Proof that expensive HDMI cables make no difference? Thoughts...

[SouthaK]

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1292371/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-no-difference-the-absolute-proof

So what do we think? Seems quite compelling.

Kevin.

 

[BenLaw]

Interesting read, thanks.

 

[CnoEvil]

As usual, it's all about the picture....HDMI carry sound as well!

 

[idc]

Then there are also....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20056502-1/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/hdmi-cable-testing-results

 

[steve_1979]

Thanks for the link SouthaK, it's an interesting read. There's already loads of proof that digital cables make no difference so surely this is just another nail in the coffin of expensive digital cables.

I like the line "James Randi has even extended his $1 million prize for anyone that can prove paranormal activity to include anyone that can prove that expensive HDMI cables make a difference."

Any takers for $1,000,000?

No? I thought not.

 

[chebby]

I am happy with the two 1m QED HDMI cables that cost £70 each (when new) and I got for £3.55 each last year due to a pricing packaging error by Tesco and/or QED

(I only bought them for their length - to replace 2m cables - and their price).

So I am immune to any pro or anti expensive HDMI arguments.

 

[steve_1979]

As usual, it's all about the picture....HDMI carry sound as well!

But I thought that expensive HDMI cables are supposed to be able to make blacks darker, colours more viberant and skin tones look more natural etc?

 

[CnoEvil]

As usual, it's all about the picture....HDMI carry sound as well!

But I thought that expensive HDMI cables can make blacks darker, colours more viberant and skin tones look more natural etc?

My point is that if you are testing something, there is no point in concentrating on half of what it does. It would be like testing a car for the room it has inside and forgetting about everything else.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I still would probably choose Atlas Hyper over some generic job. but only because for the look of it (I use Hyper range throughout do for the sake of aesthetic consistency I'd go for that one). I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that it makes something better/ different than any other 1,5m HDMI cable.

now, we can argue if aesthetic considerations are worth 70GBP premium over generic cable. but that a question no blind ABX tests nor HD5 hash captures will never answer...

 

[steve_1979]

My point is that if you are testing something, there is no point in concentrating on half of what it does. It would be like testing a car for the room it has inside and forgetting about everything else.

Fair point.

But HDMI cables don't make any audible difference to the sound either.

 

[Anonymous]

That's a nice pot of gold for someone

 

[CnoEvil]

Fair point.

But HDMI cables don't make any audible difference to the sound either.

That's a very categorical statement.... Would you bet your life on it

(I wouldn't bet my life either way, as the jury is still out...but I suspect there is more difference to the sound than the picture).

 

[SouthaK]

I thought it was very interesting too, especially the bit about people perceiving small differences when even no changes have been made. It's an effect that audio dealers have been exploiting for years - they sit there tapping their feet and fingers and in that situation it is the hardest thing in the world to say "I don't hear any difference" and even harder NOT to hear a differnce even if there isn't one...you almost make yourself hear a difference! :roll:

SouthaK

 

[Anonymous]

Fair point.

But HDMI cables don't make any audible difference to the sound either.

That's a very categorical statement.... Would you bet your life on it (I wouldn't bet my life either way, as the jury is still out...but I suspect there is more difference to the sound than the picture).

What jury would that be, Cno

 

[steve_1979]

That's a very categorical statement....

It's a statement that has been scientifically proven to be true.

If a HDMI cable can make a difference to the sound why hasn't anyone claimed the $1,000,000 prize from James Randi yet?

 

[CnoEvil]

What jury would that be, Cno

Don't start!

 

[daveh75]

Never ceases to amaze me what some people find interesting...

 

[CnoEvil]

That's a very categorical statement....

It's a statement that has been scientifically proven to be true.

If a HDMI cable can make a difference to the sound why hasn't anyone claimed the $1,000,000 prize from James Randi yet?

Well that's that then! :roll:

 

[idc]

In the same way when an HDMI starts to fail you get pixelation, crackles, lines you get break ups and pops with sound.

The links I have provided to HDMI testing are further backed up by HDMI blind testing. HDMI cables produce the same results of sighted tests produce differences, comparison produce smaller differences no longer influenced by cost, brand or image and ABX finds no one can tell a difference. Al the evidence is in my blog.

With all the evidence that HDMI cables cannot affect sound or picture quality by the way they are made or what they are made of, if you still chose not to go with the evidence, so be it. You can lead a horse to water......... :help:

For those of you who chose to ignore all of the evidence, why is that?

 

[BenLaw]

Cno, I just can't see what the qualitative difference could possibly be between the data being passed by the cable which relates to picture and that which relates to sound.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Cno, I just can't see what the qualitative difference could possibly be between the data being passed by the cable which relates to picture and that which relates to sound.

if anything, bandwidth required for digital audio is much less than for video. even usb1 I think is above what normal rez audio needs. usb2 and above are way more than needed for hi-rez audio. hdmi carries hirez audio plus (!) video with ease. that's quantitative though. qualitatively - digital code is digital code.

 

[CnoEvil]

Cno, I just can't see what the qualitative difference could possibly be between the data being passed by the cable which relates to picture and that which relates to sound.

I wish I could give you a technical explanation, but instead of that, here is QED's POV: http://www.qed.co.uk/1/news/hdmi_explained.htm

 

[BenLaw]

Cno, I just can't see what the qualitative difference could possibly be between the data being passed by the cable which relates to picture and that which relates to sound.

I wish I could give you a technical explanation, but instead of that, here is QED's POV: http://www.qed.co.uk/1/news/hdmi_explained.htm

Which bit addresses my point?

 

[John Duncan]

Spread betting on number of posts this reaches just opened on betfair.

2/11 on nobody changing anybody's mind.

 

[Anonymous]

It's easier to subjectively compare video than it is to compare audio, because you can have two identical tv's, set up identically, next to each other and displaying the same images at the same time. When comparing audio you're having to rely on memory, which makes it easier to imagine differences.

The scientific fact is that digital data transfer, does not and cannot differ, whether being transferred through digital cables or wirelessly, it either works perfectly or very obviously doesn't work. Many HDMI cable sellers are now actually stating as much on their websites, though others still claim there can be differences, even though it's highly likely they're selling the same cables, as most are manufacturered in the same Chinese factories. Does QED even manufacture them? I doubt it.