HDMI Cables

[vertica]

the cable itself cannot change the levels, its just a term thats used a lot by the mags,
a cable could however prevent signal degregation, which could alter the exact colour code that reaches the tv.

e.g
for Pixel A a black signal is sent (call it a signal of 0000)
However one of those pulses degrades in transmission so the received colour is 0010 (this may be a bright red),
but the error correction tech (Bravia engine etc) will pick up that the surrounding area (pixels B,c....) is black and return the sgnal to somewhere near black, but possibly not to 0000. hence the grey clour and 'better blacks' from some cables.

(the bit steams above are just for explaination)
better cabling helps prevent this degregation, however as i said before whether you can actually tell or not is down to the viewer, kit, source, how clean the powersupply is etc etc

 

[-Ad-]

Ah ok, from your post I thought you were saying that the interference and shielding all play are part in altering the blacks.

I was confused as you were saying this, then the fact that good cables can't make the picture better, but worse cables introducing errors or even seen as sparklies will obviously have an affect which can be seen. All good, my misreading

It's good to have a proper explanation, and not trying to sound harsh, but probbaly over quite a lot of peoples heads I'm familiar with what you have said, but certainly couldn't quote it in confidence, so I just stick to : Buy a number of cheapy cables to start with, and for longer/trunkated runs stick with something guaranteed to work properly that will have better quality materials used in the construction, amnufactured to higher tolerances.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

It's good to have a proper explanation, and not trying to sound harsh, but probbaly over quite a lot of peoples heads

This is showing up the area in your materials degree that were lacking then? even after you made a sweeping statement that it was more useful/better than a more typical engineering degree

 

[-Ad-]

This is showing up the area in your materials degree that were lacking then? even after you made a sweeping statement that it was more useful/better than a more typical engineering degree

Yup, well it's better than a straight Mech Eng course, teaches you more that just how to model parts, mainly the material structure and how that is affected by different manufacturing methods. My knowledge on cable and electronics is all self taught and from reading up, nothing in my degree on this.

It's a pity I'm not in the manufacturing industy and could use all my 1337 skillz , but my business now is a safer place to be in this day and age

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Yup, well it's better than a straight Mech Eng course, teaches you more that just how to model parts, mainly the material structure and how that is affected by different manufacturing methods. My knowledge on cable and electronics is all self taught and from reading up, nothing in my degree on this.

Yes we know the cable stuff is struggling. Ive always thought how can HDM be digital when its a voltage, and EMF can shift that from its baseline to be taken as a different value.

Get off your high horse about a degree you didnt even do when the claims you make are false. Its getting annoying.

 

[oli collett]

<snip>.

I'm not going to disagree with you at all - but i think the science behind cabling is massively miss-leading. Whilst it might be scientific fact to say that Cable A will produce a cleaner signal than cable B, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone could possibly perceive a difference between the two in a real life scenario. To make matters worse, the price for cabling goes up exponentially when you get on to the high end cables that the hi-fi mags harp on about so a consumer is probably paying 10 times more for cable A for something that produces a signal 0.0000000001% cleaner under some kind of analysis.

I'm just trying to find that graph now from the Russ Andrews site with the disclaimer "this is not based on scientific testing" or something similar.

Anyway, yes. my point - the science is all well and good, but i think it's important to put that to one side and look at the real world, not the theoretical one when it comes to hi-fi. Sadly most hi-fi people don't live in the real world (not directed at anyone in here i might add)

 

[-Ad-]

Yes we know the cable stuff is struggling. Ive always thought how can HDM be digital when its a voltage, and EMF can shift that from its baseline to be taken as a different value.

Get off your high horse about a degree you didnt even do when the claims you make are false. Its getting annoying.

You think I'm generally talking about most other members on here not understanding it. Well to be honest this isn't avforums, or anything to do with HDMI cables on the whole, so my generalisation is correct. You seem to think I'm talking about you, I'm glad you find my words so captivating

If I remember correctly, you asked about my degree in this HDMI leads thread and I gave you an answer. I guess from your tone that you have or are studying Mech Eng and don't like the way I talk about it. O well, deal with it, I can think whatever I want about a degree that I experienced quite a number of modules of in my first 2 yrs, and also have had friends study.

Back on topic

 

[james.miller]

if hdmi cables and so the signals travelling through them are so succeptable to interference, then why hasnt there been one single reputable source testing this? its that simple.