Soldato
Pretty sure this picture explains things nicely, Always show it to friends when they ask this question.
yeah....except that isnt true.
which hdmi cable?
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
Associate
Interesting Kyle, and what length of cable were tested or did you not read my post ?
Did they test 16 meter cables or are you under the impression that the quality of signal is the same regardless of cable length ?
RB
Associate
TBH I have no answer, only what I saw unless the shop was trying to deliberatly con me, as Kyle has stated, by manipulating the picture quality somehow between changing cables.
The fact is that changing from the cheaper cable short cable to the 16 meter cable resulted in a quality drop which exhibited itself, to me, as a softening and loss of detail in the picture and a distinct lack of vibrancy of colours. Changing the cheaper 16 meter cable to the more expensive 16 meter cable restored the picture quality to the level of the shorter cable. We changed the cables a number of times to compare. The more expensive cable was not suggested and I actively asked to demo it much to the sales persons surprise.
I have no interest in cable dynamics and the whys and wherefores as to why there is a difference. I am not an electronics engineer and have no wish to be one. I have relayed is the experience I have had and the differences I have seen with different 16 meter cables. As noted, the 16 meter cable gives the same quality of picture as the cheap 1.5 meter cable but enables me to place the source much further away from the projector.
In all cases, with the AV shop and at my brother-in-laws place the signal was fed from a PS3 to the projector.
Maybe in the UK 16 meter HDMI cables are a lot cheaper but unfortunately that is not the case over here.
Interesting article and testing of 60 HDMI cables by an AV site here. It would also be interesting to see any other articles testing HDMI cables over 5 meters (I think we are all agreed that there really is no difference in cables under 5 meters for the most part).
The HDMI standards body also comment in its knowledge base what cable quality will affect transmission in lengths over 10 meters and use of extender is recommended. Of course it could all be a conspiracy and they are being paid large sums of money to feed miss-information to the public by the premium cable companies. Yeah it could be a major conspiracy ....... or it could happen to be the true.
Don't get me wrong.... I am not suggesting these premium cables are justified in their cost but what I am saying is that for longer lengths I personally have seen a difference in picture quality. It is not a case of 'it is digital so it either works or not.' which seems to be the favorite phrase of the 'experts' at the moment.
RB
Associate
I take it you did read the article ?
You know, the one which states (emphasis added by me).
Note that 'very long' is undefined...
and
The point being that generalizing that all HDMI cables are the same and work or do not work is incorrect as stated by an article you used as justification of your viewpoint (but for some reason didn't link to). All cables are the same (more or less as not every single cable available was tested) up to a length of 4 meters. People do sometimes have longer requirements and if they listened to the 'the're all the same no matter the cost' crowd then they can potentially end up with a crap cable which gives issues and not understand why. I almost went that route and almost ended up with a cable that gave a less than perfect picture. After you have chased the cable in the wall, you would tend to get pretty upset if you started seeing issues with the cable and had to remove it and try and get a replacement.
Another difference in my case is that I am looking at the image on a 100" screen rather than an LCD or Plasma TV so any issues will be scaled up. The projectors image processing may also have a greater effect transferring the 1080p image to that size.
Also, remember it is not just the outside influence on the signal but also the degregation of the signal whilst traveling down the cable.
RB
Last edited:
Associate
absolutely,
Best analogy I could think up of is a dvd that you rip to a hard drive suffers a bit of corruption. If the corruption is small then how does it show up..... as artifacts on the screen. It is only if the corruption is pretty bad that you loose the picture / sound completely.
RB
Associate
That truly is baffling.
I would imagine it is all down to peoples perception that gold plated is better so if it costs that much it better be gold plated even if it serves no purpose
.RB
Associate
Hi oli,
Yep, after doing a bit of research I am still at a loss to explain it other than I saw it. No settings were changed on the PS3 or the projector, only the cables were changed. THB the bushes looked like they were, maybe, over sharpened where you would get jagged rather than smooth edges to the leaves. Bear in mind these are in the distance rather than in the foreground of the shots. Compressed may be a better description like a bad encoding but not so bad as to have glaring artifacts but enough to feel it is not so nice. I am wondering if something in the chain is compressing the signal or the error correction on the projector is causing this effect. The fact remains though, it only happened with the cheaper cable. The colours were definitely muted as well.
I will be buying a new amp soon and need some speaker stands and speaker wire (cheap wire for rears and sides
) so I may be able to talk the guy in to letting me take my Canon 5D in with tripod and remote release to see if I can capture the differences.Whilst I fully admit it could be all in my head I doubt it as my head just screamed out 'eugh' when they swapped the short for the long cheap cable with out me realising why until I started looking for reasons.
Damn, this is really bugging me almost as much as people saying "it either works or it doesn't"
.RB
Associate
Ok, I realise I am talking to myself due to the time differences between here and the UK but.....
It seems the shop is happy for me to test various HDMI cables and publish the results
.
I am starting a thread so people can add suggestions as to what they would like tested etc.
Hope this will help clear any confusion.
RB
It seems the shop is happy for me to test various HDMI cables and publish the results
.I am starting a thread so people can add suggestions as to what they would like tested etc.
Hope this will help clear any confusion.
RB
Maybe one cable wasn't 1.3 spec and so DeepColour could only be displayed on some of the cables?
Far more likely to cause a colouration difference than interference or degradation. Signal degradation in HDMI will almost certainly show itself up as sparkles or corruption, not muted colours and slightly softer edges.
Far more likely to cause a colouration difference than interference or degradation. Signal degradation in HDMI will almost certainly show itself up as sparkles or corruption, not muted colours and slightly softer edges.
Associate
Good point. Could possibly be the case. Is deep colour used much at the moment and on the PS3 ?. Well the cable test should help to prove that.
New thread created here.
RB
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 237
My cable cost £3 from amazon about a year ago and it does the job. You're an idiot if you spend over £50 even for a long cable.
I will be buying a new amp soon and need some speaker stands and speaker wire (cheap wire for rears and sides
RB
OK, so taking photos how do we know that,
- Your 5D is as good as it gets in terms of accuracy.
- The lens isn't skewing results.
- You are taking the best possible picture in the shop with the camera setup properly with the picture taken as best it can be.
- The lighting in the shop won't affect the picture.
And finally, how well is your montior calibrated for viewing pictures and how can we all see the same thing when everyone has a different system, montior and settings
Just watch the HDMI event videos in the avforums video section for some in depth facts on HDMI cables from the bods that test them.
Associate
OK, so taking photos how do we know that,
- Your 5D is as good as it gets in terms of accuracy.
- The lens isn't skewing results.
- You are taking the best possible picture in the shop with the camera setup properly with the picture taken as best it can be.
- The lighting in the shop won't affect the picture.
And finally, how well is your montior calibrated for viewing pictures and how can we all see the same thing when everyone has a different system, montior and settings
Just watch the HDMI event videos in the avforums video section for some in depth facts on HDMI cables from the bods that test them.
Sorry, I have not explained it very well it seems.
It does not matter how good the camera is or how good the lens is or what the setup is (pretty good in my situation but that is immaterial). What matters is that all cables are tested in the same conditions with the same equipment as the aim after all is to compare the differences and not the overall fidelity. As far as monitor calibration and image capturing equipment goes that would apply to any test be it the one I am proposing or the ones on the AV forums which show images of the equipment connected to the cables.
I am interested in the results as they affect the picture quality I see with the equipment I have and not the results of an AV professional using equipment that is significantly more expensive or testing the signal quality of the cable alone without factoring in the source and destination affects.
Having the chance to test the cables would seem like a good thing to me. I am a bit confused that you seem to think it is not.
RB
.
Soldato
you are correct and i have seen it with my own eyes. i had a cable that gave me massive screen corruption at 1080p with a sony bluray player, and failed to produce a picture completely with an ati graphics card. This cable, funnily enough, worked perfectly fine at 720p. it's the only cable ive ever seen do it but jesus when it artifacts, it's easy to spot. Think old analogue-snow, except in wondrous technicolor lol.
makes no real difference, blurays dont support deep colour.
Rimblock is correct about the testing conditions as well. as long as it remains the same on all of the equipiment, then the 5d should pick up any differences.
Last edited:
Caporegime
my mate bought a cheap ebay cable
That cable's poor build quality showed itself with the HDMI handshake. Prior to watching any blurays or similar he would get upwards of 30 seconds of "snow" before it would eventually display.
Swapped it for another cheap cable from somewhere else, only a moment of snow then the same picture quality.
Any differences in poor quality HDMI cables are always readily apparent.
Soldato
I've got several rubbish HDMI cables too, mostly all very old ones, and couldn't pass 1080p over 3M without major sparklies..
But the same issue has dogged DVI for years too, since it's electrically compatible (hence why DVI->HDMI adapters are just re-routing pins in a different connector), I have lots of early DVI cables that can't do 1600*1200 or higher without sparklies or drop out..
But the same issue has dogged DVI for years too, since it's electrically compatible (hence why DVI->HDMI adapters are just re-routing pins in a different connector), I have lots of early DVI cables that can't do 1600*1200 or higher without sparklies or drop out..
Amazon Basics at £5 each if you want a nice looking one
http://whathifi.com/Review/Amazon-Basics-HDMI/
If you're only willing to spend £5 on a cable at least get a half decent one from "THATCABLE", if you're gonna spend a lot on a/v equipment at least do it some justice with decent interconnects. I've never spent less than £25 on a HDMI, get a QED profile.
Are you serious? I nearly fell of my chair reading that WhatHifi link - it's the biggest load of BS I've seen in a while!
You sir are a chump. I don't understand where the logic of "if you're going to spend a lot of AV equipment, spend a decent amount on cables", it's BS. As has been said many times, there aren't "image quality" differences between HDMI cables. You either get a complete image, very obvious flaws in the image in the form of artifacts, or no image at all.
I still can't believe review sites are allowed to say crap like:
"Initially, we found the Basics to be a bright, punchy and detailed performer. However, further watching showed contrast up, and tones as vivid and day-glo, plus there were issues with motion handling and noise.
The sound, too, was hard and thin with a lack of dynamics, punch or subtlety."
They surely know they're talking crap, they can't be that stupid to believe this crap?