I have noticed an assumption on this forum that presence of a 1394 connection (AKA Firewire or i-Link) automatically means it is there for HD recording. This is not always the case. In some cases the plug is there, but the internal software is not.

In the interest of understanding issues of using 1394 you may want to visit this site of the 1394 trade association below and look at their FAQ , "About Technology:, and "specifications" list. There are over 100 specifications for the use of various devices using the general 1394 technology. HD recording is only one. I have seen Sony TVs with an i-Link connection for the sole purpose of display of home video from a Sony camcorder using the mini-dv format. This would not work for a JVC VHS which has it's own spec.

http://www.1394ta.org/index.shtml

The "IEEE1394 interface implementation Guideline D-VHS 1.0" is specification no 2002020. Does the set top box support this spec?
I don't know, but it must if you want to use a D-VHS recorder!.

My point is that for a 1394 Firewire output to be able talk to a 1394 Firewire input they BOTH have to use the exact same 1394 specification on how the 1s and 0s are sent and received. Even a 1 bit change ( due to copy protection for example) will block the transfer.

In order for all the new cable boxes, recorders, and TV inputs to work together they MUST support the same 1394 specifications. I don't know if they publish the 1394 specifications used, but unless all the devices are on the same page there will be trouble.

There is an excellent article by BoB Perry of Mitsuibishi that explains this better that I have at:

http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2002Press/august/8.b.htm

The D-VHS spec is numbered 2002019

Don,

Thanks for that link to Bob Perry's article. That should be mandatory reading for anyone with any interest in the HD movement. The stakes in this debate are enormous, and I would love to see us, the consumer, win for once. Thanks again for a terrific link!

Ken

Thanks for the link...great article! I think the way it'll eventually go will be i-link for inter-connecting audio equipment and HDMI for video...Since HDMI is backward compatible with DVI and is smaller in size it will become the accepted standardized video connection. I would prefer i-link for both, but I don't think that will ever happen.

>but I don't think that will ever happen>

Perry's article sounded the alarm in my head when I first read it in late 2002. Powerful industry forces do NOT want consumers to have a fully functional 1394 recording output. The Supreme Court ruled about "Fair use" recording. The industry says ,"OK you can record legally, but we do NOT have to provide any digital connection to let you".

The industry alliance behind HDMI is composed of Hollywood Studios, DirecTV, EchoStar (Dish) and several electronics companies. HDMI is proprietary and requires a license. It is a closed system designed to foil copying. Anyone attempting to foil the HDMI system would either be guilty of a license violation, counterfeiting, or breaking the federal law against hacking copy protection. On the other hand 1394 has a small license fee, but is designed to be an open, highly flexible, very user friendly interface. There are thousands of 1394 computer products not under Hollywood control and THAT is the problem.

Imagine a fully functional 1394 system like Perry describes. It would be wonderful for the consumer. You could hook up a PC, install some TIVO like software, record to your hard disk, network to another TV, make DVD copies, and send out the movies on a file sharing ( Napster like) on the internet. Hollywood had a heart attack! There is a system in 1394 to foil internet transfer (1394, 5C) , but Content providers (as Perry calls them) do not control this standard and THEY WANT FULL control. Content providers will be happy only when someone pays EVERY time you view a movie.

As Perry points out we are moving into a world where the "Play" button becomes the "Pay" button. And I don't see it changing unless the FCC rules that functional 1394 outputs are required on satellite boxes, just like they ruled on cable boxes, and further the FCC sets reasonable "Fair use" rules to protect the consumer.

HDMI could be a great system, IF devices are also equipped with 1394 but right now it is not happening. Even in the cable boxes there are dozens of posts here where Brand A is not talking to Brand B. If they had just followed the standard 1394 specs everyone's equipment would work. It is a solid system, but we probably won't get it.

You can stop all shoplifting by strip searching all customers as they leave, but you will lose a lot of customers. I feel the content providers tactics will backfire the same way, and in the end they will have lower sales than an open system like 1394, 5C with redistribution limits would provide.