Alan i think you are actually a bit misinformed on a few things.

They required a managed switch because to switch the video signals you must be able to control what port a vlan resides on. I actually already talked about this at the top but i guess you didnt understand.

There are 2 ways to do a system

1: use a separate switch for the JAP system and treat it like a video switch in a rack

2: use the same switch for your entire network. Your network will reside on VLAN One. then your video transmitters and receivers will work off of vlans 2-?. ? being how many sources you have.

There is no ethernet pass through. You really dont want a 1080P lossless formatted video signal being broadcasted on your main vlan for your computers and control system so you would run a separate ethernet if you needed a device at the device to be on the normal control network.

With just add power you get a much more affordable way to distribute VIDEO. This is treated as a video distribution system and does not fit the need for everyone ( as far as distributing lossless audio formats over the hdmi path )

I would think that if JAP was doing something wrong with HDCP and they literally just had a meeting with the HDMI organization that something would of been brought up about their products. The fact remains they are not doing anything illegal. So until you get all of your facts straight i suggest you actually verify the things you are talking about before posting them

If you were to plug a single transmitter into an unmanaged switch and then a bunch of receivers it would work in this sense. If you plugged 2 transmitters into an unmanaged switch then you would not get video due to IP conflicts. To have the just add power solution work like a matrix video switch you must use a managed switch so you can control the vlans

If you do not wish to see links to my company's website stop the video at the 29 second mark.

The video shows how a control4 system is controlling the switch over RS232. I am actually selecting sources on the touch screen and the control4 system is controlling the network switch and telling the ports to change what vlan they are on

to not see links to my company website stop the video at 1:17

both videos above are of the 1st generation product.

I think you misunderstand a few things. HDCP is not part of HDMI. If you'd halt your infomercial just long enough to check into JAP central you might learn that none of the licensing authorities will provide affirmative approval of any mode. No one will know for certain if this handshake solution is kosher till--and if--it is invalidated in a future firmware release. And JAP is not willing to indemnify anyone purchasing their product should it be found illegal at some future date.

Here's the rub. And all of the affirmative contributors to this thread are not disinterested parities. Blackwire Designs is a distributor and Nded the public arm of JAP. I have asked 4 different manufacturers of HDMI equipment why they did not put a scaler in between source and destination. All of them--every single one of them--said this was illegal. They went through the trouble of dealing with the ancient and horrid HDCP handshake. High speed data is easy. Low speed data is hard. Putting a processor in between the two solves the dilemma but is it legal. JAP ain't saying for sure. And everyone else answered in the negative long before JAP's product came out.

Who's right? Blackwire Design isn't going to refund you money. JAP is not going to refund your money. They are not going to have to take the heat if their assumption proves incorrect.

In a month or so you will discover a lot of solutions using the new Israeli chip sets that permit data re-clocking. Before you put a bet on the line you might want to wait for the legal solutions to come to market.

I'm wrong Blackwire or Nded? Put your money where your mouths are. Indemnify every purchaser with money back guarantee that your solution is legal.

Alan

Blackwater Designs.

I understand a bit about networks. I setup and install Layer 2 networks all of the time. I've used, Dell, 3Com, HP ProCurve switches. I've installed VoIP networks and I'm currently researching adding a satellite phone to a Cisco network with Cisco VoIP phone system.

I implement QoS on a regular basis. The networking is not the problem, either in terms of the network infrastructure or the device setup. We use vLans all of the time. It's one of the chief reasons I dislike Apple equipment. Network broadcasts do not cross vLans and devices on one vLan cannot communicate with devices on the other. I think using multi-casting is a sign of laziness. You employ multi-casting. Tut-tut.

A.There is the matter of legality.
B.There is the issue of audio ( to be fixed later but as of this moment in time it's PCM )
C.There is the matter of not having Internet on the stream
D.There is the matter of CEC being absent.

Personally, I dislike infomercials. I find it offensive. It's one thing to post that you are offering a new, interesting product. It's an other to endlessly spam. You have gone way beyond what is reasonable and ventured into the offensive and rude. Just my opinion. Others may like your sort of advertising and see it as valuable.

If I say that Request makes the best server I've touched that is a more or less disinterested statement. I may be a dealer. I may be ignorant of some other products. I may be wrong. My ego may be massive. But I have no self-interest other than ego in that statement. I certainly make no money from that recommendation.

My problem is that your product relies on a solution that 3 years ago I was told was illegal. That answer was reaffirmed by an other manufacturer 2 years ago. It was further confirmed by 2 other manufacturers last year. Received wisdom this may be. But when you are violating this conventional wisdom, particularly with a product that is subject to later invalidation, forgive me if the innate caution of a CI ventures into out and out skepticism. I do not deny that JAP's products do not work as advertised. But I was told 3 years ago by a well known HDMI consultant and manufacturer that he had investigated this transmission methodology and abandoned it because it was illegal.

It seems reasonable to conclude that JAP is small and willing to take the chance that it can make a buck before it hits the fan and if it doesn't even better. You web site will be gone. JAP will be out of business. The CI will be left holding the bag.

Yet we get the kind of Clintonesque responses from you and JAP. It depends on the definition of "is" and in this case you have a huge stake in hoping that your wish will be true but you are unwilling to put your money behind that dream. If JAP is unwilling to provide a money back guarantee that their product is legal why should we CIs spend money on it?

You want to make a buck? No problem. I will concede that the JAP product works. But legality is an issue you want to avoid but cannot. JAP doesn't want to pay to prove that legality but they want CIs to ante up and purchase a product that conventional wisdom says is illegal.
Trust me. Pay me. And when it is invalidated you'll response will be don't call me. You ought to have known better.

Alan

I was saying the same thing you are :). Reason I mentioned the normal switch was not for someone to go and use but rather as a proof point that the traffic on the wire is indeed regular data rather than some proprietary packetization of HDMI data.

I am pretty sure the governance of HDCP is not done by HDMI but rather, Digital Content Protection, LLC: http://www.digital-cp.com/. I assume JAP has take a license from them and as such, is bound by their rules here. HDMI only cares about their end of the connection which only exists in the end nodes.

As you see in the above link, DCP has a specification for transmitting HDCP protected content over IP. If that is what JAP is using, then all is well. If they cooked up their own thing, or heaven forbid, are sending the bits in the clear, well, they better be prepared to have their shirt taken off their backs :).

thanks for the offer, but i usually get decent customer service when i call Cox.  i was just referring to the sometimes-excruciatingly-slow activation process, which usually isn't an issue since i plug the 8300 in long before i finish an install.

Typical of this poster to miss the question and post about something entirely different and passes on incorrect information to boot.


HDMI 1.4 supports uncompressed video including deep color and 3D. JAP?
HDMI 1.4 supports Dolby HD. JAP?
HDMI 1.4 supports CEC . JAP?
HDMI 1.4 supports Ethernet along with all of the above. JAP?

All of the above on a single HDMI cable. All of the above supported by everyone else on 2 Category wires. Only video supported by JAP, and then only 1080P.

Everyone else is trying to meet these impossible specifications in full. JAP?

Essentially this is NOT a retro-fit solution. It ignores 3/4 of the HDMI protocol but not a word from Amir. The simplest part of HDMI is getting high speed data to the display. Ignore keys, don't bother with authentication by source to display, ignore uncompressed multi-channel audio, ignore CEC, ignore Ethernet-essentially ignore all the difficult aspects of HDMI and Amir remains silent.

Wasn't Amir on the HDMI standards committee? Hum.

Alan

I have just suffered through the employees of the local Best Buy store to purchase the DVE BD disc you suggested. It is in my hands. It will be available at our exhibit in InfoComm. It is a Region A disc, so it probably won't fly at CEDIA in London the following week.

DCP actually contacted us for a compliance review even before WWW.HDMI.ORG after the big splash from CEDIA 2009. We are using the CAT6023/CAT6613 HDCP chipsets from ITE - listed at [Link: digital-cp.com]

As for Alan, I sure wish this forum software had an IGNORE function. You could choose to ignore me, and I wouldn't hesitate to choose to ignore you. It is not in our business plan to persuade ever CI in the world that they should use the Just Add Power solution, and I'm perfectly comfortable with you deciding you don't want to take advantage of what the solution offers.

The layer 2 switches are more than sufficient for our application - they can be stand alone networks and have no need for ROUTER services. The device doing the switching is typically an RS232 or IP control system. For example, most of the Crestron dealers installing our solution use a Crestron QM-RMC to do the switching. The RTI control software is written to the RP6 but also works with the newer controllers like the XP8. Our URC driver is written for the MSC-400. I'm not sure what the make/model is for the RS232 controllers for our AMX, Control4, M-Control, Savant, and Vantage drivers.


We've done our best to make this function as a turnkey solution. Several of our distribution partners include pre-configured switches as an option. This lets the dealer get a plug-n-play HDMI matrix without having to understand any of the complexities of the switch. On the other hand, we have written several documents for the dealers that walk them through the switch configuration one step at a time. It really isn't that complicated, you just have to do things in the correct sequence to get the solution working in an optimal fashion.


I like the 2960 becuase my neighbor works for Cisco and has given me access to several switches for our proof of concept work. It doesn't hurt that the Cisco switches also work very well, and now have lifetime warranties. The believe the ESW Switches should also be fine (I don't have one to test), you just have to put a little extra effort into getting to a CLI (rs232 or telnet). Typically you have to initialize the driver with an extra CTRL-Z to get out of terminal mode and into CLI mode, but once your there, it's quite easy to implement the matrix.

Of course you want to ignore my posts because they state directly that your product may be problematic. You want to move sideways around each point, particularly the legality--or rather absence of it--on how you handle authentication. I hope everyone pays attention to how you are avoiding or ignoring just about every aspect of the protocol that for some reason every other manufacturer thinks they must meet.

Hopefully, every CI here will pay attention to my questions and demand you answer and refute each and every one of them. At the very least when they are left holding the bag they will at least know they made a rational decision based on all of the data. They will not have been the victim.

Of course, you only want to make money. Don't we all. Some of us aren't willing to prostitute ourselves or perpetrate scams to get rich.

Are you committing a scam? You dance around the legality of authentication. Forget the legality of your solution for a moment. Is it not a fact that authentication is done between source and your transmitter and your receiver and the destination? That in this system source and display never communicate directly? State plainly that your solution depends on the source never communicating with the destination. State it plainly that in your system your software manages the authentication process. You decide what is and is not legal.

Does that sound kosher? Let's put some sun light on your system. If it stands up to scrutiny, great. But let's speak plainly about what it does and does not do. Let us speak plainly about the corners you cut and the legalities you skirt. Then let each CI decide if it's worth the risk.

The issue of kashrut with respect to authentication aside:

Is it not a fact that you do not support Dolby HD?
Is it not a fact that you do not support CEC?
Is it not a fact that you don't support deep color?
Is it not a fact that you don't support 3D?
Is it not a fact that you don't support Ethernet?

If your solution is, in fact, legal why not indemnify any CI foolish enough to buy your Koolaid? Yes, it may cost some of your profits but what will it cost the CI if you are illegal and your product invalidated at some later date. JAP goes out of business. You move to Grand Cayman. The CI is left holding the bag.

Does your solution work? Yes. Wouldn't everyone have similar solutions if they'd ignore the protocol and not bother with HDCP? Oh, sorry. You do authenticate. Only it's done by your devices. Were it not for the legalities of HDCP and EDID getting 1080P on a display would be trivial engineering.

In a world where the licensors have the power to turn devices off should I care about your business plan or my fellow CI's? You care about making your pile and you and your distributor buddy don't care about Truth.

You may continue to ignore my posts. However, as long as they make sense to my brother CIs they may have the effect of limiting your sales--and thus your ability to make money off the naivety of CIs. If they know they are purchasing a illegal system and wish to take the risk, all is fair.

Confess Ed. It will be good for your soul to admit that you haven't a clue if your product is legal and you don't give a sh%t either. All you want to to make money. Once you have that money if your products are turned off by firmware updates and CIs are left holding the bag, caveat emptor, right?

If every manufacturer ignored the protocol, particularly HDCP, would there be any issue getting 1080P on to a display? Component video supports 1080P. The purpose of HDMI is not 1080P, not deep color, not 3D, not perfect color, not CEC. It's HDCP. You get around it. You may have legally done this. You may not have. You don't care. The CI may.

Have I been once uncivil? Have I once been rude? Why then would you wish to ignore these questions if you didn't have something to hide?

Alan