professorhat
Well-known member
Ahhh, quickly logged on before sleep to see two HDMI cable threads.
Glad to see everything is as it was...
Glad to see everything is as it was...
Alec
Well-known member
That's funny Tallyho. Mind you, I've bought all the cable usual suspects and I remember my wife did scream at me once that I was like an owl (but it wasn't in the context of AV kit) so you've definitely got me thinking.
Wovian:
That's funny Tallyho. Mind you, I've bought all the cable usual suspects and I remember my wife did scream at me once that I was like an owl (but it wasn't in the context of AV kit) so you've definitely got me thinking.
You have fired my curiosity. Which Strigiformes characterisitic did she have in mind? Are you nocturnal, solitary or do you have large forward facing eyes?
That's funny Tallyho. Mind you, I've bought all the cable usual suspects and I remember my wife did scream at me once that I was like an owl (but it wasn't in the context of AV kit) so you've definitely got me thinking.
You have fired my curiosity. Which Strigiformes characterisitic did she have in mind? Are you nocturnal, solitary or do you have large forward facing eyes?
I have two major concerns with the whole HDMI cable affecting picture quality debate,
1) Professionals have been using high resolution DVI cables for years, sometimes at much higher resolutions than 1080p, and always just use the nearest DVI lead they can get their hands on to connect the display. So why suddenly when the same basic protocol/system moves into the home theater domain do differences magically appear. surely an imaging proffesional working on a 30" IPS display a couple of feet away would have spotted the differences...
2) The data is encrypted, its therefore impossible for random changes in binary data/jitter to effect the outcome as if the recived data were incorrect when decrypted the resultant data would be entirely different to the input (sparklies etc) not just subtly different. I can go more into this but i wont right now unless someone wants to
I entirely agree that a very poor cable would affect the data integrity to such an extent as to cause missing data/sparklies etc.
I remember tomshardware did a test of DVI outputs a few years ago becuase some cheaper NVidia cards were having problems. they used some equipment that seemed similar to an oscilliscope to measure the data eye of the signal, if this 'eye' is intact at the receiver then the picture will be unaffected. Surely some form of scientific test like this would be best suited to indicate a good cable from a bad, rather than a subjective method..
1) Professionals have been using high resolution DVI cables for years, sometimes at much higher resolutions than 1080p, and always just use the nearest DVI lead they can get their hands on to connect the display. So why suddenly when the same basic protocol/system moves into the home theater domain do differences magically appear. surely an imaging proffesional working on a 30" IPS display a couple of feet away would have spotted the differences...
2) The data is encrypted, its therefore impossible for random changes in binary data/jitter to effect the outcome as if the recived data were incorrect when decrypted the resultant data would be entirely different to the input (sparklies etc) not just subtly different. I can go more into this but i wont right now unless someone wants to
I entirely agree that a very poor cable would affect the data integrity to such an extent as to cause missing data/sparklies etc.
I remember tomshardware did a test of DVI outputs a few years ago becuase some cheaper NVidia cards were having problems. they used some equipment that seemed similar to an oscilliscope to measure the data eye of the signal, if this 'eye' is intact at the receiver then the picture will be unaffected. Surely some form of scientific test like this would be best suited to indicate a good cable from a bad, rather than a subjective method..
Because once it's in the Consumer space, the vendors know they can pull the wool over hundreds of thousands of gullible punters. In the professional marketplace, the consumer is just that "professional".
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between an hdmi cable seller from <insert outrageously expensive hdmi cable manufacturer here> and say, the engineering department at a University media lab (or somesuch).
So Mr Salesman, technically what differentiates your £xxxx cable to this £20 v1.3 compliant cable we have here
Of course, you will find that there are many who have spent series money on HDMI cables, who will tell you that it has made a big difference. But ask yourself, if you had spent serious money, wouldn't you *want* it to make a difference? Even if it actually didn't?
I once worked for a place that makes TV cameras for all the broadcast world. We often used to fabricate our own cables in house. If we ever needed to buy in, rest assured they would be cheap (but compliant).
The margin in this end of the market is frightening. I can only imagine that they have large advertising budgets to match.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between an hdmi cable seller from <insert outrageously expensive hdmi cable manufacturer here> and say, the engineering department at a University media lab (or somesuch).
So Mr Salesman, technically what differentiates your £xxxx cable to this £20 v1.3 compliant cable we have here
Of course, you will find that there are many who have spent series money on HDMI cables, who will tell you that it has made a big difference. But ask yourself, if you had spent serious money, wouldn't you *want* it to make a difference? Even if it actually didn't?
I once worked for a place that makes TV cameras for all the broadcast world. We often used to fabricate our own cables in house. If we ever needed to buy in, rest assured they would be cheap (but compliant).
The margin in this end of the market is frightening. I can only imagine that they have large advertising budgets to match.
Take a little time to google picture quality and HDMI to understand the signal by 'dropping' 0's ore 1's will not effect sharpness, contrast, saturation. Its not analogue, its not signal levels as a scart cable. Loss will produce picture 'failure'.
The best way to address this is to ask any manufacturer of high end HDMI leads WHY does their cable improve it, what are some simple explanations to what they claim. This can be done for speaker cables and analogue interconnects, not for HDMI video.
Don't fall into the trap that because its in print its the truth.
This is edited version of a post in the WHFSV TV forum and the last line must be restated, many mags including WHF has printed ( in good faith I'm sure) technical inaccuracies, they either ignore or publish a retraction. But, it just shows that people can get it wrong.
Why would an HDMI cable make a difference to the display, when all the data stream gets through it displays the transmitted codes, If it doesn't, the display doesn't say ' well I didn't understand that, I'm gonna change the contrast/colour sharpness ' it just shows as break up.
And the other way around. If it all gets through it doesn't say 'well I got that really, really clear, so I'll improve the picture from what is was when I got it all through the same with the last cable!'
When someone offers at least some, however vague, technical answer to this, then there is no credibility to the argument.
I was at the gadget show (free tickets) with a company selling various 'quality/price' HDMI leads ( company- not sure, but if I had the floor layout I could deduce it) When asked 'does the picture quality improve' I expected some sales nonsense, but got the straight answer...'No'.
QED
Ed.
The best way to address this is to ask any manufacturer of high end HDMI leads WHY does their cable improve it, what are some simple explanations to what they claim. This can be done for speaker cables and analogue interconnects, not for HDMI video.
Don't fall into the trap that because its in print its the truth.
This is edited version of a post in the WHFSV TV forum and the last line must be restated, many mags including WHF has printed ( in good faith I'm sure) technical inaccuracies, they either ignore or publish a retraction. But, it just shows that people can get it wrong.
Why would an HDMI cable make a difference to the display, when all the data stream gets through it displays the transmitted codes, If it doesn't, the display doesn't say ' well I didn't understand that, I'm gonna change the contrast/colour sharpness ' it just shows as break up.
And the other way around. If it all gets through it doesn't say 'well I got that really, really clear, so I'll improve the picture from what is was when I got it all through the same with the last cable!'
When someone offers at least some, however vague, technical answer to this, then there is no credibility to the argument.
I was at the gadget show (free tickets) with a company selling various 'quality/price' HDMI leads ( company- not sure, but if I had the floor layout I could deduce it) When asked 'does the picture quality improve' I expected some sales nonsense, but got the straight answer...'No'.
QED
Ed.
On that note then if this is the case , i take it buying a £20 hdmi switch ( example 3 into 1 ) compared to a £150 QED hdmi switch isn't going to make a difference to quality ?
landzw:On that note then if this is the case , i take it buying a £20 hdmi switch ( example 3 into 1 ) compared to a £150 QED hdmi switch isn't going to make a difference to quality ?My own experience is that my expensive HDMI cable produces identical results to two freebies (Humax and Oppo) and I dont understand how some of the characteristics associated with expensive cables are remotely plausible. However it is still possible to build ropey products that dont work. I bought a scart switch from argos for the kids and the buttons don't work properly and phono inputs don't work at all. Possibly somewhere between £150 and £20 would be a good idea
I got one of those HDMI Switches from Currys a while ago, it was less than £20 if i remember. Its a manual one which doesnt require power but seems to work well, i have never had a problem with it.
funkyraptor:I got one of those HDMI Switches from Currys a while ago, it was less than £20 if i remember. Its a manual one which doesnt require power but seems to work well, i have never had a problem with it.Fair enough, If I ever need one I will bear that in mind.
hammill: dont understand how some of the characteristics associated with expensive cables are remotely plausible. However it is still possible to build ropey products that dont work. I bought a scart switch from argos for the kids and the buttons don't work properly and phono inputs don't work at all. Possibly somewhere between £150 and £20 would be a good idea
I agree with differing quality scart leads. but this is may concern, becuase to mention the two HDMI and Scart in the same thread, may lead ( no pun in.) to some thinking well if its relavent to scart then it must for HDMI. They have noe comparission.
And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Another concern is that,if poeople whom others trust ( because I assume, it's in print with seems to add legitimacy) are not able to print some basic reasons as to why there could be improvements with different cables ( or find a recognised expert in the field ) then that brings into doubt other comments that they put into print.
With speaker cables there are some simple pieces of elecronic law that could establish why the replacement of one cable for another could effect the sound O/P, load effects, inductive, capacitive, resistive losses. Filter effects etc, but with HDI video...all in quite.( I realise this is mentioning analogue info, just like you have with scart!)
If one cable gets 'all' the signal through ( no artifacts picture break up) costing £5 why would that same digital signal 'go' better through a more expensive, say £150.
The image information is does not react in and analogue fasion For example; less o's not so bright, all the o's more bright.
Even better o's and 1's through an expesive cable ......ruddy fantastic brightness. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
I agree with differing quality scart leads. but this is may concern, becuase to mention the two HDMI and Scart in the same thread, may lead ( no pun in.) to some thinking well if its relavent to scart then it must for HDMI. They have noe comparission.
And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Another concern is that,if poeople whom others trust ( because I assume, it's in print with seems to add legitimacy) are not able to print some basic reasons as to why there could be improvements with different cables ( or find a recognised expert in the field ) then that brings into doubt other comments that they put into print.
With speaker cables there are some simple pieces of elecronic law that could establish why the replacement of one cable for another could effect the sound O/P, load effects, inductive, capacitive, resistive losses. Filter effects etc, but with HDI video...all in quite.( I realise this is mentioning analogue info, just like you have with scart!)
If one cable gets 'all' the signal through ( no artifacts picture break up) costing £5 why would that same digital signal 'go' better through a more expensive, say £150.
The image information is does not react in and analogue fasion For example; less o's not so bright, all the o's more bright.
Even better o's and 1's through an expesive cable ......ruddy fantastic brightness. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
professorhat
Well-known member
Eddy41:And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Have a look through this lot (there's only 152 pages so shouldn't take too long
). You'll see any thread which attempts a technical explanation usually ends up locked as it descends to personal insults. QED offer an explanation here, up to you if you want to accept it or not.
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
Have a look through this lot (there's only 152 pages so shouldn't take too long
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
Eddy41:
hammill: dont understand how some of the characteristics associated with expensive cables are remotely plausible. However it is still possible to build ropey products that dont work. I bought a scart switch from argos for the kids and the buttons don't work properly and phono inputs don't work at all. Possibly somewhere between £150 and £20 would be a good idea
I agree with differing quality scart leads. but this is may concern, becuase to mention the two HDMI and Scart in the same thread, may lead ( no pun in.) to some thinking well if its relavent to scart then it must for HDMI. They have noe comparission.
And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Another concern is that,if poeople whom others trust ( because I assume, it's in print with seems to add legitimacy) are not able to print some basic reasons as to why there could be improvements with different cables ( or find a recognised expert in the field ) then that brings into doubt other comments that they put into print.
With speaker cables there are some simple pieces of elecronic law that could establish why the replacement of one cable for another could effect the sound O/P, load effects, inductive, capacitive, resistive losses. Filter effects etc, but with HDI video...all in quite.( I realise this is mentioning analogue info, just like you have with scart!)
If one cable gets 'all' the signal through ( no artifacts picture break up) costing £5 why would that same digital signal 'go' better through a more expensive, say £150.
The image information is does not react in and analogue fasion For example; less o's not so bright, all the o's more bright.
Even better o's and 1's through an expesive cable ......ruddy fantastic brightness. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
You are preaching to the converted, I fully understand why Scart and HDMI are different. As a computer programmer, I have a fair understanding of the difference between analog and digital and how communications protocols work. I did not even make a comment about the quality of SCART leads. The question I answered was about a switch box and my experience was that they can be so badly made as to not working properly. The fault in the box was nothing to do with what was being switched, it was to do with poor switches.
hammill: dont understand how some of the characteristics associated with expensive cables are remotely plausible. However it is still possible to build ropey products that dont work. I bought a scart switch from argos for the kids and the buttons don't work properly and phono inputs don't work at all. Possibly somewhere between £150 and £20 would be a good idea
I agree with differing quality scart leads. but this is may concern, becuase to mention the two HDMI and Scart in the same thread, may lead ( no pun in.) to some thinking well if its relavent to scart then it must for HDMI. They have noe comparission.
And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Another concern is that,if poeople whom others trust ( because I assume, it's in print with seems to add legitimacy) are not able to print some basic reasons as to why there could be improvements with different cables ( or find a recognised expert in the field ) then that brings into doubt other comments that they put into print.
With speaker cables there are some simple pieces of elecronic law that could establish why the replacement of one cable for another could effect the sound O/P, load effects, inductive, capacitive, resistive losses. Filter effects etc, but with HDI video...all in quite.( I realise this is mentioning analogue info, just like you have with scart!)
If one cable gets 'all' the signal through ( no artifacts picture break up) costing £5 why would that same digital signal 'go' better through a more expensive, say £150.
The image information is does not react in and analogue fasion For example; less o's not so bright, all the o's more bright.
Even better o's and 1's through an expesive cable ......ruddy fantastic brightness. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
You are preaching to the converted, I fully understand why Scart and HDMI are different. As a computer programmer, I have a fair understanding of the difference between analog and digital and how communications protocols work. I did not even make a comment about the quality of SCART leads. The question I answered was about a switch box and my experience was that they can be so badly made as to not working properly. The fault in the box was nothing to do with what was being switched, it was to do with poor switches.
professorhat:
Eddy41:And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Have a look through this lot (there's only 152 pages so shouldn't take too long
). You'll see any thread which attempts a technical explanation usually ends up locked as it descends to personal insults. QED offer an explanation here, up to you if you want to accept it or not.
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
But QED make no explaination of how it would change the'quality of the picture' only a posible degradion in 'signal quality' with increasing data transfer rates.
Loss of information would lead to failure in the video encoding and loss of the picture.( there is no error correction )
So even a leading company does not produce any explanation to why it could ( which it can't effect picture quality)
If one takes a few minutes to understand the signal being carried, how ever fast; it either all gets through or it doesn't and the effect of it all getting through even better, does not make the picture better.
So QED ( pun intended)
Eddy41:And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Have a look through this lot (there's only 152 pages so shouldn't take too long
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
But QED make no explaination of how it would change the'quality of the picture' only a posible degradion in 'signal quality' with increasing data transfer rates.
Loss of information would lead to failure in the video encoding and loss of the picture.( there is no error correction )
So even a leading company does not produce any explanation to why it could ( which it can't effect picture quality)
If one takes a few minutes to understand the signal being carried, how ever fast; it either all gets through or it doesn't and the effect of it all getting through even better, does not make the picture better.
So QED ( pun intended)
I could conceivably see that with an unencrypted data stream there is a fairly unlikely chance on shortish cables in use in the home that background noise could cause a number of bits to switch from 0's to 1's and therefore lighten the picture or increase the bias to a particular colour on a per pixel basis. My theory for this is as below:
Assuming the colour is being sent at 8bit per channel there will be three lots of 8 bit words for each pixel, each set of 8 bits is sent down a separate twisted pair in the cable in serial (there is also a fourth pair for clock). In this example we will go with black so the pattern would be (assuming integer without twos compliment)
Red Green Blue
Binary 00000000 00000000 00000000
Decimal 0 0 0
now assuming background noise switched some bits by inducing a voltage in the cable you could conceivably end up with the following
Binary 00100001 00011000 00000000
Decimal 33 24 0
This would result in a dark shade of brown instead of black for that pixel. However the result would not be constant and the effect would be random. there is no way a cable could always cause a lightening of every pixel in a constant and repeatable way as interference by its very nature is not a constant.
Now because the data is encrypted with HDCP things become a little more complex, .If you change one bit in an encrypted message the resultant decrypted output will have no statistical relationship to the original data, i.e. you sent a purple pixel, the encrypted data gets damaged in transit the decryption of the received data ends up as a white pixel.
Assuming the colour is being sent at 8bit per channel there will be three lots of 8 bit words for each pixel, each set of 8 bits is sent down a separate twisted pair in the cable in serial (there is also a fourth pair for clock). In this example we will go with black so the pattern would be (assuming integer without twos compliment)
Red Green Blue
Binary 00000000 00000000 00000000
Decimal 0 0 0
now assuming background noise switched some bits by inducing a voltage in the cable you could conceivably end up with the following
Binary 00100001 00011000 00000000
Decimal 33 24 0
This would result in a dark shade of brown instead of black for that pixel. However the result would not be constant and the effect would be random. there is no way a cable could always cause a lightening of every pixel in a constant and repeatable way as interference by its very nature is not a constant.
Now because the data is encrypted with HDCP things become a little more complex, .If you change one bit in an encrypted message the resultant decrypted output will have no statistical relationship to the original data, i.e. you sent a purple pixel, the encrypted data gets damaged in transit the decryption of the received data ends up as a white pixel.
Sorry didn't mean to preach, I was raising the scart issue then when on further. Sorry it seened as a reply directly to you.
Ed
Ed
funkyraptor:
I could conceivably see that with an unencrypted data stream there is a fairly unlikely chance on shortish cables in use in the home that background noise could cause a number of bits to switch from 0's to 1's and therefore lighten the picture or increase the bias to a particular colour on a per pixel basis. My theory for this is as below:
Assuming the colour is being sent at 8bit per channel there will be three lots of 8 bit words for each pixel, each set of 8 bits is sent down a separate twisted pair in the cable in serial (there is also a fourth pair for clock). In this example we will go with black so the pattern would be (assuming integer without twos compliment)
Red Green Blue
Binary 00000000 00000000 00000000
Decimal 0 0 0
now assuming background noise switched some bits by inducing a voltage in the cable you could conceivably end up with the following
Binary 00100001 00011000 00000000
Decimal 33 24 0
This would result in a dark shade of brown instead of black for that pixel. However the result would not be constant and the effect would be random. there is no way a cable could always cause a lightening of every pixel in a constant and repeatable way as interference by its very nature is not a constant.
Now because the data is encrypted with HDCP things become a little more complex, .If you change one bit in an encrypted message the resultant decrypted output will have no statistical relationship to the original data, i.e. you sent a purple pixel, the encrypted data gets damaged in transit the decryption of the received data ends up as a white pixel.
Sorry it doesn't work like that.
It isnt 'analogue' in that way.
Unlike raising or lowering a voltage level as in RGB.Scart.
And to extrapolate, my real point is that, if you accept a cheap cable gets all the info through ( which is does or you'd get sparklies and break up ( like cable feeds), how does a dear one get it through better
I could conceivably see that with an unencrypted data stream there is a fairly unlikely chance on shortish cables in use in the home that background noise could cause a number of bits to switch from 0's to 1's and therefore lighten the picture or increase the bias to a particular colour on a per pixel basis. My theory for this is as below:
Assuming the colour is being sent at 8bit per channel there will be three lots of 8 bit words for each pixel, each set of 8 bits is sent down a separate twisted pair in the cable in serial (there is also a fourth pair for clock). In this example we will go with black so the pattern would be (assuming integer without twos compliment)
Red Green Blue
Binary 00000000 00000000 00000000
Decimal 0 0 0
now assuming background noise switched some bits by inducing a voltage in the cable you could conceivably end up with the following
Binary 00100001 00011000 00000000
Decimal 33 24 0
This would result in a dark shade of brown instead of black for that pixel. However the result would not be constant and the effect would be random. there is no way a cable could always cause a lightening of every pixel in a constant and repeatable way as interference by its very nature is not a constant.
Now because the data is encrypted with HDCP things become a little more complex, .If you change one bit in an encrypted message the resultant decrypted output will have no statistical relationship to the original data, i.e. you sent a purple pixel, the encrypted data gets damaged in transit the decryption of the received data ends up as a white pixel.
Sorry it doesn't work like that.
It isnt 'analogue' in that way.
Unlike raising or lowering a voltage level as in RGB.Scart.
And to extrapolate, my real point is that, if you accept a cheap cable gets all the info through ( which is does or you'd get sparklies and break up ( like cable feeds), how does a dear one get it through better
I'm sorry but it does work that way,
A 1 and a 0 is just a mathematical notation of binary, virtually nowhere in physical hardware is data ever represented in a digital form. Its almost always a wave or series of electrical impulses which is interpreted as a 0 or a 1 depending on voltage it is in fact analogue. The data in these cables is presented as serial so 1 bit at a time, not parallel where all 8 bits are sent at once.
If i were designing a specification for an interface i would indicate for example that anything above 2 volts is a 1 and anything below is a 0. Therefore if a voltage is induced in a cable by electromagnetic interference that is greater than 2v, the device will think a 1 has been sent.
HDMI/DVI actually uses a method called LVDS or Low Voltage Differential Signaling. This method uses a negative and positive version of the signal. Its hard to illustrate in text but basically rather than taking the voltage of a cable it looks at the difference in the voltage on two cables. So if i wanted to send a 1 i would set one line to -2, and the other to +2, the resultant difference would be 4 and therefore a 1. This reduces the effects of interference by adding redundancy and noise tolerance, so for example if the negative line was affected by interference in this situation and ended up as -1, the difference between the two would still be 3, and acceptably a 1.
So a cable that is more susceptible to interference while still technically conforming to specification when used in an especially noisy situation is more likely to have problems. Whereas a better built and shielded cable would not be affected as much. However this would under no circumstances cause the effects often mention such as increased sharpness or contrast. It would just mean the picture would not have 'sparklies' or HDMI handshake issues where the other less shielded cable may.
So yes if the cable works, a better cable will not improve the picture any further, but if you are having problems a better cable may negate the issue
A 1 and a 0 is just a mathematical notation of binary, virtually nowhere in physical hardware is data ever represented in a digital form. Its almost always a wave or series of electrical impulses which is interpreted as a 0 or a 1 depending on voltage it is in fact analogue. The data in these cables is presented as serial so 1 bit at a time, not parallel where all 8 bits are sent at once.
If i were designing a specification for an interface i would indicate for example that anything above 2 volts is a 1 and anything below is a 0. Therefore if a voltage is induced in a cable by electromagnetic interference that is greater than 2v, the device will think a 1 has been sent.
HDMI/DVI actually uses a method called LVDS or Low Voltage Differential Signaling. This method uses a negative and positive version of the signal. Its hard to illustrate in text but basically rather than taking the voltage of a cable it looks at the difference in the voltage on two cables. So if i wanted to send a 1 i would set one line to -2, and the other to +2, the resultant difference would be 4 and therefore a 1. This reduces the effects of interference by adding redundancy and noise tolerance, so for example if the negative line was affected by interference in this situation and ended up as -1, the difference between the two would still be 3, and acceptably a 1.
So a cable that is more susceptible to interference while still technically conforming to specification when used in an especially noisy situation is more likely to have problems. Whereas a better built and shielded cable would not be affected as much. However this would under no circumstances cause the effects often mention such as increased sharpness or contrast. It would just mean the picture would not have 'sparklies' or HDMI handshake issues where the other less shielded cable may.
So yes if the cable works, a better cable will not improve the picture any further, but if you are having problems a better cable may negate the issue
Bobbyx:Well gadget show ran a test. They are reputable. They found no difference at all, So what now lol
I cant believe you said that!
I cant believe you said that!
Ginder:Why do people on here not like the Gadget Show??
Are you being serious, it is vacuous in the extreme.
Are you being serious, it is vacuous in the extreme.
I've had friends help me do blind tests and I can clearly hear an improvement in sound going from your standard red and white cables to good interconnects like Tara Lab. Same for standar speaker cables, stepping up to QED Silver.
Where I cannot hear a difference is going from good, mid-range interconnects and speaker cables to expensive ones. I think you need a very expensive set up to reap the benefits.
I currently work for an electronics company and the cost to produce a 10meter HDMI cable is between 8 and 12 USD for a good HDMI cable, so you'd better think really carefully about paying 100 USD or more for the same product, but with merely better shielding, nicer-looking connectors and fancy packaging.
Where I cannot hear a difference is going from good, mid-range interconnects and speaker cables to expensive ones. I think you need a very expensive set up to reap the benefits.
I currently work for an electronics company and the cost to produce a 10meter HDMI cable is between 8 and 12 USD for a good HDMI cable, so you'd better think really carefully about paying 100 USD or more for the same product, but with merely better shielding, nicer-looking connectors and fancy packaging.
professorhat:
Eddy41:And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
Ok, serously I am sane
.I just want some sanity on this subject.
But I think this particular subject is proving a serious issue and it is not 'simples'.
I work in an industry where many technical papers are written, published and presented at conferences.
People allow their work to be openly scrutinised and have to justify their claims.
Many of these papers published by people far higher educated than most hi-fi journalist and sales/pr people and they make simple errors, we all do, that can be spotted by people less well educated. They make errors and simple incorrect assumptions.
Even at a presentation of a study, a lecturer whom held a doctorate in his field, made a statement as if a fact and was challenged and had to enter into a discussion with the questioner, he was wrong.
BUT it is discussed it is not left to the consumer to be duped or mislead and left to check by using 'their own eyes' with all the errors that this introduces.
When scientific tests are done on these leads and 'measurements independent of the human eye and brain are used and find no difference, the journalistic industry ignore it.
They should be our first line of defence in the world of marketing and self promotion.
They should be protecting us and using their contacts to get to the truth.
Now the counter argument is that the people technically explaining what HDMI is and how it works are wrong but where are the counter arguments at a technical level?
HDMI is not a 'black art' and is not open to the vagaries of analogue speaker and interconnects science.
For evil to prosper it only takes good people to do to do nothing, a little dramatic I know but it sums it all up.
People are lead to believe that they would see improvements by spending 100's of pounds on HDMI and its seems to be that the journalists and happy to say quietly well a fool and his money are...
Eddy41:And I notice that my hope for someone to give some technical explanation to why some HDMI leads are better produces no answers.
Seriously, though, the easiest way to stay sane on this subject is to try it out. If you see a difference, brilliant, keep the cable, if you don't, also brilliant, get a refund. Simples.
Ok, serously I am sane
But I think this particular subject is proving a serious issue and it is not 'simples'.
I work in an industry where many technical papers are written, published and presented at conferences.
People allow their work to be openly scrutinised and have to justify their claims.
Many of these papers published by people far higher educated than most hi-fi journalist and sales/pr people and they make simple errors, we all do, that can be spotted by people less well educated. They make errors and simple incorrect assumptions.
Even at a presentation of a study, a lecturer whom held a doctorate in his field, made a statement as if a fact and was challenged and had to enter into a discussion with the questioner, he was wrong.
BUT it is discussed it is not left to the consumer to be duped or mislead and left to check by using 'their own eyes' with all the errors that this introduces.
When scientific tests are done on these leads and 'measurements independent of the human eye and brain are used and find no difference, the journalistic industry ignore it.
They should be our first line of defence in the world of marketing and self promotion.
They should be protecting us and using their contacts to get to the truth.
Now the counter argument is that the people technically explaining what HDMI is and how it works are wrong but where are the counter arguments at a technical level?
HDMI is not a 'black art' and is not open to the vagaries of analogue speaker and interconnects science.
For evil to prosper it only takes good people to do to do nothing, a little dramatic I know but it sums it all up.
People are lead to believe that they would see improvements by spending 100's of pounds on HDMI and its seems to be that the journalists and happy to say quietly well a fool and his money are...
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 19
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram