HDMI leads...

[admin_exported]

Hi,

I'm an occasional reader of the magasine, and usually only buy copies when i'm in the need to purchase some AV equipment. After reading the latest issue I was somewhat amazed at the shameless plugging of expensive HDMI leads, in particular QED performance range. Are QED paying backhanders for the privalidge?

In particular I am refering to the review on page 18 which states "If your willing to spend a few more pounds on the likes of QED performance HDMI, you'll get a clearer image with superior insight".

How on earth can one cable conducting a digital (binary) signal give a clearer image than another? The image/resolution either exists or it does'nt. If it does'nt and the cable is damaged etc then digital artifacts would clearly be seen and the cable should be junked. I can understand paying more for a cable in terms of better qualilty componants, but only in the sense that it would last longer and not degrade over time. A cheap cable, providing it is manufactured to meets the relevent HDMI specification (i.e. 1.0, 1.2 or 1.3 etc) will provide EXACTLY the same image as an expensive one - it may not last as long, but it will NOT effect image quality.a

Just reading this one review has put me off. If the so called experts can get this wrong then I have to call into question the entire magasines content.

 

[VoodooDoctor]

Do a search of the forums, there are hundreds of posts debating HDMI cables, mains cables, interconnects and speaker wire.

Some people believe, some don't - in the end, it all boils down to auditioning to see if you can tell the difference.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Did someone say something...........

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

I'm polishing my electricity right now but I'll try and answer properly later.ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

pdw709:I'm an occasional reader of the magasine, and usually only buy copies when i'm in the need to purchase some AV equipment. After reading the latest issue I was somewhat amazed at the shameless plugging of expensive HDMI leads, in particular QED performance range. Are QED paying backhanders for the privalidge?

I can only echo the other posts on this thread suggesting you search for other threads on HDMI - the subject's been discussed extensively on here - and state categorically that no one on the magazine is taking backhanders.

That's a pretty serious allegation to make in your first ever post on these forums.

 

[RodhasGibson]

And if I were you Andrew I would make it his Last. Surely you don"t have to put up with remarks such as that. [that makes it one a month since Dec 08.]

 

[aliEnRIK]

I agree that what the OP put was well out of order with no evidence to back it up with

But it DOES go to show what a sticking point this 'digital cable' debate is

I for one am still waiting to see the results of blind tests that Claire did say was coming at some point (To at least 'indicate' theres something in it)

Personally I KNOW through personal use that they make a difference (No other reasons). But id love SOMEONE to make a bit of a breakthrough for it

 

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:I agree that what the OP put was well out of order with no evidence to back it up with

Indeed, jumping in shooting from the hip is perhaps not the best way to gain a sympathetic ear.

aliEnRIK:But it DOES go to show what a sticking point this 'digital cable' debate is

Possibly because the notion that two digital cables both performing to specification can give qualitatively different results is counter intuitive.

aliEnRIK:Personally I KNOW through personal use that they make a difference (No other reasons). But id love SOMEONE to make a bit of a breakthrough for it

My experience is the opposite of yours, but I respect your view and that of the WHF reviewers. I don't have the set up to do a proper comparative test so I have sought a technical explanation for why cables do differ in the ways described. So far, despite several references to quite informative and interesting articles, nothing that I have been referred to explains the differences reported in reviews. While the reported differences between cables remain based primarily on subjective reporting the debate is likely to continue.

 

[ESP2009]

The original post is something of rant or ill-judged outburst. It makes you wonder exactly what kind of day the 'contributor' has had! To call into question the integrity of the whole magazine and its staff purely based on the much-debated issue of whether different HDMi leads can or cannot improve performance of components is, at best, bad manners. I would hope that the WHF team have sufficient enthusiasm for, and experience of, their field to give an honest opinion based on what they see or hear in their auditioning facility. True, from what we hear, many aspects of the AV world are very subjective, but I feel sure that it is more than the WHF staff's jobs are worth to take back-handers of any kind. Let's face it, they have been very punishing towards products from the biggest of names - equipment far more expensive than mere HDMi leads.

Moreover, the individual posting this thread clearly has used the magazine more than once in the past and probably based purchases on its recommendations with evident satisfaction, otherwise that individual would not buy copies. So, to 'go off on one' over such a topic as the HDMi leads makes one wonder who has been yanking said person's chain.

For my own part, I have no clear opinion on the whole issue of either HDMi interconnects or power supplies. I am no techie, but can see the logic in what is claimed. Better materials and better craftsmanship must almost inevitably improve the end product. Whether the person viewing or listening to that end product is capable of discerning any difference, or whether, indeed, the components themselves benefit is an interesting question. I can well believe that even a series of 1s and 0s travelling along a cable can be affected by its quality. Low quality materials may slow them down or mean that they need to be re-sent or double-checked or whatever. All this may not be blindingly obvious in terms of picture or sound break-up since it happens so quickly, but I am willing to consider the possibility of some form of degradation or lower level of performance, even with binary data. As I say, I am no technological expert, but a lot of people put a lot of time, effort and money into these kind of things. Is it purely to pull the wool over our eyes and ears? Is it to fuel debate and provide fodder for those who like a good rant? I doubt it.

It would be nice to see this issue put to bed once and for all, but I doubt this will be altogether possible. The human eyes, ears and brains are strange things, particularly when applied to this area of interest. AV equipment, too, is complex and varied enough that however you link it all together and present it to an audience in whatever setting, no two people are likely to see or hear the same thing. No, I suspect that people will agree to disagree on this particular subject for some time to come...just as long as they do it politely, eh?

Oh, and please PDW709, if you bother to post a topic, the least you can do is ensure your spelling is checked. Thank you and goodnight.

 

[kena]

Amazing post. Can't wait till you want help! or are you just a wind up merchant surely ur a day late?? or even worse someone who takes the Gadget Show seriously.

 

[Alec]

i couldnt care less, and no test will help sway anyone anyway - see all the other such threads to find out why.

just pay what you feel you can afford for one, do the odd home comparison if you can/really must - there are plenty of ways of geting cables for such a test.

Then remember, kids, it just doesnt matter, and is really rather boring.

the idea of the mag taking back-handers is simply not worth anyone's time (...oh, wait...damn).

 

[Anonymous]

If any manufacturers out there want their cables, electricity etc plugging I'd be happy to help. My fees are very reasonable.

 

[D.J.KRIME]

The one thing that does make me laugh with all this argument over any possible benifits of using a more expensive HDMI cable over a cheep one as it digital blah blah blah, is that it is entirley up to you if you wish to pay for the likes of the QED or go onto EBAY and pay a fiver for one. If you believe there to be no benifit in the more expensive cables "cos 0's are 0's and 1' are 1's" then good one you but there is no need to accuse the WHFSV staff of taking bungs!

 

[fido87456]

don't feed the trolls...

 

[Andrew Everard]

fido87456:don't feed the trolls...

No... you think?

 

[Big Aura]

In other forums they have a "Before posting a query about [X], see this FAQ section". Andrew please, for the love of all things electronic, see if the techies can install something.

Everytime I see HDMI in a thread title, my heart sinks.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Big Aura:In other forums they have a "Before posting a query about [X], see this FAQ section". Andrew please, for the love of all things electronic, see if the techies can install something.

Everytime I see HDMI in a thread title, my heart sinks.

I have to say i find that kind of 'before posting, see the FAQ' thing both daunting and off-putting for new members. Like you're saying to people "Don't bother us with your new member questions."

So, no.

 

[Tom Moreno]

beaverme:If any manufacturers out there want their cables, electricity etc plugging I'd be happy to help. My fees are very reasonable.

Mine too! As a matter of fact- just because this is such a sensitive issue that should be explored thoroughly- I'll discount my free offer by 20%.

Seriously though, I'm as happy to have a polarised discussion as the next guy but let us have a bit of decorum, no?

In the meantime, I have to say that I'm not 100% decided on this issue and I have given it some thought. I would suggest that I would really enjoy seeing a blind test that included a broad cross-section of reviewers and enthusiasts that could give us some tangible statistics. I know there was the mention last week of a discussion based feature that included readers and reviewers, and that a few people put forward the question as to whether or not this would be the subject (which was put down quite quickly- but let's see). I think this question would be very interesting indeed to explore in that type of forum. With respect of course.

Tom

 

[rob_981]

I recently removed a long (3m), not too expensive HDMI cable, and inserted a 50cm one bought from Ebay (not a direct replacement - it required exchanging a couple of other cables over). It resulted in the HDMI cables being pretty much the perfect length for my system, whereas before a couple of cables were far too long.

I have noticed a fairly decent improvement in the picture, which appears much less noisy and much sharper. My girlfriend also almost immediately noticed an improvement in the sound.

Now I haven't tried any particularly expensive cables, or even any brand name ones, as all my cables are now quite short (two 50cm ones and a 1m one). But having removed a 3m one and noticed an improvement, I can only conclude that cheap cables are probably not worth it for long runs, as others have suggested on this site. So I would suggest that more expensive cables should at least be auditioned if the cable required is of any decent length.

 

[Tom Moreno]

Yes I would agree with you that once you start getting to 3m+ data loss is very realistic. USB and firewire cables aren't really recommended for lengths over 3m and if you're going over 5 you should always use an active extender to prevent data loss. But I would really like to see if any difference can be seen for .5m and 1m lengths as the transmission of data really shouldn't drop off without exceptionally poor quality copper at these lengths. I do appreciate and very much understand the physical requirement of HDMI is much higher than most data cables do to the bandwidth of uncompressed high definition video data. But again a double blind test of not only cables but also lengths would be a very interesting read. If you could put say even a minimum of 20 people of varied experiential acuteness to test on it you could actually start to reflect some real statistical data.

Furthermore, if (purely hypothetically) it could be proven that the gain/loss at .5m lengths is sufficiently low, imagine how much money one can save in a "typical" setup where one has multiple components connected to an AVR (needing no more than .5m) and a single cable of greater length from the AVR to the display device?

 

[idc]

The HDMI test team reach the inevitable impass and take a break.......................................

 

[ukgthor]

I'm relatively new to the WHF forums, however even I know that the mention of HDMI cables (or power cables for that matter) are extremely sensitive and emotive subjects. My suggestion is to give the subject matter its own dedicated forum so it can be debated outside of these key forums.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, but I can't understand why the subject is so sensitive and emotive. If you think they work, or experience benefits when you try, buy; if you don't, don't.

Simple as...

 

[idc]

ukgthor:

I'm relatively new to the WHF forums, however even I know that the mention of HDMI cables (or power cables for that matter) are extremely sensitive and emotive subjects. My suggestion is to give the subject matter its own dedicated forum so it can be debated outside of these key forums.

I agree, back of the bike shed Monday lunch time. See you there...................................................