which hdmi cable?

[kylew]

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

What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying there's "no difference", I'm very aware of the artifacts that can become apparent when the cable run is too long, however, they are never in the form of: " On playing the demo scene I could instantly see that the picture lost some of the colour saturation and sharpness, bushes were more blurred for example, waves didn't have the same sharpness. I asked to try the QED cable which is stupidly expensive and the quality was back to the initial quality with the shorter cable."

Now, for that to happen, they simply didn't use an HDMI cable, it sounds like the difference between HDMI and composite/scart. Digital cables simply don't work like that, and if they did, then why don't we have special cables for long runs of SATA? With movies and pictures played from the hard disk losing colour saturation, definition/sharpness? It simply doesn't work like that.

 

[kylew]

Be glad you asked and have saved being ripped off. I still think that gold plated optical cables are the best thing I have ever seen being touted.

http://www.qed.co.uk/102/gb/product/performance/optical.htm

Ahahahaha! This alone should be enough proof that these companies are simply rip-off merchants. The worst thing about it is that the 10m are more than 2x the price of the 1m, while probably cost about 2p more to manufacture,

 

[kylew]

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.

Unfortunately, they were trying to deliberately mislead you, and it works on people who aren't knowledgeable about the subject. Marketing these ultra expensive HDMI cables really should be banned, because it doesn't do all these things they claim.

 

[kylew]

Yeah....except that isn't true.

While that may be untrue, it's still a lot more accurate than the claims what hi-fi make in that url:

"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."

I'd expect that most people, when they claim "it either works, or it doesn't" mean "it doesn't" in the sense that, artifacts aren't a complete image, and it's obviously "not working", where as "a reduction in definition" wouldn't be counted as a "broken" image to most, that's the way I see it anyway.

 

[Rexton]

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?

It's simple logic, the more spent on production of said product, the better it's likely to be. I don't agree with spending say £100 on a HDMI, but to spend £5 on a cheap should-be free-be is ridiculous.

I got given an Amazon Basics HDMI free with the xbox I ordered, it looked cheap and flimsy and to this day I haven't plugged it in to anything. I'd rather use a product that looks like at least half an effort had been made somewhere along the production chain.

 

[james.miller]

While that may be untrue, it's still a lot more accurate than the claims what hi-fi make in that url

it's not accurate at all. 'it's either on or off' is completely and utterly incorrect. That doesnt mean i agree with anything WhatHIFI say though, don't get me wrong. they'll say anything for financial gain.

It's simple logic, the more spent on production of said product, the better it's likely to be. I don't agree with spending say £100 on a HDMI, but to spend £5 on a cheap should-be free-be is ridiculous.

I got given an Amazon Basics HDMI free with the xbox I ordered, it looked cheap and flimsy and to this day I haven't plugged it in to anything. I'd rather use a product that looks like at least half an effort had been made somewhere along the production chain.

you're so hell bent on spending money on cables that you wont even try it? and you talk about logic?? you could be saving money there, but you wont use it based on how it looks. wouldnt it spend 99% of its life hidden behind an av unit like most hdmi cables do?

 

[Rexton]

you're so hell bent on spending money on cables that you wont even try it? and you talk about logic??

I spend hundreds of pounds on a/v equipment that I demo myself (including cables) and it isn't deemed logical to not want to plug a flimsy piece of crap into any of it? Don't be silly.

E: And It's hardly saving money, I bought a single QED profile for £25 after demo'ing it, and received the other two off a parent as they where spare.

 

[james.miller]

I spend hundreds of pounds on a/v equipment that I demo myself (including cables) and it isn't deemed logical to not want to plug a flimsy piece of crap into any of it? Don't be silly.

you're being silly mate, not me. I spent a couple of grand on my own a/v and yep, i demo everything myself as well. Dismissing an cable based on its looks is, for want of a better word, mental. I would be dismissing it on performance and nothing else. you say you demo your own gear yet you havent even tried that cable. Again, logic fail.

 

[Rexton]

you're being silly mate, not me. I dare say ive spent a decent amount on my own system (a couple of grand roughly) and yep, i demo everything myself as well. dont be so quick to dismiss my knowledge of av, or others on here, some of the people here actually know a great deal.

dismissing an av cable based on its looks is, for want of a better word, mental. I would be dismissing it on performance and nothing else. you say you demo your own gear yet you havent even tried that cable. Again, logic fail.

I was by no means dismissing you're knowledge, and I meant no disrespect. Through the years I've demo'd many cables, and by doing that I've gotten into a habit. I see a flimsy piece of cabling and daren't even put it near any of my equipment.

E: And by what means would I have to want to try the cable? I'm happy with ones I have chosen, and to add I've used flimsy looking pieces of cabling before, ones that have continuously been a hindrance before replacement, ones that have been noticeably inferior, and ones that simply just haven't worked.

"Hi there customer, have this flimsy looking cable for free"
-"No thanks, I'll stick to the ones I took time to chose"

 

[kylew]

It's simple logic, the more spent on production of said product, the better it's likely to be. I don't agree with spending say £100 on a HDMI, but to spend £5 on a cheap should-be free-be is ridiculous.

I got given an Amazon Basics HDMI free with the xbox I ordered, it looked cheap and flimsy and to this day I haven't plugged it in to anything. I'd rather use a product that looks like at least half an effort had been made somewhere along the production chain.

I don't think you understand the term "logic". It's not logical to spend more money on something simply because it's "better" when you know not everything works that way. It's not "logical" to spend more money on a HDMI cable when you've spent loads on AV equipment. A cable being "flimsy" isn't going to alter the image quality, and you say it as if you unplug and plug in your HDMI cables many times a day.

What you should be saying (since you're talking about logic)is "it's logical to buy a cable with adequate build quality that won't fall apart after being plugged in a few times, rather than spend pennies on one that may fall apart in 5 minutes, meaning you keep having to replace it".

You sense of "quality" is very warped however, and you didn't mention anything about image quality, but just fixated on build quality. As for the Amazon cable, I really don't understand how you can begin to claim they look that flimsy that you wouldn't even plug it in.

 

[Rexton]

What you should be saying (since you're talking about logic)is "it's logical to buy a cable with adequate build quality that won't fall apart after being plugged in a few times, rather than spend pennies on one that may fall apart in 5 minutes, meaning you keep having to replace it".

My point exactly. I just see it that I spend a lot on a/v equipment, I'd rather avoid using flimsy/chealpy made looking interconnects.

What I was and am using
http://i.imgur.com/SIdmP.jpg

What arrived in the post
http://i.imgur.com/CoG9X.jpg

 

[Fr0dders]

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.

proof if ever it was needed that what hifi talk utter garbage.

i read it every month when i first got into home cinema and quickly realised something wasn't right when i began reading up on why £200 speaker stands were so much more amazing than hanging them on the wall and why i needed £10 a metre cable for my speakers.

They're a magazine that peddle this BS to keep their advertising revenue coming in.

 

[Somnambulist]

What HiFi should only be used by people trying to get a rough idea of what speakers to go for in their budget range, then go and demo them themselves. They're probably the worst offenders for cable-hype I've seen. I'm sure they hype audiophile USB cables too, which would be hilarious if people didn't actually fall for it.

Simple reason why companies do it (above even advertising revenue), cables cost nothing to make and the massive mark up is a great breadwinner, which is why places like RS - and bless them for being a good chain otherwise - try and peddle expensive HDMI cables to you when you buy a TV.

I just got a DAC that will be hooked up to my Mac Mini via optical toslink and it was depressing how a digital cable, at 1m, can see prices ranging from a couple of quid to over £100.

EDIT - my favourite has to be cable-risers though. Why have your cables on the floor when you can pay hundreds of pounds to have them lifted 6 inches off the floor!

 

[Fr0dders]

lol @ cable risers

the hifi snobs ultimate holy grail.