The high definition generation and lack of standardisation

Going back to the original point, the issue these days is not with which cable is best it is all down to which TV to buy for which source, sure you had options regarding which connection to use in the past (Composite, RGB, S-VHS) but that was largely where your options ended. The issue now is that there are so many different devices that your TV will accept that output different resolutions and even more connection types, add VGA, Component, HDMI to the above list. This now has to be taken into account when deciding on which TV to purchase, it used to be a simple case of decide on a size, check the number of RGB scart ins and maybe choose between 60Hz and 100Hz. The TV is the most expensive part of the setup and choosing the right set has changed drastically.

Now we need to consider how resolutions will look from all sources and include things like 24fps compatability and over which connections. On old tellys as long as it gave a good picture over RGB you were laughing.

My advice is to ignore that distance chart that is thrown around all too often and consider these main points:

1) How many devices are you connecting and which type/how many inputs of each type you will need.

2) What size screen you want.

3) What is the highest res input you will be using..If it's 1080p then get a 1080p screen, if you personally feel that your screen is too small to warrant that price hike then grab a HD Ready set. However, also consider if you are the sort of person to change sets every couple of years, 1080p is a luxury for now but if you want a little future proofing then think longer term.

Grab some reasonable quality cables, I've paid around £13 for my 3ft HDMI cables and they work, the only reason I paid more than absolutely neccesary is because a lot of cheaper cables feel like they will break if pulled in/out too often.

Also, use your eyes to judge, not a spec sheet, I recently went against this last piece of advice however and got lucky
 
Because your own posts have so many faults I don't know where to start!
Point them out then.
lol! if people are going to claim one cable provides a better picture than another they should be prepared to prove it. as it stands from my own testing it will either work or it wont. there's no in between, no shift in colour, no better contrast.
In YOUR opinion.
Its all very well critisising me for making claims that are down to preference, when your doing the same! lol. :p.

is that really all you can say? prove me wrong!
Well post a more reliable source and prove your point as well then!
 
Point them out then.

In YOUR opinion.
Its all very well critisising me for making claims that are down to preference, when your doing the same! lol. :p.


Well post a more reliable source and prove your point as well then!


give over, use some common sense. you can not prove a single thing youve said. its not 'my opinion' if the proof is there. im still waiting for some sort of definitive test, or anything evidential from you.. They went a lot further to prove its nonsense then you are going to prove it isnt. now why would they do that? it sure isnt financial gain.
 
Last edited:
give over, use some common sense. you can not prove a single thing youve said. its not >my< opinion is the proof is there. you can talk the talk but im still waiting for the evidence. They went a lot further to prove its nonsense then you are to prove it isnt. now why would they do that? it sure isnt financial gain.
You cant prove anything either!
So how can you accuse me of such things when your guilty of the same?

Ive given my technical reasons behind it, and i stand by all that.
If you choose to disagree, then thats your choice, but your opinion on the matter is no more valid than mine.

Your whole post, hence why I don't know where to start.
Try.
Dont give up so easyily. ;)
 
You cant prove anything either!
So how can you accuse me of such things when your guilty of the same?

Ive given my technical reasons behind it, and i stand by all that.
If you choose to disagree, then thats your choice, but your opinion on the matter is no more valid than mine.
because EVERY cable ive used has either worked or it hasn't, mirroring the experience of thousands of other people out there. there is no inbetween. the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

you havent provided any technical reasons either. explain to me how an outside source can influence a digitally encoded signal to the extent where it doesnt stop it dead, but change the hue LOL. good luck with that one.
 
You cant prove anything either!
So how can you accuse me of such things when your guilty of the same?

Ive given my technical reasons behind it, and i stand by all that.
If you choose to disagree, then thats your choice, but your opinion on the matter is no more valid than mine.

except its more valid because its true.

james has already posted links to scientific tests that proove that cheap cables are pefectly capable of fulfilling the HDMI 1.3a requirements for bandwidths.

The only issue ive ever seen with a cheap cable was slow handshaking. But that was because a freebie was used. a Quick trip to the jersey on-line retailer for a £7 saw to that. That was gold plated, very well braded and of good quality construction. But then being only £7 delivered, probably comes under your definition of "cheap"

You reach a ceiling with quality of HDMI cables, usually at about £6. Spending £20/£30 etc.. is just daft. As long as it works, theres no PQ difference between them.
 
Last edited:
because EVERY cable ive used has either worked or it hasn't, mirroring the experience of thousands of other people out there. there is no inbetween. the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
So your proof is your opinion and a website with a questionable reputation for the truth?


you havent provided any technical reasons either. explain to me how an outside source can influence a digitally encoded signal to the extent where it doesnt stop it dead, but change the hue LOL. good luck with that one.
How can it change the hue? Are you really that daft that you need that one explaining?
A quick google search reveals one such possibility:
http://whathifi.com/forums/t/12305.aspx

Havnt provided technical reasons?
From a technical standpoint, no, not all cables are the same, wether they carry digital or analogue signals.
Whilst over short distances, your £3 jobbos might well do the job fine, but over that, and the signal degredation starts getting more noticable.
Its not all that noticable when the signals going down it are below 1080p and/or DTS-HD, but wack both of them on, effectivly using the majority of the bandwidth of the cable, and the differences would be noticable in some cases. It all depends on how well the telly/amp can do its ECC on the incoming data.
In a way, its the same how CD skips in your car. Or when a digital TV loses its reception and goes blocky for a bit. Its because the digital signal became a bit scrambled along the way and your telly/CD player is having to do ECC to try and compensate. (although, it never quite works. ).

Personally, i saw a difference, not a big one, but a difference none the less, when i faffed between the free HDMI cable i got with my DVD player, and a £20 CA one i got a few weeks ago between my PS3 & new telly.
Admitadly not incredibly technical, but i didnt see the point at the time of posting.
I suggest you read what ive put rarther than what you think ive put.;)

except its more valid because its true.
So its true based on opinion?

james has already posted links to scientific tests that proove that cheap cables are pefectly capable of fulfilling the HDMI 1.3a requirements for bandwidths.
No, James has posted links to a website with questionable credability and testing methods. By no means does that make it 'true'.
Do you belive everything you read on the net?


Its the interference thats the main one.
Higher quality, not necessarily more expensive, cables have more shielding around them to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Heres one for you both.
As your such good preachers about 'how many people havnt seen a difference'.

How do you explain the thousends of people who do see a difference? Specifically on avforums?

;)
 
So your proof is your opinion and a website with a questionable reputation for the truth?



How can it change the hue? Are you really that daft that you need that one explaining?
A quick google search reveals one such possibility:
http://whathifi.com/forums/t/12305.aspx

Havnt provided technical reasons?

Admitadly not incredibly technical, but i didnt see the point at the time of posting.
I suggest you read what ive put rarther than what you think ive put.;)


So its true based on opinion?


No, James has posted links to a website with questionable credability and testing methods. By no means does that make it 'true'.
Do you belive everything you read on the net?


Its the interference thats the main one.
Higher quality, not necessarily more expensive, cables have more shielding around them to prevent that.

Just a small point, HDMI video has no Error Correction at all, so What HiFi are just generalising... (Audio does carry use Error Correction)..

The fact is, despite the odd marketing propaganda, degradation of digital video over HDMI is almost instantly recognisable as sparklies or drop out..

The digital signal is affected by noise in a gaussian manner, i.e. it affects random bits in the data stream, and when the more significant bits are affected by noise, the visual artefact is blindingly obvious..

It is a statistical improbability that you could have a situation where the 'noise' or signal degradation only affected the least significant bits of each Pixels information.

There is a lot of FUD about expensive cables, the only benefit they have is, as mentioned, they are less susceptible to noise, and so in a noisy environment, you are less likely to suffer from sparklies and drop out..
 
There is a lot of FUD about expensive cables, the only benefit they have is, as mentioned, they are less susceptible to noise, and so in a noisy environment, you are less likely to suffer from sparklies and drop out..
True. Thats why im not a fan/supporter of those uber-expensive cables, but on the other side, im not one to spend peanuts on a cable if the rest of the system has cost me a fair bit.:).
 
True. Thats why im not a fan/supporter of those uber-expensive cables, but on the other side, im not one to spend peanuts on a cable if the rest of the system has cost me a fair bit.:).
I say again: I hope Monster start making network cables because jeez my network will fly, and my word docs will have better-looking fonts at last!
 
My 50' 720P set looks cracking, you need to do loads of research into the type of TV look at various forums to get a idea live AVforums which is a massive resource they have huge sections dedicated to these type of questions.





Ah okay :D

nah you don't just buy whichever is cheapest they are all the same. Unless you want to become an anal retentive. Like the guys who say they can tell the difference between Digitial DTS and HD :cool:


I'm speaking as someone who went through the whole process then decided to by a 32" sammy as it was cheapest and it's perfectly fine both for SKY+ football and 360/PS3 gaming.
 
I say again: I hope Monster start making network cables because jeez my network will fly, and my word docs will have better-looking fonts at last!
I have no idea how thats applicable.
Ive never said im a fan of monster cables or cables of that ilk.
 
From a technical standpoint, no, not all cables are the same, wether they carry digital or analogue signals.
Whilst over short distances, your £3 jobbos might well do the job fine, but over that, and the signal degredation starts getting more noticable.
Its not all that noticable when the signals going down it are below 1080p and/or DTS-HD, but wack both of them on, effectivly using the majority of the bandwidth of the cable, and the differences would be noticable in some cases. It all depends on how well the telly/amp can do its ECC on the incoming data.
In a way, its the same how CD skips in your car. Or when a digital TV loses its reception and goes blocky for a bit. Its because the digital signal became a bit scrambled along the way and your telly/CD player is having to do ECC to try and compensate. (although, it never quite works. ).

Personally, i saw a difference, not a big one, but a difference none the less, when i faffed between the free HDMI cable i got with my DVD player, and a £20 CA one i got a few weeks ago between my PS3 & new telly.

none of this amounts to any reasonable technical explanation. EEC you were wrong about. DTS: MA being any kind of real contribution to over signal bandwidth you were wrong about (because 30mb/sec is really a lot compared to the 8gb/sec the video is consuming). all you have given me is 'i saw a difference, not a big one, but a difference none the less...'. you didnt even say HOW is was improved.

ive asked you how a digital signal can be changed? no answer
ive asked you to provide links to tests show this if you cant explain it yourself...no answer.

but as far as people who do see a difference go, people also believe a mains cable has the ability to transform a system. not unless the original was well under par, no. its all snake oil.

So ill ask you again - prove what you are saying please: how can hdmi cables bring these small improvement you claim?. stop the banter and show me some evidence. i wonder why Monster cables havent cornered the gold-plated cat5 cable market. they'd make a bomb im sure......

"monster cat5.....so good you can feel it!" cha-ching! $$$$$

How can it change the hue? Are you really that daft that you need that one explaining?
A quick google search reveals one such possibility:
http://whathifi.com/forums/t/12305.aspx

Am i daft lol. good try, read this:
I also have QED HDMI-Ps, but when I ran 'em alongside the TV's power cable in the same bundle (through a hole in the wall & into back of the TV's wall-mount, which is above a fireplace), the picture quality was awful: very soft edges, muted colours & no 'depth'. Since a rethink, the TV power cable & HDMIs are now well apart - via the black art of 'chasing' & after much dust/rubble - & all's well. And as an aside, if anyone wants to know how to avoid EVERY conceivable pitfall, & unnecessary expense, which can be encountered when trying to mount a 42in Pana plasma above a Victorian fireplace, with all cables (5.1, DVD, PVR, PS3 etc) concealed, just ask me!
james.miller said:
take a look at the test details, they managed to fire 13.3Gbps through a five dollar 6ft hdmi cable and it passed no problem - hdmi1.3a has a maximum of 10.2Gbps and that includes 7.1/192khz pcm audio @ 36MB/sec (far higher than DTS MA). tbh audio makes little difference to the overall bandwidth. . out of those that failed on the technical test, only 1 actually failed in use. Also as he commented, problems were immediately obvious, there was no room for opionion - there was visible jitter and snow in the picture.

you arent going to get little improvements here and there from using 'better' cables. its either going to work or there will be obvious problems and break up.

what do you think qualifies as problems and breakup? awful picture quality with soft edges and muted colours? that's an obvious failure as i described.

The fact is, despite the odd marketing propaganda, degradation of digital video over HDMI is almost instantly recognisable as sparklies or drop out..

True. Thats why im not a fan/supporter of those uber-expensive cables, but on the other side, im not one to spend peanuts on a cable if the rest of the system has cost me a fair bit.:).

:confused: thats what ive said all along.
 
Last edited:
nah you don't just buy whichever is cheapest they are all the same. Unless you want to become an anal retentive. Like the guys who say they can tell the difference between Digitial DTS and HD :cool:


I'm speaking as someone who went through the whole process then decided to by a 32" sammy as it was cheapest and it's perfectly fine both for SKY+ football and 360/PS3 gaming.


Have you quoted the wrong person? As that doesn’t make any sense :p
 
none of this amounts to any reasonable technical explanation.
Which, as i said, wasnt an attempt a completely perfect explanation, just a quick synopsis.

all you have given me is 'i saw a difference, not a big one, but a difference none the less...'. you didnt even say HOW is was improved.
Equally, thats all you have given me. An opinion.
So please, explain again why yours is more valid?

ive asked you how a digital signal can be changed? no answer
ive asked you to provide links to tests show this if you cant explain it yourself...no answer.
So again, a link to a questionable website is your form of proof?

as for 'people who do see a difference' lol. people also believe a mains cable has the ability to transform a system. not unless the original was well under par, no. its all snake oil.
lol.
So basically you have no idea there?
The same way you justify your opinion with 'load of people agree with me', your critisising me for the same thing. lol. great. :p.

So ill ask you again - prove what you are saying please. stop the banter and show me some evidence.
And again, YOU provide evidence too.
Because all youve provided is opinion and some random link.
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, evidence.

i wonder why Monster cables havent cornered the gold-plated cat5 cable market. they'd make a bomb im sure......
Ah, this must be the running joke for this thread.
If out of options, joke on other matters. Pity its not amusing.
...that and the fact that MS already rob people for their 'xbox link cables' :p.



Look, lets make this simple:
Ive posted my opinion on the matter and stand by it.
You've basically done the same +a website thats questionable.
Neither opinion there, and thats basically what it comes down to thus far, is more valid.
So no matter how many times you keep posting 'provide evidence', it doesnt mean yours is more valid, as you havnt done that either.

Unless your willing to backup your opinion, why should i do so either?
 
Back
Top Bottom