161–170 of 185 posts
>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.
> They're handing a win to DisplayPort. And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. That's fine for regular ARC which is basically the same capability as spdif, ATSC audio and DVD audio. But there's no consumer audio cable that has the capacity for lossless surround except for HDMI, and then you really want eARC because otherwise y…
Does eARC support AAC audio for surround sound or is it only DTS or AC3?
2-channel Linear PCM: 2-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit
Multi-channel Linear PCM : 7.1-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit
Bitstream: Dolby Digital / DTS / Dolby Atmos / Dolby TrueHD / Dolby Digital Plus / DTS:X / DTS-HD Master Audio / DTS-HD High Resolution Audio / DTS Express
I'd imagine whatever source is getting AAC is going to need to decode it and send as linear PCM, which should be fine.
Isn't amd in a pretty bad position with display related tech? Hdmi rejected them, display port isn't ubiquitous enough, thunderbolt (usb c) is owned by Intel.
USB-C is distinct from Thunderbolt. And Thunderbolt itself got rolled into USB4 which is now an industry standard rather than one controlled by Intel.
Even so, Intel and AMD aren't so hostile to each other to avoid cross-licensing when it's mutually beneficial. A lot of the newest generation of AM5 motherboards actually include an Intel chipset for handling Thunderbolt/USB4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the licenses be incompatible? AMD owns the code, so they can release it under whatever license they want, including GPL or BSD. They could even put into the public domain if they wanted. AFAICT, the code has not been released at all, so this point about licenses is simply wrong: it doesn't have a license at all right now. As for a broken driver, that's an easy fix I think. From my reading of the article, th…
Exactly like you are saying, if I'm not misunderstanding the situation: the code is unlicensed for anyone who is not AMD. That is incompatible with GPL2 license of the kernel. Without HDMI Forum's approval it can not be licensed, either, since the point is that AMD does not own the secrets contained within. (If the driver is leaked, I would imagine it to be illegal to distribute it. Companies might elect to not activ…
How so? This would be a 1st Amendment issue: you can't ban free speech. They tried this with deCSS, which could be printed out on a T-shirt. Of course, if it were leaked, it could be called a copyright issue, but copyright claims require the copyright holder to actively pursue those claims: if AMD didn't bother to pursue any claims, then what could anyone do about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly like you are saying, if I'm not misunderstanding the situation: the code is unlicensed for anyone who is not AMD. That is incompatible with GPL2 license of the kernel. Without HDMI Forum's approval it can not be licensed, either, since the point is that AMD does not own the secrets contained within. (If the driver is leaked, I would imagine it to be illegal to distribute it. Companies might elect to not activ…
>(If the driver is leaked, I would imagine it to be illegal to distribute it. How so? This would be a 1st Amendment issue: you can't ban free speech. They tried this with deCSS, which could be printed out on a T-shirt. Of course, if it were leaked, it could be called a copyright issue, but copyright claims require the copyright holder to actively pursue those claims: if AMD didn't bother to pursue any claims, then wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows X…
>it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver Wait until you find out that many consumer sound bars (Sonos comes to mind) only support the latest and greatest digital audio formats over eARC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(If the driver is leaked, I would imagine it to be illegal to distribute it. How so? This would be a 1st Amendment issue: you can't ban free speech. They tried this with deCSS, which could be printed out on a T-shirt. Of course, if it were leaked, it could be called a copyright issue, but copyright claims require the copyright holder to actively pursue those claims: if AMD didn't bother to pursue any claims, then wh…
I understood the copyright on those secrets was owned by HDMI Forum. AMD would own the copyright on the rest of the driver, supposedly.
[1] Well, you can, but that just means other people can't copy it in its original form. AMD had authorized copies so they could write the code. The resulting code is not a copy of the secret document, it just uses facts from that document, and you can't copyright facts.
Similarly, if someone inside Coca-Cola shows you their master copy of the secret recipe for Coca-Cola, and you then write down a list of the ingredients and quantities and publish that on your blog, Coca-Cola can do nothing to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about latency? Is it on par or at least in the same league compared to direct connection? Not an issue for most people, but gamers could disagree if it is too high.
Performance is identical. DisplayPort Alternate Mode (which is what most displays use) isn't transmitting video data over USB; it's agreeing to use some of the high-speed wire pairs in the cable to transmit DisplayPort data instead of USB .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others. Don'…
You're conflating several schools of thought. Utilitarianism, which appears to be your basis for defining ethical behavior, underlies this reasoning behind compulsory government action. This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistrib…
Could you please paraphrase my "greater good argument" that crumbles under close examination? A examination you somehow failed to provide? Maybe you hoped people are too impressed by you use of words to recognize that you even failed to provide an argument against an strawman you created?
No offense, but the way you write makes you sound like a 15 year old teenager that figured out using smart words makes you sound smart, without any deeper understanding of or regard for the concepts at hand or the arguments made. If you want to show some argument is wrong you can't just simply claim it is, you need to demonstrate it - ideally using the very logic and examination, you seem to so highly value.
There was a post here on HN some time ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36681814 ), basically explaining that HDMI is terrible and DisplayPort is a much better technical solution. So, perhaps people should favour DP instead of HDMI and gradually switch?
I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which…
Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction.
Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.