i keep wondering why they even came out with this other than to make more $$. it's the same as a dvi cable correct ( just a little prettier) with digital sound built in BUT WHY DO YOU NEED THAT SINCE ITS GOIN TO YOUR TV?? so that means u have to buy another cable to go from your hd/bluray (mo$) to your reciver with hdmi(mo $$) then another hdmi cable to go from that to your tv(mo$$$). i understand that 1.3 has higher bandwidth but if they had kept the audio and video seperate to begin with u wouldn't you even need the extra bandwith. maybe i'm missing somethin here but it sounds like an excuse to rape consumers out of more $$$

1/9/2007 5:49:41 PM

I think the point is to reduce the mess of wires most people have behind their TV sets. Other than that, it's not really "better". If only someone would come up with an extremely high bandwidth wireless solution.

1/9/2007 6:03:06 PM

HDCP is the answer you're looking for.

1/9/2007 6:09:17 PM

How does HDCP have anything to do with the physical layer of a digital signaling protocol?

1/9/2007 6:25:18 PM

oh jesus, this isn't going to turn into one of those threads, is it?

1/9/2007 6:27:09 PM

an hdmi cable costs $15.00

quit whining.

1/9/2007 6:31:13 PM

hdmi would be nice if more recievers came with hdmi switching....

1/9/2007 7:25:56 PM

Quote :

"why was hdmi invented??"

It's called DRM (HDCP)

[/thread]

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 8:10:32 PM

hdcp is supported over dvi. I also think it's fairly useless. I suppose if you don't have a receiver and extra speakers, it will carry the digital video and sound to your tv with a single cable however, cleaning up things a bit. If there was an adapter that split hdmi into spdi/f and dvi-i, I would be happy.

1/9/2007 9:42:15 PM