1) Displayport is video only. So no, this adapter will not pass audio through HDMI since Displayport(like DVI before it) does not pass audio. You will still have to go Toslink for audio.
So explain how the new Cinema Displays receive audio from any new MacBook?
How many people actually "daisy chain" their computers? You can daisy chain HDMI as well with an mutil HDMI adapter if you need to daisy chain.
This example sounds like the tail wagging the dog.
You misread. Daisychain the *displays*. One computer -> multiple displays. Not exactly uncommon. What you are describing is the norm in AV setups: multiple sources -> one display. There is daisy chaining of HDMI, but as far as I can tell, it's strictly for pass through of source data, ala MIDI Thru ports. It still has to be reduced to a single signal for a single display.
A single HDMI port on the side of a machine can run one external display. A single DisplayPort can run multiple displays. No more having to add multiple video cards just to add additional displays. Get one card that can handle the total resolution, and that's it. The displays are addressable, so you can send part of the bandwidth to display A, part of it to display B, etc.
See how that fits in much better with computing workflows?
HDMI is great for AV, but it's just a stopgap for computing.
Well, it's not "intelligent" enough to hook up to your TV without an adapter.
Well, once we have self-physically-shape-shifting-and-configuring plugs, you'll be set. </sarcasm>
Physical plugs are the simplest and cheapest to adapt between. Protocols aren't. DisplayPort is the first video/audio protocol that looks like it will have the power and flexibility to unify the computing display industry while still offering a cheap and simple link to the AV industry.
I mean good lord, you may as well have been whining that computers didn't come with coax out to hook up to a VCR all this time. The fact that we have HDMI on the AV side and DisplayPort on the computing side, and that they *can interoperate* is phenomenal.
Different needs, different solutions. But not incompatible ones. What's not to like? A $15 adapter? Please.
Quote:
People want simplicity not an adapter every time Apple changes their mind on what audio/video out their using in this years computers.
I'll gladly buy a cheap physical adapter instead of an expensive protocol adapter. This is the cusp of actual honest to god display interoperability for the first time... whining about the plug shape is silly.
Quote:
That is why the PC market has both on the "average" computer these days. They are giving the users what they want and asked for not what Apple tells them they need.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford
The real question is whether these cables support audio over HDMI. If not, then why not just use a displayport->DVI adapter with a cheap monoprice DVI->HDMI cable? Or does that not support HDCP?
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
From the USB that you need to plug into the monitor.
The USB cable is needed for the integrated 3-port hub on the display. I don't think it being there proves one way or another whether Mini-DP can do audio,
The USB cable is needed for the integrated 3-port hub on the display. I don't think it being there proves one way or another whether Mini-DP can do audio,
Mini-display port is pin compatible with standard display port. The Macbooks don't support audio over mini-display port most likely because the nvidia chipset doesn't support it, not because mini-display port itself doesn't.
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
As hmurchison says, the standard includes 48Mbit bandwidth for audio, and can carry 8 LPCM streams. I have yet to see any Toslink implementation that carry more than two LPCM streams.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't include HDMI in their computers as the PC market has been doing for the last couple years.
I come home, take my notebook and plug in the HDMI cable and switch to Video 7 on my TV and turn on my wireless keyboard and mouse and have everthing I need to stream Hulu, surf the web without the need for any additional hardware or software.
Chasing the puck with 1 adapter after another.
Probably the biggest reason is that HDMI is limited to 1080p output at max. Mini DisplayPort's maximum resolution is around 3800 x 2500, as I understand it. Given it has more throughput, it should be expandable beyond that too. And as they themselves mentioned, HDMI has a rather steep licensing fee. I think Apple made the right decision on this one because as new TVs are coming out, HDMI is becoming increasingly less able to support their features.
1) Displayport is video only. So no, this adapter will not pass audio through HDMI since Displayport(like DVI before it) does not pass audio. You will still have to go Toslink for audio.
2) HDMI royalties likely have marginal effect considering how much we pay for our computers and how much less many HDMI equipped computers run. HDMI would take up room on the the side panel of the new MB/P that doesn't exist. Even if that room did exist, I'd far prefer to see it filled with Firewire on the MB and eSATA on the Pro.
3) The multi-cable approach likely will pass on HDCP compliance. DVI, DP and HDMI are all technically HDCP compliant physically. It's the GPU and software that make the diff.
4) The multi-cable approach will work with one thing to keep in mind. HDMI has a limit on signal transmission. Limit the DVI/HDMI cable length from the max a bit if using an DP/DVI adapter in front of it to make sure you don't get signal degradation. Other than that you should be fine.
5) Whoever was misunderstanding what the guy speaking of DP daisy-chaining was referring to. Think of a Firewire chain and then think of doing it with 4 1080p displays connected to just one DP 1.2 compliant port(presuming your GPU can drive that much screen real estate). You can't do that with HDMI or DVI.
This is a very helpful adapter especially if the upcoming Mini lacks HDMI and has only a single Mini-Displayport since I intend on using it in my HT.
What is still sorely missing is an adapter working in reverse order of what all the existing ones do. I need something that lets me use the new Cinema display on my "legacy" Mac. You know the one I bought a long 2 years ago that has the oh so old Dual Link DVI. Would be nice to use it on my G4 as well. Even if it costs $100 I'd pay it without issue to use that display on my existing Macs.
DisplayPort carries sound, just not advanced codecs covering things like TrueHD 7.1. It's limited, but sound is there.
As a matter of fact YES. My computer senses the swith and it get display and sound on the TV in about 2 seconds. No adjustments required at all.
Get out of your APPLE box and realize that most PC computers already blow away what Apple TV can do for you today.
By the way, I hook the HDMI up to my receiver so I have sound coming through my 7.1 Yamaha receiver.
Again, you're missing the point that the technology inherent in DisplayPort is easily going to surpass HDMI. HDMI is only popular because it is a one cable solution. As the other poster said, since the two standards are interoperable, it's a very easy trade for both the PC and AV communities.
And he brought up AppleTV because the average consumer hooking their computer to their TV is doing so to watch media, in which case, AppleTV presents a much way to accomplish that goal.
The average consumer is not hooking their computer up to an HDMI display
I'd consider myself an "average consumer" and I have my computer connected to an HDMI monitor. I think the proper thing to say is the average consumer is not hooking their computer up to an HDTV. HDMI is first and foremost a solution to the home entertainment/media center market, where video and especially audio quality are demanding. HDMI was never intended for the wider computer market, much less to replace DVI in said market. It has, however, became an interim alternative to DVI by various manufacturers.
This is not without a caveat: although HDMI monitors are relatively plentiful, HDMI is still mostly relegated to high-end motherboards and especially graphics cards (and any true computer buff will tell you that you connect your monitor to your graphics card, not your motherboard). As such, nVIDIA has been pretty conservative in rolling out the red carpet to HDMI with its graphics cards (ATI has been a bit more welcoming in respect to both HDMI and DP). In all, DVI still remains the defacto standard on said computer parts for now. Furthermore, VESA did not create the DP standard to compete against or replace HDMI, since technically they are aimed at catering to two distinct markets which overlap in some areas.
As it stands right now, hooking up your computer to a computer monitor with HDMI is pointless, IMO. The only benefit would be if your monitor has speakers, but who listens to music etc through their monitor's speakers anyway? \
Because HDMI is a connect that has been tailored for connecting CE devices to HDTV and it comes with license fees.
DisplayPort is first and foremost a computer display interconnect and comes license free.
DP and HDMI have too different core focus.
So in other words Apple is passing the cost onto its consumers requiring them to buy an Adapter rather than licensing it themselves to allow their computers to be hooked up to a TV.
To make matters worse DP doesn't even pass along audio to the TV so even if you Mickey Moused it you still can't watch Hulu or Netflix. OK, you can watch it you just can't listent to it.
I'll stick with my PC. I've been able to connect it to my TV for years.
Probably the biggest reason is that HDMI is limited to 1080p output at max. Mini DisplayPort's maximum resolution is around 3800 x 2500, as I understand it.
HDMI 1.3 and above supports a max resolution of 2560x1600. DisplayPort has a similar spec, I believe.
Comments
1) Displayport is video only. So no, this adapter will not pass audio through HDMI since Displayport(like DVI before it) does not pass audio. You will still have to go Toslink for audio.
So explain how the new Cinema Displays receive audio from any new MacBook?
How many people actually "daisy chain" their computers? You can daisy chain HDMI as well with an mutil HDMI adapter if you need to daisy chain.
This example sounds like the tail wagging the dog.
You misread. Daisychain the *displays*. One computer -> multiple displays. Not exactly uncommon. What you are describing is the norm in AV setups: multiple sources -> one display. There is daisy chaining of HDMI, but as far as I can tell, it's strictly for pass through of source data, ala MIDI Thru ports. It still has to be reduced to a single signal for a single display.
A single HDMI port on the side of a machine can run one external display. A single DisplayPort can run multiple displays. No more having to add multiple video cards just to add additional displays. Get one card that can handle the total resolution, and that's it. The displays are addressable, so you can send part of the bandwidth to display A, part of it to display B, etc.
See how that fits in much better with computing workflows?
HDMI is great for AV, but it's just a stopgap for computing.
So explain how the new Cinema Displays receive audio from any new MacBook?
From the USB that you need to plug into the monitor.
I think the point is the average comsumer doesn't want to know a single word you typed.
They want to see a simple HDMI slot on their computer and one cable going to their TV for Sound and Video.
The avg consumer is not hooking their computer up to HDMI display
I think his point is if the average user wants to they should be able to do it with one cable, including audio.
Well, it's not "intelligent" enough to hook up to your TV without an adapter.
Well, once we have self-physically-shape-shifting-and-configuring plugs, you'll be set. </sarcasm>
Physical plugs are the simplest and cheapest to adapt between. Protocols aren't. DisplayPort is the first video/audio protocol that looks like it will have the power and flexibility to unify the computing display industry while still offering a cheap and simple link to the AV industry.
I mean good lord, you may as well have been whining that computers didn't come with coax out to hook up to a VCR all this time. The fact that we have HDMI on the AV side and DisplayPort on the computing side, and that they *can interoperate* is phenomenal.
Different needs, different solutions. But not incompatible ones. What's not to like? A $15 adapter? Please.
People want simplicity not an adapter every time Apple changes their mind on what audio/video out their using in this years computers.
I'll gladly buy a cheap physical adapter instead of an expensive protocol adapter. This is the cusp of actual honest to god display interoperability for the first time... whining about the plug shape is silly.
That is why the PC market has both on the "average" computer these days. They are giving the users what they want and asked for not what Apple tells them they need.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford
The avg consumer is not hooking their computer up to HDMI display
The average consumer does not buy a Mac.
The real question is whether these cables support audio over HDMI. If not, then why not just use a displayport->DVI adapter with a cheap monoprice DVI->HDMI cable? Or does that not support HDCP?
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display...specifications
Optional; 1-8 channels; 16, or 24-bit linear
Audio is there if the vendor needs it.
As a matter of fact YES. My computer senses the swith and it get display and sound on the TV in about 2 seconds. No adjustments required at all.
Get out of your APPLE box and realize that most PC computers already blow away what Apple TV can do for you today.
By the way, I hook the HDMI up to my receiver so I have sound coming through my 7.1 Yamaha receiver.
From the USB that you need to plug into the monitor.
The USB cable is needed for the integrated 3-port hub on the display. I don't think it being there proves one way or another whether Mini-DP can do audio,
The USB cable is needed for the integrated 3-port hub on the display. I don't think it being there proves one way or another whether Mini-DP can do audio,
Mini-display port is pin compatible with standard display port. The Macbooks don't support audio over mini-display port most likely because the nvidia chipset doesn't support it, not because mini-display port itself doesn't.
Can't you just turn the cable around? DVI to HDMI adapters work both ways.
No, the connector on the LED Cinema Display is Mini-DP male, the one on the Macbook is female...
The DisplayPort specification does not support audio, but what you get in exchange is plenty of video bandwidth. Truth is you are probably better off using an optical connection for your audio.
As hmurchison says, the standard includes 48Mbit bandwidth for audio, and can carry 8 LPCM streams. I have yet to see any Toslink implementation that carry more than two LPCM streams.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't include HDMI in their computers as the PC market has been doing for the last couple years.
I come home, take my notebook and plug in the HDMI cable and switch to Video 7 on my TV and turn on my wireless keyboard and mouse and have everthing I need to stream Hulu, surf the web without the need for any additional hardware or software.
Chasing the puck with 1 adapter after another.
Probably the biggest reason is that HDMI is limited to 1080p output at max. Mini DisplayPort's maximum resolution is around 3800 x 2500, as I understand it. Given it has more throughput, it should be expandable beyond that too. And as they themselves mentioned, HDMI has a rather steep licensing fee. I think Apple made the right decision on this one because as new TVs are coming out, HDMI is becoming increasingly less able to support their features.
1) Displayport is video only. So no, this adapter will not pass audio through HDMI since Displayport(like DVI before it) does not pass audio. You will still have to go Toslink for audio.
2) HDMI royalties likely have marginal effect considering how much we pay for our computers and how much less many HDMI equipped computers run. HDMI would take up room on the the side panel of the new MB/P that doesn't exist. Even if that room did exist, I'd far prefer to see it filled with Firewire on the MB and eSATA on the Pro.
3) The multi-cable approach likely will pass on HDCP compliance. DVI, DP and HDMI are all technically HDCP compliant physically. It's the GPU and software that make the diff.
4) The multi-cable approach will work with one thing to keep in mind. HDMI has a limit on signal transmission. Limit the DVI/HDMI cable length from the max a bit if using an DP/DVI adapter in front of it to make sure you don't get signal degradation. Other than that you should be fine.
5) Whoever was misunderstanding what the guy speaking of DP daisy-chaining was referring to. Think of a Firewire chain and then think of doing it with 4 1080p displays connected to just one DP 1.2 compliant port(presuming your GPU can drive that much screen real estate). You can't do that with HDMI or DVI.
This is a very helpful adapter especially if the upcoming Mini lacks HDMI and has only a single Mini-Displayport since I intend on using it in my HT.
What is still sorely missing is an adapter working in reverse order of what all the existing ones do. I need something that lets me use the new Cinema display on my "legacy" Mac. You know the one I bought a long 2 years ago that has the oh so old Dual Link DVI. Would be nice to use it on my G4 as well. Even if it costs $100 I'd pay it without issue to use that display on my existing Macs.
DisplayPort carries sound, just not advanced codecs covering things like TrueHD 7.1. It's limited, but sound is there.
As a matter of fact YES. My computer senses the swith and it get display and sound on the TV in about 2 seconds. No adjustments required at all.
Get out of your APPLE box and realize that most PC computers already blow away what Apple TV can do for you today.
By the way, I hook the HDMI up to my receiver so I have sound coming through my 7.1 Yamaha receiver.
Again, you're missing the point that the technology inherent in DisplayPort is easily going to surpass HDMI. HDMI is only popular because it is a one cable solution. As the other poster said, since the two standards are interoperable, it's a very easy trade for both the PC and AV communities.
And he brought up AppleTV because the average consumer hooking their computer to their TV is doing so to watch media, in which case, AppleTV presents a much way to accomplish that goal.
The average consumer is not hooking their computer up to an HDMI display
I'd consider myself an "average consumer" and I have my computer connected to an HDMI monitor. I think the proper thing to say is the average consumer is not hooking their computer up to an HDTV. HDMI is first and foremost a solution to the home entertainment/media center market, where video and especially audio quality are demanding. HDMI was never intended for the wider computer market, much less to replace DVI in said market. It has, however, became an interim alternative to DVI by various manufacturers.
This is not without a caveat: although HDMI monitors are relatively plentiful, HDMI is still mostly relegated to high-end motherboards and especially graphics cards (and any true computer buff will tell you that you connect your monitor to your graphics card, not your motherboard). As such, nVIDIA has been pretty conservative in rolling out the red carpet to HDMI with its graphics cards (ATI has been a bit more welcoming in respect to both HDMI and DP). In all, DVI still remains the defacto standard on said computer parts for now. Furthermore, VESA did not create the DP standard to compete against or replace HDMI, since technically they are aimed at catering to two distinct markets which overlap in some areas.
As it stands right now, hooking up your computer to a computer monitor with HDMI is pointless, IMO. The only benefit would be if your monitor has speakers, but who listens to music etc through their monitor's speakers anyway?
Because HDMI is a connect that has been tailored for connecting CE devices to HDTV and it comes with license fees.
DisplayPort is first and foremost a computer display interconnect and comes license free.
DP and HDMI have too different core focus.
So in other words Apple is passing the cost onto its consumers requiring them to buy an Adapter rather than licensing it themselves to allow their computers to be hooked up to a TV.
To make matters worse DP doesn't even pass along audio to the TV so even if you Mickey Moused it you still can't watch Hulu or Netflix. OK, you can watch it you just can't listent to it.
I'll stick with my PC. I've been able to connect it to my TV for years.
Probably the biggest reason is that HDMI is limited to 1080p output at max. Mini DisplayPort's maximum resolution is around 3800 x 2500, as I understand it.
HDMI 1.3 and above supports a max resolution of 2560x1600. DisplayPort has a similar spec, I believe.