for things that stack together, having them
interface each other via an optical window would work. Trouble is, there
are unlikely to be any useful standards in this.

So it's back to fiber optic. One thing I wonder is if making a single
fiber
bi-directional is practical at the consumer grade level (split
wavelengths,
not ping-pong). If the whole A/V industry can agree on standards,
including
the connector type, fiber size, wavelengths, encoding and modulation, then
we could use ONE type of fiber cable for everything (meets my original
goal).
It should be auto-negotiated in some way. For example, when connecting
two
recorders so one can record what the other plays, or connecting two
computers
for any purpose, they should just settle on one wavelength for one
direction
and another wavelength for the other. That way we don't have to worry
about
separate input and output ports and making sure the are connected together
in the appropriate way. Just one single fiber between devices should be
enough.

I certainly hope wireless never gets off the ground for this sort of
application. I only fear that the market will be there for it because of
people who are using their flatscreen TV as a fashion statement and don't
want messy wires detracting from its beauty. Wireless does have a useful
place in the household, and the things that can make good use of it
shouldn't have to compete for bandwidth with things that should be using
cables.

Ever so slowly, hardware is getting smarter about dealing with cables. Most
phones can now sense the polarity of the wires, so you no longer have to
deal with touch tones that don't work because the wires are reversed.
Computers and routers can now cope with crossover and straight-through
cables. Many electronic devices can automatically handle 120 VAC or 240 VAC.

I would guess that there are two main inhibitors to fiber. One is the cost.
It may not be a lot, but with the intense price pressure on consumer
electronics, even a few dollars might be too much. Cables aren't sexy
(although Monster is working on that) so it's hard to sell the benefits of
fiber. The other problem is the cables are fragile, compared to copper. It
should be easier to agree on a standard though, because voltage and
frequency will no longer matter. You'll just be moving bits, not electrons.
But you know how these things turn out. Two consortia will form with
different specs, they'll dig in their heels and try to pull other
manufacturers into their camps, and the battle will begin all over.