3 ms·
> 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, th
by yellowapple 3y ago
> 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.
- zokier 3y agoEthernet over fiber is still ethernet.
- xxpor 3y agoTOSLINK/S/PDIF is way out of date and no one uses it any more. Ironically, because it doesn't have enough bandwidth for things like Atmos.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoNot entirely true. My house was built with an A/V closet that's not in the living room. To put analog equipment (like a turntable) in the living room where it's used, I convert the analog signals into digital with a $100 A/D converter that sends them over CAT-6 under the house to a decoder that connects to the receiver with Toslink. It works great, and I bought this in the last three years.
- xxpor 3y agoSure, for PCM stereo content it still works perfectly fine. Which is a lot of stuff! But it'd be a poor choice for 5.1 or better today.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoI was curious about that; because I couldn't be bothered to do the math myself, I looked up the max bitrate of multichannel PCM. Found this at https://www.videohelp.com/hd https://www.videohelp.com/hd : "Linear PCM up to 9 channels (Max 27.648 Mbit/s)" Cat5 or higher (especially only 20 feet) would easily handle that.
- wmf 3y agoTOSLINK was a gimmick. In reality, optical transceivers are expensive and are only used when copper can't do the job.