When people claim that an HDMI cable can give more vibrant colours, I want to scream. How could that happen? Assume that data describing colour is corrupted. Due to the complicated XOR ing that takes place, the corupted colour information wont be slightly different, it will represent a completely different colour or (as likely ) be an illegal value. Such a cable would produce the horrible pictures that sometimes occur on freeview when the data is corrupted. People insist on making analog claims for digital cables that make no sense.
I've been using hdcable.co.uk for a while and they've just launched a big sale.
Their cables are damn good and the service/delivery is fantastic. For me, they are a happy compromise between cheap and overspending.
Their cables are damn good and the service/delivery is fantastic. For me, they are a happy compromise between cheap and overspending.
chebby
Well-known member
What is truly shocking here is that Thaiman has to get a friend to help fine tune a new £6000 turntable with £3700 arm and £1200 cartridge!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
chebby:
What is truly shocking here is that Thaiman has to get a friend to help fine tune a new £6000 turntable with £3700 arm and £1200 cartridge!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
If I had just spent £11,000 for a record player, I would expect to be recovering in hospital having been beaten senseless by my other half.
What is truly shocking here is that Thaiman has to get a friend to help fine tune a new £6000 turntable with £3700 arm and £1200 cartridge!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
If I had just spent £11,000 for a record player, I would expect to be recovering in hospital having been beaten senseless by my other half.
This whole cable thing is enough to drive anyone crazy?!
I'm not going to offer an opinion as to whether I think certain digital cables offer benefits over others - I, like many other poeple on this forum (I suspect) buy uprated cables to replace the 'free-in'box' versions 'just in case', to avoid any compromises in picture/sound quality that the free cables allegedly bring.
However I would love to sit a group of experts in a room and blind test them on a group of cables to see if they could tell the difference and identify the 'expensive' ones from the 'cheap' ones.
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
I'm not going to offer an opinion as to whether I think certain digital cables offer benefits over others - I, like many other poeple on this forum (I suspect) buy uprated cables to replace the 'free-in'box' versions 'just in case', to avoid any compromises in picture/sound quality that the free cables allegedly bring.
However I would love to sit a group of experts in a room and blind test them on a group of cables to see if they could tell the difference and identify the 'expensive' ones from the 'cheap' ones.
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
To add fuel to the fire...
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
hammill:chebby:
What is truly shocking here is that Thaiman has to get a friend to help fine tune a new £6000 turntable with £3700 arm and £1200 cartridge!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
If I had just spent £11,000 for a record player, I would expect to be recovering in hospital having been beaten senseless by my other half.
Ha!
. . . I too would be picking my teeth out of the carpet with my broken fingers! I had enough trouble explaining away my recent amp upgrade!
What is truly shocking here is that Thaiman has to get a friend to help fine tune a new £6000 turntable with £3700 arm and £1200 cartridge!
If I had just paid £11,000 for a record player, I would expect the manufacturer (or at very least the dealer) to come and fine tune it, not a mate!
If I had just spent £11,000 for a record player, I would expect to be recovering in hospital having been beaten senseless by my other half.
Ha!
professorhat
Well-known member
gdavies09031977:However I would love to sit a group of experts in a room and blind test them on a group of cables to see if they could tell the difference and identify the 'expensive' ones from the 'cheap' ones.
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
According to the WHF team, all their HDMI cable tests are blind. So they do this on a regular basis. The trouble with the official tests that are offered in this is they generally include ridiculous caveats in the testing process which pretty much guarantee a test will fail (as this is primarily the motivation of the sceptics who set up these tests) so experts won't submit to them. And of course any such testing set up on the other side are labelled as rigged in some way by the sceptics. So there's no winning through this route unfortunately.
gdavies09031977:I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
I and others have done this so many times now, it means we have generally lost the will to live, let alone post them again and again each time this discussion comes up. Feel free to do a search though and trawl through the many hundreds of pages of arguments and see for yourself! Of course, evidence for one is not evidence for another and is often refuted and thus, stalemate is achieved again.
Why people can't just agree this simple test I'll put forward now I don't really know. Very simply, if someone tries out a cable for themselves and sees a worthwhile difference then it's worth the money to them. If someone else does the same test and sees no difference (or no worthwhile difference for the cost of the cable), then clearly it isn't worth the money to them - done, end of all arguments.
But apparently even this can't be agreed upon - so stalemate again!
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
According to the WHF team, all their HDMI cable tests are blind. So they do this on a regular basis. The trouble with the official tests that are offered in this is they generally include ridiculous caveats in the testing process which pretty much guarantee a test will fail (as this is primarily the motivation of the sceptics who set up these tests) so experts won't submit to them. And of course any such testing set up on the other side are labelled as rigged in some way by the sceptics. So there's no winning through this route unfortunately.
gdavies09031977:I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
I and others have done this so many times now, it means we have generally lost the will to live, let alone post them again and again each time this discussion comes up. Feel free to do a search though and trawl through the many hundreds of pages of arguments and see for yourself! Of course, evidence for one is not evidence for another and is often refuted and thus, stalemate is achieved again.
Why people can't just agree this simple test I'll put forward now I don't really know. Very simply, if someone tries out a cable for themselves and sees a worthwhile difference then it's worth the money to them. If someone else does the same test and sees no difference (or no worthwhile difference for the cost of the cable), then clearly it isn't worth the money to them - done, end of all arguments.
But apparently even this can't be agreed upon - so stalemate again!
chebby
Well-known member
gdavies09031977:To add fuel to the fire...
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
Denon don't make an ethernet cable.
The one you refer to is a proprietary (or dedicated) cable for the 'Denon Link' system that was only designed for use between Denon DVD players and Denon AV Receivers.
It seems the computer magazine is... (a) barking up the wrong tree (b) rather late to the feast as this one has been 'doing the rounds' for ages.
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
Denon don't make an ethernet cable.
The one you refer to is a proprietary (or dedicated) cable for the 'Denon Link' system that was only designed for use between Denon DVD players and Denon AV Receivers.
It seems the computer magazine is... (a) barking up the wrong tree (b) rather late to the feast as this one has been 'doing the rounds' for ages.
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
Denon don't make an ethernet cable.
The one you refer to is a proprietary (or dedicated) cable for the 'Denon Link' system that was only designed for use between Denon DVD players and Denon AV Receivers.
It seems the computer magazine is... (a) barking up the wrong tree (b) rather late to the feast as this one has been 'doing the rounds' for ages.
Erm ... No, its an ethernet cable using a standard RJ45 connection - nothing proprietary about it! A STP patch cable (e.g. Cat 6) to be precise, many people out there have been using the Denon link functionality with standard STP patch cables without problems.
The magazine wasn't claiming it as a breaking news story, just a discussion point on a wider topic! They were laughing at us hi-fi 'nerds' (the cheek!) for even considering spending so much money on such a thing. But given they happily spend £1,000 on a graphics card just for games, they haven't got a great deal of ground to stand on!
gdavies09031977:
chebby:gdavies09031977:To add fuel to the fire...
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
Denon don't make an ethernet cable.
The one you refer to is a proprietary (or dedicated) cable for the 'Denon Link' system that was only designed for use between Denon DVD players and Denon AV Receivers.
It seems the computer magazine is... (a) barking up the wrong tree (b) rather late to the feast as this one has been 'doing the rounds' for ages.
Erm ... No, its an ethernet cable using a standard RJ45 connection - nothing proprietary about it! A STP patch cable (e.g. Cat 6) to be precise, many people out there have been using the Denon link functionality with standard STP patch cables without problems.
The magazine wasn't claiming it as a breaking news story, just a discussion point on a wider topic! They were laughing at us hi-fi 'nerds' (the cheek!) for even considering spending so much money on such a thing. But given they happily spend £1,000 on a graphics card just for games, they haven't got a great deal of ground to stand on!
No doubt you will be told that although it maybe an ethernet cable, it is being used for streaming data and therefore must meet different requirements........
I read recently a very mocking article in a computer magazine about Denon releasing a $500 2 metre ethernet cable!!!!
Denon don't make an ethernet cable.
The one you refer to is a proprietary (or dedicated) cable for the 'Denon Link' system that was only designed for use between Denon DVD players and Denon AV Receivers.
It seems the computer magazine is... (a) barking up the wrong tree (b) rather late to the feast as this one has been 'doing the rounds' for ages.
Erm ... No, its an ethernet cable using a standard RJ45 connection - nothing proprietary about it! A STP patch cable (e.g. Cat 6) to be precise, many people out there have been using the Denon link functionality with standard STP patch cables without problems.
The magazine wasn't claiming it as a breaking news story, just a discussion point on a wider topic! They were laughing at us hi-fi 'nerds' (the cheek!) for even considering spending so much money on such a thing. But given they happily spend £1,000 on a graphics card just for games, they haven't got a great deal of ground to stand on!
No doubt you will be told that although it maybe an ethernet cable, it is being used for streaming data and therefore must meet different requirements........
Is this keeping to the subject in mind ????
I thought the title mentioned something about HDMI cables???
I thought the title mentioned something about HDMI cables???
professorhat:
gdavies09031977:However I would love to sit a group of experts in a room and blind test them on a group of cables to see if they could tell the difference and identify the 'expensive' ones from the 'cheap' ones.
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
According to the WHF team, all their HDMI cable tests are blind. So they do this on a regular basis. The trouble with the official tests that are offered in this is they generally include ridiculous caveats in the testing process which pretty much guarantee a test will fail (as this is primarily the motivation of the sceptics who set up these tests) so experts won't submit to them. And of course any such testing set up on the other side are labelled as rigged in some way by the sceptics. So there's no winning through this route unfortunately.
gdavies09031977:I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
I and others have done this so many times now, it means we have generally lost the will to live, let alone post them again and again each time this discussion comes up. Feel free to do a search though and trawl through the many hundreds of pages of arguments and see for yourself! Of course, evidence for one is not evidence for another and is often refuted and thus, stalemate is achieved again.
Why people can't just agree this simple test I'll put forward now I don't really know. Very simply, if someone tries out a cable for themselves and sees a worthwhile difference then it's worth the money to them. If someone else does the same test and sees no difference (or no worthwhile difference for the cost of the cable), then clearly it isn't worth the money to them - done, end of all arguments.
But apparently even this can't be agreed upon - so stalemate again!
To the last part, I couldn't agree more, each person has to judge for themselves. Don't get me wrong Prof, I'm not arguing one way or the other, merely playing Devil's Advocate.
I have had a look over the other forums, but can't seem to find a reasonable explanation or suggestion of what might be going on inside the cable to cause differences to the signal, and how these difference translate to errors on the screen or in the sound. Plenty of conjecture and references to test results and subjective opinions, but no real explantions.
Simply trying to fill gaps in my knowledge is all.
If you've posted this many time before, forgive me, I haven't been able to find it. If you're willing to post it again, many thanks in advance - though I don't want you to lose the will to live. If not, no problem.
gdavies09031977:However I would love to sit a group of experts in a room and blind test them on a group of cables to see if they could tell the difference and identify the 'expensive' ones from the 'cheap' ones.
I doubt many 'experts' would be willing to put themselves forward for such a test.
According to the WHF team, all their HDMI cable tests are blind. So they do this on a regular basis. The trouble with the official tests that are offered in this is they generally include ridiculous caveats in the testing process which pretty much guarantee a test will fail (as this is primarily the motivation of the sceptics who set up these tests) so experts won't submit to them. And of course any such testing set up on the other side are labelled as rigged in some way by the sceptics. So there's no winning through this route unfortunately.
gdavies09031977:I would also love to hear a counter argument from anyone, to Hammill's comments above, and offer a loosely scientific explanation of how one digital cable may generate a better image to another. I am genuinely interested as to how the transmission of those '0's and '1's changes from one cable to another to improve picture and sound quality?
I and others have done this so many times now, it means we have generally lost the will to live, let alone post them again and again each time this discussion comes up. Feel free to do a search though and trawl through the many hundreds of pages of arguments and see for yourself! Of course, evidence for one is not evidence for another and is often refuted and thus, stalemate is achieved again.
Why people can't just agree this simple test I'll put forward now I don't really know. Very simply, if someone tries out a cable for themselves and sees a worthwhile difference then it's worth the money to them. If someone else does the same test and sees no difference (or no worthwhile difference for the cost of the cable), then clearly it isn't worth the money to them - done, end of all arguments.
But apparently even this can't be agreed upon - so stalemate again!
To the last part, I couldn't agree more, each person has to judge for themselves. Don't get me wrong Prof, I'm not arguing one way or the other, merely playing Devil's Advocate.
I have had a look over the other forums, but can't seem to find a reasonable explanation or suggestion of what might be going on inside the cable to cause differences to the signal, and how these difference translate to errors on the screen or in the sound. Plenty of conjecture and references to test results and subjective opinions, but no real explantions.
Simply trying to fill gaps in my knowledge is all.
If you've posted this many time before, forgive me, I haven't been able to find it. If you're willing to post it again, many thanks in advance - though I don't want you to lose the will to live. If not, no problem.
hdmi cables are a means of transporting data from a source component to the tv, they cannot improve anything, they are not intelligent, they are hosting data transfer, and if said data gets to the tv, there will be a picture, if said data doesnt get to the tv, there wont be a picture, if ive missed anything please fill me in?
professorhat
Well-known member
gdavies09031977:I have had a look over the other forums, but can't seem to find a reasonable explanation or suggestion of what might be going on inside the cable to cause differences to the signal, and how these difference translate to errors on the screen or in the sound. Plenty of conjecture and references to test results and subjective opinions, but no real explantions.
I can't give any absolutes, but this post in this thread explains what I think and how it potentially explains the differences I (and others) can see and hear between cables - the thread is about USB cables but the same arguments apply. Unfortunately, the other argument is the level of errors is not enough and everything I see and hear is in my mind - this is of course impossible for me to disprove! However, I still haven't found anyone that can prove to me that these errors are not affecting the picture and sound - the evidence argument works both ways - I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I need actual proof before I'll just believe. At the moment, what I've seen and heard still rules as proof in my mind.
maxflinn:hdmi cables are a means of transporting data from a source component to the tv, they cannot improve anything, they are not intelligent, they are hosting data transfer, and if said data gets to the tv, there will be a picture, if said data doesnt get to the tv, there wont be a picture, if ive missed anything please fill me in?
You're right max in that cables cannot improve on the original signal. However, no cable is able to transport the original data perfectly - it's an impossible Nirvana and errors will always creep in. So what we can talk about is how one cable improves the picture / sound relative to another cable as it is constructed in a way that it is able to transport the data with fewer errors. It's the same way in which one Blu-Ray player can improve the sound / picture over another as it introduces fewer errors when reading the data from the original disc. For some reason, this is generally accepted, but as soon the data is being sent across a cable (in an analogue waveform I would add), this data suddenly becomes invulnerable to errors!
I can't give any absolutes, but this post in this thread explains what I think and how it potentially explains the differences I (and others) can see and hear between cables - the thread is about USB cables but the same arguments apply. Unfortunately, the other argument is the level of errors is not enough and everything I see and hear is in my mind - this is of course impossible for me to disprove! However, I still haven't found anyone that can prove to me that these errors are not affecting the picture and sound - the evidence argument works both ways - I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I need actual proof before I'll just believe. At the moment, what I've seen and heard still rules as proof in my mind.
maxflinn:hdmi cables are a means of transporting data from a source component to the tv, they cannot improve anything, they are not intelligent, they are hosting data transfer, and if said data gets to the tv, there will be a picture, if said data doesnt get to the tv, there wont be a picture, if ive missed anything please fill me in?
You're right max in that cables cannot improve on the original signal. However, no cable is able to transport the original data perfectly - it's an impossible Nirvana and errors will always creep in. So what we can talk about is how one cable improves the picture / sound relative to another cable as it is constructed in a way that it is able to transport the data with fewer errors. It's the same way in which one Blu-Ray player can improve the sound / picture over another as it introduces fewer errors when reading the data from the original disc. For some reason, this is generally accepted, but as soon the data is being sent across a cable (in an analogue waveform I would add), this data suddenly becomes invulnerable to errors!
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
maxflinn:
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
That was basically my point. A dodgy cable would not make things less red or green - it could just as easily make it more red or green - the errors would be random
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
That was basically my point. A dodgy cable would not make things less red or green - it could just as easily make it more red or green - the errors would be random
bigboss
Moderator
maxflinn:
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
That's interesting max!
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
That's interesting max!
maxflinn:hdmi cables are a means of transporting data from a source component to the tv, they cannot improve anything, they are not intelligent, they are hosting data transfer, and if said data gets to the tv, there will be a picture, if said data doesnt get to the tv, there wont be a picture, if ive missed anything please fill me in?
I believe theres 2 things to note with ALL digital cables
Jitter and bandwidth. I believe its jitter that causes most problems. Jitter is basically ALL information gets through, but its not timed correctly ( so a 1010101010 might be 101001010101 - all information is still there, but theres space inbetween).
Taking a 16 bit cd player, the jitter needs to be read at least 100 nanoseconds or under to be true 16 bit with no errors. (Most cd players work around 14 bit). A true 24 bit signal needs a theoretical (As no one has achieved such a rate yet) 0.5 nanoseconds to be perfect. If a 0.5 nanosecond figure could be achieved then it doesnt mater what cable is used (So long as it works), it should be a perfect signal. But with todays technology it never is.
So jitter affects HDMIs through the subtle differences that people 'claim' to see. This is why I believe most people hear differences with 24 bit sound, as the better the cable the less the jitter will be allowing the clock to read the signal more accurately
Now bandwidth is something else entirely and is very easy to see. Once a cable hits its bandwidth limit youll get 'sparklies', 'snow' or even complete losses of pictures (or parts of pictures). Youll note that again it starts with sparklies. Its not an on off switch that either works or doesnt. As all cables 'should' be withing HDMI limits then its unlikely anyone here would experience snow. Theyd experience a complete loss of picture smply as the cables faulty
I believe theres 2 things to note with ALL digital cables
Jitter and bandwidth. I believe its jitter that causes most problems. Jitter is basically ALL information gets through, but its not timed correctly ( so a 1010101010 might be 101001010101 - all information is still there, but theres space inbetween).
Taking a 16 bit cd player, the jitter needs to be read at least 100 nanoseconds or under to be true 16 bit with no errors. (Most cd players work around 14 bit). A true 24 bit signal needs a theoretical (As no one has achieved such a rate yet) 0.5 nanoseconds to be perfect. If a 0.5 nanosecond figure could be achieved then it doesnt mater what cable is used (So long as it works), it should be a perfect signal. But with todays technology it never is.
So jitter affects HDMIs through the subtle differences that people 'claim' to see. This is why I believe most people hear differences with 24 bit sound, as the better the cable the less the jitter will be allowing the clock to read the signal more accurately
Now bandwidth is something else entirely and is very easy to see. Once a cable hits its bandwidth limit youll get 'sparklies', 'snow' or even complete losses of pictures (or parts of pictures). Youll note that again it starts with sparklies. Its not an on off switch that either works or doesnt. As all cables 'should' be withing HDMI limits then its unlikely anyone here would experience snow. Theyd experience a complete loss of picture smply as the cables faulty
professorhat
Well-known member
maxflinn:
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green. You'd have to change a lot of them to get a different colour, and if you're getting that many errors in such a small subset of data, I'd suggest your cable would not be working at all.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green. You'd have to change a lot of them to get a different colour, and if you're getting that many errors in such a small subset of data, I'd suggest your cable would not be working at all.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
professorhat:maxflinn:
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
Professor, please look at the HDMI specification. A change in one bit will not work how you describe due to the way that data is XOR ed, it will come out completely different, possibly as an illegal value.. That is my problem with the "more vibrant colour" claims. I can believe a cable has errors but they will not manifest themselves in the way described.
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
Professor, please look at the HDMI specification. A change in one bit will not work how you describe due to the way that data is XOR ed, it will come out completely different, possibly as an illegal value.. That is my problem with the "more vibrant colour" claims. I can believe a cable has errors but they will not manifest themselves in the way described.
professorhat
Well-known member
hammill:Professor, please look at the HDMI specification. A change in one bit will not work how you describe due to the way that data is XOR ed, it will come out completely different, possibly as an illegal value.. That is my problem with the "more vibrant colour" claims. I can believe a cable has errors but they will not manifest themselves in the way described.
Do feel free to point me to this information and I'll have a read through it. I've been looking all over the official HDMI.org website and the description of HDMI on Wikipedia (potentially dubious I know, but pretty comprehensive in its description) and I can't find one mention of how data is XOR ed or even how this would mean that "a change in one bit will not work how you describe due to the way that data is XOR ed, it will come out completely different, possibly as an illegal value" (NB - like the way you've used possibly there
).
In fact, most surprisingly to me is the fact that, if one of the benefits of using HDMI means that it's impossible for data to be degraded when passing over a cable and all cables are the same, why is this benefit not shouted from the rooftops on the HDMI.org website? As you state, this would mean any old cheap cable could be used so long as it was certified. So they should be eager to give a guarantee that customers could just buy the cheapest certified cable they can find, and yet they don't make any mention of this at all. If they were that confident this was the case, why do they not say so?
Do feel free to point me to this information and I'll have a read through it. I've been looking all over the official HDMI.org website and the description of HDMI on Wikipedia (potentially dubious I know, but pretty comprehensive in its description) and I can't find one mention of how data is XOR ed or even how this would mean that "a change in one bit will not work how you describe due to the way that data is XOR ed, it will come out completely different, possibly as an illegal value" (NB - like the way you've used possibly there
In fact, most surprisingly to me is the fact that, if one of the benefits of using HDMI means that it's impossible for data to be degraded when passing over a cable and all cables are the same, why is this benefit not shouted from the rooftops on the HDMI.org website? As you state, this would mean any old cheap cable could be used so long as it was certified. So they should be eager to give a guarantee that customers could just buy the cheapest certified cable they can find, and yet they don't make any mention of this at all. If they were that confident this was the case, why do they not say so?
professorhat:maxflinn:
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green. You'd have to change a lot of them to get a different colour, and if you're getting that many errors in such a small subset of data, I'd suggest your cable would not be working at all.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
well i dont think there is much more that i can add really prof, that may prove or disprove anything, its something i know nothing whatsoever about, i just thought it very strange, that apparently, given the infinate randomness of error varients in high speed data transfer over hdmi, the consequences are always seemingly soley relevant to the finer nuances of picture/sound quality that is noticed by some, not noticed by others, and is never noticed by all...kinda strange methinks
ok, heres another way to look at this..
errors, they are the thing that defines the quality of a hdmi cable right? the fewer errors, the better the picture/sound quality? in relation of course to a worse picture/sound quality when said tv is being fed its data by a cable that introduces more errors?
ok, now lets think about this, errors are random? right? they are not always the same errors? basically an error is data loss? is that fair to say? perhaps data degridation is more apt? data corruption maybe?
anyway, well run with data loss, so, this data loss is random right? the hdmi cable has no bearing on what data is lost? its randomly lost, the data is like a language if you will? thats interpreted by the tv? and when some of this language is lost in transport, an a missing here, a b there etc, its incorrectly interpreted?
so, this entirely random data loss has a detrimental affect on picture/sound quality right? its the reason some hdmi cables can be determined better than others? because some lose less data than others?
well, if all of the above is the correct assumption of those that believe cables differ? which im pretty sure it is, then there is one thing that i dont get..
why do these entirely random errors not affect picture/sound quality in a much more diverse way than just the usual descriptions of, deeper blacks, sharper image, better motion, crisper sound, punchier colours etc etc??
if the errors are random, why dont they cause anything else? like break-up of sound? stuttering picture? the wrong colours being displayed? black levels rising and falling noticeably? etc etc, why do the errors have a seemingly direct relationship with the finer nuances of picture detail and sound?
remember these errors are random, so how come they only ever manifest themselves in a way thats directly linked to minor, subtle differences? surely a cable with more errors than the next will also lose data that causes a much more obvious flaw at least every once in a while? something very obvious that all would see? but yet none ever do? that simply doesnt make sense to me..
It's a good question, max, and not one I really have an answer to, except that we're talking tiny errors which could easily change a green to a lighter (or even a darker) shade of green, but changing to a completely different colour would require a major change in the information. If you think that the colour of pure green is determined on the RGB scale as 0,255,0 which translates into 0,11111111,0 as binary. Changing just one of those digits will still result in a green colour, just not pure green. You'd have to change a lot of them to get a different colour, and if you're getting that many errors in such a small subset of data, I'd suggest your cable would not be working at all.
However, I will add that I'm not offering the be all and end all of reasons as to why different cables can give different results. It's just a theory from what I know about how digital data is transferred in the computer world, to attempt to explain why I can see and hear differences. At the end of the day, I don't really care enough to gain the level of knowledge I'd need to prove or disprove my theory - as always, I'm happy to hear reasons why my theory is wrong, or indeed, why another theory is correct. But if you're going to convince me that it's impossible for these cables to make a difference, then I'm afraid I need proof of this (just as those who believe the other way require proof that they can make a difference!).
well i dont think there is much more that i can add really prof, that may prove or disprove anything, its something i know nothing whatsoever about, i just thought it very strange, that apparently, given the infinate randomness of error varients in high speed data transfer over hdmi, the consequences are always seemingly soley relevant to the finer nuances of picture/sound quality that is noticed by some, not noticed by others, and is never noticed by all...kinda strange methinks
maxflinn:well i dont think there is much more that i can add really prof, that may prove or disprove anything, its something i know nothing whatsoever about, i just thought it very strange, that apparently, given the infinate randomness of error varients in high speed data transfer over hdmi, the consequences are always seemingly soley relevant to the finer nuances of picture/sound quality that is noticed by some, not noticed by others, and is never noticed by all...kinda strange methinks
My mate cant tell the difference between HD and SD pictures so hes no chance of seeing subtle changes which is why youll never get EVERYONE to notice
A clean mains supply would be a good start else any difference in picture would be masked by the tv struggling to display said picture
There are many variables which people dont take into account when testing for things of this nature
My mate cant tell the difference between HD and SD pictures so hes no chance of seeing subtle changes which is why youll never get EVERYONE to notice
A clean mains supply would be a good start else any difference in picture would be masked by the tv struggling to display said picture
There are many variables which people dont take into account when testing for things of this nature
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram