A question for the WHF review team

[AlmaataKZ]

So any threads on the subject should just be deleted?

no, why?!

they should be answered patienlty and comepetently. If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating and much more kudos to the forum.

 

[John Duncan]

If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating

You think?

 

[richardw42]

Whilst I've never noticed any difference in PQ & SQ in different HDMI cables. I will also say cheap cables do come with some problems. I've had 3 AmazonBasics HDMIs go on me in the last 18 months or so but when they're working they're no different to the £50 Chord one I got when I subscribed.

Also wasn't Steves OP about HDMI testing ?

Perhaps the usual suspects should just start a "Why I hate AVI so much" thread and stop ruining others. It's getting tiresome.

 

[WinterRacer]

So any threads on the subject should just be deleted?

Once the industry grows up and accepts that the tooth fairy was something your parents made up there will be no reason for threads such as this.

Massive amounts of Kudos would be gained by any publication that actively fought against the myths rather than accepting them. There is room for science in this hobby. It's science that creates the amplifiers and speakers and sources, it's bad science that creates mythically deeper blacks in certain HDMI cables.

+1, you said it much better than me, so I deleted my attempt 🙂

 

[AlmaataKZ]

If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating

You think?

yes. a competent, reasonably brief but exhaustive, conclusive and easy to understand FAQ entry could be referred to easily. the FAQ entry itself can be improved/updated as required to make sure it achieves the objective (of explaining it once and for all).

 

[Lee H]

If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating

You think?

yes. a competent, reasonably brief but exhaustive, conclusive and easy to understand FAQ entry could be referred to easily. the FAQ entry itself can be improved/updated as required to make sure it achieves the objective (of explaining it once and for all).

Or do a search and see that this thread has been repeated more times than Dave screens Top Gear.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating

You think?

yes. a competent, reasonably brief but exhaustive, conclusive and easy to understand FAQ entry could be referred to easily. the FAQ entry itself can be improved/updated as required to make sure it achieves the objective (of explaining it once and for all).

Or do a search and see that this thread has been repeated more times than Dave screens Top Gear.

exactly! frequent question with predicatble thread development? have a good FAQ entry, refer to it, lock the thread.

just lock the thread does not work, obviously.

 

[Anonymous]

If there are answers and explanations much less chance of threads degenerating

You think?

yes. a competent, reasonably brief but exhaustive, conclusive and easy to understand FAQ entry could be referred to easily. the FAQ entry itself can be improved/updated as required to make sure it achieves the objective (of explaining it once and for all).

Or do a search and see that this thread has been repeated more times than Dave screens Top Gear.

Why do you think it keeps getting repeated?

 

[chebby]

...exactly! frequent question with predicatble thread development? have a good FAQ entry, refer to it, lock the thread.

Why not just provide a link to the relevant part of the [LINK REMOVED - house rules] website then lock the thread?

 

[chebby]

...exactly! frequent question with predicatble thread development? have a good FAQ entry, refer to it, lock the thread.

Why not just provide a link to the relevant part of the [LINK REMOVED - house rules] website then lock the thread?

Sorry, just realised my error. This IS the [LINK REMOVED - house rules] website!

 

[Paul.]

Why do you think it keeps getting repeated?

Because apparently people don't have anything better to do on a sunny Sunday afternoon?

 

[Lee H]

Why do you think it keeps getting repeated?

My point is, that even though the thread has exisited numerous times before, people generally don't search the forum. Creating an FAQ would end in the same result; just as with any other topic.

I'm yet to see one of these threads where anyone is moved from one side of the debate to the other.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Why do you think it keeps getting repeated?

My point is, that even though the thread has exisited numerous times before, people generally don't search the forum. Creating an FAQ would end in the same result; just as with any other topic.

I'm yet to see one of these threads where anyone is moved from one side of the debate to the other.

that depends on the quality of the explanation. also, there is no point to search for threads if they are inconlusive.

link could be to an external resource, provided the content there is accpeted by the hosts here as a conlusive answer. but forums need to be maintained, regardless of how annoing it is i.e. if a question keeps coming up, a reply with the link is in order. just locking the thread is not the answer.

 

[Lee H]

just locking the thread is not the answer.

I quite agree. Sadly, at times some threads just descend in to mud slinging though.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

just locking the thread is not the answer.

I quite agree. Sadly, at times some threads just descend in to mud slinging though.

I think this is because of:

- insufficient or deficient moderation on these threads, sometimes dismissive or devisive

- lack of comeptent/authoritive technical input from the forum hosts

Having it like that may be good for (mostly troll) traffic but is not good for forum cred/reputation.

 

[John Duncan]

(is not biting)

 

[byakuya83]

I've seen things like this on TV (Gadget Show, Watchdog) and conclusion was that expensive cables do not improve picture/sound quality. I suppose salesman and advertisers cannot mislead but they can use clever descriptions to give an impression you're buying something better. These tactics at best could be called unscrupulous, at worst a breach of some description law.

Believing you bought something better can actually enhance its performance in your mind, i.e. subjectively. So you can understand why they make such claims. However, I don't expect that expert reviewers are as easily fooled.

I got my HDMI from Game, it's the right length and flexible. I would have spent far more had I not seen the above mentioned shows. It suits my needs perfectly and I judged it purely on build quality. Which is something that I expect does differ between HDMI cables.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

(is not biting)

JD, this is an example of dismissive moderation, imo

 

[Exshopguy]

E

I've seen things like this on TV (Gadget Show, Watchdog) and conclusion was that expensive cables do not improve picture/sound quality. I suppose salesman and advertisers cannot mislead but they can use clever descriptions to give an impression you're buying something better. These tactics at best could be called unscrupulous, at worst a breach of some description law.

Believing you bought something better can actually enhance its performance in your mind, i.e. subjectively. So you can understand why they make such claims. However, I don't expect that expert reviewers are as easily fooled.

I got my HDMI from Game, it's the right length and flexible. I would have spent far more had I not seen the above mentioned shows. It suits my needs perfectly and I judged it purely on build quality. Which is something that I expect does differ between HDMI cables.

There is also the argument that more expensive cables are better built but in general they're thicker and less flexible that the cheaper ones. How well built does a cable that's largely stationary really need to be?

 

[professorhat]

(is not biting)

JD, this is an example of dismissive moderation, imo

How can it be? There was no moderation.

If more moderation was actually performed, you'd then have a load of people carping on about their "rights" to free speech and all that malarkey.

As usual, you can't please all the people etc. etc.

 

[Exshopguy]

(is not biting)

JD, this is an example of dismissive moderation, imo

How can it be? There was no moderation.

If more moderation was actually performed, you'd then have a load of people carping on about their "rights" to free speech and all that malarkey.

As usual, you can't please all the people etc. etc.

I'm fairly new here but I read through a lot before posting, the general tone seems to be generally easy on moderation but there does seem to be a lot of digs and sniping comments which appears to give a dismissive attitude from the moderators. They then have their fans who back them while those who dare to disagree get lumped into a separate group. It does give an air of "not in my gang" from both sides and doesn't create a friendly, inclusive tone.

Other forums either have mods who are not seen unless necessary or who are a good impartial party in discussions prompting debate from both sides. I guess the mods here reflect the opinion of the magazine as it's their forum so can't be fully impartial like those who's only product is the forum itself.

 

[Lee H]

I guess the mods here reflect the opinion of the magazine as it's their forum so can't be fully impartial like those who's only product is the forum itself.

Then I suggest you click here.

 

[professorhat]

I'm fairly new here but I read through a lot before posting, the general tone seems to be generally easy on moderation but there does seem to be a lot of digs and sniping comments which appears to give a dismissive attitude from the moderators. They then have their fans who back them while those who dare to disagree get lumped into a separate group. It does give an air of "not in my gang" from both sides and doesn't create a friendly, inclusive tone.

I'm fairly new here but I read through a lot before posting, the general tone seems to be generally easy on moderation but there does seem to be a lot of digs and sniping comments which appears to give a dismissive attitude from the moderators. They then have their fans who back them while those who dare to disagree get lumped into a separate group. It does give an air of "not in my gang" from both sides and doesn't create a friendly, inclusive tone.

I guess it depends on whether you see the "known" moderators postings as a stream of constant moderation, or whether it's just them expressing their own opinions.

My understanding is, if moderation is performed, it's clearly labelled as such - this is a rarity and only done when things are getting out of hand (and that's a good thing in my opinion). At all other times, the moderators are just getting involved in discussions with their own opinions (I believe this is also a good thing) and this shouldn't be confused as moderation.

Of course that's just the way I see it.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

(is not biting)

JD, this is an example of dismissive moderation, imo

How can it be? There was no moderation.

If more moderation was actually performed, you'd then have a load of people carping on about their "rights" to free speech and all that malarkey.

As usual, you can't please all the people etc. etc.

I'm fairly new here but I read through a lot before posting, the general tone seems to be generally easy on moderation but there does seem to be a lot of digs and sniping comments which appears to give a dismissive attitude from the moderators. They then have their fans who back them while those who dare to disagree get lumped into a separate group. It does give an air of "not in my gang" from both sides and doesn't create a friendly, inclusive tone.

Other forums either have mods who are not seen unless necessary or who are a good impartial party in discussions prompting debate from both sides. I guess the mods here reflect the opinion of the magazine as it's their forum so can't be fully impartial like those who's only product is the forum itself.

good points.

I think when I said 'moderation' I menat not only the reactive/disciplining part of it, but more the pro-active part - encouraging positive and competent discussions and discouraging emotinal/divisive/incompetent posts, and maybe even providing or facilitating competent posts, thus facilitating the forum's useful content building and authority. And that is lacking and the 'not biting' comment was exaclty that - an example of passive dismissive moderation. there are also numerous examples of divisive/provocative moderation from JD.

 

[chebby]

I guess the mods here reflect the opinion of the magazine as it's their forum so can't be fully impartial like those who's only product is the forum itself.

Then I suggest you click here.

What is being asked for here is not better moderation.

Nor is anyone seriously suggesting a mature debate on the efficacy of expensive cables. (Everyone knows that is a doomed enterprise.)

This is a simple exercise in poking staff and mods with sticks to get a reaction. (Hence the disparaging remarks about their competencies.)