im not getting into an argument, but "its just a digital signal" and "tyres are tyres"

try plugging one of them cheap portable aerials into your freeview tv and see if it works , after all its just a digital signal!

That's a flawed analogy though as tyres are nothing like hdmi in any way and there is large and easily provable difference between them. With hdmi over short distances the signal at either end is identical which can be easily proven and has been done numerous times on different sites. There's one just above me, here's another:

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

ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE

After methodically testing each cable, our comprehensive results revealed the truth. We couldn’t find a single error in any of the frames of video we captured using our tests, regardless of the cable we used. Even allowing for a single error per billion bits, none of our captured frames contained as much as a single pixel out of order by a single colour shade.

The MD5 hash values backed up our findings – the captured frames were identical to the original ones. As verification, the MD5 hash of the ImageMagick Compare files were also identical. For reference, here are the MD5 hash values generated.

It doesn't matter how expensive or cheap your system is, with a short length the cost of the hdmi lead is irrelevant - any perceived difference is just that because the actual signal is no different. I use cheap cables with all my AV equipment from the cheap stuff up to the £1500+ equipment and it all works fine, there is no point in spending more money on hdmi cables when there is no point. With analogue cables I'm a lot more careful as that genuinely needs a decent cable as a cheap one is likely to produce a noticeably inferior signal.

John

That's a flawed analogy though as tyres are nothing like hdmi in any way and there is large and easily provable difference between them. With hdmi over short distances the signal at either end is identical which can be easily proven and has been done numerous times on different sites. There's one just above me, here's another:

http://www.expertrev...-absolute-proof

[/size][/font][/color]

It doesn't matter how expensive or cheap your system is, with a short length the cost of the hdmi lead is irrelevant - any perceived difference is just that because the actual signal is no different. I use cheap cables with all my AV equipment from the cheap stuff up to the £1500+ equipment and it all works fine, there is no point in spending more money on hdmi cables when there is no point. With analogue cables I'm a lot more careful as that genuinely needs a decent cable as a cheap one is likely to produce a noticeably inferior signal.

John

ok i get that, but when your cheap hdmi is tangled with your power cables (ps3, wii, dvd, bluray, sky box, tv) and all there relevant cables and the cheaper hdmi will pick up interference, because the shielding isnt as good which could affect your picture and sound quality!

ok i get that, but when your cheap hdmi is tangled with your power cables (ps3, wii, dvd, bluray, sky box, tv) and all there relevant cables and the cheaper hdmi will pick up interference, because the shielding isnt as good which could affect your picture and sound quality!

No it won't...this is why people are referring to the connection as being digital, not analogue, Poor shielding on an analogue cable would make it susceptible to interference and reduced image quality (flickeing, ghosting etc.) but that doesn't affect short hdmi cables regardless if they're cheap or expensive. My cheap hdmi cables are already tangled up with goodness knows how many other connections alongside power, vga, composite, scart, component and a busy gigabit ethernet switch but still no interference on the cheap ones or the more expensive ones.

John

im not getting into an argument, but "its just a digital signal" and "tyres are tyres"

try plugging one of them cheap portable aerials into your freeview tv and see if it works , after all its just a digital signal!

Actually it's an analogue modulated signal that you're picking up with the aerial, and that happens to have a digital encoded programme on it.

On the HDMI link, the digital signal it a bitstream coming down a cable, so as long as it meets spec, then a £2 or a £2000 cable will produce the same results at the other end.

The issue with cheap cables comes when you use them at length or in noisy environments.

The reason a digital signal is less likely to suffer, is that a 1 is a certain voltage or above and a 0 that voltage or below.

So if you get a bit of noise, it's likely still to be a 1 or a 0. You won't get any improvement in picture quality or colour etc.

You might get an artifact if there was an error.

But Most protocols use forward error correctection and similar, so even if you have an error, you'd need to get the same one a few times.

At 10m the cheapest cables won't be able to keep cable loss down, but at 1m, it's going to make no difference.

I mean do you hear of people buying £500 Cat 5e cables, just to get a bit better ethernet performance?

No, because it all meets a spec and beyond that makes no odds.

HDMI calls for a spec and if a cable meets that it's fine.

Edited 26 February, 201313 yr by cheezemonkhai

I mean do you hear of people buying £500 Cat 5e cables, just to get a bit better ethernet performance?

Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM

For those who still don't understand why it doesn't matter:

In a digital signal, a voltage is applied to the wire. If it is above a certain threshold, it is a 1. If it is below, it is a zero. This is generally done with a pair of wires run together (hence potential difference), so anything induced along the way from power leads or other interference sources is replicated to both wires and the difference remains mostly the same.

And trying to say its like an aerial lead is plain wrong as thats still an analogue signal and thus susceptible to interference. If you want to make a car analogy, its more like saying red cars go faster than blue ones. As long as both cars meet the same spec, there will be no difference.

A 10m HDMI lead that you buy and doesn't work would have failed at the factory (if it was tested) and is a faulty product and should be treated as such. Its not because it cost £5, but because its broken.

Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/B000I1X6PM

Lol - That is all.

Go dennon. Is there a special wiring for those, because I can make custom ones with nice heat shrunk strain relief for only £100. I'll even make it in nice purple

I'm of the opinion premium cables are just a scam. I always buy the cheapest cables and have never ever had problems. The signal is digital. It either gets there or it doesn't and short of manufacturing defects, it will get there.

A bit like digital radio that doesn't drop out at all, eh?

Lol - That is all.

Go dennon. Is there a special wiring for those, because I can make custom ones with nice heat shrunk strain relief for only £100. I'll even make it in nice purple

You mean Denon?

Not sure about the newer stuff but I have a Denon AVR3805 and DVD3910 combi as well as other AV and hifo gear and use quality cables because they DO make a difference. Both analogue and digital.

I worked in the high end hifi and AV industry for 8 years previously and can honestly say there are products that claim to make a difference (which on an oscilloscope would confirm) but to the untrained eye/ear, would be negligable.

It's a personal gripe of mine, those that claim "because it's digital" it doesn't matter what cables you use.

Interesting thread this. I bought good cables for my home cinema set up but they were still cheap. All 5m cables but i made sure they were the 1.4 ones with gold connections. They still only cost a few quid anyway although there were much cheaper ones available but in fairness it was the difference between £30 on cables or £10 so i wasnt bothered saving the £20. My issue though is how does this 1.4 or 1.3 or whatever it is affect the cable performance? I know they are supposed to be different data transfer rates but is this bull5hite also? Or does this data transfer rate still apply but it is the only thing that matters? Just curious.

On a similar theme i have an optical link (toslink) cable for my dolby digital output from sky box to blu ray home cinema player. This stopped working properly after about a year so i bought a new "fancy" one. When i say fancy it was still like £5 but it was a lot more fancy than the others on the website i.e gold connectors etc. The new one solved the problem as the sound was dropping out intermitantly with the old one. So why would one cheap toslink vabel break and then have intermitant problems whereas the new one now works flawlessly? Maybe totally different to the HDMI thing but im interested none the less.

I worked in the high end hifi and AV industry for 8 years previously and can honestly say there are products that claim to make a difference (which on an oscilloscope would confirm) but to the untrained eye/ear, would be negligable.

It may look different on an oscilloscope between different cables, but if you send 1100100100011 into one end, you get 1100100100011 out of the other. The only effect different cables will really have is the amount of retransmits, which if they don't cross a certain threshold will not have any impact on the output. Because the end result will still just be 1100100100011 at the end of the day.

Any subtle differences you may think you experience are nothing more than the placebo effect.

It may look different on an oscilloscope between different cables, but if you send 1100100100011 into one end, you get 1100100100011 out of the other. The only effect different cables will really have is the amount of retransmits, which if they don't cross a certain threshold will not have any impact on the output. Because the end result will still just be 1100100100011 at the end of the day.

Any subtle differences you may think you experience are nothing more than the placebo effect.

No, you're right. I'll go out and sell all my good quality cables right away and replace them with 99p ebay jobbies.

No need to be childish. All I'm saying is there's nothing to gain by buying premium £200 fancy braided HDMI cables. Any cheaper cable that works will give the exact same clarity, sharpness, whatever that the super expensive one will.

No need to be childish. All I'm saying is there's nothing to gain by buying premium £200 fancy braided HDMI cables. Any cheaper cable that works will give the exact same clarity, sharpness, whatever that the super expensive one will.

You're completely wrong, read the following links for an in depth technical explanation on why premium HDMI cables cost more and how they produce a better picture:

http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1082.html

John

You're completely wrong, read the following links for an in depth technical explanation on why premium HDMI cables cost more and how they produce a better picture:

http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1082.html

John

Lol

There are actually proven tests that show better cables have less loss of picture and better audio qualities. As part of a good quality system this is obviously a benefit

No, you're right. I'll go out and sell all my good quality cables right away and replace them with 99p ebay jobbies.

Stop being a child.

For analogue signals it makes a difference.

DAB is poor, because the analogue signal it comes on has poor coverage. The digital stream, is carried on an analogue wave.

If you can't tune to the carrier wave, you lose the stream. If you lose the stream you lose signal.

That's like saying if I cut the cable, then it'll stop working, but when i replace it it'll be fine.

I was part of the group that designed PCI express spec and have worked on SAS etc.

Are you telling me my copper traces and specs mean nothing and if I used better cable it would go faster?

Next you'll be telling me I should upgrade my fibre to higher grade fibre to get more light through yes?

(FWIW the faulty optical cable above probably had badly polished and bonded ends).

Seriously. On an analogue signal a good cable makes a world of difference.

When you have a streams of 1's and 0's either on voltage or even better differential pair, there is no way a better cable will work better.

If a cable meets the spec, then it'll be fine and there will be no difference between a £5 and a £500 in terms of the bitstream at the other end.

If it doesn't meet the spec then it's no good. That's when you have issues.

If you notice most specs have a maximum cable length. If you go beyond that, then yes extra screening and the like will help, but so will a redriver.

There is no difference in what comes out of the end of a cheap or expensive cable that meets the spec.

If there was, then there would be a huge number of errors in the bitstream, which if you compare it there are not.

Edited 26 February, 201313 yr by cheezemonkhai

buys a Skoda, spends a fortune on high end 'better quality' HDMI cables,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,anyone else see the irony :think:

buys a Skoda, spends a fortune on high end 'better quality' HDMI cables,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,anyone else see the irony :think:

No, because buying a Skoda isn't 'cheap', it's because it offers 'good value for money' - just like buying a low end premium hdmi cable IMO. :-)

£25 for better connectors and looking nice, fine but it will make zero difference at 1m compared to any other spec compliant cable

No need to be childish. All I'm saying is there's nothing to gain by buying premium £200 fancy braided HDMI cables. Any cheaper cable that works will give the exact same clarity, sharpness, whatever that the super expensive one will.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that post to seem as though I was throwing my teddy out of the pram. Quite the opposite

It seems I'm fighting a losing battle here so I'll watch from the sideline from now, but on a final note it's interesting to see that people are under the illusion the receiver has to do zero error correction because 1s and 0s come out exactly the same as they went in. If th at were the case why would manufacturers screen/shield any digital cable??

There are two separate points here. First there's the issue of picture quality. That will always be the same regardless of the quality/price of the cable. This is the main point I am trying to make.

The second is the retransmits, as you raise. Yes, poor quality cables will have more retransmits. HDMI works on 4 differential channels, transmitting 30 byte frames with a checksum byte. If the checksum does not match, it will reject the frame and it will need to be retransmitted. You are quite right in saying that there is more error correction on worse cables. However, on short runs, the rate is low enough that it is not a problem and does not lead to lost frames. As the length increases, the error rate increases and more spare bandwidth will be used compensating. Once the retransmits use up all the bandwidth they will start slowing down the data flow and you start seeing the artifacting and maybe total loss of signal. That is why digital signals have maximum lengths and can require shielding. However, until that point any two cables of any cost will deliver identical images.

For an alternative cable-less solution have a look at devices like Apple TV and the Boxee Box which allow streaming from mobile devices (tablets, phones etc) to your TV. Apple devices call their solution AirPlay and other devices try to use variations of the DLNA protocols. Manufacturers like Sony and Samsung have their own versions of the AirPlay streaming system but you tend to have to have the same brand of mobile device and TV for them to work.

Just have a search for things like "samsung galaxy airplay" "boxee box airplay" "apple tv streaming"

I use a 10metre hdmi cable. Never had a problem with it and only paid about £25 about 8 years ago.

Lol

There are actually proven tests that show better cables have less loss of picture and better audio qualities. As part of a good quality system this is obviously a benefit

No, there isn't - if you read the links earlier in the thread, the output of the different cables was identical even right down to the MD5 checksum meaning not even a single pixel was different in the output image. You say 'people are under the illusion' that cheaper cables produce the same image but this isn't an illusion, this is precisely measuring the input and output data and proving they are technically identical. The only illusion is people believeing the premium cables are producing a better image.

It doesn't matter if it's part of a quality system or not as the output from the cable is identical so the only difference is perception, branding, marketting etc. where obviously companies have done a pretty good job making believe they need premium cables for shorter distances. Over longer distance, the cable quality can become an issue but that's a different case

John

mine came from the pound shop and cost er........................ a pound

i have about 10 of these around the different tv's and none have failed, they all work and the picture looks pretty good to my eyes

I bought 2x 10 metre cables and female to female joiner from ebay and they work perfectly in my home cinema. I did however check the connections and picture quality before hiding the cable runs. Cost about £25 in total and couldn't tell the difference between that and an expensive 1 metre lead