The perennial HDMI quality debate .. where are we now?

[Rupert]

On another forum I unwittingly got myself embroiled in an argument over the cost of high quality HDMI cables .. you know the sort of thing: 'My cables were a freebie' or 'My cables came bundled with the TV I just bought', etc. They're aghast at the thought of paying £100 for a pair of cables that they can buy for £4 in Poundland and remain totally unconvinced that there is any difference at all between low price and high cost cables, maintaining that only 10% of the purchase price covers the actual cost of the cables, the remaining 90% being pure profit.

Personally, having spent a considerable sum of money on TV/HD recorder/Blu-ray equipment I wasn't about to spoil it all for a ha'p'orth of tar. Thus I found the best quality Sandstrom cables I could afford in my local Currys PC World and purchased a 2m pair for £90. They're gold plated, have 4-layer shielding with mesh covering and allow a signal transfer speed of 27Gbps. As far as I am able to tell they perform brilliantly.

I see that in the What Hi*Fi Awards 2015 issue, interconnects generally and HDMI cables in particular no longer receive mention in the rankings, although speaker cables obviously still do. However, on page 172 there is a section for HDMI cables ranging from ThatCable at £5 to van del Hul Ultimate at £300, both of which receive five red stars!

Has our illustrious publication finally bowed to public pressure and been forced to admit that actually there is no difference in the performance between HDMI cables costing £4 and those costing £100 or more?

 

[cheeseboy]

this link imho pretty much explains why they don't make a difference and how to test them in a way that is reproducable.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/7976/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-no-difference-the-absolute-proof

if anybody wishes to say otherwise other than "i looked at it" than I'm looking forward to reading their test and how they did it and how they measured it. So far, still waiting....

 

[cheeseboy]

Has our illustrious publication finally bowed to public pressure and been forced to admit that actually there is no difference in the performance between HDMI cables costing £4 and those costing £100 or more?

I don't think they've ever said anything publicly, but given it's possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't make a difference, there is every possibility that their reputation could have been damaged in the future if they kept on with touting the virtues of something that was proven to be not true.

 

[nick8858]

Considering that the source of the signal to your TV is via a corroded aluminium twig mounted on your roof by an "aerial expert" which then goes down some dirt cheap coax terminated in one of those useless aluminium plugs I'm not sure what role a £100 HDMI cable would have.? I for sure wouldn't waste my money on one.

 

[Rupert]

Considering that the source of the signal to your TV is via a corroded aluminium twig mounted on your roof by an "aerial expert" which then goes down some dirt cheap coax terminated in one of those useless aluminium plugs I'm not sure what role a £100 HDMI cable would have.? I for sure wouldn't waste my money on one.

Fair enough I suppose, but what if you've had a new really good quality aerial fitted, connected to the equipment in the living room by the latest spec satellite cable (black outer sheath, not brown) terminating in gold plated plugs and sockets ... what's your take then?

 

[nick8858]

Still digital data, 1's and 0's? Signal is there or its not? And how many real world people have such a set up. anyway. You go to Currys, buy a £250 TV and next thing is they are trying to sell you a £75 HDMI cable. Who are they trying to kid? They will make shedloads of profit on the cable. Nicely packaged with lots of marketing guff on the packaging etc to make it look nice and convincing and a bit of gold flashing around. My 1970's Pioneer receiver has no gold plated contacts and knocks spots of newer stuff. Its clever marketing for sure but underneath it all its a cynical calculated rip off

 

[cheeseboy]

latest spec satellite cable (black outer sheath, not brown)

methinks you pulling our leg good sir.

 

[nick8858]

Yep reckon so too. Strange that the signal wich has had a torrid time travelling through to us via sometime a 20 year old aerial etc could be magically transformed by a metre of super cable from currys at the point od delivery to our set top box/tv etc. Someone will be suggesting super cooling valves or directional cables as the next revolution in hi fi perish the thought.

 

[chebby]

Yep reckon so too. Strange that the signal wich has had a torrid time travelling through to us via sometime a 20 year old aerial etc could be magically transformed by a metre of super cable from currys at the point od delivery to our set top box/tv etc. Someone will be suggesting super cooling valves or directional cables as the next revolution in hi fi perish the thought.

My aerial is 6 six years old (optimised for Digital Terrestrial) and I have good quality (copper/copper) black co-ax cable that I bought from ATV Aerials in Sheffield along with a bunch of their brass connectors and a custom made 'flylead'. (Same with the cable from my FM aerial.)

Why is it so 'risible' that some of us take care to get a decent TV/radio signal? Why are you assuming we all have 'rusty twigs' or 20 year old, substandard cables?

Oh yes. I now use £9.99 1m Belkin High Speed HDMIs and they are fine.

 

[nick8858]

I didn't say everyone had an old aerial but many do. Point is if you get a signal then its a signal and everythings fine. No £100 cable will improve that signal - its there or its not. My "old" aerial didn't give me a signal so I bought a "new" one but I am under no illusions that the new one is nothing more than a Chinese fashioned pop riveted aluminium twig which just so happens to get me a signal. That'll do for me and coughing up £100 on a cable downstairs dowsn't do it for me.

 

[chebby]

I didn't say everyone had an old aerial but many do. Point is if you get a signal then its a signal and everythings fine. No £100 cable will improve that signal - its there or its not. My "old" aerial didn't give me a signal so I bought a "new" one but I am under no illusions that the new one is nothing more than a Chinese fashioned pop riveted aluminium twig which just so happens to get me a signal. That'll do for me and coughing up £100 on a cable downstairs dowsn't do it for me.

Yes "it's there or it's not" but it's like a cliff edge, a sh#t aerial is like walking inches from the edge, on wet chalk in old trainers worn smooth on the soles. A good aerial, optimised for the local transmitter(s), topography, distance etc. is walking in good walking boots, on the footpath, in the dry with a stout handrail preventing you falling off.