The current mini has 5.1 optical audio out. The sound quality is excellent. And no problem keeping up with HDTV recordings. There's no reason to wait for this one.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Preparing to Add HDMI to Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current mini has 5.1 optical audio out. The sound quality is excellent. And no problem keeping up with HDTV recordings. There's no reason to wait for this one.
Oh, so you can have the keyboard for your headless Mac tethered to a monitor? What's so much more difficult about carrying around a headless Mac mini?
Oh god no why?? Please keep your hands off my computer displays. Why would you want to live in a world filled with 30+ displays forced to run at a paltry 1920x1080? Plus, the dot pitch on TVs is horrible. Try looking side-by-side at a 30 computer display and a 30 TV and you will see the difference.
Ugh, VGA. Why PC manufacturers still insist upon putting that piece of **** port on every laptop is beyond me. Why cant they get with the program? PowerBooks dropped VGA 8 years ago
In other words, there is nobody in your home who will complain about adapters lying around and hiding them into places where you won't find them if you need them, and nobody who will complain about two cables being plugged into the TV that interfere with the serene quality of the living room
Um, no because the adapter that I linked plugs into the MDP and the USB on the Mac Mini and combines it into ONE HDMI port, so the Mini is in it's spot beneath the TV, and there is a single HDMI cable running to the TV as if the Mini had an HDMI port...
This is good news imo. Apple realises that a good chunk of Mac Mini purchasers use them as media centres. The mini display port already allows for VGA displays with the adapter so nothing would really be lost by switching the mini dvi port to HDMI. An HDCP compliant HDMI adapter with full audio passthrough would be great for people who use them as media centres.
I might not be able to drive the overpriced 30" Cinema Display but it can clearly drive my 32" LCD and auto-adjust its resolution to fit the screen without tweaking
You do realize why the Cinema Display is so much more expensive, right? Your 32” is almost certainly a TN planel. Almost all 30” displays from Apple/Dell/HP/etc are IPS panels, which have superior color reproduction and viewing angle. And they also pack way higher resolutions in a smaller screen. Don’t you find the low pixel density distracting? Eh, whatever floats your boat.
I am curious about this too. Without a 7.1 audio from BluRay there is no benefit to audio over DP besides convenience. But hmm…
HDMI has bandwidth limitations. Last time I looked, HDMI couldn’t drive the Apple 30” Cinema Display. Not sure if that has changed with additional specs (1.3, 1.4, etc).
I might not be able to drive the overpriced 30" Cinema Display but it can clearly drive my 32" LCD and auto-adjust its resolution to fit the screen without tweaking
You are aware that the image quality / resolution of your beloved 32" TVMonitor is pathetic compared to the "overpriced" 30" Apple Cinema display right? (or any other proper 30" computer display for that matter)
2560x1600 > 1920x1080
Compare Apples to Apples please. (No pun intended)
Crippled on purpose!!!!
So what we have here then is an opportunity to also add Blueray, a TV tuner and PVR capabilities for the ultimate system ... but we all know Apple, far from being todays innovator like they used to be, they'll bring out a crippled product knowing that 6 months down the line they can bring out the same thing with stuff it should have had in the first place and all the previous buyers will go out and buy again!
A clever business practice from Apple, for hard working buyers like you and I just another Apple rip-off!
So what we have here then is an opportunity to also add Blueray, a TV tuner and PVR capabilities for the ultimate system ... but we all know Apple, far from being todays innovator like they used to be, they'll bring out a crippled product knowing that 6 months down the line they can bring out the same thing with stuff it should have had in the first place and all the previous buyers will go out and buy again!
A clever business practice from Apple, for hard working buyers like you and I just another Apple rip-off!
Video signaling is in a transitionary period right now, and anybody who tries to convince you that they know what's coming is lying. DVI is inadequate to support present needs much less future ones, HDMI is a consumer variation on DVI, and DisplayPort is still mostly unrealized potential because the manufacturers of the actual LCD panels for the most part haven't caught up with the new spec just yet. So it's still tough to tell exactly which way this stuff will go, but the smart money is on DisplayPort.
What was so cool about DVI was that it had limited compatibility with both analog and digital signaling. Over the years, as analog display technology gave way to digital, this compatibility became less important.
HDMI, similarly, is cool because it's got limited backward compatibility with DVI; the signals are electrically identical, so you can go from DVI to HDMI with just a cable, instead of an intelligent converter.
Problem is, DVI/HDMI is sorely limited, both in bandwidth and bit depth. In order to get around this, a newer HDMI spec was released that doubled the base clock rate, but with it came a new, non-backward-compatible plug type (the "B-type" connector), which as far as I'm aware hasn't been used commercially yet.
In other words, HDMI was built with compatibility over future growth in mind. This is fine for home entertainment. It's going to be years at least before anybody even starts seriously considering higher-resolution or higher-dynamic-range home video options than HD at 10 bits. HDMI type A simply doesn't need to be any better than it is for consumer applications.
But computers are different. A professional computer workstation with an HD screen is considered to have a low-resolution display these days. Something like the 30" Cinema Display, which runs at less than 4K resolution, pushes the absolute limit of what DVI/HDMI signaling can do. Obviously something better is needed.
DisplayPort is a good next step. By letting go of DVI signal compatibility, DisplayPort simplifies a lot of things. It's got much higher bandwidth than DVI/HDMI, while being much more resistant to radio-frequency interference. The specification includes the option of using optical fiber instead of copper for signaling, which is heaven to professional users whose workstations are often located in the machine room hundreds of feet from the workspace; today, this kind of setup requires the use of a $3,000 DVI-to-optical converter on each end, making it impractical in many cases where it really shouldn't be. Furthermore, DisplayPort has enough headroom in the specification to support high-dynamic-range signaling. Right now, we're limited to 8-bit signaling, or maybe 10-bit if you engage in some unwise hackery. DisplayPort already supports up to 16-bit signaling which is really awesome in creative fields like animation and film/television post production.
But none of this has anything to do with consumer electronics. There's no point in talking about expanding the dynamic range of television signaling, because television is a 10-bit medium, and there are no plans in the works to change that. So why make the leap from HDMI to DisplayPort (or a similar next-generation interconnect) for consumer electronics? There's no point.
In other words, all you guys talking about HDMI and DisplayPort like they're competing standards, or even like they're comparable standards, are just making noise. They're meant for different purposes.
What was so cool about DVI was that it had limited compatibility with both analog and digital signaling. Over the years, as analog display technology gave way to digital, this compatibility became less important.
HDMI, similarly, is cool because it's got limited backward compatibility with DVI; the signals are electrically identical, so you can go from DVI to HDMI with just a cable, instead of an intelligent converter.
Problem is, DVI/HDMI is sorely limited, both in bandwidth and bit depth. In order to get around this, a newer HDMI spec was released that doubled the base clock rate, but with it came a new, non-backward-compatible plug type (the "B-type" connector), which as far as I'm aware hasn't been used commercially yet.
In other words, HDMI was built with compatibility over future growth in mind. This is fine for home entertainment. It's going to be years at least before anybody even starts seriously considering higher-resolution or higher-dynamic-range home video options than HD at 10 bits. HDMI type A simply doesn't need to be any better than it is for consumer applications.
But computers are different. A professional computer workstation with an HD screen is considered to have a low-resolution display these days. Something like the 30" Cinema Display, which runs at less than 4K resolution, pushes the absolute limit of what DVI/HDMI signaling can do. Obviously something better is needed.
DisplayPort is a good next step. By letting go of DVI signal compatibility, DisplayPort simplifies a lot of things. It's got much higher bandwidth than DVI/HDMI, while being much more resistant to radio-frequency interference. The specification includes the option of using optical fiber instead of copper for signaling, which is heaven to professional users whose workstations are often located in the machine room hundreds of feet from the workspace; today, this kind of setup requires the use of a $3,000 DVI-to-optical converter on each end, making it impractical in many cases where it really shouldn't be. Furthermore, DisplayPort has enough headroom in the specification to support high-dynamic-range signaling. Right now, we're limited to 8-bit signaling, or maybe 10-bit if you engage in some unwise hackery. DisplayPort already supports up to 16-bit signaling which is really awesome in creative fields like animation and film/television post production.
But none of this has anything to do with consumer electronics. There's no point in talking about expanding the dynamic range of television signaling, because television is a 10-bit medium, and there are no plans in the works to change that. So why make the leap from HDMI to DisplayPort (or a similar next-generation interconnect) for consumer electronics? There's no point.
In other words, all you guys talking about HDMI and DisplayPort like they're competing standards, or even like they're comparable standards, are just making noise. They're meant for different purposes.
Ugh, VGA. Why PC manufacturers still insist upon putting that piece of **** port on every laptop is beyond me. Why cant they get with the program? PowerBooks dropped VGA 8 years ago
Maybe because VGA was pretty much THE standard monitor connector for several years. Going from one standard to another doesn't come easily. Heck, look at all those people who got bent out of shape because Snow Leopard dropped PPC support.
But, I agree, companies should stop including VGA. Just include DVI & either HDMI or DisplayPort.
Connect to a 1080p TV with a single cable (audio and video). My TV (at least) doesn't have display port on it. Hopelessly outdated I know...
HDMI is a required -- PHYSICAL -- DRM layer for 1080P HDTV-compliant devices. TVs don't use DVI or that Apple Mini Display adapter, they nowadays use either VGA or HDMI.
So, if you have to play with third party devices, you have to put something in your machine that everybody else is also using. DVI is on its way out and nobody cares for Apple's proprietary solution.
Ugh, VGA. Why PC manufacturers still insist upon putting that piece of **** port on every laptop is beyond me. Why cant they get with the program? PowerBooks dropped VGA 8 years ago
Ok well...just a quick note. A lot of projectors still use VGA, and projectors are "fairly important" in business use. My guess is that's at least one reason. I agree, for home use VGA is pretty outdated, but outside of the home there is still a lot of use for VGA, for better or worse.
Manufacturers are just giving users what they need. Novel concept, yeah?
rofl, no, you haven't.
Future proof? How so?
DisplayPort as of 2008 was less capable than HDMI 1.3 from 2006.
Current DisplayPort is still less capable than HDMI 1.4.
HDMI 1.3 is vaporware in computers? Proof? My 2.5 year old HP notebook from 2007 bitstreams Dolby True HD and DTS Master HD over HDMI. A feature that only HDMI 1.3 and newer are capable of.
If a monitor doesn't support 2560x1600 over HDMI, then that is the fault of the manufacturer. Or in the case of Apple, a manufacturer that hasn't updated its product line in nearly half a decade.
And, again, future proofing? As of 2008, the current DisplayPort being used in all Macs, HDMI is capable of higher resolutions with no funky, expensive, or in the case of the dual link DVI adapter, not working adapters. Apple's DisplayPort does NOT support audio, so it fails in that regard. If I want to use any Mac that isn't a Mac Pro with an external display, I have to have an adapter. Thats another failure. If I take my MacBook somewhere else, I have to carry at least two adapters with me to be able to connect it to external displays. If it had HDMI, I wouldn't need to carry an adapter at all since every modern piece of equipment has HDMI. Look at my HP notebook. It has S-Video, VGA, and HDMI. I can connect it to virtually everything. When I leave the house I don't need to take anything extra, not even a power adapter. With my MacBook I have to take the two adapters I own, the Apple mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter (which has TERRIBLE video quality I might add), and my monoprice mDP to HDMI adapter. I also have to take my power adapter with me because OS X doesn't like pushing external displays from battery power all the time.
Shall I go on? HDMI is better than DisplayPort. Simple. DisplayPort has the "advantage" of powering multiple displays from a single connector, but HDMI can push higher resolutions, higher quality audio, and with HDMI 1.4, you can push the same video quality as digital projectors in movie theaters AND have ethernet over the same cable, as well as higher quality audio than DisplayPort.
But the fact that DisplayPort can push audio over the same cable is irrelevant since the only major manufacturer to use DisplayPort at this point doesn't support audio!
for Apple it is all about $$, HDMI means licensing. Apple is very lone to spend any money on standards where they send $$ to outside competitors. ie, the won't do blu-ray yet, and they have made comments about HDMI licensing cost.
so... if they can cut a good deal, they may support. who knows.
I'm "this close" to pulling the plug on cable TV and its $100/month bill. It'd also mean dropping TiVo at $12/mo or whatever it is. Question then becomes what to replace it with?
Have a Boxee-hacked ATV. Fail. Streamed content is like 5-10fps, basically unwatchable (though audio is fine).
Have a PS3, so that takes care of Blu Ray (and Netflix).
A new mini with HDMI would be nice. Hulu, Boxee, etc. i3/i5 though pleae, no C2D...
Have a Boxee-hacked ATV. Fail. Streamed content is like 5-10fps, basically unwatchable (though audio is fine).
Have a PS3, so that takes care of Blu Ray (and Netflix).
A new mini with HDMI would be nice. Hulu, Boxee, etc. i3/i5 though pleae, no C2D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI HDMI is capable of up to 48bpp color.
But none of that matters since Apple doesn't even use 8-bit panels across its entire line and still uses 6-bit panels in many machines.
HDMI 1.4 is capable of running resolutions up to 4096x2160. HDMI 1.3 can push 2560x1600.
HDMI also supports higher quality audio than DisplayPort.
People reported problems with the $99 Apple MDP->DL DVI converter. I don't know if it is fixed by now.
Why no Core 2 Duo? Looking at Apple's prices, you know as well as I do that they won't put a Core i5 in a Mac mini ever. It'll be stuck with Core i3. A Core i3 with Intel GPU would be worse for video playback than a Core 2 Duo with 9400M. My "collectors edition" aluminum MacBook 2GHz can play blu-ray discs in Windows 7 at about 15% CPU use thanks to the 9400M.
I want a video of an HDMI laptop driving via HDMI cable a 2560x1600 display, NOW. Otherwise, you're talking about vaporware. (I don't care whose fault, display manufacturers or what, I use the "no adoption" argument like you use it against DP)
Whereas, a 2008-MBP can drive a Dell 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 display via Display Port, NO ADAPTER NEEDED, just a STANDARD (VESA) Mini-DP to DP cable.
In short, nobody from MacRumors will ever be pleased with what Apple does. Why not an HDMI port? Seems logical as the Mac Mini is more a consumer model and consumers tend to have HDTVs, not Apple Cinema Displays.