91–100 of 426 posts
If we lived in a just, and virtuous world we'd all be using cheap coaxial cables with BNC connectors via whatever version of SDI is the highest bit rate.
It's unsurprisingly annoying trying to compete with a bundle of cables using only one wire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is _extremely_ convenient. I'm open to having my mind changed but I have not really experienced this extreme convenience in practice. The vast majority of things I plug a HDMI cable into either don't have speakers or if they do, the speakers are a bad quality afterthought. In actual fact, what has been an extreme inconvenience is the OS thinking I want HDMI audio instead of whatever much higher-quality* altern…
I plug my computer into my AV receiver all the time, and my speakers are worth more than my TV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bandwidth is much too low.
If this were true, then people would be running datacenter networking over HDMI. Data is data - there is no benefit to designing two entirely different transport mechanisms for video vs other data. You could argue that video data has a deadline to meet - but ethernet already has lots of mechanisms for QoS and bandwidth reservations to make sure that someones torrents don't interrupt something latency sensitive. Sure,…
Why would they? If they need more bandwidth than what Ethernet provides, they'd probably just bite the bullet and go with fiber.
...which punts the previous question to why the industry hasn't gone all-in with fiber optic display connectors, like it has with TOSLINK for S/PDIF in the audio world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was very convenient for me to have my headphones plugged into the monitor. Made it so I could plug a single cable over to my laptop and have basically everything else already done.
> headphones plugged into the monitor That sounds cool but I've never see a monitor with a jack. Mine all have many USB ports, but not audio. How common are they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I /think/ this is related to the EDID support or configuration. What I do know is that you need specific EDID support when using a DisplayPort KVM because that switches the computer away on a regular basis. If you have multiple screens and a single screen KVM (fairly common) it will do the re-arrangement that you've experienced. With EDID support it keeps both output alive resulting in no re-arrangement. EDIT: It see…
> If you have multiple screens and a single screen KVM (fairly common) it will do the re-arrangement that you've experienced. With EDID support it keeps both output alive resulting in no re-arrangement. Can you tell me some KVM switches that have a working implementation of that feature? I'm looking for one. I'm still using a DVI KVM, because when I tried to upgrade to Displayport (years ago), I ran into the problem…
With HDMI, I have both video and audio traveling over a single cable. That is _extremely_ convenient. DP _theoretically_ supports audio too, but AFAIK that's not widely implemented.
I'm using my monitor's speaker through DP since GTX 1070 (2016). Currently RTX 4070 Ti and that works too. And it's a pretty mediocre AOC monitor I have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically macOS does support MST. But it only supports it to stitch together for a single display. It does not support daisy chaining two displays. Thankfully, every Mac for the last 7 years has Thunderbolt3 at least, so getting dual-4K-display from a single port/cable is still very doable, you just need a TB3 to dual DisplayPort or HDMI adapter.
Well except for some of the Apple Silicon machines. The M1 (and maybe M2?) only have two video output blocks, of which one is already used for the internal display. It’s honestly the biggest complaint I have about my M1 MBP. Yes DisplayLink or whatever it’s called exists but the performance is bad.
Sorry if that sounds stupid, but why isn't Ethernet used for this sort of high bw signaling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bandwidth is much too low.
If this were true, then people would be running datacenter networking over HDMI. Data is data - there is no benefit to designing two entirely different transport mechanisms for video vs other data. You could argue that video data has a deadline to meet - but ethernet already has lots of mechanisms for QoS and bandwidth reservations to make sure that someones torrents don't interrupt something latency sensitive. Sure,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this were true, then people would be running datacenter networking over HDMI. Data is data - there is no benefit to designing two entirely different transport mechanisms for video vs other data. You could argue that video data has a deadline to meet - but ethernet already has lots of mechanisms for QoS and bandwidth reservations to make sure that someones torrents don't interrupt something latency sensitive. Sure,…
> If this were true, then people would be running datacenter networking over HDMI. Why would they? If they need more bandwidth than what Ethernet provides, they'd probably just bite the bullet and go with fiber. ...which punts the previous question to why the industry hasn't gone all-in with fiber optic display connectors, like it has with TOSLINK for S/PDIF in the audio world.