Kogan challenges Currys & John Lewis regarding HDMI cables

[Alec]

Horizon will tonight examine the idea that colour perception is dependant on age, mood etc. And we often have different perceptions and/or tolerances for colours, light, sound if ill.

Subjective reviews then - totally useless unless we can remove all those variables.

Why Planes Crash is on NatGeo tonight – doesn't mean Heathrow will be deserted in the morning.

I shouldn't think knowing why planes crash would put anyone off flying. That they do crash would be the issue.

 

[Andrew Everard]

That they do crash would be the issue.

But everyone knows that they do, occasionally. Which is odd: you'd think that all being certified to fly, they'd all either work or fail totally, and that the ones that crashed would all crash in the same way. But they don't – there are lots of different ways...

 

[bigboss]

The only way it'll work is by inviting an audience of, say, 20 & find out the percentage of people able to correctly identify the cables.

Nah, statistically insignificant – you need at least 200, or even better 2000.

That's true......but looking at the practicalities (i.e size of the demo rooms at WHF when I visited), 20 is more feasible.

 

[bigboss]

That they do crash would be the issue.

But everyone knows that they do, occasionally. Which is odd: you'd think that all being certified to fly, they'd all either work or fail totally, and that the ones that crashed would all crash in the same way. But they don't – there are lots of different ways...

Ah, but the pilots or the planes are not digital, are they?

 

[Lee H]

That they do crash would be the issue.

But everyone knows that they do, occasionally. Which is odd: you'd think that all being certified to fly, they'd all either work or fail totally, and that the ones that crashed would all crash in the same way. But they don't – there are lots of different ways...

Ah, but the pilots or the planes are not digital, are they?

But the plane either arrives or it doesn't. It can't partly arrive, or with more presence

 

[Anonymous]

The only way it'll work is by inviting an audience of, say, 20 & find out the percentage of people able to correctly identify the cables.

Nah, statistically insignificant – you need at least 200, or even better 2000.

That's true......but looking at the practicalities (i.e size of the demo rooms at WHF when I visited), 20 is more feasible.

I wonder what method the industry standard guys use to test HDMI cables? I really do think that the key to all of this is to ascertain whether or not they are competent enough to identify cables that are substandard.

It doesn't look that way given how many fully endorsed cables fail to meet What Hifis standards.

 

[Clare Newsome]

I think you're missing the point - this was cables apparently submitted by a professional installer for testing to these labs. Products that were commercially available on the market (ie HDMI specified) that behaved very differently and were built very differently.

I thought it would be of interest to the people suggesting that all cables - if carrying the HDMI logo - were essentially the same. This article would suggest not.

It also contests the assumption, made by some, that 'HDMI cables either work or they don't' - that can vary on the system they're being used in.

This would appear to suggest that one of them did not work.

However, the one that failed used a very thin solid gauge wire size for the HDCP/EDID channel compared with the cable that worked. The HDCP/EDID wires within the cable that failed are at least two times smaller in diameter than the one that worked

Read it again - the one that 'failed' only did so in a certain system; it worked fine in another:

"When tested with one TV, however, only one of the cables worked, but with another TV they both worked."

Fair enough. Still, a rare example i should imagine. I am still concerned that any cables reviewed that got less than top marks must have been wrongly endorsed, presuming What Hifis assessment of them was correct.

This casts doubt over those that endorse these cables as 100% capable.

I've personally encountered cables that work with one product but not another, too - but then i'm a projector user, and HDMI performance at longer lengths can be a tricky.

Re the endorsement issue, here's one manufacturer's take on it:

"Real world variation and tolerances may mean that a cable produced to simply ‘meet’ the specification on paper, may not actually comply every time in production. Similarly, both electronic display and source equipment will experience some variation in production and may also suffer some degradation of their performances over time. This means it’s not enough for a cable to merely meet the required specifications, it always needs to exceed them.

Unfortunately, these are not the only factors that contribute to poor performance. Poor choice of materials, imprecise control of cable geometries during manufacture, as well as physical imperfections and construction tolerances are all sources of error which can degrade performance, even after the original design has been passed as adequate."

That's from QED - full text here.

 

[bigboss]

That they do crash would be the issue.

But everyone knows that they do, occasionally. Which is odd: you'd think that all being certified to fly, they'd all either work or fail totally, and that the ones that crashed would all crash in the same way. But they don't – there are lots of different ways...

Ah, but the pilots or the planes are not digital, are they?

But the plane either arrives or it doesn't. It can't partly arrive, or with more presence

:rofl:

 

[Andrew Everard]

That's true......but looking at the practicalities (i.e size of the demo rooms at WHF when I visited), 20 is more feasible.

You didn't get shown The Big Room, then?

 

[Lee H]

I wonder what method the industry standard guys use to test HDMI cables? I really do think that the key to all of this is to ascertain whether or not they are competent enough to identify cables that are substandard.

It doesn't look that way given how many fully endorsed cables fail to meet What Hifis standards.

And so the record returns to the start. The only person that has said "sub standard" is you.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you're missing the point - this was cables apparently submitted by a professional installer for testing to these labs. Products that were commercially available on the market (ie HDMI specified) that behaved very differently and were built very differently.

I thought it would be of interest to the people suggesting that all cables - if carrying the HDMI logo - were essentially the same. This article would suggest not.

It also contests the assumption, made by some, that 'HDMI cables either work or they don't' - that can vary on the system they're being used in.

This would appear to suggest that one of them did not work.

However, the one that failed used a very thin solid gauge wire size for the HDCP/EDID channel compared with the cable that worked. The HDCP/EDID wires within the cable that failed are at least two times smaller in diameter than the one that worked

Read it again - the one that 'failed' only did so in a certain system; it worked fine in another:

"When tested with one TV, however, only one of the cables worked, but with another TV they both worked."

Fair enough. Still, a rare example i should imagine. I am still concerned that any cables reviewed that got less than top marks must have been wrongly endorsed, presuming What Hifis assessment of them was correct.

This casts doubt over those that endorse these cables as 100% capable.

I've personally encountered cables that work with one product but not another, too - but then i'm a projector user, and HDMI performance at longer lengths can be a tricky.

Re the endorsement issue, here's one manufacturer's take on it:

"Real world variation and tolerances may mean that a cable produced to simply ‘meet’ the specification on paper, may not actually comply every time in production. Similarly, both electronic display and source equipment will experience some variation in production and may also suffer some degradation of their performances over time. This means it’s not enough for a cable to merely meet the required specifications, it always needs to exceed them.

Unfortunately, these are not the only factors that contribute to poor performance. Poor choice of materials, imprecise control of cable geometries during manufacture, as well as physical imperfections and construction tolerances are all sources of error which can degrade performance, even after the original design has been passed as adequate."

That's from QED - full text here.

With respect, i really wouldn't lend any credence whatsoever to anything a cable manufacturer states. They have an obvious vested interest. I would be far more interested to hear from those that endorse the cables, as it is their competence that's inadvertently being questioned by the amount of substandard cables you guys are reviewing.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder what method the industry standard guys use to test HDMI cables? I really do think that the key to all of this is to ascertain whether or not they are competent enough to identify cables that are substandard.

It doesn't look that way given how many fully endorsed cables fail to meet What Hifis standards.

And so the record returns to the start. The only person that has said "sub standard" is you.

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

 

[Andrew Everard]

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

Disappointing.

Oh, and

Ah, but the pilots or the planes are not digital, are they?

Are you trying to tell me they're analogue, and use valves? You can't fool me – I watch Why Planes Crash and Aircrash Investigation.

And

But the plane either arrives or it doesn't. It can't partly arrive, or with more presence

Having travelled longhaul on numerous occasions for family Christmas/New Year celebrations, I can bear witness to the fact it's possible for a plane to arrive at its destination with less presents than you had at check-in.

 

[Clare Newsome]

With respect, i really wouldn't lend any credence whatsoever to anything a cable manufacturer states. They have an obvious vested interest.

And yet here we all are on a thread generated due to a statement from... a cable manufacturer.

 

[Anonymous]

With respect, i really wouldn't lend any credence whatsoever to anything a cable manufacturer states. They have an obvious vested interest.

And yet here we all are on a thread generated due to a statement from... a cable manufacturer.

Indeed, a cable manufacturer who claims that spending any more than £4 on a HDMI cable is folly. Who better to know?

 

[Lee H]

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

Simply as 2 star. The same way I wouldn't call a 2 star hotel substandard.

 

[bigboss]

That's true......but looking at the practicalities (i.e size of the demo rooms at WHF when I visited), 20 is more feasible.

You didn't get shown The Big Room, then?

No I wasn't shown the garage for trucks (The Big Room)! All sorted now......when do we send the invites & test?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I shouldn't think knowing why planes crash would put anyone off flying. That they do crash would be the issue.

I'm not so sure. Planes don't crash of their own accord, it's usually down to human error in one way or another. Once you know some of the silly reasons why planes have crashed in the past, I would say that's enough to put people off.

 

[Anonymous]

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

Simply as 2 star. The same way I wouldn't call a 2 star hotel substandard.

With respect, that's another pointless analogy, if the cable in question was deemed to be good enough to gain an endorsment for public sale, then why was it found to be a poor product by reviewers? Both simply cannot be right.

 

[Lee H]

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

Simply as 2 star. The same way I wouldn't call a 2 star hotel substandard.

With respect, that's another pointless analogy, if the cable in question was deemed to be good enough to gain an endorsment for public sale, then why was it found to be a poor product by reviewers? Both simply cannot be right.

Again - just becuase it meets a minimum standard, that doesn't mean that something else can't be better than it

 

[margetti]

Both simply cannot be right.

Why not?

Anyone who had to go through the rather pointless ISO 9001 certification process in the 90's will appreciate that meeting a "standard" doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

 

[Lee H]

Indeed, a cable manufacturer who claims that spending any more than £4 on a HDMI cable is folly. Who better to know?

I saw a cable for £1.49 today. Why am I being forced to pay £4 then?!? It's plainly a rip-off

 

[Anonymous]

How would you describe a 2 star HDMI cable if not substandard?

Simply as 2 star. The same way I wouldn't call a 2 star hotel substandard.

With respect, that's another pointless analogy, if the cable in question was deemed to be good enough to gain an endorsment for public sale, then why was it found to be a poor product by reviewers? Both simply cannot be right.

Again - just becuase it meets a minimum standard, that doesn't mean that something else can't be better than it

I beg to differ, an endorsment for public sale means a product is able to meet it's requirements 100%. Otherwise it would be deemed unfit for sale. Do you know of a HDMI cable that can give more than 100% performance?

 

[Andrew Everard]

This thread has failed the 'going anywhere' test entirely. Time to lock it.