HDMI Leads exposed

[admin_exported]

Ok all, I'm setting the wolves among the dear.

Have a look at this link and make your own minds up.....

Can't wait to see the response. http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv

 

[bob.g]

Good post, interesting video.

I wonder how long this thread will get ?

 

[nads]

WOW real good testing. what was that adaptor they fitted to the ends?

and the viewing was that really a FULL HD transmission?

and real good sales people.

 

[Anonymous]

Well they are American. They usually struggle to work out which side to shoot in a war.

Interesting none the less. Does it boil down to you pay more for better quality materials, but maybe you don't need materials to be that good?

 

[Anonymous]

barnsleydave: Well they are American. They usually struggle to work out which side to shoot in a war.

America has annexed Canada! I need to watch the news more often.

 

[Anonymous]

that test was bogus , it was a fake , everybody knows why cnn would want to prove there is no difference between cables of varying prices , everyone knows it i say everyone..............

 

[scene]

Well, the guy said, "We price them at $39.99 for a reason ... they're rubbish"

I think he was unfair. The price was the ct@p thing. So what I'd like to see is one of the respected manufacturers put their mouths where our money is and get an independent body to do a full-on technical test to compare their hdmi cables with the £4.99 one (you know whose they are) to prove their claims.

I agree that:

• They may be made of better materials
• They may well last longer, because the plugs are better made, etc
• They may well have better connections in the plug (better soldered?)
• They may be better shielded, so less outside interference

But can they prove we're not just buying the name. Time for a consumer challenge - wonder which cable manufacturer would be prepared to take it.

(BTW WHF: I'm not saying your not independent - but I believe you test cables subjectively by viewing / listening, not plugging them in to objective test rigs, please forgive me if that is not the case

)

 

[idc]

The science part with the testing of the cables basically said bit to bit and in terms of colour and resolution the cables transmitted the same information. There was no mention of jitter, which is the one area where there really could be a measurable difference. The rest of the test was poor. A bunch of guys watching an ice hockey game, on two TVs in the same room at the same time. They are not going to be looking or listening (or with all the other goings on, including drinking) to be able to properly judge the sound or picture in any detail.

 

[scene]

idc:The science part with the testing of the cables basically said bit to bit and in terms of colour and resolution the cables transmitted the same information. There was no mention of jitter, which is the one area where there really could be a measurable difference. The rest of the test was poor. A bunch of guys watching an ice hockey game, on two TVs in the same room at the same time. They are not going to be looking or listening (or with all the other goings on, including drinking) to be able to properly judge the sound or picture in any detail.

Fair comment. I thought jitter was more a function of the source and its clock accuracy than the transmission media?

I agree, the "sitting in the guy's lounge cracking a few tins" hardly makes for an objective test, hence my comment above...

 

[Anonymous]

jitter leads to pixel errors,
loss of audio and visual artifacts such as snow and streaks across the
screen...i dont remember anyone on the video mentioning any of
the above ???

 

[Gerrardasnails]

scene:
Well, the guy said, "We price them at $39.99 for a reason ... they're rubbish"

I think he was unfair. The price was the ct@p thing. So what I'd like to see is one of the respected manufacturers put their mouths where our money is and get an independent body to do a full-on technical test to compare their hdmi cables with the £4.99 one (you know whose they are) to prove their claims.

I agree that:

• They may be made of better materials
• They may well last longer, because the plugs are better made, etc
• They may well have better connections in the plug (better soldered?)
• They may be better shielded, so less outside interference

But can they prove we're not just buying the name. Time for a consumer challenge - wonder which cable manufacturer would be prepared to take it.

(BTW WHF: I'm not saying your not independent - but I believe you test cables subjectively by viewing / listening, not plugging them in to objective test rigs, please forgive me if that is not the case

)

Again, fairly solid proof with hdmi is the recent readers hdmi test where all of them noticed differences. I've been on the sofa and I know that it's all done perfectly fairly. I didn't like (at all) the budget Nad duo that the mag has raved about - I wasn't told off for saying so.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL, again, that's the second time today I've had to wipe the tears away.

Merge me thinks.... please.

One things for sure, it doesn't matter what side of the pond your on... commission rules.

 

[idc]

A friend who knows about cables and engineering and stuff was over at the weekend. I put to my what I know about jitter and his comment was that it made sense. He knows that limited bandwidth in a cable can round the edges of the square wave that represents the 1s and 0s. Apparently that is more so at higher frequencies. That causes tiny delays in the timing of the signal at the receiver as high frequenices can be delayed. This is accounted for in his field of work through buffering and accurate clocking. But he also has very large budgets, high specs and product hardening to work to as there is a military application to the work. That would make his cables expensive if it came to the company switching to hifi! But, it does not mean they would be any better than a cheaper cable made of cheaper parts.

That is because of another issue he raised, which is touched upon in the programme; build quality. Primary to that is the point the cable connects to the connector. The soldering has to be very precise. In military applications they are still allowed lead in solder, which is nolonger allowed in the EU for hifi. No lead can mean tin whiskers or tiny cracks which, along with poor quality soldering causes resistence. That in itself can cause jitter. We did not get round to how optical cables are put together. For his work jitter is not that important so long as any information transmission arrives in tact and in the right order.

But, no matter the cable it would appear from that programme and my mates experience, more expensive does not necessarily mean better. (His company makes their own cables from scratch to their own specifications). However, there is no doubt that cables can affect jitter. To whaty extent that is audible of visible is another issue.

 

[Anonymous]

Please, enough of the jitter.

 

[Anonymous]

maxflinn:that test was bogus , it was a fake , everybody knows why cnn would want to prove there is no difference between cables of varying prices , everyone knows it i say everyone..............
er , anyone ??

 

[bigboss]

Personally, I haven't found any difference between the free Sky HDMI cable, £4.99 HDMI from ThatCable & £40 QED performance HDMI. I've recently subscribed to the What Hi-Fi mag. I'll replace the Sky freebie cable with the Chord Supershield HDMI (free gift for subscribing) when it arrives. I'll see if there's any difference (I seriously doubt so).

All these tests don't really matter if the end user finds a difference between the HDMI cables or doesn't find any. Jitter, if any any, should be perceptible enough to actually notice a difference.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:The science part with the testing of the cables basically said bit to bit and in terms of colour and resolution the cables transmitted the same information. There was no mention of jitter, which is the one area where there really could be a measurable difference.

HDMI 1.3 compliance testing includes testing clock jitter at the source and jitter tolerance at the sink. It has a whole series of jitter tests to ensure there is not excessive jitter at the signal source. Then a whole series of worst case jitter tests for the sink receiving the signal to ensure it can cope with more jitter than the source if it meets spec should ever be creating. So there is a built in margin of safety beyond worst case. If you are still concerned about jitter over hdmi, audio rate control HDMI V1.3A p111 section 7.1, enables the player to be slaved to the receivers dac clock. Different manufactures sometimes call this HATS or PQLS.

Jitter is well known to the designers of the hdmi specification and compliance standards. Any problems with jitter are probably down to the design not meeting the standards or poor quality control. If everything meets the spec it should be a non-issue.

Tekronix sells test rigs and software and have online downloadable manuals, guides, etc... for people employed in compliance testing. The hdmi standards can be downloaded from hdmi.org, but are a dull read hdmi 1.3 standard is 237 pages.

 

[Anonymous]

So let me say this... For the people who think they can see a difference.

Even if you can see a difference it must be so so so so so small that electronic testing and side by side testing cant see a difference, then why pay 300.00 for 1 cable instead of 12.00.

Thats like me buying my diamond 9.1's for 99.00 and then the sales man saying we have these other speakers for 300.00 but they are the same build quality and same spec and then he plugs it in, and I cant really hear a difference,, Why spend that much money, is what I am tring to ask.

There are people saying yes there is a difference and experts who are saying no, so if you want better build, why not spend 30.00 on a chord instead of 300.00 on some sort of reference series.

But then again, if you are spending 4000.00 on a TV and each of your speakers cost 10,000 then maybe you have money to burn which most of us dont, and I think that program was based on normal people who have normal jobs, and cant really afford 269.00 on a monster cable, and yes we should be happy with a normal 12.99 cable. . .. Its all about the hard sell EH!

Oh and I think someone mentioned that americans are like that with sales.... Try Canada.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a lot to be said for the placebo effect, you tell yourself that the image has improved, HDMI cables also carry sound! Both will be affected by using different cables. Over the last 10 years since I started in the cable business there are the doubters and the believers, we live in a democracy where we can all offer our opinions and comments and are entitled to our say.

Different HDMI cables do make a difference. You would not normally do this but if you cut them open as I have you will see how striking the construction quality can differ with regards to shielding and cable thickness inside. Some use individual wires only a few microns thick, and believe me they are microns, exceedingly thin!

I personally use Mark Grant's HDMI cables and have done for years, and yes I did cut his open with the first one I got, exceedingly well made and for the money IMO un-beatable. Of course there are others which will be as good but there is nothing better than a personal recommendation is there?

PR: wait...

I: wait...

L: wait...

LD: wait...

I: wait...wait...

Rank: wait...

Traffic: wait...

Price: wait...

C: wait...

 

[Anonymous]

can i change my name , to mains cables are not us

what larks eh .....

 

[Anonymous]

we live in a democracy where we can all offer our opinions and comments and are entitled to our say.

PR: wait...

I: wait...

L: wait...

LD: wait...

I: wait...wait...

Rank: wait...

Traffic: wait...

Price: wait...

C: wait...

 

[Andrew Everard]

And indeed to put a whole load of HTML rubbish in every post we make, however nasty it looks...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:And indeed to put a whole load of HTML rubbish in every post we make, however nasty it looks...

The quality of HTML can't vary - it's only 1s and 0s

 

[Anonymous]

Depends if you are willing to pay for over-engineered products. Things like superior shielding and superior durability could be beneficial in some circumstances.

Over-engineering is good it is the path to perfection. If I fly in a plane or live in a skyscraper I want it over-engineered just incase there are a series of unforeseen events, that would otherwise compromise a perfectly safe working design. Over-engineered products can usually be measured and demonstrated to be superior. But I do not see how over-engineering a hdmi cable improves performance, the player, cable and receiver already have built in safety margins which should ensure perfect error free performance, increasing the margin does not improve performance.

A cable with a better waveform is easier to lock on to especially over long cable runs, but as long as the receiver can lock on to the signal does it matter. If everything is to spec there should not be a problem but hdmi 1.3 introduced pre-emphasis at the player and cable equalization circuits at the receiver creating a larger safety margin to reduce problems with some combinations and long cable runs. If signal lock is not achieved or fails then the effect is obvious. A cable with a better waveform is less likely to cause the receiver to mis-read the signal and have bit-errors. But the point of the digital signal is robustness the easy in which it can be read and BCH error correction encoding gives a margin of safety that protects data integrity even if some ones and zeros are mis-read. If data integrity is lost the effects are again obvious. A cable with less jitter is better but since timing information is buffered and re-clocked and the standards include a safety margin, it is just increasing this margin of safety. It is the re-clocking at the receiver that should determine performance with jitter far below perceivable. If you want the theoretical best solution for jitter then HDMI 1.3 introduced audio rate control which locks the player to the receivers clock and completely avoids the need to buffer and re-clock. Even this solution will have jitter it just ensures you only have jitter from the receivers clock, with no possibility of jitter from the player.

 

[idc]

Knightout and mains-cables-r-us, you both speak of construction and that tallys with what my engineering mate said; so long as it is make well and to spec it will work as well as any other similar cable. But not all cables are the same and some freebies are of no specific origin and are not well made.

Ironically, it come to the point where it would not matter what cable is used as the receiver can deal with all amounts of jitter, whether that is cable induced or not. Benchmark with their DACs state as such due to their jitter rejection. How far such technology will be taken up by all manufacturers is another matter.

I think that there is a case for a better cable. But I also think many cables targetted at the audiophile and AV enthusiast are grossly over priced. I will certainly not be buying Monster cables after seeing that programme. A ThatCable HDMI will do for me.