I was thinking to myself today, aren't expensive HDMI cables worthless? Surely if the connector on the device itself, for example a Sky HD, has an HDMI connector not as good as the cable connector, does it mean it's pointless? Or do expensive HDMI's make a difference even if the connector on the device itself isn't that good?
Are Expensive HDMI Cables Worthless?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
nads
Well-known member
if your eyes see a difference then maybe you can say if it was worth it.
there is another can of worms open on this. re things like SATA cables between hard discs and mother boards....
there is another can of worms open on this. re things like SATA cables between hard discs and mother boards....
idc
Well-known member
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only?
We need a debate about how much of a difference each type of cable can have. (Option to continue or leave thread now)
From my experience speaker cable, mains, interconnects and SCARTs have noticeable differences. USB cables have none. Don't have enough experience of others to comment.
We need a debate about how much of a difference each type of cable can have. (Option to continue or leave thread now)
From my experience speaker cable, mains, interconnects and SCARTs have noticeable differences. USB cables have none. Don't have enough experience of others to comment.
Dave_
Well-known member
idc:
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only? A SATA cable is what connects HDD's to a motherboard.
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only? A SATA cable is what connects HDD's to a motherboard.
This is a seriously debatable issue as its 'digital'. So its believed there 'cant' be any differences. They either work or they dont
However ~ ALL digital cables have a 'cliff edge'which is the point at which they completely fail. Very poor cables have a very low cliff edge (Meaning long runs just wouldnt work at all). They dont just failalltogether though. As the cliff edge is approcached they begin to get more and more errors which ARE visible (snow effect on screen etc)
Personally speaking, ive seen differences with HDMI cables (Under 2 meters). But I refuse to get into an argument with one of the 'cable voodoo posse' over it so thats all ill say
However ~ ALL digital cables have a 'cliff edge'which is the point at which they completely fail. Very poor cables have a very low cliff edge (Meaning long runs just wouldnt work at all). They dont just failalltogether though. As the cliff edge is approcached they begin to get more and more errors which ARE visible (snow effect on screen etc)
Personally speaking, ive seen differences with HDMI cables (Under 2 meters). But I refuse to get into an argument with one of the 'cable voodoo posse' over it so thats all ill say
nads
Well-known member
daveh75:idc:
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only? A SATA cable is what connects HDD's to a motherboard.
and the CDR to the mother board etc etc. the connections used to be IDE. but yes it is just another connection with 7 wires in it. USB at the moment is just 4 wires.
my views are that if it is working and you can not see any errors them a "better" cable will not make the errors you cant see disappear
One thing that was mentioned by Andrew? (might have been another) .is that an upscaled DVD requires more band width than native 1080p Blu Ray or HDDVD which is fun as depending on where the up-scaling is happening can mean a different requirement on the cables.
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only? A SATA cable is what connects HDD's to a motherboard.
and the CDR to the mother board etc etc. the connections used to be IDE. but yes it is just another connection with 7 wires in it. USB at the moment is just 4 wires.
my views are that if it is working and you can not see any errors them a "better" cable will not make the errors you cant see disappear
One thing that was mentioned by Andrew? (might have been another) .is that an upscaled DVD requires more band width than native 1080p Blu Ray or HDDVD which is fun as depending on where the up-scaling is happening can mean a different requirement on the cables.
professorhat
Well-known member
Digital or not, it mostly comes down to "how" a signal is transmitted. For example, a lot is made by digital naysayers that digital information is sent over the internet with no loss and thus, signals sent over small distances cannot possibly be affected. However, in the case of the internet, a protocol called TCP/IP is used which was developed by the US military in the 60s / 70s in anticipation of World War III when it was expected that data loss over networks would be high due to nuclear incidents destroying much of the required infrastructure. As a result, this digital transport protocol is highly resilient and thus perfect for long distance communications over the internet. On the other hand, it would never be used over local networks (unless the product was designed to work on both local and slow networks), since the high speeds mean less resilient protocols could be used with error control without the end user being aware.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
idc:
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only?
We need a debate about how much of a difference each type of cable can have. (Option to continue or leave thread now)
From my experience speaker cable, mains, interconnects and SCARTs have noticeable differences. USB cables have none. Don't have enough experience of others to comment.
Debates about digital cables are the last thing we need. As I've mentioned elsewhere, most decent computer diploma/degree courses cover this in detail, and there's a stack of literature, too. Forget about the SATA thing. It's merely an attempt by desperate vested interests to push the digital world into the Fantasy HiFi world.
P.S. I'm excluding HDMI from the above remarks because I've neither studied or worked with them so am not qualified to comment.
Had a little google of SATA cables since you mentioned them on another thread nads, I had not heard of them before. So is SATA not just another type of USB? Or are they for HD to PC only?
We need a debate about how much of a difference each type of cable can have. (Option to continue or leave thread now)
From my experience speaker cable, mains, interconnects and SCARTs have noticeable differences. USB cables have none. Don't have enough experience of others to comment.
Debates about digital cables are the last thing we need. As I've mentioned elsewhere, most decent computer diploma/degree courses cover this in detail, and there's a stack of literature, too. Forget about the SATA thing. It's merely an attempt by desperate vested interests to push the digital world into the Fantasy HiFi world.
P.S. I'm excluding HDMI from the above remarks because I've neither studied or worked with them so am not qualified to comment.
RodhasGibson
Well-known member
professorhat:
Digital or not, it mostly comes down to "how" a signal is transmitted. For example, a lot is made by digital naysayers that digital information is sent over the internet with no loss and thus, signals sent over small distances cannot possibly be affected. However, in the case of the internet, a protocol called TCP/IP is used which was developed by the US military in the 60s / 70s in anticipation of World War III when it was expected that data loss over networks would be high due to nuclear incidents destroying much of the required infrastructure. As a result, this digital transport protocol is highly resilient and thus perfect for long distance communications over the internet. On the other hand, it would never be used over local networks (unless the product was designed to work on both local and slow networks), since the high speeds mean less resilient protocols could be used with error control without the end user being aware.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
Hey Prof, superb explanation, enjoyed the read,best post I"ve seen for a long while.Agree 100% with your synopsis
Digital or not, it mostly comes down to "how" a signal is transmitted. For example, a lot is made by digital naysayers that digital information is sent over the internet with no loss and thus, signals sent over small distances cannot possibly be affected. However, in the case of the internet, a protocol called TCP/IP is used which was developed by the US military in the 60s / 70s in anticipation of World War III when it was expected that data loss over networks would be high due to nuclear incidents destroying much of the required infrastructure. As a result, this digital transport protocol is highly resilient and thus perfect for long distance communications over the internet. On the other hand, it would never be used over local networks (unless the product was designed to work on both local and slow networks), since the high speeds mean less resilient protocols could be used with error control without the end user being aware.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
Hey Prof, superb explanation, enjoyed the read,best post I"ve seen for a long while.Agree 100% with your synopsis
professorhat:
Digital or not, it mostly comes down to "how" a signal is transmitted. For example, a lot is made by digital naysayers that digital information is sent over the internet with no loss and thus, signals sent over small distances cannot possibly be affected. However, in the case of the internet, a protocol called TCP/IP is used which was developed by the US military in the 60s / 70s in anticipation of World War III when it was expected that data loss over networks would be high due to nuclear incidents destroying much of the required infrastructure. As a result, this digital transport protocol is highly resilient and thus perfect for long distance communications over the internet. On the other hand, it would never be used over local networks (unless the product was designed to work on both local and slow networks), since the high speeds mean less resilient protocols could be used with error control without the end user being aware.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
Very well put Professorhat! I am no expert in this field, but your description and analysis sounds plausible.
Digital or not, it mostly comes down to "how" a signal is transmitted. For example, a lot is made by digital naysayers that digital information is sent over the internet with no loss and thus, signals sent over small distances cannot possibly be affected. However, in the case of the internet, a protocol called TCP/IP is used which was developed by the US military in the 60s / 70s in anticipation of World War III when it was expected that data loss over networks would be high due to nuclear incidents destroying much of the required infrastructure. As a result, this digital transport protocol is highly resilient and thus perfect for long distance communications over the internet. On the other hand, it would never be used over local networks (unless the product was designed to work on both local and slow networks), since the high speeds mean less resilient protocols could be used with error control without the end user being aware.
When it comes to digital hi-fi / home cinema signals, I have to admit to being completely in the dark on how they are transmitted. However, I do know that an HDMI signal is in the region of several Gbits per second which is a huge amount of data (in orders of magnitude above your average PC user), and also, given the nature of home cinema, there is no window for pausing when it comes to error control. To put it in perspective, if you're downloading a web page, the browser is using TCP/IP and thus there are no qualms in making you wait an extra few seconds before displaying that web page to error check everything received and ensure your web browser has received all the details exactly as they were transmitted from the original site. When it comes to playing a Blu-Ray movie though, the amount of data being transmitted is likely at least a thousandfold more than your average web page and then the player doesn't have the luxury of stopping the playback, error checking what it's receiving, and then carrying on the video - can you imagine the outcry if this was how Blu-Ray worked?!
As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie.
Very well put Professorhat! I am no expert in this field, but your description and analysis sounds plausible.
professorhat:As a result, the better HDMI cables (note the word better, not necessarily more expensive), deliver a signal with less errors which is closer to the original stream sent from the Blu-Ray player and thus, the error control software has less to guess and you get a picture which is closer to the one deigned by the director / producer of the movie
I don't think that is correct. If a HDMI signal fails, it manifests as drop outs as sparklies, there is no 'guesswork' or error correction. I can count on one hand the amount of instances of sparklies I have heard or read about.
There is a good article about HDMI HERE which explains in layman's terms how it works. DPLrating and hdmi.org are other good sources of information on HDMI.
HDMI is naff but it's here to stay (unfortunately).
I don't think that is correct. If a HDMI signal fails, it manifests as drop outs as sparklies, there is no 'guesswork' or error correction. I can count on one hand the amount of instances of sparklies I have heard or read about.
There is a good article about HDMI HERE which explains in layman's terms how it works. DPLrating and hdmi.org are other good sources of information on HDMI.
HDMI is naff but it's here to stay (unfortunately).
idc
Well-known member
The argument as presented by one of the 'expensive' HDMI manufacturers, QED. The full version is here and my summary is here...
HDMI has to deal with 'audio, video and control in just one connection'. So it has a tough job on its hands, but then again so do other types of cable. However, there is criticism of the HDMI format in that it is not that good, but we are stuck with it. So if it is not that great, it does suggest there is room for improvement.
According to QED, whilst HDMI is digital, it is not transmitting 1 and 0s as is often quoted. It is transmitting analogue representations of 1s and 0s. This is likened to a skipping rope and as it speeds the distance between up and down decreases to the point where poor quality cable makes up and down indistinguishable. QED claim to have measured this, but offer no details.
So, could it be the case that more errors are introduced than is accepted? Even if the analogue part of an HDMI cable is purely transmitting representations of 1s and 0s, there appears to a greater scope for errors. A 1 misread as a 0. Not enough to cause sparkles or complete breaks in the picture/sound. But it is enough to cause the transmitter and receiver to make a mistake, so causing a poorer signal to get through.
The rest of the article discusses whether it is better to have a cable that meets or exceeds specification. Their argument being that it is better to exceed specification. Certainly, one of their adverts refers to headroom and suggest making life easier for the transmitter and receiver of the data improves performance.
For me everything makes sense with the QED explanation. What say you?
HDMI has to deal with 'audio, video and control in just one connection'. So it has a tough job on its hands, but then again so do other types of cable. However, there is criticism of the HDMI format in that it is not that good, but we are stuck with it. So if it is not that great, it does suggest there is room for improvement.
According to QED, whilst HDMI is digital, it is not transmitting 1 and 0s as is often quoted. It is transmitting analogue representations of 1s and 0s. This is likened to a skipping rope and as it speeds the distance between up and down decreases to the point where poor quality cable makes up and down indistinguishable. QED claim to have measured this, but offer no details.
So, could it be the case that more errors are introduced than is accepted? Even if the analogue part of an HDMI cable is purely transmitting representations of 1s and 0s, there appears to a greater scope for errors. A 1 misread as a 0. Not enough to cause sparkles or complete breaks in the picture/sound. But it is enough to cause the transmitter and receiver to make a mistake, so causing a poorer signal to get through.
The rest of the article discusses whether it is better to have a cable that meets or exceeds specification. Their argument being that it is better to exceed specification. Certainly, one of their adverts refers to headroom and suggest making life easier for the transmitter and receiver of the data improves performance.
For me everything makes sense with the QED explanation. What say you?
idc:For me everything makes sense with the QED explanation. What say you?
It makes sense as far as it goes, but also says that any of its range of cables will be fine for regular 1080p. The differences cited concern headroom for future upgrades. From most technical articles on HDMI that I have read it seems that any failure to transmit the signal faithfully would manifest itself in unsubtle ways such as 'sparkling', pixellation, and audio or video drop-outs. From most reviews of HDMI cables that I have read differences between cables are described in very much more subtle terms. Assuming that cables not performing to specification will produce obvious symptoms, and that cables performing to specification with transmit the signal faithfully, the emergence of subtle differences between cables performing to specification is counter-intuitive.
Nevertheless, such subtle differences are reported in reviews and by posters on these forums time and time again. I haven't been able to detect these differences when swapping between a QED cable bought for £18, and a CYK cable bought for £5, but then simply swapping cables does not facilitate side-by-side comparison. Counter-intuitive or not, I cannot dismiss the testimony of so many. I would like the opportunity to witness these differences myself just to see what makes some (normally, but not exclusively) very expensive cables worth the investment. Until then I remain skeptical but open to persuasion.
It makes sense as far as it goes, but also says that any of its range of cables will be fine for regular 1080p. The differences cited concern headroom for future upgrades. From most technical articles on HDMI that I have read it seems that any failure to transmit the signal faithfully would manifest itself in unsubtle ways such as 'sparkling', pixellation, and audio or video drop-outs. From most reviews of HDMI cables that I have read differences between cables are described in very much more subtle terms. Assuming that cables not performing to specification will produce obvious symptoms, and that cables performing to specification with transmit the signal faithfully, the emergence of subtle differences between cables performing to specification is counter-intuitive.
Nevertheless, such subtle differences are reported in reviews and by posters on these forums time and time again. I haven't been able to detect these differences when swapping between a QED cable bought for £18, and a CYK cable bought for £5, but then simply swapping cables does not facilitate side-by-side comparison. Counter-intuitive or not, I cannot dismiss the testimony of so many. I would like the opportunity to witness these differences myself just to see what makes some (normally, but not exclusively) very expensive cables worth the investment. Until then I remain skeptical but open to persuasion.
idc
Well-known member
A very reasoned post smithdom and I am totally with you, particularly regards your comment 'I cannot dismiss the testimony of so many'. The idea of some sort of mass fooling of people by themselves and/or naughty cable manufacturers does not sit well with me.
I agree also re 'failure to transmit.....manifest in unsubtle ways'. But I am intregued by the QED explanation that digital is actually analogue transmitting 1s and 0s. So, is there not also the potential for other types of error e.g suseptibilty to EMF and RFI, jitter etc that is generally accepted with analogue cables? But with digital cables these errors are very subtle, hence why some detect them and others do not.
I agree also re 'failure to transmit.....manifest in unsubtle ways'. But I am intregued by the QED explanation that digital is actually analogue transmitting 1s and 0s. So, is there not also the potential for other types of error e.g suseptibilty to EMF and RFI, jitter etc that is generally accepted with analogue cables? But with digital cables these errors are very subtle, hence why some detect them and others do not.
idc:But I am intregued by the QED explanation that digital is actually analogue transmitting 1s and 0s.
I think they just mean that the signal is transmitted electrically, and that electricity is analogue (I'll leave that to the quantum physicists to debate). This leaves scope for the effectiveness of transmitting the digital signal to vary by degrees, but when this degrades beyond the ability of the error correction to cope the effects should be unsubtle according to technical articles.
I think they just mean that the signal is transmitted electrically, and that electricity is analogue (I'll leave that to the quantum physicists to debate). This leaves scope for the effectiveness of transmitting the digital signal to vary by degrees, but when this degrades beyond the ability of the error correction to cope the effects should be unsubtle according to technical articles.
All of which shows the human race has a remarkable ability for self-delusion.
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
idc
Well-known member
Tarquinh:
All of which shows the human race has a remarkable ability for self-delusion.
I accept that my theories could well be wrong and that all I am doing is a fruitless attempt to square a circle. But as stated above, I am unhappy at dismissing What Hifi and forum members as self-delusional.
Tarquinh:
...... and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
That is a speculative claim. I can do that as well .......... the vast majority do see differences if they use a better cable, but don't realise it is to do with the cable and think it is the TV or their mind instead. Or they never try and upgrade the cable, so missing out on a better picture and sound.
EDIT - Tarquinh, were you up very early, or back home very late!
All of which shows the human race has a remarkable ability for self-delusion.
I accept that my theories could well be wrong and that all I am doing is a fruitless attempt to square a circle. But as stated above, I am unhappy at dismissing What Hifi and forum members as self-delusional.
Tarquinh:
...... and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
That is a speculative claim. I can do that as well .......... the vast majority do see differences if they use a better cable, but don't realise it is to do with the cable and think it is the TV or their mind instead. Or they never try and upgrade the cable, so missing out on a better picture and sound.
EDIT - Tarquinh, were you up very early, or back home very late!
Tarquinh:
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Clare Newsome:Tarquinh:
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Do you have an industry data you can share relating to the average gross profit generated on an average price £31 HDMI cable ?
Dasp
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Do you have an industry data you can share relating to the average gross profit generated on an average price £31 HDMI cable ?
Dasp
Clare Newsome:Tarquinh:
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Excellent point! And of that 650000 who bought HDMI cables in 2008, just how many posted on this site? My case proven, so I'm out of here.
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Excellent point! And of that 650000 who bought HDMI cables in 2008, just how many posted on this site? My case proven, so I'm out of here.
das:Clare Newsome:Tarquinh:
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Do you have an industry data you can share relating to the average gross profit generated on an average price £31 HDMI cable ?
Dasp
I recall a bloke on another site that has a mate work at Currys (or
comet perhaps). They had a hdmi for sale there for around 90 quid which
they BOUGHT IN for a tenner!
I wish I could have found what make it was etc
Remember that forum posters represent a tiny percentage of those who use hdmi cables, and that the vast majority either see no difference or are indifferent to the subject.
Just some facts:
UK sales figures for 2008 show 650,000 HDMI cables were sold, at an average price of £31 (which oddly enough, is about spot-on what a 1m QED Performance HDMI could be bought for last year!). More than 130,000 HDMI cables were sold in December alone.
Do you have an industry data you can share relating to the average gross profit generated on an average price £31 HDMI cable ?
Dasp
I recall a bloke on another site that has a mate work at Currys (or
comet perhaps). They had a hdmi for sale there for around 90 quid which
they BOUGHT IN for a tenner!
I wish I could have found what make it was etc
aliEnRIK:I recall a bloke on another site that has a mate work at Currys (or
comet perhaps). They had a hdmi for sale there for around 90 quid which
they BOUGHT IN for a tenner!I wish I could have found what make it was etc
...And they said investigative journalism was dead...
An unnamed bloke on an unnamed forum's mate, who works for Currys (or it may be Comet), and we don't know which brand of cable it was.
Your witness...
comet perhaps). They had a hdmi for sale there for around 90 quid which
they BOUGHT IN for a tenner!I wish I could have found what make it was etc
...And they said investigative journalism was dead...
An unnamed bloke on an unnamed forum's mate, who works for Currys (or it may be Comet), and we don't know which brand of cable it was.
Your witness...
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Integrated amplifier with HDMI arc and self turning on on Optical input
- Started by sirfabio
- Replies: 2
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
Remote Control not able to access alpha letters only numbers Help please?
- Started by AntH
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram