Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,153
- Location
- Neptune
msmalls74 said:
Buy one of each and compare. Return the one that isn't so good.
What A Difference HDMI Makes!
- Thread starter theboyrob
- Start date
Buy one of each and compare. Return the one that isn't so good.
its all to do with the resistance of the materials
theres always an improvement with gold cables etc or fancy oil or air surrounded cables or whatever else you can get but IMO the improvement is never enough to warrant the huge price difference
the longer the cable is the bigger the difference will be too , more resistance over more area
theres always an improvement with gold cables etc or fancy oil or air surrounded cables or whatever else you can get but IMO the improvement is never enough to warrant the huge price difference
the longer the cable is the bigger the difference will be too , more resistance over more area
But HDMI is a digital connection. So if the signal can get there in a recognisable state with no data loss, which presumably a cheap cable can do, then you would never get any better quality however much higher the quality of the cable is.EVH said:I believe it does.
Improved screening, better quality metals.. they all add up to an overall improvement if you were to use cheaper components. It's common sense
I work as a sound, lighting and AV engineer and I believe it does.
The only advantage of a higher quality cable would be less chance of it going wrong due to interference. I wouldn't say that's worth £60.
EVH said:I believe it does.
Improved screening, better quality metals.. they all add up to an overall improvement if you were to use cheaper components. It's common sense
I work as a sound, lighting and AV engineer and I believe it does.
NO NO NO NO
Aargh!
HDMI (or indeed any digital signal) will either come out perfect or highly corrupted.
Hypothetically, the difference between a cheap cable and an expensive one will be something like:
Signal 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
Expensive 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.9
Cheap 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7
The TV doesn't care whether it gets 0.9 or 0.7, it will just figure out that it's meant to be a 1. Unless you are doing an abnormally long cable run (>10m), any old cable should be fine. This is not the case with analogue signals, where the absolute value of the signal matters.
So buy a cheap cable, and unless it looks really wrong (green stuff everywhere, for example), you're fine.
How you can even claim to be an AV engineer astounds me.
EDIT: in fairness, more expensive cables are usually better constructed and should be less suceptible to wear and tear. Of course, I doubt many people are constantly plugging and unplugging their cables.
Last edited:
Seft said:
Exactly. The shielding etc does make a difference on analogue cables such as scart (even then its a fairly small, but noticeable difference.) On HDMI theres no difference whatsoever. Its like saying you get a better internet connection with one brand or cat5 cable compared to another. Buy the cheapest cable and be happy
Or if you bought and expensive one slap yourself with a wet fish 
Psyk said:
Thats what i assumed being a digital output, just that i have read that the picture quality doesnt differ much but the sound does. Just that i saw a gold plated hdmi for about £8 on net wondered if it was any good thats all.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
HDMI anydaymsmalls74 said:
I'd say it improves significantly.. whether you think its 4x then that's personal.
EDIT: Lets not flame me and question my job title (quite offensive tbh), it's my decision to buy expensive gear for my personal usage.. doesn't mean I don't understand the workings of HDMI, or in fact if I would use such a quality cable in an install (which I wouldn't)
If you're still bothered about my skills as an engineer I can provide you with a reference and my CV
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the comments on cheap Vs expensive HDMI, it is a digital signal, and in this case it is either going to work, or you will get some visual side effect such as 'sparklies' or loss of signal at higher resolutions...
I had a cable that just couldn't manage the bandwidth at higher resolutions, 1080p just didn't work, and even 1600*1200 would result in 'sparklies'...
But I didn't have to spend a fortune to get a decent one, Molex themselves make reasonable HDMI cables for well under £10...
Interestingly, or not, don't always assume that just because a signal is digital, it is impervious to analogue side effects as long as the 0's and 1's get through.. Dolby Digital is one example where cheap components/cables can make a difference to sound quality.. As an engineer I didn't see why this was the case until someone explained it, then I felt a bit foolish..
I had a cable that just couldn't manage the bandwidth at higher resolutions, 1080p just didn't work, and even 1600*1200 would result in 'sparklies'...
But I didn't have to spend a fortune to get a decent one, Molex themselves make reasonable HDMI cables for well under £10...
Interestingly, or not, don't always assume that just because a signal is digital, it is impervious to analogue side effects as long as the 0's and 1's get through.. Dolby Digital is one example where cheap components/cables can make a difference to sound quality.. As an engineer I didn't see why this was the case until someone explained it, then I felt a bit foolish..
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,045
Sagalout said:Exactly. The shielding etc does make a difference on analogue cables such as scart (even then its a fairly small, but noticeable difference.) On HDMI theres no difference whatsoever. Its like saying you get a better internet connection with one brand or cat5 cable compared to another. Buy the cheapest cable and be happy
Actually that is not quite true. Better cables/materials/shielding enable higher bandwidths to be sent down a cable.
Cheap HDMI cables may not be able to offer full HDMI 1.3 compatibility because a certain bandwidth is required for this to be used (much higher than for HDMI 1.1).
It is the same as with CAT5 and CAT5E and CAT7.... over longer distances, you need CAT7 for gigabit ethernet. This can also been seen in the twisted copper pairs of phone lines. If you live close to the exchange, you can get faster broadband speeds. It is a myth that digital signals are not lossy. Whilst less susceptible than analogue, they still can be lossy.
As much as i agree that £70 HDMI cables are a waste of money, if you want 10m or more cables then you really should spend £20+.
EVH said:Paid £59.99 for my HDMI cable.
...and yes, the quality is superb when using HDMI
I seriously hope you're joking.
EVH said:HDMI anyday
I'd say it improves significantly.. whether you think its 4x then that's personal.
EDIT: Lets not flame me and question my job title (quite offensive tbh), it's my decision to buy expensive gear for my personal usage.. doesn't mean I don't understand the workings of HDMI, or in fact if I would use such a quality cable in an install (which I wouldn't)
If you're still bothered about my skills as an engineer I can provide you with a reference and my CV
No engineer would come out with what you have. Oh and don't even start with the whole qualification thing.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,045
Robert said:
£60 is cheap!
Some people spend £180+ on HDMI interconnects. Even that is better use of money than spending £300 on a power lead for stereos.... especially when considering that the socket it is plugged in to is probably connected by bell wire or something
Robert said:
Me too, from what I hear it makes no difference with HDMI what type of connectors you have or wheter they are oxygen free or what not. Obviously it is hard to tell unless you have another cable to swap and compare with.
I just have a cheap < £5 one. I may buy the offical Sony one or another one to compare and return it, if I can be bothered, to test.
rp2000
Robert said:
Play nice!! No need for that!!!
Last edited:
To be honest I think it has more to do with the error correction in the player - if you dont have to utilize this at all then playback of whatever signal is going to be improved
With a cheap cable the correction is more likely than the expensive one to be utilized
I hedge my bets and go for £20 belkin cables which seem pretty good to me
With a cheap cable the correction is more likely than the expensive one to be utilized
I hedge my bets and go for £20 belkin cables which seem pretty good to me
the internet analolgy is a flawed one, for the reasons pointed out above. Here better cabling CAn offer an improvement.
My advice would be to find a middle ground, and avoid cheap ones, and plump for £20 leads. This way you're covering yourself from shoody workmanship/poor materials without wasting money on negligible improvementsAbove that any effects
My advice would be to find a middle ground, and avoid cheap ones, and plump for £20 leads. This way you're covering yourself from shoody workmanship/poor materials without wasting money on negligible improvementsAbove that any effects
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,045
Robert said:
Actually, there are a lot of AV, Audio and Video engineers that would say exactly what he has.
Digital interconnects seem to split opinions tbh. The difference it makes seems to depend on who you ask and even if there is not a huge scientific explanation, some people find it makes a difference.
All down to personal preference really.
I am also dubious about how much of a difference it makes once you get up to the £20 odd range, but some people think they see a difference even with short runs. Who are we to argue with that
Really cheap cables definitely can lead to degradation of signal quality.
Last edited:
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Robert said:
My qualifications:
Bsc (Hons) Sound Technology
MSc Acoustics of Performance Spaces and their Design
Whilst I don't claim to be any sort of video guru, I do however work for a sound, lighting, and audio visual company. However unjust it seems that's the way it is.. if you don't believe me;
Kamakazie! said:
Yeah, fair enough. Probably not the best analogy, but I was talking about cables of the same spec. eg at a certain competitors you can walk in and buy Belkin Cat5 cable and pay 5X what you would pay for unbranded Cat5 off a spool. I've seen no difference in the two under normal operation.
Kamakazie! said:Actually, there are a lot of AV, Audio and Video engineers that would say exactly what he has.
Digital interconnects seem to split opinions tbh. The difference it makes seems to depend on who you ask and even if there is not a huge scientific explanation, some people find it makes a difference.
All down to personal preference really.
I am also dubious about how much of a difference it makes once you get up to the £20 odd range, but some people think they see a difference even with short runs. Who are we to argue with that
So basically is the general consensus don't get a real cheap HDMI lead or an overly Expensive one unless you need a long cable! Something about the £20 mark will suffice. On another note, surely the Sony PS3 HDMI cable must be fine for the PS3 (its about £18) or else why would Sony sell it if it made the output a bit naff ?