Can anybody tell me if there is any real difference between the cheaper HDMI leads rather than the more expensive branded ones or are they all about the same in perfomance? Your experiences will save me alot of hassle & cash.
HDMI LEADS
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
professorhat
Well-known member
Touchy subject my friend. Let it be said, I think there is (knowing what I do about the transfer of digital material and the experience I have personally) and others don't (but don't expect any evidence for this).
My advice, have a look through this recent thread and make your own mind up.
My advice, have a look through this recent thread and make your own mind up.
I suspect that the majority of the "science" is utter bolleaux. How can cables (without any diodes or other PN junctions) be directional when copper is a polycrystaline metal ? Maybe they factory shouts instructions to the atoms during the manufacturing process to only form crystals in a certain plane.
Some cables claim to offer improved performance as the copper cores are silver plated which may be all of a few thousand atoms thick. Maybe the salesman can sell me some magic beans too
As long as the copper cores are good and thick and the cable is as short as possible with proper shielding then very little else matters.
..................tin hat on, incoming rocks expected any moment now
Some cables claim to offer improved performance as the copper cores are silver plated which may be all of a few thousand atoms thick. Maybe the salesman can sell me some magic beans too
As long as the copper cores are good and thick and the cable is as short as possible with proper shielding then very little else matters.
..................tin hat on, incoming rocks expected any moment now
FlyingScot's tin hat comment is spot on - these kind of discussions usually degenerate into 'believers' vs 'non-believers' arguments.
What I would say is that there's a lot of clever (marketing) use of science with cables - for instance talking about how your analogue audio interconnects improve skin effect (vs a competitor's product). Skin effect is a real, quantifiable, issue. However, it's only really relevant if you're transmitting MHz frequencies over miles, not KHz frequencies over feet. I.e. they're not lying, but the info isn't important for home audio use.
I'm not familiar with the details of the HDMI spec (how the data is actually transmitted in the cable) but as a general rule, digital connections/formats tend to either work, or the image/sound breaks up completely.
My advice would be to get a decently made cable at a price you're happy with, and use it. If you see/try something exotic that you really want, and feel you're getting a benefit, that's fine - it's your money after all.
Even though I know (from using a whole variety of analysers where I work) that cable differences are at best marginal (often imaginary) it doesn't stop me wanting the fancy stuff - I'm susceptible to human desires just like everyone else!
What I would say is that there's a lot of clever (marketing) use of science with cables - for instance talking about how your analogue audio interconnects improve skin effect (vs a competitor's product). Skin effect is a real, quantifiable, issue. However, it's only really relevant if you're transmitting MHz frequencies over miles, not KHz frequencies over feet. I.e. they're not lying, but the info isn't important for home audio use.
I'm not familiar with the details of the HDMI spec (how the data is actually transmitted in the cable) but as a general rule, digital connections/formats tend to either work, or the image/sound breaks up completely.
My advice would be to get a decently made cable at a price you're happy with, and use it. If you see/try something exotic that you really want, and feel you're getting a benefit, that's fine - it's your money after all.
Even though I know (from using a whole variety of analysers where I work) that cable differences are at best marginal (often imaginary) it doesn't stop me wanting the fancy stuff - I'm susceptible to human desires just like everyone else!
It looks like it's the same old story with the HDMI leads as it was with the old gold plated scarts then. I remember the bloke from CURRYS trying to sell me 2 for £25 each when I bought my CRT. I told him where to stick em & went to Poundstretcher & got 2 for a fiver. New technology, same high street retailer salesmanship techniques then.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
The best solution - as with anything AV - is to try it for yourself, and trust your own eyes and ears. If the cable manufacturer/dealer doesn't offer money-back guarantee, go to someone that does - there are plenty that offer home trials.
skr1
Well-known member
daves:
It looks like it's the same old story with the HDMI leads as it was with the old gold plated scarts then. I remember the bloke from CURRYS trying to sell me 2 for £25 each when I bought my CRT. I told him where to stick em & went to Poundstretcher & got 2 for a fiver. New technology, same high street retailer salesmanship techniques then.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
I rember a side by side test on scarts in shop same tv,dvd player,dvd playing.Different scart price and qual
you could clearly see a difference.
It looks like it's the same old story with the HDMI leads as it was with the old gold plated scarts then. I remember the bloke from CURRYS trying to sell me 2 for £25 each when I bought my CRT. I told him where to stick em & went to Poundstretcher & got 2 for a fiver. New technology, same high street retailer salesmanship techniques then.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
I rember a side by side test on scarts in shop same tv,dvd player,dvd playing.Different scart price and qual
you could clearly see a difference.
skr1:daves:
It looks like it's the same old story with the HDMI leads as it was with the old gold plated scarts then. I remember the bloke from CURRYS trying to sell me 2 for £25 each when I bought my CRT. I told him where to stick em & went to Poundstretcher & got 2 for a fiver. New technology, same high street retailer salesmanship techniques then.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
I rember a side by side test on scarts in shop same tv,dvd player,dvd playing.Different scart price and qual
you could clearly see a difference.
Now I completly agree with the Scart cable differance as do I with any other cable used to transfer analog information, but even then the end results are also largely down to the rest of your equipment. But the arguement regarding HDMI cables is a very differant one all togher and I can see why there are "believers" and "non-believers" in a more expensive HDMI cable when theoretically a Digital conection between 2 pieces of Equipment should either work or not.
Now I used QED HDMI-P cables on My PS3, Denon 3930 and Sky HD box, which all work well and the only CHEEP cable I own is he one that came with the Sky HD box ani IMHO the overall picture is more defined and a superiour edge to colour when using the QED cable compared to that of the Sky free-bee. Why? I dont know because both cables are cleraly WORKING, but I can only repoert on what I can clearly see.
But I have also had experience where a HDMI cable did not work as one of my QED cables caused picture break-up, resulting in all I can describe as stabs of white noise on screen.
Right that is My two-pennys worth, now I am ducking for cover in the trenches in fear of retailiating flack!!!!
It looks like it's the same old story with the HDMI leads as it was with the old gold plated scarts then. I remember the bloke from CURRYS trying to sell me 2 for £25 each when I bought my CRT. I told him where to stick em & went to Poundstretcher & got 2 for a fiver. New technology, same high street retailer salesmanship techniques then.
CHEERS all for the replies.
Dave.
I rember a side by side test on scarts in shop same tv,dvd player,dvd playing.Different scart price and qual
you could clearly see a difference.
Now I completly agree with the Scart cable differance as do I with any other cable used to transfer analog information, but even then the end results are also largely down to the rest of your equipment. But the arguement regarding HDMI cables is a very differant one all togher and I can see why there are "believers" and "non-believers" in a more expensive HDMI cable when theoretically a Digital conection between 2 pieces of Equipment should either work or not.
Now I used QED HDMI-P cables on My PS3, Denon 3930 and Sky HD box, which all work well and the only CHEEP cable I own is he one that came with the Sky HD box ani IMHO the overall picture is more defined and a superiour edge to colour when using the QED cable compared to that of the Sky free-bee. Why? I dont know because both cables are cleraly WORKING, but I can only repoert on what I can clearly see.
But I have also had experience where a HDMI cable did not work as one of my QED cables caused picture break-up, resulting in all I can describe as stabs of white noise on screen.
Right that is My two-pennys worth, now I am ducking for cover in the trenches in fear of retailiating flack!!!!
professorhat
Well-known member
D.J.KRIME:when theoretically a Digital conection between 2 pieces of Equipment should either work or not.
Without saying any more, it's because this "theory" of digital connections either working or not is a myth, much like re-gassing plasmas or tea having more caffeine than coffee. The words "packet loss" are common in the IT world and indicate digital data going wayward between source and destination. Computers have error control built in to ensure any lost packets are re-transmitted. In the computing world, these split second delays can be tolerated whilst lost data is re-transmitted, but the same is not so in the music and visual world. Hence, lost data must be "made up" on the fly by error control units built into digital devices and such, we see why better cables equal better picture as less data has to be "made up".
Now I too will don my tin hat and say no more!
Without saying any more, it's because this "theory" of digital connections either working or not is a myth, much like re-gassing plasmas or tea having more caffeine than coffee. The words "packet loss" are common in the IT world and indicate digital data going wayward between source and destination. Computers have error control built in to ensure any lost packets are re-transmitted. In the computing world, these split second delays can be tolerated whilst lost data is re-transmitted, but the same is not so in the music and visual world. Hence, lost data must be "made up" on the fly by error control units built into digital devices and such, we see why better cables equal better picture as less data has to be "made up".
Now I too will don my tin hat and say no more!
Prof, This is why I said Theoretically the cables work or dont as this is the arguement laid by those claiming no differance between a more expensive cable as You or I choose to use, or thoses on EBAY for a fiver for 3 metre length. When a cable fails to work then as I did with My faulty cable you end up with picture break up or no picture at all
Here's a little titbit for you: according to the latest figures from market research company GFK, sales of HDMI cables reached £20m in the last year in the UK (a total of 440,000 cables were sold), which was only £2m less than the value of all Blu-ray players sold. So some customers must be happy
Andy Clough:Here's a little titbit for you: according to the latest figures from market research company GFK, sales of HDMI cables reached £20m in the last year in the UK (a total of 440,000 cables were sold), which was only £2m less than the value of all Blu-ray players sold. So some customers must be happy
I hope this sort of conclusions don't bias you neutrality when reviewing HDMI cables
I hope this sort of conclusions don't bias you neutrality when reviewing HDMI cables
And why would they? No, really, please explain!
We regularly - in the magazine and in these forums - point people in the direction of affordable, great-quality HDMI cables that should suit their system (eg Cambridge Audio HDMI £30; QED HDMI-P £45; Chord Silver Plus HDMI £75 - between that lot, you're addressing needs of all but possibly the highest-end systems/requirements).
We also - as I have in this very thread - stress the need for people to see/hear for themselves.
We regularly - in the magazine and in these forums - point people in the direction of affordable, great-quality HDMI cables that should suit their system (eg Cambridge Audio HDMI £30; QED HDMI-P £45; Chord Silver Plus HDMI £75 - between that lot, you're addressing needs of all but possibly the highest-end systems/requirements).
We also - as I have in this very thread - stress the need for people to see/hear for themselves.
Andy Clough:sales of HDMI cables reached £20m in the last year in the UK (a total of 440,000 cables were sold)
So an average of about £45 a pop, then...
So an average of about £45 a pop, then...
Andrew Everard:Edited: please do not discuss moderation in the Forums
Again edited: please do not discuss moderation in the Forums
Again edited: please do not discuss moderation in the Forums
Rulez iz rulez mate and everyone else manages to happily obide buy them on here, so GET OVER IT ALLREADY!!
professorhat:...The words "packet loss" are common in the IT world and indicate digital data going wayward between source and destination. Computers have error control built in to ensure any lost packets are re-transmitted. In the computing world, these split second delays can be tolerated whilst lost data is re-transmitted, but the same is not so in the music and visual world. Hence, lost data must be "made up" on the fly by error control units built into digital devices and such, we see why better cables equal better picture as less data has to be "made up".
Now I too will don my tin hat and say no more!
Well, yes.. no.. sort of
Speaking in general terms about data transmission (again not specific to HDMI, as I haven't read the details of the spec yet):
If the bit error rate is within the capabilities of the algorithm used for error correction, then the reconstructed data will be exactly what was transmitted. I.e. no loss at all.
If the bit error rate exceeds the error correction capabilities, then reconstruction would be fraught with danger. Even for the simple case of PCM audio, just inserting values could cause a high frequency step in the signal, which wouldn't do your speakers much good once decoded to analogue and amplified. More likely, the bad packets would just be dropped.
Some intelligence (e.g. interpolation) could be applied, and for moderate error rates I'd expect this to be inaudible/invisible (or cause a tiny 'pop'). Note that by this I mean a rare occurrence of the error rate going beyond what could be corrected. Therefore the 'error' that's seen/heard by the user would be a tiny, transient, issue, that would be so quick it's exceptionally unlikely to be noticed.
If however the bit error rate continued to be beyond what could be corrected, then the image/sound would corrupt and breakup, and would be obviously failing.
My point here is that either:
* You get a correctable error -> user sees/hears nothing wrong
* You get a transient uncorrectable error -> user sees/hears minor 'tick', or likely nothing
* You get lots of uncorrectable errors -> it all goes Pete Tong; cable is faulty!
What you don't get is a mild degradation, whereby the sound/image quality is slightly less 'good'.
Tin hat applied here too!
EDIT: Fixed weird formatting
Now I too will don my tin hat and say no more!
Well, yes.. no.. sort of
Speaking in general terms about data transmission (again not specific to HDMI, as I haven't read the details of the spec yet):
If the bit error rate is within the capabilities of the algorithm used for error correction, then the reconstructed data will be exactly what was transmitted. I.e. no loss at all.
If the bit error rate exceeds the error correction capabilities, then reconstruction would be fraught with danger. Even for the simple case of PCM audio, just inserting values could cause a high frequency step in the signal, which wouldn't do your speakers much good once decoded to analogue and amplified. More likely, the bad packets would just be dropped.
Some intelligence (e.g. interpolation) could be applied, and for moderate error rates I'd expect this to be inaudible/invisible (or cause a tiny 'pop'). Note that by this I mean a rare occurrence of the error rate going beyond what could be corrected. Therefore the 'error' that's seen/heard by the user would be a tiny, transient, issue, that would be so quick it's exceptionally unlikely to be noticed.
If however the bit error rate continued to be beyond what could be corrected, then the image/sound would corrupt and breakup, and would be obviously failing.
My point here is that either:
* You get a correctable error -> user sees/hears nothing wrong
* You get a transient uncorrectable error -> user sees/hears minor 'tick', or likely nothing
* You get lots of uncorrectable errors -> it all goes Pete Tong; cable is faulty!
What you don't get is a mild degradation, whereby the sound/image quality is slightly less 'good'.
Tin hat applied here too!
EDIT: Fixed weird formatting
Anyone got/tried the platinum cables from HDCable (http://www.hdcable.co.uk)?
Specs look impressive but as we all know that can mean diddly squat.
Cheap too, 3m = £25
Specs look impressive but as we all know that can mean diddly squat.
Cheap too, 3m = £25
Hi to all who have posted on this subject. I guess i'll just have to trust my gut on this & see how i get on.
Thanks & to all those who disagree on the Scart thing, I didn't mean to suggest that all salespeople adopt that particular attitude towards their customers. Sorry.
I'LL GET ME COAT.
Thanks & to all those who disagree on the Scart thing, I didn't mean to suggest that all salespeople adopt that particular attitude towards their customers. Sorry.
I'LL GET ME COAT.
mmmmmmh, should I buy oxygen free cables that use cheap nitrogen or the more expensive argon filling
sorry, I was having a troll moment.
sorry, I was having a troll moment.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram