HDMI cable review - What were they thinking?

[admin_exported]

Something I have to share with you guys and would like your opinion on. I've been reading the reviews at the What Hifi website for a while now and I've taken their verdicts quite seriously. Because of their verdicts the Yamaha RX-V863 and the B&W 685 theatre have been on the top of my wanted list for a home theatre system.

The other day I bought their (April) magazine and while browsing through it encountered this test of the "budget" Platinum HDMI cable (my HDMI cable is 3 times cheaper, so I wouldn't really call it budget). Their verdict: "The Platinum paints a reasonable detailed picture, but if you're willing to spend just a few pounds more on the likes of QED's performance HDMI, you'll get a clearer image with superior insight. "

EXCUSE ME??!?! Don't these people have any technical knowledge? Don't they understand what the "D" in HDMI means? We're talking about a quality 2m cable here. The image they've been watching is exactly the same as the one from their beloved QED cable. How in earth can they say one cable gives a "clearer image" than another when the signal is digital?!? If there was anything wrong with the cable you'd get artifacts, but never a "clearer image"!

That said, my problem now is: How seriously can I take their other reviews? Are all their reviews completely subjective without any technical background and without any real measurements? It's nice when a magazine can give you pointers what products to look at, but when they can get it this wrong, can I trust their opinion on products like speakers and receivers? What do you think?

 

[ESP2009]

You really want to open this can of worms again?

Just type 'HDMI Cable' into the forum search and see the heated debates on the subject. No-one seems to be able to decide on a definitive answer, whether it is backed up by hard facts/science or faith and the subjective human ear/brain combo.

Otherwise, I think you will find that WHF is a very good magazine for giving recommendations and guidance.

Maybe periodic competitions should be run, entitling lucky readers to a day in the testing rooms, to see (and hear) just what goes on and to judge for themselves. Just an idea.

 

[drummerman]

Martdj:
Something I have to share with you guys and would like your opinion on. I've been reading the reviews at the What Hifi website for a while now and I've taken their verdicts quite seriously. Because of their verdicts the Yamaha RX-V863 and the B&W 685 theatre have been on the top of my wanted list for a home theatre system.

The other day I bought their (April) magazine and while browsing through it encountered this test of the "budget" Platinum HDMI cable (my HDMI cable is 3 times cheaper, so I wouldn't really call it budget). Their verdict: "The Platinum paints a reasonable detailed picture, but if you're willing to spend just a few pounds more on the likes of QED's performance HDMI, you'll get a clearer image with superior insight. "

EXCUSE ME??!?! Don't these people have any technical knowledge? Don't they understand what the "D" in HDMI means? We're talking about a quality 2m cable here. The image they've been watching is exactly the same as the one from their beloved QED cable. How in earth can they say one cable gives a "clearer image" than another when the signal is digital?!? If there was anything wrong with the cable you'd get artifacts, but never a "clearer image"!

That said, my problem now is: How seriously can I take their other reviews? Are all their reviews completely subjective without any technical background and without any real measurements? It's nice when a magazine can give you pointers what products to look at, but when they can get it this wrong, can I trust their opinion on products like speakers and receivers? What do you think?

Great subject to start your forum membership with and bound to make you friends ... of one or the other camp ...

.

Tell you what, re-post it in the home cinema or tv/projector column and you will get many a happy day reading out of it.

As for me, to start this off and very un-characteristic it is as I don't (usually) get involved in cable debates too much, I could see differences between cables though they have not always been price related and are subtle. - I currently use these

http://ukhdmi.com/Ikuna_2_Metres_HDMI_Cable__QQ101029

and compared it with the stock Sky box cable plus the latest QED HDMI-P (Fifty quid or thereabouts for a meter) and chords silver plus (around £75/m). Better colours/less noise and better movement on panning than the Sky cable and on par with the other two.

The biggest difference (visually) was between this cable

http://www.keene.co.uk/electronics/multi.php?mycode=HDHDC5

and the said chord/qed/UK HDMI cables though ... more contrast but colder more de-saturated colours. Perhaps more accurate but I now bought 3 UK HDMI's as I prefer the pictures and the Keene lives in a box, for the moment.

Now, for those that don't know me, I am no brand obsessed cable nut. I would not spend money unless I feel I get an improvement and still use a gotham interconnect (amongst other, more expensive ones) as a link of part of mine and other systems which frequently travel through these premises but I appreciate that cable's can make a difference (even digital ones).Then there's the issue of screen size. Can you see a marked difference on a 40" telly? Perhaps, I've never tried it but I know that as you go 'bigger' or even projector, cable differences, as subtle as they may be, will become apparent.

You may have noticed I did'nt mention sound which is of course part of an HDMI lead too. As I'm not into HT sound this is not of such relevance to me and I trust that my choice is good enough for the purpose.

 

[Anonymous]

I wasn't aware that I was opening a can of worms

. To me it's obvious that degradation in a 2m cable can't be anywhere close to where a 1 becomes a 0 which can make a difference in what the image will look like. I'm not talking longer cables here. I do believe that in a 10m cable quality can make a difference as that's outside the HDMI recommendation of 5m for a cable.

I think it's a great idea to give readers the possibility to take a look in the test labs and write about their experiences. I hope the editors pick that up.

 

[TitusG]

Martdj:

I wasn't aware that I was opening a can of worms

. To me it's obvious that degradation in a 2m cable can't be anywhere close to where a 1 becomes a 0 which can make a difference in what the image will look like. I'm not talking longer cables here. I do believe that in a 10m cable quality can make a difference as that's outside the HDMI recommendation of 5m for a cable.

I think it's a great idea to give readers the possibility to take a look in the test labs and write about their experiences. I hope the editors pick that up.

They already have invited readers into the test labs and I think it will be a regular feature.

 

[Anonymous]

There test labs are listening and viewing rooms with no test equipment except the product they are testing. The reviews are purely the subjective opinion of their experts. This is not the place to questioning what hifis expertise, if you want to be able to read all opinions.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Im not getting into a debate ~ just stating what ive found and why theyre rated as such

For whatever reason (And im sure 'jitter' is the biggest one, though ive highlighted a load of 'possibles' elsewhere), there ARE visual differences in cables. Ive used on my own setup a Molex, QED, Chord Silver, Van Den Hul Flat and a Wireworld Starlight

There was even a marked difference between the VDH and the chord which are simlar prices (The VDH is a cracking cable for around 62 quid for a 1.5m length online)

So you can say 'digital is digital' if you like. But my 'eyes' tell me otherwise

Rik.....signing out.......

 

[clearer_audio]

Martdj:Don't these people have any technical knowledge? Don't they understand what the "D" in HDMI means?

Martdj:How in earth can they say one cable gives a "clearer image" than another when the signal is digital?!?

The "D" actually stands for Definition. HDMI - High Definition Multimedia Interface.

 

[professorhat]

 

[Anonymous]

This old chesnut! Believe if you want, or choose not to, the choice is yours. Factors such as shielding, constuction materials surrounding equipment will make a difference for sure. My view is that there is a fair bit of nonsense involved but that is only my opinion. If you want to spend 2-300 on a cable best of luck to you and be happy if you don't. As far as WHF is concerned, well it is a journalistic production not a bible.

 

[aliEnRIK]

clearer_audio:Martdj:Don't these people have any technical knowledge? Don't they understand what the "D" in HDMI means?

Martdj:How in earth can they say one cable gives a "clearer image" than another when the signal is digital?!?

The "D" actually stands for Definition. HDMI - High Definition Multimedia Interface.

haha ~ made me laugh that

 

[idc]

Martdj: EXCUSE ME??!?! Don't these people have any technical knowledge? Don't they understand what the "D" in HDMI means? We're talking about a quality 2m cable here. The image they've been watching is exactly the same as the one from their beloved QED cable. How in earth can they say one cable gives a "clearer image" than another when the signal is digital?!? If there was anything wrong with the cable you'd get artifacts, but never a "clearer image"!

The problem is that whilst the science has a pretty compelling argument that there is no difference, there are too many reports of there being a difference to write off either argument. This debate will rumble on until those who say that the science behind HDMI cables means that there cannot be a difference from one cable to another can rationalise that with those who say they see and hear differences, or vice versa.

I think that there are differences. Martdj, you yourself admit there can be differences under certain circumstances (over longer distances) and there will be differences between a badly made and well made cable. But the differences will be very small and the way reviews are written, it suggests a far bigger difference than is the case.

 

[Anonymous]

QED does not directly claim its more expensive hdmi cables subtly improve image quality. They rely on quoting what hifi star rattings and people reading what hifi reviews so buyers get an impartial expert opinion as to how wonderful they are.

There must be an engineering explaination of how the image quality is improved, how else would they be designed, perhaps they are trade secrets.

Those silly engineers who designed the hdmi spec without understanding how some cable designs could improve image quality, should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[kena]

I can only say my 1's & 0's via my clearer audio & VDH flat are far superior to supplied cables ..in tests Stevie Wonder agreed!!

 

[d4v3pum4]

All HDMI cables are inherently the same, ie. four shielded twisted pair 100ohm cables and 99 percent of them are made in the same Chinese factories. Even when the testing criteria changed for the various revisions e.g. 1.2, 1.3 etc. the cable specs didn't. Make your own mind up but my money is staying in my wallet and being spent elsewhere on my system. I have several cables in my system, all bought from trusted suppliers and brands and can't tell any difference. In the end, spend what you're happy with and if you're installing the cable in a wall, hopefully a brand name cable, or at the very least one from a trusted supplier that is an official HDMI adopter should guarantee a degree of quality and reliability. Check out hdmi.org and bluejeanscables.com for some handy FAQ on HDMI. No smoke or mirrors on either site.

Far too many people on here don't appreciate scientific testing but when it comes to HDMI, that is all there is. It was poorly designed, conceived and implemented but it works, just don't expect it work over long distances without drop outs, HDCP issues or in very rare cases, 'sparklies'.

I have never seen a test of a switching unit, splitter or HDMI repeater/extender in WHF. Why not?

 

[professorhat]

d4v3pum4:I have never seen a test of a switching unit,ÿsplitter or HDMI repeater/extenderÿin WHF.ÿ Why not?

There was a test of the Ixos XHT948 in the February 2009 edition. It got 4 stars. Plus they reviewed QED's HDMI switch unit ages ago which got 5 stars.

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

The "D" actually stands for Definition. HDMI - High Definition Multimedia Interface.

So much for assuming

. I did actually check the specification before posting, but I never actually checked the acronym.

It's interesting to read the different viewpoints. Being an electrical engineer I will however stick with the cheap short cables as I really can't believe there can be image improvements from better cables other than the image not having artifacts.

 

[idc]

A lot of this boils down to your definition of cheap. For me I think under a tenner does not do justice to a well sorted hifi or av set up. For any type of cable I think £50 would be the most I would spend, though I spent more on speaker cables, but that was down to the length of run. I would spend up to about £100 on a mains conditioner or dedicated PSU. I have just spent £27 on a usb cable to connect my PC to my dac. I baulked at the Russ Andrews cable at £45, but the amp manufacturer recommended buying something better that a cheap usb. The cable I have bought is also the perfect length for me. The cheaper ones were either just too short, or were way too long.

I know cheap cables, of all types, will do the job. But my hifi particularly is my pride and joy and it deserves better. If that is the placebo effect then so be it. In the same way I know people who only use premium unleaded in their pride and joy car. I have read conflicting tests as to whether it is worth it or not. For me it is not, but it is good to have the choice.

 

[shado]

If we have to split hairs on this I wager that a direct connection between TV and Player (1 HDMI Lead) is best.

Using an AMP/Receiver and 2 Leads between the formats must lead to degradation. Especially on bigger TVs.

l

Welcome to the land of confusion. I prefer listening to the Genesis version than the heated debate witnessed here

 

[Anonymous]

Some magazines have worse credibility problems than what hifi, one american magazine is routinely refered to as `sterofools magazine` in reference books on audio. If Britian was not the world leader in liable cases prehaps what hifi would have a synonym too.

 

[aliEnRIK]

shado:
If we have to split hairs on this I wager that a direct connection between TV and Player (1 HDMI Lead) is best.

Using an AMP/Receiver and 2 Leads between the formats must lead to degradation. Especially on bigger TVs.

l

Welcome to the land of confusion. I prefer listening to the Genesis version than the heated debate witnessed here

I understand your theory shado. And im sure its true on 'some' amps. But (I cant comment on mine as im still waiting for some stock) my dads denon pre amp (6k to buy now!) actually appears to 'boost' the signal. Much like the meridian hdmi booster gizmos do

 

[Andrew Everard]

knightout:
Some magazines have worse credibility problems than what hifi, one american magazine is routinely refered to as `sterofools magazine` in reference books on audio. If Britian was not the world leader in liable cases prehaps what hifi would have a synonym too.

Yes, if Britian (wherever that is) had fewer 'liable cases' (liable to do what?) 'prehaps' we would. But at least we give you space repeatedly to attack the magazine, so all that money you spend on buying it every month, visiting and checking out our testing suite and so on isn't wasted, eh?

 

[vinod_david]

HDMI cable review - Thinking of how the current cable would outperform the previously tested one.

Shift your camp, pls.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:knightout:

Some magazines have worse credibility problems than what hifi, one american magazine is routinely refered to as `sterofools magazine` in reference books on audio. If Britian was not the world leader in liable cases prehaps what hifi would have a synonym too.

Yes, if Britian (wherever that is) had fewer 'liable cases' (liable to do what?) 'prehaps' we would. But at least we give you space repeatedly to attack the magazine, so all that money you spend on buying it every month, visiting and checking out our testing suite and so on isn't wasted, eh?

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss moderation.

 

[Anonymous]

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss moderation. Final warning.