On June 15, 2010 at 23:58, Audible Solutions said...
It has been stated more times than I can count that the system does not work as you surmise. HDMI repeaters to not function as network repeaters taking in a signal and regenerating it bit for bit.
Once again, I think you are confused about my argument, which is actually the opposite of what you assert. My argument is that the AVR does NOT regenerate the signal bit for bit. It couldn't repeat it bit for bit, because it needs to create new bits for transmission to the display using a new encryption key that the display can decrypt. So, it regenerates the signal using DIFFERENT bits (i.e. bits that can be decrypted by the display.)
I tried to explain this several times. It is the basis of my argument that you refute, yet you do not seem to have taken in this basic point.
In some cases, the AVR may regenerate 5v signal. In very few does it re-clock.
If you agree that the AVR is sending a new stream of bits because of the nature of the encryption scheme, it may then seem clear that it MUST be generating new voltage and new timing. (Note, however, I am referring to timing only within a given channel of the TMDS stream. Timing between channels is another issue.)
You theorize that there is no signal loss when the signal is run through a AVR. Wrong.
If you accept that the AVR is generating a new stream of bits, you may then accept the notion of signal loss doesn't apply.
You bring in keys but the keys don't matter? Not to the way the high speed data is transmitted. Taken to it's logical limits your argument would suggest that 127 different data streams would be sent if a source supported all 127 keys and a matrix existed that could send source to 127 sinks. The presence of the repeater in this system serves to obfuscate the data.
Actually, there would be more than 127 different streams. Specifically, there would be one unique stream for every HDMI transmitter/receiver pair in the configuration. This is fundamental to how HDCP encryption works. The encryption applied is different between every HDCP transmitter and receiver (ART not withstanding, but that does not apply here.) Bob has explained this as well. I'm not sure why you still do not understand this.
HDMI is a system. If you have a system that is on the borderline of working and add one more variable you push it into failure. It has zero to do with your theories.
If I felt you truly were considering my argument, then I would be more receptive to your charge. Merely asserting it is not correct over and over does not really advance the discussion.
What of other types of repeaters? HDMI splitters, HDMI switches? Do these KSVs "retransmit" the signal too?
It depends. If the device is decrypting and then ecrypting the stream, then yes, it is creating a new outbound stream. If it does not engage in decryption, it is not necessarily creating a new stream. Are you starting to get it now?
The act of decyrption and encryption requires the act of creating a new stream. That's the only way the next device in the chain can have the required key to decrypt the data. If your argument had any weight and a repeater regenerating the signal was the critical factor, would not the AVR being in the system solve these problem rather than exacerbate it?
Actually, not at all, and this shows a basic misconeption. If the AVR creates a new signal, there is no guarantee that this signal is as good as the signal it received. It could be better. It could be the same. It could be worse. The BD player may be generating a better signal (meaning a cleaner mask) than the AVR. That would explain why the BD player could send an image through the 50' cable when the AVR can not.
It's also possible that the AVR is sending the signal to spec and the BD player is not. In some cases, that could explain why the video locks in one case and not the other.
Signal loss is added by connectors, by distance, by heat and by the number and type of devices in the system.
But, it is not added by a component in the chain that is creating a new signal.
Last edited by crosen on June 17, 2010 16:44.
