I just wish someone would discover dilithiam crystals then all our petty squables will be a thing of the past,live long and prosper
avnut:I just wish someone would discover dilithiam crystals then all our petty squables will be a thing of the past,live long and prosper
There'd still be endless debate about whether it was worth paying the extra for trilithiam crystals, or whether it was all a rip-off because after all 'crystals is crystals'.
There'd still be endless debate about whether it was worth paying the extra for trilithiam crystals, or whether it was all a rip-off because after all 'crystals is crystals'.
skr1
Well-known member
Or, if you can't afford that, check this out...ÿ
http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-cinema/news/2009/01/09/CES-2009--Cables--What-Cables-/p1ÿ
http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-cinema/news/2009/01/09/CES-2009--Cables--What-Cables-/p1ÿ
Octopo:"A properly set up double blind test is designed to rule out the placebo effect"
How does it rule it out? The placebo effect can still occur and will only be lessened by more tests on more people from the time it is introduced.
Like I said, if 100 people are told there is a difference between two identical pills, most of them will buy an expensive HDMI cable.
You are missing the point. The placebo effect cannot occur if the design is appropriate (or at least the same placebo effect will occur on all incidences, levelling out its effect). That is the whole idea of double blind test.
I gave an example of an inappropriate blindtest. In an appropriate blindtest nobody will tell you which cable or pill is better/more expensive.
How does it rule it out? The placebo effect can still occur and will only be lessened by more tests on more people from the time it is introduced.
Like I said, if 100 people are told there is a difference between two identical pills, most of them will buy an expensive HDMI cable.
You are missing the point. The placebo effect cannot occur if the design is appropriate (or at least the same placebo effect will occur on all incidences, levelling out its effect). That is the whole idea of double blind test.
I gave an example of an inappropriate blindtest. In an appropriate blindtest nobody will tell you which cable or pill is better/more expensive.
With respect you missed my original point. The brain is a complex piece. Each brain is different, it will react to all stimulus in different ways to the next brain. It makes no difference if the cable is the same, different, expensive, cheap, from Mars, Jupiter or Venus. The placebo effect cannot be accounted for in such a simple fashion.
Who said double blind testing is simple? Are you an expert in the field? Why is it you do not think the placebo effect can be accounted for? If this was truly the case I can assure you that no new medicine would get approved!
I'm not saying it's simple, though it is far more simple than the matter that surrounds it. It is just our way of making the best of an impossible job.ÿ
You now seem to be comparing (apparent) subtle differences in colour and contrast on a television screen with illness. Please explain?ÿ
You now seem to be comparing (apparent) subtle differences in colour and contrast on a television screen with illness. Please explain?ÿ
I am just saying that the principle of a double blind test is the same no matter which field you work in. When it is possible to rule out the placebo effect for testing of medicine (which is my area of expertise), it must be possible also when testing cables.
I understand where you are coming from in that in medicine you can say something is placebo or it isn't. However it is not always possible with cables when they are an unknown quantity. It comes down to how the human brain correlates a set amount of information into a definitive answer. When there is no assumed answer in a blind test on cables there is no reasonable way of calculating exactly what is going on with internal assumptions. How else would there be such wildly differing conclusions on HDMI cables unless the testers are lying to us?
Well, I am no expert in how to test caples, and I will not be the judge on whether the WHF team has made a proper test design or not, as I do not know how they test the cables. But in general the WHF team appear very profesionel to me in their approach, and I definately trust their results more than the any test you might find on the internet.
You of course need to set-up clear scientific parameters, and I still believe this is possible, also when testing cables. As described earlier, even though the human brain can play tricks on you, these 'false' positive or negative result is just as likely for one cable as another, and with sufficient statistical power, these effects will be leveled out. Deducting all these effects from the results you will end up with the true result. If there really is a difference, it will be clear.
You of course need to set-up clear scientific parameters, and I still believe this is possible, also when testing cables. As described earlier, even though the human brain can play tricks on you, these 'false' positive or negative result is just as likely for one cable as another, and with sufficient statistical power, these effects will be leveled out. Deducting all these effects from the results you will end up with the true result. If there really is a difference, it will be clear.
professorhat
Well-known member
Andrew Everard:
avnut:I just wish someone would discover dilithiam crystals then all our petty squables will be a thing of the past,live long and prosper
There'd still be endless debate about whether it was worth paying the extra for trilithiam crystals, or whether it was all a rip-off because after all 'crystals is crystals'.
Why are you using chords hdmi? Do you see/hear a difference between it and others?
regards
avnut:I just wish someone would discover dilithiam crystals then all our petty squables will be a thing of the past,live long and prosper
There'd still be endless debate about whether it was worth paying the extra for trilithiam crystals, or whether it was all a rip-off because after all 'crystals is crystals'.
Why are you using chords hdmi? Do you see/hear a difference between it and others?
regards
I've recently had a QED HDMI for around £50 on loan. I thought, when changing it in for the cheap, enclosed lead that came with the SKY HD box, I could clearly see an increase in sharpness, better colours and contrast. In fact it brought the picture of SKY SD (poor) closer to the Pioneers internal freeview tuner (better than Sky SD). I am now considering trying a couple of more expensive ones, the chord included. I did'nt compare sound quality.
Now, those who have read my postings since I've joined know I am neither a cable atheist nor a believer in paying for boutique products if there's no gain. I also dont jump on bandwagons or disagree for the sake of it. If what I saw is 'placebo', I've must have had a very bad off day.
Now, those who have read my postings since I've joined know I am neither a cable atheist nor a believer in paying for boutique products if there's no gain. I also dont jump on bandwagons or disagree for the sake of it. If what I saw is 'placebo', I've must have had a very bad off day.
I've recently changed the free cable that came with my Sky HD to the Chord lo pro. ÿThe improvement in movement is very noticable. ÿThe place I noticed this straight away was very simply the ticker on sky sports news. This was something that annoyed me before - my thinking was 'how could HD TV not cope with something so simple?'. ÿI see now it can given the correct support. ÿ
The free cable is in the bin.ÿ
The free cable is in the bin.ÿ
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
Andrew Everard:
You'll still need cables to connect your devices to the wireless sender in the current versions we've seen, which use a 'media box' to switch sources and stream a single HDMI signal wirelessly to the display.
Mind you, might not be long before products appear with built-in wireless, and the display will allow you to choose which stream to watch. Then it could get really cool...
It would be nice to loose the cables, although we do still need to send power to the TV, so we will never really completely lose the wires. While your hiding one wire...you might as well hide two. Just a thought.
You'll still need cables to connect your devices to the wireless sender in the current versions we've seen, which use a 'media box' to switch sources and stream a single HDMI signal wirelessly to the display.
Mind you, might not be long before products appear with built-in wireless, and the display will allow you to choose which stream to watch. Then it could get really cool...
It would be nice to loose the cables, although we do still need to send power to the TV, so we will never really completely lose the wires. While your hiding one wire...you might as well hide two. Just a thought.
Indeed. Until wireless power becomes possible, and then we can all sit around and experience our internal organs frying from within...
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
Having just taken delivery of a Panasonic plasma and Panasonic blu-ray play, I am looking forward to seeing for myself the difference between a budget hdmi cable and a quality hdmi cable. I ordered a QED Qunex from play.com for £18 but it was delayed so I also ordered a stand by from play.com - a £5 "CYK Premium HDMI Gold Plated Cable" - which arrived last week. I was amused to see that CYK stands for "Chang Yang Kable", a name to inspire confidence if ever there was one. Name aside, I find it difficult to fault what I am seeing, so I am intrigued to see if the improvements so vigorously asserted by WHF (and others) actually transpire.
My son has a degree in physics from Imperial College, and he assures me that theoretically a poor cable can impede performance even on a digital signal if enough bit errors occur to prevent the device on the receiving end from fully correcting the errors. However, he also said that on a short distance cable it would have to be a very poor cable indeed to make a significant difference.
I'd never pay the £50 list price for the QED, but at £18 I thought "why not, let's see if it really does make a difference". I'll let you know.
My son has a degree in physics from Imperial College, and he assures me that theoretically a poor cable can impede performance even on a digital signal if enough bit errors occur to prevent the device on the receiving end from fully correcting the errors. However, he also said that on a short distance cable it would have to be a very poor cable indeed to make a significant difference.
I'd never pay the £50 list price for the QED, but at £18 I thought "why not, let's see if it really does make a difference". I'll let you know.
So the QED hdmi cable arrived today. I've swapped it over with the CYK cable a few times and I really can't see a difference. Conclusion: for me the £5 cable does the job of the £18 (I presume nobody actually ever pays £50 for it?) cable.
Of course this is not scientific - indeed it is an unsafe conclusion for at least couple of reasons:
[*]I can't view the two cables in use side by side at the same time.[*]I know which cable is in use and my predisposition to not spend any more than I have to could make me biased.
I'm sure that WHF's comparison method avoids both of these problems using side-by-side testing with otherwise identical kit and with test subjects giving their opinions in ignorance of which screen is using which cable. They probably also have instrumentation that provides objective comparison data as well. Can you folks confirm your comparison method?
Of course this is not scientific - indeed it is an unsafe conclusion for at least couple of reasons:
[*]I can't view the two cables in use side by side at the same time.[*]I know which cable is in use and my predisposition to not spend any more than I have to could make me biased.
I'm sure that WHF's comparison method avoids both of these problems using side-by-side testing with otherwise identical kit and with test subjects giving their opinions in ignorance of which screen is using which cable. They probably also have instrumentation that provides objective comparison data as well. Can you folks confirm your comparison method?
Big Aura
Well-known member
get someone else to swap the cables around for you and watch the same thing on a loop and watch the same thing on a loop and watch the same thing on a loop and watch the same thing on a loop and watch the same thing on a loop (
) and see if you can tell the difference.
Does having a v1.3 rated HDMI cable make much odds? Or is it sufficient to get one that will transfer 1080P?
Confused as have a Chord Lo Pro but before using it, wanted to see if I should just return and swop for a v1.3 rated one. Or is this a non-issue?
Confused as have a Chord Lo Pro but before using it, wanted to see if I should just return and swop for a v1.3 rated one. Or is this a non-issue?
The versions apply to the equipment only i.e. sources, receivers/processors and displays NOT the cables. The cables are classed as Cat 1 and Cat 2. See hdmi.org and bluejeanscables.com for FAQs. I have yet to see a short length cable fail to pass 1080p/24fps etc. Your cable will be fine.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
d4v3pum4:The versions apply to the equipment only i.e. sources, receivers/processors and displays NOT the cables. The cables are classed as Cat 1 and Cat 2. See hdmi.org and bluejeanscables.com for FAQs. I have yet to see a short length cable fail to pass 1080p/24fps etc. Your cable will be fine.
I'm not sure that's correct. The HDMI versions in part refer to the bandwidth of the cable, in order to pass 1080p AND uncompressed HD audio you need a higher bandwidth cable the specifications of which come from version 1.3a.
I'm not sure that's correct. The HDMI versions in part refer to the bandwidth of the cable, in order to pass 1080p AND uncompressed HD audio you need a higher bandwidth cable the specifications of which come from version 1.3a.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
PMC and prog legend Steven Wilson team up at Munich High End to deliver an unmissable Dolby Atmos showcase- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram