CHORD HDMI SUPERSHIELD HDMI (Awards 2009) vs. VAN DEN HUL HDMI FLAT HDMI (Awards 2008)vs. QED PERFORMANCE HDMI (Awards 2006)

[Anonymous]

OK, did some research to find out the states of the digital wave form represent 0 and 1. Therefore, it is indeed 0s and 1s that are being transmitted.

Also found, for those who are interested, this site http://www.hdmi.org/index.aspx. The section on cables and long cable runs is particularly interesting, since HDMI is unlike others in that is does not specify a maximum cable length. Here's a part of what they say:

"HDMI technology has been designed to use standard copper cable construction at long lengths. In order to allow cable manufacturers to improve their products through the use of new technologies, HDMI specifies the required performance of a cable but does not specify a maximum cable length. We have seen cables pass "Standard Cable" HDMI compliance testing at lengths of up to a maximum of 10 meters without the use of a repeater. It is not only the cable that factors into how long a cable can successfully carry an HDMI signal, the receiver chip inside the TV or projector also plays a major factor. Receiver chips that include a feature called "cable equalization" are able to compensate for weaker signals thereby extending the potential length of any cable that is used with that device."

 

[Petherick]

Grottyash:

Therefore, it is indeed 0s and 1s that are being transmitted.

A digital signal can have one of two states - off ('0') or on ('1'). However, the signal has to switch between the 2 states, which takes some time, so at any moment, there may be an intermediate state. That's what I was pointing out about the waveform. The receiving equipment has to decide whether the signal is on or off. So although it seems simple, the equipment, cable, connectors, etcetera may have some effect upon the ability to determine the 'switch' between 'on' and 'off'. This is all happening VERY fast of course and there is no error-correction so one (I) can quite easily see how data might get lost/corrupted. While not disagreeing with you, I think the glib use of the terms 0 & 1 tend to infer it's very simple, which it's not.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, that's what I thought I'd said. Other research, which I didn't mention but I think is in an article quoted by Wikipedia, also says that lost data once it reaches a high enough level will be seen as "sparkles", or corruption on the screen. Theoretically a cable that is certified as HDMI should not contribute to this problem.

I'm no expert, by the way - just got my first TV with an HDMI connection.

 

[Petherick]

Yes, I thought you'd said that too. I'm no expert either (does it show

?) but I do know there can be a perceivable difference between cables. As there is between TVs and amplifiers etc.

BTW sorry for the over-use of commas in my previous posts!

 

[Anonymous]

I would image most people would be using a cable less than 4m, so unless the cable is of poor manufacture I still can't see why one cable would make any improvement over another.

Probably would be foolish to buy a cable @ £1.00 but to spend £80 plus would be crazy surely???

 

[Andrew Everard]

As I have said many times, and will keep saying, if you try a specific cable and it gives better results, enjoy; if you don't see differences, or have convinced yourself there can't be differences - including the use of the terms '1s and 0s', 'bits is bits', 'it's all digital', 'placebo effect', 'psychoacoustics', 'snake oil', 'Amazing Randi' and any other old saws you want to throw around - then be equally happy with the budget cable you have bought.

Just as long as neither camp tries to impose its opinion on those who think otherwise, or cast aspersions on their critical faculties or common sense, and we'll all get along very well.

 

[Anonymous]

Didn't the 'Amazing Randi' appear on Channel 4's Eurotrash? Can't remember him waving a HDMI cable about though

Google 'Amazing Randy Eurotrash' to see what i mean.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally, apart from brief interest in how HDMI works, and having just bought a TV with a blu ray which included the cable, I'm more concerned about the paucity of the plots in the average film or TV show than I am about whether I'm getting the blackest blacks or the most shimmering of reds. Who cares if you're not using the world's best HDMI cable if you've yet to make it to the end of the latest blockbusters because they are so bad?

 

[Anonymous]

Reviews where one short certified HDMI cable are supposedly better than another short certified HDMI cable never fail to amuse.

The terms 'clearer sound' or 'sharper picture' are my personal favs.

 

[Anonymous]

I've ordered a couple of HDMI cables that are rated at 5 Stars by What HiFi to see if there is any improvement on the 2 star rated cable I currently use.

I don't have any quibbles about my current cable but will be interested to see if there is an improvement.

Will post back if I have a 'Sharper Picture' and / or 'Clearer Sound'.

 

[Anonymous]

Reporting back with the results of the new HDMI cables.

The image quality is really good with the 5 star cable, I see no loss of colour, image is sharp but then again I see no visual difference when using the cable rated at 2 stars.

Ok, so there is no difference? Maybe if I had an identical setup running side by side using the respective cables then I may see some improvement, but if I can't perceive any improvement outside a side by side comparison, then why spend the extra money?

 

[Anonymous]

I've used Chord, and QED. The Chord is MILES better. Although I do use a Wireworld Ultraviolet now, makes the Chord seem quite ordinary.........

 

[Anonymous]

I fall into the camp of cables really making a difference having auditioned (and bench tested) many. If you could see how mangled a supposed perfect square waveform signal makes it out the other side of some cables you'd be shocked!!!

Sadly some peoples tv's (and bluray decks for that matter) are so poor a cable change will do little help....

 

[professorhat]

Jake7:Reporting back with the results of the new HDMI cables.

The image quality is really good with the 5 star cable, I see no loss of colour, image is sharp but then again I see no visual difference when using the cable rated at 2 stars.

Ok, so there is no difference? Maybe if I had an identical setup running side by side using the respective cables then I may see some improvement, but if I can't perceive any improvement outside a side by side comparison, then why spend the extra money?

I don't think anyone here would argue otherwise.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Indeed.

Though it should be remembered to listen to cables, as well as look....Sound is often overlooked when considering HDMI cables, yet can often be a key differential (as our Big Question reader feature demonstrated, for example).

 

[hammill]

AlanNorak:

I fall into the camp of cables really making a difference having auditioned (and bench tested) many. If you could see how mangled a supposed perfect square waveform signal makes it out the other side of some cables you'd be shocked!!!

Sadly some peoples tv's (and bluray decks for that matter) are so poor a cable change will do little help....

This argument is often used. I was told I could not tell the difference between 5* and free HDMI cables was that my equipment was poor. So I said I hava a 5090 Kuro, Oppo 83 and Onkyo 875. Then I was told it was was not properly calibrated so I explained that it was. Then I was told it was my mains, so I managed to pick up a very cheap PF30 ( apparently better than the Tacima most people have). I still cannot see or hear any difference between my free cables and a 5* chord. Usually at this point I am told I am blind or deaf, which I don't believe to be the case.

What I find is that badly recorded material looks/sounds bad and well recorded material looks/sounds good and the diffference between the two is huge. Playing well recorded material on my kids £26 toshiba looks/sounds much better than badly recorded stuff on my Oppo. Fiddling about with cables maybe fun for some people but if you are actually like to listen to music or watch TV, then spend the money on the software, not on snake oil.

 

[axman]

hammill:

What I find is that badly recorded material looks/sounds bad and well recorded material looks/sounds good and the diffference between the two is huge. Playing well recorded material on my kids £26 toshiba looks/sounds much better than badly recorded stuff on my Oppo. Fiddling about with cables maybe fun for some people but if you are actually like to listen to music or watch TV, then spend the money on the software, not on snake oil.

I have been following the arguments on both sides simply because I don't want to waste my money. I accept that what is important is that all the data gets delivered to the amp/tv without loss, but it makes me wonder about expensive DVD players vs cheap ones. So I can't help thinking if you should not have spent money on the Oppo as the Tosh gets the job done?

I guess you might argue that the processing on the Oppo is superior. Well, it seems generally accepted that there is not much difference in Blu-Ray picture quality of the latest players, but DVD upscaling still makes a diference. However, you have a Kuro, which I believe has superior upscaling ability. So would it have been enough to stick to the Toshiba and let your Kuro do the upscaling work?

 

[Anonymous]

Just to throw my hat in with a recent observation I made.

I ordred from eBay one of the black rodium HDMIs 1m, which used to be £100 and got a 4 star review at that price, I purchased for about £10.

I attached it to my Sony BDPS370 running at 1080p, 24fps and there was a "snow effect" on the screen and the sound was a Little less detailed than I like.

So as an experiment before I send it back, I swoped it for the HDMI lead feeding my sky HD box, a QED-P one of the old ones, but a good one at the time.

Keeping in mind this is only ever feeding a maximum of 1080i and Dolby 2.0 (which I don't use) the picture was perfect.

So obviously although not all the high resolution picture and sound was getting through, it was still OK for for the lower resolution, I will let you draw your own conclusions, but thought I would share this with you.

 

[hammill]

axman:hammill:

What I find is that badly recorded material looks/sounds bad and well recorded material looks/sounds good and the diffference between the two is huge. Playing well recorded material on my kids £26 toshiba looks/sounds much better than badly recorded stuff on my Oppo. Fiddling about with cables maybe fun for some people but if you are actually like to listen to music or watch TV, then spend the money on the software, not on snake oil.

I have been following the arguments on both sides simply because I don't want to waste my money. I accept that what is important is that all the data gets delivered to the amp/tv without loss, but it makes me wonder about expensive DVD players vs cheap ones. So I can't help thinking if you should not have spent money on the Oppo as the Tosh gets the job done?

I guess you might argue that the processing on the Oppo is superior. Well, it seems generally accepted that there is not much difference in Blu-Ray picture quality of the latest players, but DVD upscaling still makes a diference. However, you have a Kuro, which I believe has superior upscaling ability. So would it have been enough to stick to the Toshiba and let your Kuro do the upscaling work?

The tosh does not play blu rays, SACDs, or DVD-As. The kids would complain that I had stolen their DVD player.

 

[Anonymous]

I was quite happy with my old QED HDMI from my Sony 350 to Denon amp. It's been doing its stuff for 2 years or so without a problem. We watched Toy Story 3 the other week all fine and dandy. Last week I swapped it for the Chord which came as part of my current subscription. I never checked to see if the cable was OK. Just plugged it in and got on with other stuff. We watched Toy Story 3 again on Sunday and I noticed the textures seemed a little more detailed and the colours more refined than I remembered. It wasn't until some time later I recalled that I had changed the cable. Nothing else had changed all the same setting on the amp and tv, curtains closed and the same wall light on. Me sat in the same spot on the sofa.

Make from that whatever you want.

 

[Anonymous]

I think that sometimes it can be too easy, to want the latest and greatest kit (including cables), when the most important part is the actual films/music that you watching/listening.

For instance, I don't think the Chord HDMI would have made any improvement to 'The Pacific' blu-ray box set I'm currently watching. If it will, then donate a cable now please because this is truly an awful series. What a big mistake, wish I'd spent the £40 else where. Blahhh.

 

[idc]

aliEnRIK:
Bigboss ~

Ive had a bit of a look on the net and have found the following ~

'Digital' cables in an experiment were found to be 'directional' and even though they were short lengths actually had so much jitter that it affected the point at which the signal went into the DAC

HDMI cables were tested to 'measureably' have errors in the signal although no 'obvious' signs were onscreen

ALL digital cables have a 'cliff edge' (The point at which they completely fail)

All experiments are done in 'lab' conditions with no concern for EMI, Mains RFI, equipment used, strength of signal etc etc etc which 'could' be found in 'real world' conditions

Ive known even 1m cheapie cables fail

Add in the fact that everyones eyes are different and we get the following ~

Errors DO happen but are virtually imperceivable to begin with. But at the 'cliff edge' the signal completely fails and there is no picture. INBETWEEN the 2 we get all sorts of problems ranging from 'snow' onscreen to 'sparklies' to parts of the picture failing etc

The experiments you mention are ALL using pretty decent quality HDMI cables (Even the cheap ones are well known to be pretty decent in yanky land)

Ive known loads of cheapie cables to fail on other forums even though theyre between 1m and 2m in length (FAR shorther than what you claim).

To sum up, not all HDMI cables are the same.............

True, an HDMI that is failing or has failed is different from one that has not. The issue is how do two working to spec HDMI cables manage to be different.

 

[idc]

Andrew Everard:
As I have said many times, and will keep saying, if you try a specific cable and it gives better results, enjoy; if you don't see differences, or have convinced yourself there can't be differences - including the use of the terms '1s and 0s', 'bits is bits', 'it's all digital', 'placebo effect', 'psychoacoustics', 'snake oil', 'Amazing Randi' and any other old saws you want to throw around - then be equally happy with the budget cable you have bought.

Just as long as neither camp tries to impose its opinion on those who think otherwise, or cast aspersions on their critical faculties or common sense, and we'll all get along very well.

Or have convinced yourself that there is a difference.

 

[axman]

hammill:The tosh does not play blu rays, SACDs, or DVD-As. The kids would complain that I had stolen their DVD player.

So apart from the features of the Oppo, they both deliver the same picture/audio quality?

 

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:

Bigboss ~

Ive had a bit of a look on the net and have found the following ~

'Digital' cables in an experiment were found to be 'directional' and even though they were short lengths actually had so much jitter that it affected the point at which the signal went into the DAC

HDMI cables were tested to 'measureably' have errors in the signal although no 'obvious' signs were onscreen

ALL digital cables have a 'cliff edge' (The point at which they completely fail)

All experiments are done in 'lab' conditions with no concern for EMI, Mains RFI, equipment used, strength of signal etc etc etc which 'could' be found in 'real world' conditions

Ive known even 1m cheapie cables fail

Add in the fact that everyones eyes are different and we get the following ~

Errors DO happen but are virtually imperceivable to begin with. But at the 'cliff edge' the signal completely fails and there is no picture. INBETWEEN the 2 we get all sorts of problems ranging from 'snow' onscreen to 'sparklies' to parts of the picture failing etc

The experiments you mention are ALL using pretty decent quality HDMI cables (Even the cheap ones are well known to be pretty decent in yanky land)

Ive known loads of cheapie cables to fail on other forums even though theyre between 1m and 2m in length (FAR shorther than what you claim).

To sum up, not all HDMI cables are the same.............
data loss, should there be any, is random
nobody has ever (to my knowledge) reported inconsistencies in pic/sound on repeat viewing of a source using a hdmi cable that they perceive to be worse than another..

why is this?

because the cable in question is not losing data, otherwise there would be random errors resulting in inconsistent image/sound..

which is never reported.