Cheap HDMI cables vs Pricy Branded HDMI Cables -- Any difference in PQ & AQ or ??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
Metalex:
I'd love to know the science behind what a "quality" HDMI cable can do better than a cheap cable. Are they able to transfer better quality 1s and 0s? Unfortunately, cable manufacturers don't seem to want to explain the science behind it, and neither do people who claim to see the difference. All I see are people using buzzwords by claiming that a cable has more "punch" or a cable is more "revealing". That doesn't really tell you anything and can be explained by the placebo effect.

So, is anyone willing to exlain how a more expensive, higher quality cable is able to send a better quality signal? Maybe there are some 1.5s tranmitted down these cables that I wasn't previously aware of.
emotion-5.gif


QED gives it a good go here - read from 'Pitfalls' onwards.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I notice they are very careful not to make spurious claims in that article.

They talk about how it is important to exceed the specifications, but they seem careful not to suggest how common it might be for "value" cables to not meet these specifications in the real world. They are keen to point out that their cables comfortably exceed these requirements, but they don't offer any sort of explanation on why it would be beneficial to exceed the specs. They claim all of their cable exceed the specs, but they seem reluctant to make specific claims of improved sound or picture quality, merely that they offer "superior ability and performance headroom" or "optimise" performance, which doesn't really mean anything. Put simply, even QED don't seem to claim superior picture and sound from their cables compared to other cables conforming to specs, which is very telling in this debate.

Now, if an HDMI cable exceeds the required specs, then is there any benefit from purchasing a cable with even more headroom? If a digital cable performs it's job without issue, then what can possibly improve with a cable offering more headroom?

This brings me to your reviews. If an HDMI cable offers better performance in terms of picture and sound quality, then surely cables offering inferior quality are not meeting the required specification of HDMI. Alternatively, are you are saying that cables exeeding the specs are more able to offer better performance, due to the headroom they offer? If it is the latter, then where is this performance coming from? If the inferior cable meets the specs without issue, what extra signal information is the superior cable transmitting, and where is this information coming from?

There is an extract from one of your reviews on this page on the QED website. It says that "the HDMI-P delivers fine resolution, sterling detail, and handles movement with skill". What do you mean by "fine resolution"? Do inferior cables not offer as good resolution? Are pictures not as detailed? If detail is not as good with an inferior cable, then surely information is being lost somewhere along the way because the cable does not meet the HDMI spec.

In reviews in the past, you have claimed that some HDMI cables offer "wonderful skin tones", "dynamic and powerful sound", "good detail and contrast", "punchy images" and are "great with contrast and texture". That is why I'm interested in the science behind these supposed quality cables. What are the scientific and technical properties of these cables that enables you to use such adjectives? Either inferior cables don't meet the specs, while other quality cables do, or the headroom of quality cables enable this extra performance. Which is it?

Would What Hi-Fi ever be willing to conduct scientific tests with a whole range of cables? This would include blind tests with independent, non-biased eyes and also signal analysis with specialised equipment to see what the differences really are from cable to cable.
 
A

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
d4v3pum4's post was moderated for the obvious reason
that it directed users to a rival publication, not due to the content
of the material to which it directed them.
Nice conspiracy theory, though...
 
A

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
idc:If What Hifi have already tested the ThatCable HDMI, could they now test their tester?

That tester only checks continuity - ie that signal is being passed -, not the quality of what's being passed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andrew Everard:d4v3pum4's post was moderated for the obvious reason that it directed users to a rival publication, not due to the content of the material to which it directed them.

Nice conspiracy theory, though...

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss moderation
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is absolutely ridiculous. I wasn't discussing moderation, I merely asked if I could post quotes from one of the leading experts on HDMI regarding cable quality. Is that against the rules?

If I can't discuss it here, then I will simply discuss it on other forums and highlight this forum's attitude to posting facts on this topic.

What are you trying to hide here?
 
C

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
We have nothing to hide here - hence hosting and contributing to many, many such threads on these Forums (do a search - it's a regular topic!)

We have tested a wide range of HDMI cables using a team of testers and a variety of AV equipment. Our five-star recommendations start at just £5 and - as with any product - we urge people to try before they buy to ensure they're buying something that suits them and their system. I don't see the big problem here.

As for moderation - our mods. are just following the House Rules that you and everyone else on this site signed up to when they joined.
 
idc

idc

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2008
1,124
84
19,270
Visit site
Andrew Everard:

idc:If What Hifi have already tested the ThatCable HDMI, could they now test their tester?

That tester only checks continuity - ie that signal is being passed -, not the quality of what's being passed.

So the tester will only say that part of the signal/cable ie RGB, clock, CEC, SCC, SDA, -5 v power and hot plug detect is working or not working. Damn, I thought I might be on to something with that one.

Still, surely it shows that HDMI cables are doing a lot more than the often claimed simple passing 1 and 0s. Surely all that data and how well the cable copes with it is still the reason why some are better than others?
 
A

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
Metalex:This is absolutely ridiculous. I wasn't discussing moderation, I merely asked if I could post quotes from one of the leading experts on HDMI regarding cable quality. Is that against the rules?
Don't quite see why you are getting such a bee in your bonnet about the moderation of someone else's post. But yes, by asking if you could post quotes from a piece linked to in a post that was moderated, you were discussing moderation.

And now, of course, you are discussing the moderation of your post discussing moderation, which is doubly bizarre.

Metalex:If I can't discuss it here, then I will simply discuss it on other
forums and highlight this forum's attitude to posting facts on this
topic.

Have fun, but do try to bear in mind why the initial moderation happened. If it doesn't get in the way of the conspiracy theory too much, that is...

Metalex:What are you trying to hide here?

As Clare has said, nothing. But we have house rules, and ask users to abide by them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andrew, you said yourself that the post was moderated due to that fact it pointed to a rival publication, not because of the content. I think that is fair enough - many forums take this stance. However, as it is the content that is important here, do you see it as unreasonable that the HDMI expert's quotes are posted here in writing? This can easily be done without any reference to the rival publication, and is extremely relevant to this thread's topic.
 
A

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
Metalex:Andrew, you said yourself that the post was moderated due to that fact it pointed to a rival publication, not because of the content. I think that is fair enough - many forums take this stance. However, as it is the content that is important here, do you see it as unreasonable that the HDMI expert's quotes are posted here in writing? This can easily be done without any reference to the rival publication, and is extremely relevant to this thread's topic.

And still you keep on discussing the moderation process. Anyway, it would be unfair to quote the expert's comments given in an interview for another publication without giving a source for them, which of course isn't permitted here. Bit of a Catch-22, isn't it...?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
EDITED BY MODS - you are yet again discussing moderation, despite multiple warnings.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
d4v3pum4:So am I to take it that What Hifi disagree with the video and what the guy says?

Post moderated and user banned - again. This time for ban-dodging - MODS.
 
A

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
d4v3pum4:So am I to take it that What Hifi disagree with the video and what the guy says?

TBH, not sure any of us have watched it. And no, as already explained, that's not why your original post was moderated.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I have a very modest set up ,so when i bought my 40" sony tv wanted a half decent cable,so paid £65 for ixos cable i think thats right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom