Will high end HDMI cables make a difference, and if so, which to go for???

[admin_exported]

[face=Calibri>

 

[michael hoy]

Hi,

There are multiple debates / arguements about this subject on the forum and all end up being locked.

You either believe or disbelieve cables make a difference, I personally do believe.

But you are openening a can of worms on this subject.

But welcome to the forum.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Cheers Michael, thats the feeling I got from my google search.

My gut tell's me it makes a difference to, there's a video on Monster cable's web site explaining digital data transfer ( 1's and 0's) along copper cable, and how a better cable will improve the data transfer which seems to make sense. Although it doesn't really explain how much of a difference this will make to picture/sound quality, sure i get the idea, but how many bits/bytes are we losing along a standard cable? enougth to notice? Then there is an articale on CNET saying that your mad to buy/use anything other than the most basic cable?!?!

Do you know if there is a scientific answer, that doesn't come from a manufacture, this is a digital signal after all?

 

[Anonymous]

my thoughts

 

[idc]

If you read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, you will see how much bad science there is with cables. The basic issue is that cable makers find differences with the way their cable is made compared to another cable, then they suggest that that makes their cable sound better than the competition. That suggestion turns out to be surprisingly powerful in convincing people that cables do work. Then come to a hifi forum and you get a community influence factor to make that original suggestion even more powerful and influence. There have been many tests which show if a group of people make a false claim, it increases the chances of that claim being believed by others.

Then there is the matter of linking cables to sound quality or even sound difference. How can so many different types of cable construction improve sound quality? We know all the basics about cables in terms of voltage, resistance etc so how come there is no link between such and sound quality/difference? The basics can affect whether a cable works or not, very long runs will be affected by impedance, digital cables are only specified up to certain distances, resistance causes attenuation of voltage will affects the volume control.

Finally, there have been various blind tests of cables, which when put together show that when people cannot see the cables they cannot differentiate between them any better than random. But in sighted tests differences in sound quality appear. That shows that it is not hearing that makes a difference with cables. It is other factors.

I bought my first HDMI cable. It is from ThatCable off ebay. It looks beautiful with a woven sheathing. It got a 5 star test rating from WHF. It cost £6. It is all you need to make the perfect cable as it works to spec, looks good and makes you feel good to part of the community of hifi and AV enthusiasts

 

[Anonymous]

As has been mentioned, opinions vary, and for everything that one side produces as evidence, the other side can counter with seemingly equal validity.

Personally, I don't know if they make a difference. However, whether they do or don't, what is important is whether you perceive an improvement.

There are 4 possibilities;

1- They make a difference, and you can perceive it (Genuine difference)

2- They don't make a difference, but you perceive an improvement (Placebo difference)

3- They make a difference, but you can't perceive it (Placebo lack of effect)

4- They don't make a difference, and you don't perceive one (Genuine lack of effect)

Now, if it's 1 or 2 in you experience, and you have the cash, then go ahead. If it's 3 or 4, keep your money and buy a good bottle of Cru Classe Bordeaux with the price of the cable. If it's 1 or 2 and you're tight for cash, then it's a more difficult choice.

There will be many arguments and passions will flare over this subject, but essentially, it all boils down to perception.

Of course, you could be indecisive like me, and not be entirely sure if you perceive a difference or not, and spend 30 or 40 quid on a well reviewed cable "just in case".

Either way, welcome to the forums. Don't be put off if this thread gets heated, it's all in good fun!

 

[Anonymous]

shuggieb:
As has been mentioned, opinions vary, and for everything that one side produces as evidence, the other side can counter with seemingly equal validity.

Personally, I don't know if they make a difference. However, whether they do or don't, what is important is whether you perceive an improvement.

There are 4 possibilities;

1- They make a difference, and you can perceive it (Genuine difference)

2- They don't make a difference, but you perceive an improvement (Placebo difference)

3- They make a difference, but you can't perceive it (Placebo lack of effect)

4- They don't make a difference, and you don't perceive one (Genuine lack of effect)

Now, if it's 1 or 2 in you experience, and you have the cash, then go ahead. If it's 3 or 4, keep your money and buy a good bottle of Cru Classe Bordeaux with the price of the cable. If it's 1 or 2 and you're tight for cash, then it's a more difficult choice.

There will be many arguments and passions will flare over this subject, but essentially, it all boils down to perception.

Of course, you could be indecisive like me, and not be entirely sure if you see a perceive a difference or not, and spend 30 or 40 quid on a well reviewed cable "just in case".

Either way, welcome to the forums. Don't be put off if this thread gets heated, it's all in good fun!

that's not the case imo, nobody has answered my questions on whether or not data loss is random.

data loss, or the lack of it, is all that needs to be focused on imo, it's the sole possible reason for potential differences between hdmi cables.

and if data loss is random then using a cable that's suffering from it would have to lead to a different screen image on repeat playing of the same movie scene, yet, this is never perceived

 

[Anonymous]

Wow, thanks guys. Just read all 98 replies to maxflinn's post (my eyes hurt) and idc's and shuggieb's post. I think for me personally, as my cable length will not exceed 2 meters, it may not make a difference (honestly can't believe I just wrote that). Looks like it may be a different answer for longer cable runs but my original question is confusing enough so I'm gonna stick with that.

I guess the main point would be that the data lose would have to be random, slightly different bits lost/corrupt every time. I can't imagine a fault on a cable corrupting 1 bit, every 1000th bit, every time. It would surely have to be some kind of build up in resistance, electron flow, that type of thing that would mean the failures would surely be random.

If a scientific lab test was done to test lose/degradation of signal along a HDMI cable, for it to be relevant, I think we would also need to test at what point these failures become noticeable to the human eye/ear. 1080P at 24fps, that's a lot of bits!! Not to mention the audio, which must mean we'd be talking about a lot of corruption.

I suppose what I'm saying after reading all this, is that if I do upgrade my cables, and I may not, it will be the last thing on my list. Maybe if I personally notice something in a picture or sound that I'm not sure about, after everything else has been upgraded I'll think about it,

Or,

If I win the lottery and want big shiny connectors

Cheers again.

 

[chrisup]

Hi,

I have an Onkyo 905 with B&W 685 Theatre, Sky HD box, Sony 760 blueray player and a PS3. I use QED Performance HDMI cables as they have improved picture and sound quality. I swapped them for free cables and Panasonic cables and my son and I could see hear the difference (he bought the QED for his PS3).

Best Wishes

Chris

 

[idc]

shuggieb:

....Personally, I don't know if they make a difference. However, whether they do or don't, what is important is whether you perceive an improvement.

There are 4 possibilities;

1- They make a difference, and you can perceive it (Genuine difference)

2- They don't make a difference, but you perceive an improvement (Placebo difference)

3- They make a difference, but you can't perceive it (Placebo lack of effect)

4- They don't make a difference, and you don't perceive one (Genuine lack of effect)

......

It is not 1 for the reasons I gave above. Two is true and 3 maybe true as well, which helps to give creedance to 1 when that should not be the case. That is not placebo, it is physics and biology and how there could be minute variances which your dog may be able to detect with their much better hearing, or even a machine, but not a human. Four is what happens with you decide that you no longer believe cable hype, so you lose the placebo etc effects that do make cables sound different, to some people some of the time.

 

[Anonymous]

There's a 5:

They make a difference so minute, and you have to spend so much to perceive it, you're better off putting your money into upgrading something else in your system.

 

[Sabby]

Grottyash:
There's a 5:

They make a difference so minute, and you have to spend so much to perceive it, you're better off putting your money into upgrading something else in your system.

That's exactly my thoughts. It's all about the law of diminishing returns. You have to spend lots of money to get a small improvement, assuming of course that you can perceive any improvement in the first place. At the end of the day you have to decide whether its worth throwing good money for a small perceived improvement.

 

[jcshutts]

what about the difference in standards 1.3 - 1.4 etc. I stream media from the internet onto a 52" and the difference between the former and latter was significant. The picture improved greatly using a 1.4 HDMI over a 1.3.

 

[Anonymous]

my brother in law has just brought a 3d tv and player and was told by the sales lady that he had to upgrade his 2yr old hdmi cable for a new 1.4 version. as they were charging 90quid for a 1M lead he didnt bother. he got home and his old cable worked

i do think he would benefit from a good quality lead and will be taking my chord active round to see if it makes a differance

i changed to good quality leads about 3yrs ago and there was a deffinate improvement, im of to superfi today to buy another

 

[Anonymous]

idc:shuggieb:

....Personally, I don't know if they make a difference. However, whether they do or don't, what is important is whether you perceive an improvement.

There are 4 possibilities;

1- They make a difference, and you can perceive it (Genuine difference)

2- They don't make a difference, but you perceive an improvement (Placebo difference)

3- They make a difference, but you can't perceive it (Placebo lack of effect)

4- They don't make a difference, and you don't perceive one (Genuine lack of effect)

......

It is not 1 for the reasons I gave above. Two is true and 3 maybe true as well, which helps to give creedance to 1 when that should not be the case. That is not placebo, it is physics and biology and how there could be minute variances which your dog may be able to detect with their much better hearing, or even a machine, but not a human. Four is what happens with you decide that you no longer believe cable hype, so you lose the placebo etc effects that do make cables sound different, to some people some of the time.

idc,

I'm not suggesting which of the above is true, I'm just setting out what I believe to be the four possible hypothetical explanations. Regarding placebo, given that perception is a result of the interplay between electrical impulses and the release of neurotransmitters through a series of synapses in a multicellular system, then I agree that not only is it placebo, it is physics, biology and chemistry too.

As to whether 4 occurs when you no longer believe hype, that is doubtless true for some, however it is well documented that even unblinded placebos remain efficacious, a phenomonen I've always found difficult to understand. Although it is a useful way of understanding the passion that cable debates often generate; if someone who knows they are taking a placebo can experience an improvement in something as personal and subjective as, say, pain, then I suspect even proving that cables do not make a difference from either the perspective of empirical measurement or from blinded comparisons will not necessarily convince the true believer, and the more robust the evidence, the more it challenges their stated position, the more it will engender an aggressive response.

From a rationalist perspective, I agree with Max that it seems implausible that any form of data loss could be anything other than random, and therefore could not produce any consistent difference in cables.

The question is, of course, answerable. You need a statistician to calculate a sample size that is sufficiently powered to demonstrate difference or lack thereof. You then need to design a double blinded randomised controlled trial where participants are told that they are listening to 2 cables, a and b. You then randomly assign participants to hear either a vs b, a vs a, b vs b, or b vs a. You then have them vote for which sounds best on a number of predetermined scales such as clarity, detail, warmth, etc. You then find out if the differences percieved are statistically more in a vs b and b vs a than a vs a and b vs b. This will tell you if a representative sample of humans can perceive a difference. It will not however, convince anyone who is a true believer or disbeliever as they will continue to believe that either they can hear a difference where the trial participants could not if no difference were shown, or that the trial participants were not properly blinded or coincidentally guessed right en masse, however improbable if a difference were proven, depending on their pre-existing belief. That is why belief is dangerous and cable debates are endless.

Oh, and I asked my dog, but he just licked his bottom then asked for a biscuit.

But then he is a labrador, and I think their ears don't have the special braiding and lining that spaniels have, and I saw in an advert that spaniels are better at noticing instrument separation because their ears hang lower, so it must be true....

 

[Anonymous]

shuggieb:idc:shuggieb:

....Personally, I don't know if they make a difference. However, whether they do or don't, what is important is whether you perceive an improvement.

There are 4 possibilities;

1- They make a difference, and you can perceive it (Genuine difference)

2- They don't make a difference, but you perceive an improvement (Placebo difference)

3- They make a difference, but you can't perceive it (Placebo lack of effect)

4- They don't make a difference, and you don't perceive one (Genuine lack of effect)

......

It is not 1 for the reasons I gave above. Two is true and 3 maybe true as well, which helps to give creedance to 1 when that should not be the case. That is not placebo, it is physics and biology and how there could be minute variances which your dog may be able to detect with their much better hearing, or even a machine, but not a human. Four is what happens with you decide that you no longer believe cable hype, so you lose the placebo etc effects that do make cables sound different, to some people some of the time.

idc,

I'm not suggesting which of the above is true, I'm just setting out what I believe to be the four possible hypothetical explanations. Regarding placebo, given that perception is a result of the interplay between electrical impulses and the release of neurotransmitters through a series of synapses in a multicellular system, then I agree that not only is it placebo, it is physics, biology and chemistry too.

As to whether 4 occurs when you no longer believe hype, that is doubtless true for some, however it is well documented that even unblinded placebos remain efficacious, a phenomonen I've always found difficult to understand. Although it is a useful way of understanding the passion that cable debates often generate; if someone who knows they are taking a placebo can experience an improvement in something as personal and subjective as, say, pain, then I suspect even proving that cables do not make a difference from either the perspective of empirical measurement or from blinded comparisons will not necessarily convince the true believer, and the more robust the evidence, the more it challenges their stated position, the more it will engender an aggressive response.

From a rationalist perspective, I agree with Max that it seems implausible that any form of data loss could be anything other than random, and therefore could not produce any consistent difference in cables.

The question is, of course, answerable. You need a statistician to calculate a sample size that is sufficiently powered to demonstrate difference or lack thereof. You then need to design a double blinded randomised controlled trial where participants are told that they are listening to 2 cables, a and b. You then randomly assign participants to hear either a vs b, a vs a, b vs b, or b vs a. You then have them vote for which sounds best on a number of predetermined scales such as clarity, detail, warmth, etc. You then find out if the differences percieved are statistically more in a vs b and b vs a than a vs a and b vs b. This will tell you if a representative sample of humans can perceive a difference. It will not however, convince anyone who is a true believer or disbeliever as they will continue to believe that either they can hear a difference where the trial participants could not if no difference were shown, or that the trial participants were not properly blinded or coincidentally guessed right en masse, however improbable if a difference were proven, depending on their pre-existing belief. That is why belief is dangerous and cable debates are endless.

Oh, and I asked my dog, but he just licked his bottom then asked for a biscuit.

But then he is a labrador, and I think their ears don't have the special braiding and lining that spaniels have, and I saw in an advert that spaniels are better at noticing instrument separation because their ears hang lower, so it must be true....

I suppose that now you've completed the lab tests, you should give a cat scan a chance!