HDMI cable review - What were they thinking?

[JoelSim]

Tonya:
I'm torn between two religions here, digital engineer by day and HiFiÿzealot by night, so here's my tup'pence worth.
As long as the digital cable (including optical) is properly constructed to the electrical specification for the signal conductivity it was designed for, not defect and over relatively short distances, technically there can be no difference.
I can't see or hear "warmer" zero's or one's and no more or less "air" between musical notesÿbeing decoded from a digital stream.
When it comes to analogue cables such as speaker cables and such, there is a world of difference as analogue factors such as resistance, induction and frequency losses all play a factor.
Finally, I don't see the "super mains cable" thing, I'm sorry.
The AC current is converted to DC as soon as it hits the unit.
As long as the cable is rated for the AC load it's supplying and sufficiently well sheilded from interference then that's all it can offer.
If you've ever had to service a piece of modern hifi or AV equipment, you'll find that inside, the various boards and components are interconnected by the cheapest possible wiring soldered by robots and not lovingly connected by gold oxygen-free supercable using oesotericÿgold solder compounds.

Granted, amplifier construction such as a beefier power supply will make the sound better as it will be able to ensureÿthe output stages have enough power for those cresendos and a better engineered CD transport will result in less error correction which can easily be audiably detected, but short of that, I can't see (and haven't seen) different digital cables making any concernable difference at all.
Where does it end?
Should all the internal wiring in an amp be replaced by supercable or a solid copper bus system?
Perhaps our rack should be enclosed in a vacuum and superchilled to increase electrical conductivity?
At the end of the day, even on the best digital systems ever concieved, what we are all hearing is an approximation of the original music anyway, a mere sample that represents what was travelling through the air at the time the singer sung or violin plucked.
I've been in countless recording studios and trust me, they are rarely connected up with these SuperCables.
Yes, good quality, sturdy connecting cables but never any of the big bucks stuff.
In saying that, if you, dear listner, can percieve a difference and it makes you happy, by all means go out and spend £xxx on the latest Silver EmperorsNewClothes SuperCable MK5, but I feel the money would be better spent and sonically more rewarding, in investing in a better amplifier or loudspeaker design, a field where real improvements can be made.

Myÿaboveÿcomments are just that, my comments based on what I come across on a daily basis as a sound engineer.
I don't wish to be argumental, but rather to put my own personal view across.
One of the many refreshing things about the forums here is the healthy discussions and debates that rage on between these pages, but sometimes you have to put fingers to keyboard and say something!

Enjoy, and remember, it's all about the music ÿ

Tonya - out.

ÿ* Note to self - placeÿcat amongst pigeons : check! *

ÿ


I think you've got it there. In an ideal world everything would be equal, but then budget comes into it, in particular making to a budget which includes corner cutting. I recently bought a second hand Nordost Shiva on eBay for £72, it's a mains cable. I could sell it and get my money back and more (as I paid less than expected), but in reality it's made a difference that I like so much I wouldn't sell it for double.

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

JoelSim:Tarquinh:idc:
seakingadvice:What I find really strange is nobody seems to get all emotional about the topic of speaker stands, racks, etc...

There have been some lively debates about racks. There was one recently questioning What hifi's credibility over reviewing different racks. Speaker stands however come under the generally accepted upgrade that works and there are obvious and unambiguous reasons why that is the case. There is a lot of science to say that HDMI cables should not make any difference, hence the livelyness of those debates.

It's not that that bothers me. It's the pseudo science that has sprung up, usually championed by the more unscrupulous firms in the hifi cable industry that angers me, and the fact that so many people unquestioningly accept their words as the truth. I do not like seeing people being exploited by people who are basically charlatans.

If someone sees or hears a difference in their cables, fine, and for that person just as true as my not seeing or hearing any difference. However, others should not pretend to justify their industry with something that is frankly quackery.

I also dislike the quasi-religious stance taken by members of both camps, the whole believer/unbeliever thing, which is tacitly condoned by many in the hifi world. Let's have some focus for supreme being's sake: these are bits of wire, not endeavours to find a reason behind this thing we enjoy called life.

As to racks, everyone knows the answer is Ikea so its no longer a controversy

Beg to differ. My rack made a huge difference. And it wasn't/isn't an expensive brand but one from a small, relatively cheap cabinet maker. Just got a best buy in another mag too and deservedly so. I was also very sceptical once.

I wasn't referring to racks, only the cable world. Racks, especially for turntables do indeed make a difference, and it so happens, whether by accident or design, IKEA really do make a good one.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Tarquinh:...and it so happens, whether by accident or design, IKEA really do make a good one.

So not racks but Lacks, then...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
Tarquinh:...and it so happens, whether by accident or design, IKEA really do make a goodÿ one.

So not racks but Lacks, then...

ÿ

I doffs my cap, Mr E. Good one!ÿ

 

[Tom Moreno]

Out of curiosity, which model Ikea one are you talking about?

 

[Anonymous]

Lack for the turntable and corras or its replacement the eina for the rack.ÿ

 

[idc]

I don't think that is the model. more the wood used. I don't know what wood it is, or even if it is some sort of ply or compressed resin/wood mix (like MDF), but my experience is that it is a very good for putting hifi and av on. This not not at all scientific, but if you tap on a Russ Andrews torlyte stand (expensive wood, honeycomb construction stands) and a lacks table, the wood seems to be of a similar light density. Ivor Teifenbrun from Linn used lacks tables to demonstrate his legendary turntables on!

 

[Anonymous]

idc:I don't think that is the model. more the wood used. I don't know what wood it is, or even if it is some sort of ply or compressed resin/wood mix (like MDF), but my experience is that it is a very good for putting hifi and av on. This not not at all scientific, but if you tap on a Russ Andrews torlyte stand (expensive wood, honeycomb construction stands) and a lacks table, the wood seems to be of a similar light density. Ivor Teifenbrun from Linn used lacks tables to demonstrate his legendary turntables on!

Think its medium or low density chipboard. The Lack tables have a light construction, and some theorists attribute their success to this. Whatever it is, the price makes it one of the big bargains in hifi. I'm guessing the RA thing is a touch more expensive??ÿ

 

[idc]

Tarquinh:

I'm guessing the RA thing is a touch more expensive??

Just a tad, extra shelf, that will be £120 thankyou very much........................................

 

[Tonya]

"Is it possible that a £39.99 unbranded player with a 99p lead delivers exactly the same picture as a £500 player and £100 cable?"

Well the reason for that is quite simple.
If you measured the IMMENSE amount of data from the original master encoding at the studio and then compare it, bit for bit, to the output signal delivered at the very end of the digital cable before it hits the TV set, any deviances would be classed as errors.
A small amount of error is inevitable and is automatically reconstructed by the somewhat robust error correction circuits built into modern appliances.
But more serious errors caused by damaged discs, poor quality or defect transport systems, noisy electronics, etc, can all contribute to audiable and visual anomolies that can be very noticeable. In saying that it's easy to spot the difference between a poorly designed and constructed Chinese BleRay player and a well thought out solution from say Sony or Pioneer.
However, I have yet to see any noticable difference outside of a lab or studio between my own personal (and painstakingly callibrated)Sony BDP-S350 BluRay on my trusty non-clouding Sony KDL52W4500 monitor and some of the really, really expensive stuff that I use professionally on a day to day basis.
Any almost imperceptable differences that there may be are certainly not worth the many thousands of pounds extra the studio reference systems cost.

I firmly believe that after a certain decent quality plateau has been reached, the amount of money that needs to be spent to achieve even a small improvement if at all possible is simply not worth it.
So yes, there is a difference between the bad and the good players, but I hardly see that much difference between the well made competent player versus the custom built gold plated limited edition hand crafted from a block of Titanium by some monks in a secret minastary type of product.

So my advice has always to buy reputable well made products with robust and sturdy cables from a trustworthy and knowledgeable source who preferably will let you audition the exact combination that you are interested in.
Take along your own media that you are familiar with to audition so you have a basic reference.
And do your homework!
No periodical or website claims to be100% spot on, as reviews can be subjective, but use the advice and information as a starting point.
I've been in the business since I can remember but I still glean useful information and tips from both the WHF mag, website and indeed some of the very learned contributors found within.
At the end of the day, it's you that has to live with your purchase so take your time and choose wisely.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Tonya:I've been in the business since I can remember

In which case please clearly identify your involvement in your signature, as required by house rules. You have been asked to do this on more than one previous occasion.

 

[Tonya]

Hi Andrew! What I meant was I've been in the business of sound as an engineer, not a salesman or for a specific company.
I have updated my sig as you requested, but I certainly have not been asked to do this before, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
The only response I have had from you was a while back about duplicating a topic about guilty pleasures, something which I apologized for.

 

[Andrew Everard]

No, I don't think I am confused, but if I have mistaken you for a similarly-named poster apologies, and thanks for the clarification.

 

[Anonymous]

I've not long put together my first "serious" home cinema system and in every respect, bar the HDMI cables, it is the best set up my budget would allow. To get me going I used the cables left over from my old set up and whilst not being able to remember where I purchased them all from originally, I know one at least came from B&Q and the others probably of similar origin. Needless to say they where cheap and probably at the time I thought one HDMI cable was much the same as another. Some of the posts on this thread suggest this to be the case.

Having put my kit together, tuned it, tweaked it, generally got used to it and importantly really enjoying listening and watching it, I wondered if I could get a bit more "performance" if I were to replace the HDMI cables with some "proper" ones. Well naturally I started reading up looking at the What HiFi reviews and found out that you could pay a king's ransom for the 2 x 1 meter & 1 x 3 meter cables I was considering. I then found this thread and became quite wary and certainly less inclined to go mad with high costing stuff but being reasonably convinced that my original cables would be worth replacing and hand needing to go into pocket.

Yesterday my three new cables arrived without any fancy packaging. I could not find any reviews about the manufacturer/supplier but they were sold under the name of "Brooklins" on a well know auction site. The sales patter on their ad was quite bold yet not over the top, many of their claims I would never be able to check and the only proof would be in the pudding. The actual materials that could be seen and touched including the nylon braided cable jackets were miles better than what I would be chucking out if I did not subsequently decide to send the Brooklins back under their 90 day no quibble refund policy.

So with some trepidation I set about to see if I had wasted my money and if I had been had over by the advert. I have not played around enough yet to give a view on Blu-ray sound and vision but the 1080i feed from my VM STB to the LCD via the amp has made a bloody huge positive difference, honestly absolutely huge and already this purchase makes the decision for me to upgrade to this level a great one and leaving me with no desire to "upgrade" any further.

Has anybody else encountered Brooklins stuff? I would be interested to see a review of them from the mag to see how tthese HDMI cables compare with those from other companies.

I hope my comments help others who might be in a similar quandary to the one that I was in.

 

[idc]

Excellent post RugbyNewz. I see Brooklin cables are on Amazon and are not expensive at all. I think that this post is yet another example of how it is worthwhile to upgrade from cheapo stock cables to something better, without going over the top.

 

[Anonymous]

Tonya:
"Is it possible that a £39.99 unbranded player with a 99p lead delivers exactly the same picture as a £500 player and £100 cable?"

Well the reason for that is quite simple.
If you measured the IMMENSE amount of data from the original master encoding at the studio and then compare it, bit for bit, to the output signal delivered at the very end of the digital cable before it hits the TV set, any deviances would be classed as errors.
A small amount of error is inevitable and is automatically reconstructed by the somewhat robust error correction circuits built into modern appliances.
But more serious errors caused by damaged discs, poor quality or defect transport systems, noisy electronics, etc, can all contribute to audiable and visual anomolies that can be very noticeable. In saying that it's easy to spot the difference between a poorly designed and constructed Chinese BleRay player and a well thought out solution from say Sony or Pioneer.
However, I have yet to see any noticable difference outside of a lab or studio between my own personal (and painstakingly callibrated)Sony BDP-S350 BluRay on my trusty non-clouding Sony KDL52W4500 monitor and some of the really, really expensive stuff that I use professionally on a day to day basis.
Any almost imperceptable differences that there may be are certainly not worth the many thousands of pounds extra the studio reference systems cost.

I firmly believe that after a certain decent quality plateau has been reached, the amount of money that needs to be spent to achieve even a small improvement if at all possible is simply not worth it.
So yes, there is a difference between the bad and the good players, but I hardly see that much difference between the well made competent player versus the custom built gold plated limited edition hand crafted from a block of Titanium by some monks in a secret minastary type of product.

So my advice has always to buy reputable well made products with robust and sturdy cables from a trustworthy and knowledgeable source who preferably will let you audition the exact combination that you are interested in.
Take along your own media that you are familiar with to audition so you have a basic reference.
And do your homework!
No periodical or website claims to be100% spot on, as reviews can be subjective, but use the advice and information as a starting point.
I've been in the business since I can remember but I still glean useful information and tips from both the WHF mag, website and indeed some of the very learned contributors found within.
At the end of the day, it's you that has to live with your purchase so take your time and choose wisely.

Gosh, these interconnect threads just won't die will they?

It's not my field, so can't comment on the HDMI debate. What I can comment on though, is the difference between optical (say, TosLink) and metal core as a medium to transmit stable reference digital information. Some years back, we had a debate in our recording studio between myself, my recording engineer, and two post-graduate engineers on work experience placement, as to whether there was any perceivable difference between optical and metal core, like say SPDIF, BNC etc. as an interconnect medium.

It turned out to be a difficult argument (and it really DID become an argument at one stage..!) because there are massive differences between low, medium, and high end DAC's. This meant that, above a certain price point, it became almost impossible to perceive or discern the subtle differences in audio produced by a high end converter/interconnect medium within a high end studio control room, with balanced connections, always on UPS producing perfect sinewave 50Hz power, high end amps, monitors etc., and a very high end AD/DA converter (Apogee Rosetta 24bit/192KHz).

What I am getting at is, using the TosLink optical set-up, we recorded a piece of music to ProTools at 24bit 48KHz (no point in being silly here, as most end users won't playback at higher bandwidths) and played it to a non-geek music lover (recording engineer's wife).

Her response was obviously predictable - it sounds wonderful.

We then asked her to leave the control room. We changed from TosLink to BNC connections, and kept everything else the same. After asking her to come back in the room (and NOT telling her that we had changed anything to do with the set-up) we played her the same piece of music.

Guess what her response was? ..Exactly. She said, "It sounds wonderful.. should I be hearing something new? ..I can't hear any difference from last time.. "

That's the real point here. If I was to advise the layman in the street what to do if he/she wanted to build a really nice, audiovisual system, I would suggest to him/her that they spend money on the important things. The best receiver/amp., the best LCD panel, the best DAC if such a thing is wanted, the best BluRay/DVD player, or best CD player etc.

That is where the most time and effort has been spent on design, circuitry, processors, etc. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' really does apply here. However, there is a huge 'BUT' coming here though. An important 'but'. I would explain to this, increasingly hypothetical, him or her, that they follow a favourite analogy of mine..

Imagine an 'average' car.. You know, like a ford Mondeo or something. Imagine it has a 1.8 litre engine producing 115bhp. It will do about 112mph. Now imagine that it is the Mondeo RS which costs twice as much. It has a 2.4 litre V6 engine producing 230bhp but it is only capable of doing 150mph. Just 38mph more. If you wanted it to do 165mph - just 15mph faster, remember - it would need close to 300bhp and would probably cost another £20,000. What about 175mph? ..That's just 10mph extra. You could jog at 10mph. It's just a fraction faster. But it would take another 50 bhp or more to achieve it. And the cost? Who knows.. but you could buy a Porsche for the same money.

That's really my point, if a tad long winded. The more you spend the less you'll hear. A £20,000 amp. won't sound 10 x better than a £2000 amp. However, a £2000 amp. may easily sound 10 x better than a £200 amp.

So, spend it where it counts. Forget £100 HDMI cables, the average person couldn't tell the difference between one of these and a £10 cable. As long as they are nicely shielded from interference then it will do the job. Jitter may or may not come into play, I have no knowledge or opnion one way or another, but honestly, in the real world, 98% of you ain't gonna care.



Earth Angel.

(PS. I am not saying there is a difference either way between expensive cables and cheaper ones - I won't be drawn into that argument - all I am saying is that to most people (98% of the population) it won't make the blindest bit of difference.)

 

[The_Lhc]

TheEarthAngel: That is where the most time and effort has been spent on design, circuitry, processors, etc. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' really does apply here. However, there is a huge 'BUT' coming here though. An important 'but'. I would explain to this, increasingly hypothetical, him or her, that they follow a favourite analogy of mine..
Imagine an 'average' car.. You know, like a ford Mondeo or something. Imagine it has a 1.8 litre engine producing 115bhp. It will do about 112mph. Now imagine that it is the Mondeo RS which costs twice as much. It has a 2.4 litre V6 engine producing 230bhp but it is only capable of doing 150mph. Just 38mph more. If you wanted it to do 165mph - just 15mph faster, remember - it would need close to 300bhp and would probably cost another £20,000. What about 175mph? ..That's just 10mph extra. You could jog at 10mph. It's just a fraction faster. But it would take another 50 bhp or more to achieve it. And the cost? Who knows.. but you could buy a Porsche for the same money.

I'm not sure this analogy works, or at least, it is incomplete. Cars need exponentially more power to go a little faster for one reason, air resistance. The faster you go the higher the friction caused by the air becomes and it's not a linear equation.

For this analogy to work you'd need to explain what the hi-fi or audio equivalent of aerodynamic friction is. In a car this is overcome, up to a point, by a more powerful engine, which would be analogous to the amp section, so you would appear to be saying that you simply need more and more powerful amps in order to achieve better sound. However I'm pretty sure that's NOT what you're trying to say, so the analogy isn't clear.

And of course you could also make your car more aerodynamic in order to make it go faster, I've no idea what the audio equivalent to that would be...

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:TheEarthAngel: That is where the most time and effort has been spent on design, circuitry, processors, etc. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' really does apply here. However, there is a huge 'BUT' coming here though. An important 'but'. I would explain to this, increasingly hypothetical, him or her, that they follow a favourite analogy of mine..
Imagine an 'average' car.. You know, like a ford Mondeo or something. Imagine it has a 1.8 litre engine producing 115bhp. It will do about 112mph. Now imagine that it is the Mondeo RS which costs twice as much. It has a 2.4 litre V6 engine producing 230bhp but it is only capable of doing 150mph. Just 38mph more. If you wanted it to do 165mph - just 15mph faster, remember - it would need close to 300bhp and would probably cost another £20,000. What about 175mph? ..That's just 10mph extra. You could jog at 10mph. It's just a fraction faster. But it would take another 50 bhp or more to achieve it. And the cost? Who knows.. but you could buy a Porsche for the same money.

I'm not sure this analogy works, or at least, it is incomplete. Cars need exponentially more power to go a little faster for one reason, air resistance. The faster you go the higher the friction caused by the air becomes and it's not a linear equation.

For this analogy to work you'd need to explain what the hi-fi or audio equivalent of aerodynamic friction is. In a car this is overcome, up to a point, by a more powerful engine, which would be analogous to the amp section, so you would appear to be saying that you simply need more and more powerful amps in order to achieve better sound. However I'm pretty sure that's NOT what you're trying to say, so the analogy isn't clear.

And of course you could also make your car more aerodynamic in order to make it go faster, I've no idea what the audio equivalent to that would be...

Yeah, you are right, and with more thought I could have written it a little more clearly. My point wasn't analgous to the physics involved in such an analogy - more, the 'extra cost vs smaller increments in performance' .

I think you knew that was what I meant, I just didn't make the point of the analogy more clearly. I apologise for that.

By the time a £10,000 audio-visual set-up has been built, with the best components, spending an extra £500 or so on good interconnects, as opposed to 'half decent' interconnects costing £80 will only improve the overall results by a very tiny, and almost imperceivable increment. Of course, if you can afford this set-up anyway, then you won't bulk at using the best of the best throughout, but I would suggest that only the cable-snobbish and ultra-geek community need spend it.

Update: This reply was started a few hours ago, and sat on my task panel unfinished while I finished some work. Since then, I just watched some TV and really took the time to listen carefully to the sound, and look at the pictures closely and critically, and I really can't hear or see any 'problems' at all, no matter how hard I try. I use Cambridge Audio HDMI cables costing about £28 each for 2m.

Now, I could go out tomorrow and spend over £400 on Ecosse leads for my set-up, in response to WHF review summary, "..with it's punchy, powerful and composed production, this cable oozes dynamics.."

Excuse me? I just watched, and listened to, what I thought was a show already full of dynamics and punchy production. I won't presume to argue with the WHF testing team and their results, but honestly, I couldn't possibly wish to improve my set-up any further, at least, I am not 'disappointed' with my set-up or quality in any way - so as far as I am concerned, it would not be worth the extra money.

If my set-up produced grainy pictures, ghosting, sound which lacks bass or top end, or has a narrow soundfield - and was a direct result of my 'cheap' cabling - then, of course I would upgrade. But it doesn't. To my eyes, and ears it's a great show, and I am not disappointed with it in any way. I don't think I am alone, either. My original point to my post was that to 'most' people, the extra cost of super duper Rolls Royce cabling was greater than the perceived improvements gained.

WHF HDMI cable reviews often use phrases like, "..immense precision and excellent timing.." and "..movement is gripped well, and scenes of brilliance don't flare..", or, "..excitement and attitude..", and, "..substantial connection and substantial images.."

These phrases are extremely subjective at best, and a little tenuous at worst. After watching an hour of various different sections of Hollywood-irvana on DVD as well as Sky Premier - I honestly couldn't tell you what 'grip', 'attitude', 'flare', or 'excitement' means, or how it applies to anything I just watched.

All I knew, is that it sounded and looked awesome.

£28 well spent I say.

 

[The_Lhc]

TheEarthAngel:the_lhc:TheEarthAngel: That is where the most time and effort has been spent on design, circuitry, processors, etc. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' really does apply here. However, there is a huge 'BUT' coming here though. An important 'but'. I would explain to this, increasingly hypothetical, him or her, that they follow a favourite analogy of mine..
Imagine an 'average' car.. You know, like a ford Mondeo or something. Imagine it has a 1.8 litre engine producing 115bhp. It will do about 112mph. Now imagine that it is the Mondeo RS which costs twice as much. It has a 2.4 litre V6 engine producing 230bhp but it is only capable of doing 150mph. Just 38mph more. If you wanted it to do 165mph - just 15mph faster, remember - it would need close to 300bhp and would probably cost another £20,000. What about 175mph? ..That's just 10mph extra. You could jog at 10mph. It's just a fraction faster. But it would take another 50 bhp or more to achieve it. And the cost? Who knows.. but you could buy a Porsche for the same money.

I'm not sure this analogy works, or at least, it is incomplete. Cars need exponentially more power to go a little faster for one reason, air resistance. The faster you go the higher the friction caused by the air becomes and it's not a linear equation.

For this analogy to work you'd need to explain what the hi-fi or audio equivalent of aerodynamic friction is. In a car this is overcome, up to a point, by a more powerful engine, which would be analogous to the amp section, so you would appear to be saying that you simply need more and more powerful amps in order to achieve better sound. However I'm pretty sure that's NOT what you're trying to say, so the analogy isn't clear.

And of course you could also make your car more aerodynamic in order to make it go faster, I've no idea what the audio equivalent to that would be...

Yeah, you are right, and with more thought I could have written it a little more clearly. My point wasn't analgous to the physics involved in such an analogy - more, the 'extra cost vs smaller increments in performance' .

I think you knew that was what I meant, I just didn't make the point of the analogy more clearly. I apologise for that.

I was being a little picky I guess, but I think my point was I can explain, reasonably simply, why more expensive and powerful cars don't go that much faster than a lesser model but I, personally, don't know why more and more expensive audio equipment doesn't sound that much better and I've yet to see a reasonable explanation for it. Obviously there's a limit, once a system sounds exactly the same as real-life then it can't be improved upon, but I don't think we've got there yet. I have to admit I'm not familiar enough with high-end audio (or even mid-range if I'm honest) to comment on how good they sound.

Update: This reply was started a few hours ago, and sat on my task panel unfinished while I finished some work. Since then, I just watched some TV and really took the time to listen carefully to the sound, and look at the pictures closely and critically, and I really can't hear or see any 'problems' at all, no matter how hard I try. I use Cambridge Audio HDMI cables costing about £28 each for 2m.

Thanks for the tip, I need to find a reasonable price 3m HDMI cable for some friends who won't spend a fortune!

Now, I could go out tomorrow and spend over £400 on Ecosse leads for my set-up, in response to WHF review summary, "..with it's punchy, powerful and composed production, this cable oozes dynamics.."

Excuse me? I just watched, and listened to, what I thought was a show already full of dynamics and punchy production. I won't presume to argue with the WHF testing team and their results, but honestly, I couldn't possibly wish to improve my set-up any further, at least, I am not 'disappointed' with my set-up or quality in any way - so as far as I am concerned, it would not be worth the extra money.

I guess it does depend on what your setup is now. My sound wouldn't benefit from better HDMI cables but that's because I'm not using HDMI to carry any sound yet, I've got SkyHD connected to the TV using the free cable supplied with the box and I've just inherited a 1m PureAV HDMI cable which I've been meaning to swap out to see if it makes any difference but this isn't in the same league as what you're talking about.

If my set-up produced grainy pictures, ghosting, sound which lacks bass or top end, or has a narrow soundfield - and was a direct result of my 'cheap' cabling - then, of course I would upgrade. But it doesn't. To my eyes, and ears it's a great show, and I am not disappointed with it in any way. I don't think I am alone, either. My original point to my post was that to 'most' people, the extra cost of super duper Rolls Royce cabling was greater than the perceived improvements gained.

This is a good point, I've had my plasma for about two weeks now and I can't actually see anything wrong with the picture at all, I suspect the limiting factor on my system is the 10m system cable between the media receiver and the panel however. Shame I only need a 5m cable now...

 

[jase fox]

TheEarthAngel:the_lhc:TheEarthAngel: That is where the most time and effort has been spent on design, circuitry, processors, etc. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' really does apply here. However, there is a huge 'BUT' coming here though. An important 'but'. I would explain to this, increasingly hypothetical, him or her, that they follow a favourite analogy of mine..
Imagine an 'average' car.. You know, like a ford Mondeo or something. Imagine it has a 1.8 litre engine producing 115bhp. It will do about 112mph. Now imagine that it is the Mondeo RS which costs twice as much. It has a 2.4 litre V6 engine producing 230bhp but it is only capable of doing 150mph. Just 38mph more. If you wanted it to do 165mph - just 15mph faster, remember - it would need close to 300bhp and would probably cost another £20,000. What about 175mph? ..That's just 10mph extra. You could jog at 10mph. It's just a fraction faster. But it would take another 50 bhp or more to achieve it. And the cost? Who knows.. but you could buy a Porsche for the same money.

I'm not sure this analogy works, or at least, it is incomplete. Cars need exponentially more power to go a little faster for one reason, air resistance. The faster you go the higher the friction caused by the air becomes and it's not a linear equation.

For this analogy to work you'd need to explain what the hi-fi or audio equivalent of aerodynamic friction is. In a car this is overcome, up to a point, by a more powerful engine, which would be analogous to the amp section, so you would appear to be saying that you simply need more and more powerful amps in order to achieve better sound. However I'm pretty sure that's NOT what you're trying to say, so the analogy isn't clear.

And of course you could also make your car more aerodynamic in order to make it go faster, I've no idea what the audio equivalent to that would be...

Yeah, you are right, and with more thought I could have written it a little more clearly. My point wasn't analgous to the physics involved in such an analogy - more, the 'extra cost vs smaller increments in performance' .

I think you knew that was what I meant, I just didn't make the point of the analogy more clearly. I apologise for that.

By the time a £10,000 audio-visual set-up has been built, with the best components, spending an extra £500 or so on good interconnects, as opposed to 'half decent' interconnects costing £80 will only improve the overall results by a very tiny, and almost imperceivable increment. Of course, if you can afford this set-up anyway, then you won't bulk at using the best of the best throughout, but I would suggest that only the cable-snobbish and ultra-geek community need spend it.

Update: This reply was started a few hours ago, and sat on my task panel unfinished while I finished some work. Since then, I just watched some TV and really took the time to listen carefully to the sound, and look at the pictures closely and critically, and I really can't hear or see any 'problems' at all, no matter how hard I try. I use Cambridge Audio HDMI cables costing about £28 each for 2m.

Now, I could go out tomorrow and spend over £400 on Ecosse leads for my set-up, in response to WHF review summary, "..with it's punchy, powerful and composed production, this cable oozes dynamics.."

Excuse me? I just watched, and listened to, what I thought was a show already full of dynamics and punchy production. I won't presume to argue with the WHF testing team and their results, but honestly, I couldn't possibly wish to improve my set-up any further, at least, I am not 'disappointed' with my set-up or quality in any way - so as far as I am concerned, it would not be worth the extra money.

If my set-up produced grainy pictures, ghosting, sound which lacks bass or top end, or has a narrow soundfield - and was a direct result of my 'cheap' cabling - then, of course I would upgrade. But it doesn't. To my eyes, and ears it's a great show, and I am not disappointed with it in any way. I don't think I am alone, either. My original point to my post was that to 'most' people, the extra cost of super duper Rolls Royce cabling was greater than the perceived improvements gained.

WHF HDMI cable reviews often use phrases like, "..immense precision and excellent timing.." and "..movement is gripped well, and scenes of brilliance don't flare..", or, "..excitement and attitude..", and, "..substantial connection and substantial images.."

These phrases are extremely subjective at best, and a little tenuous at worst. After watching an hour of various different sections of Hollywood-irvana on DVD as well as Sky Premier - I honestly couldn't tell you what 'grip', 'attitude', 'flare', or 'excitement' means, or how it applies to anything I just watched.

All I knew, is that it sounded and looked awesome.

£28 well spent I say.

Thats was a great read EarthAngel, very well put i must say ! Im exactly were you are now with my current system...

 

[Alec]

seakingadvice:Very interesting replies indeed. I think the main reason why this topic might seem controversial is because the differences are not so easy to detect and all of us have different abilities when it comes to sight and sound. I think the only way to settle this is to get an F1 driver (who is supposed to have superior eagle eyesight, i.e. better than 20/20 vision) to take a look but even then it would still be judgemental on what is deemed to be "better". As for all the marketing words, no need to get hung up on it. BMW calls itself the "ultimate" driving machine and while BMWs are great cars, are they really better than say a Ferrari, Porshe, etc. that cost a whole lot more?

So price is a direct indicator of quality then?

EarthAngel - how do you get your 98%...?

 

[Anonymous]

al7478:
seakingadvice:Very interesting replies indeed. I think the main reason why this topic might seem controversial is because the differences are not so easy to detect and all of us have different abilities when it comes to sight and sound. I think the only way to settle this is to get an F1 driver (who is supposed to have superior eagle eyesight, i.e. better than 20/20 vision) to take a look but even then it would still be judgemental on what is deemed to be "better". As for all the marketing words, no need to get hung up on it. BMW calls itself the "ultimate" driving machine and while BMWs are great cars, are they really better than say a Ferrari, Porshe, etc. that cost a whole lot more?

So price is a direct indicator of quality then?

EarthAngel - how do you get your 98%...?

It wasn't meant to be a poll derived figure, more a figure of speech. It's like saying 'It's right 99% of the time' or that kind of statement. I honestly don't know what the actual number could be, as it is a totally immeasurable and unknown percentage in reality. My '98%' was meant to signify the masses who go out and buy systems that are within a realistic budget according to the average salary earners in the country. If the average Joe Bloggs or Jenny Blogs goes to a Seven Oaks AV Store they are likely to have a realistic budget in accordance with the £25k or so that they take home.

Now then, don't all write back with comments about how much the average Bloggs earns - because, if you do then you are missing the point. Sure, thousands might earn £30k, thousands might earn £40k, some £20k, but they will mostly all pretty much go for a half decent set-up costing no more than about £2k if we are honest. There will be some, quite a few possibly, who want to spend a little more, or a little less, and a handful that follow WHF seriously and love AV finery who will spend their years salary on a top system - but in comparison to the millions of purchases made, not many.

So, if the Bloggs's build an average half decent set-up with around £2k to spend on it, I would wager that a huge percentage of that demographic will marvel at the delights on show once they start watching it. I honestly don't think that they will get home and start saying, "...hmm the images aren't smooth enough, they don't grip well, there are some flares during scenes of brilliance, and I felt it lacked a certain amount of attitude and excitement...hmm.. I know.. I think we should go and spend £400 on some new cables, that will solve it "

When I said 'I'll wager' , I am not betting my house, I am just making a sportsman's bet. But I bet I am right.

 

[Alec]

Why thankyou for clearing that up for me.

 

[Clare Newsome]

While 'Mr & Mrs Average' might not spend £400 on cables (v.few people do), the appetite for upgrade HDMI cables is not limited to enthusiasts. Here's an extract from my recent blog on UK sales trends:

"More than £30m worth of HDMI cables have been sold in the past year - up from £23m in 2008 - and the average price paid is holding steady at @£30 per cable. "

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, this is my first post on an interesting forum which I've perused on a casual basis for some time. A recent flurry of purchases caused me to check out some AV related sunject ... so.

Whether or not "better" or rather (usually) more expensive HDMI cables do give better performance, retailers now routinely try to sell better cables to the average punter. They will use references to the likes of What HiFi to persuade customers that it would be silly not to invest in better cables.

The fact that HDMI cable sales are on the up is therefore, in all likelihood, linked to the endorsement given by magazines such as this one. Endorsement based on subjective opinions which can currently not be proven or satisfactorily explained.

I've no problem with enthusiasts persuading themselves before or after purchase that the latest cable / gizmo makes all the difference in the world to their listening or viewing experience, people will believe what they want to and in most things it's perception that matters to the individual. However, when these views are transmitted as fact, as they often are, to casual buyers it all gets a bit ethically dodgy.

Just my humble opinion of course, I've been into HiFi and its variations and outgrowths for getting on for 40 years and the objective / subjective arguments have been happening for much of that time. I've read enough magazines including What HiFi to fill a decent sized landfill (before I started recycling them of course). Long may these debate continue within the community but there should be health warnings!

Ian