Was in WOW the other day buying some computer cables and the salesman tried to upsell me to a 100 dollar 1.5M HDMI cable, claiming the picture would look better.

When I asked him how it was improving a digital signal he kinda fell apart a bit and didn't have a good answer, although he swore blind that it looked better on his machine at home. Gave me a bit of "look its ok if you don't believe me.." s*** too.

In the end I got the cheapest they had at about 25 bucks. I'm not an electronics guy, but HDMI carries a digital signal yeh, so it either works or it doesn't, unlike VGA that can have attenuation & noise 'cos its an analog signal? Is this a scam?

Pretty much, videophiles may argue but the difference isn't big enough for my eyes to see anything...

It's a scam, even with analog cables.

Yeah pretty much, it will work or not work. But as with anything, the cheap and nasty cables will be cheap and nasty, crappy connectors that stop working after time etc.

There was a review I read a while ago basically saying avoid the cheapest cable, but the $100 1.5mtr cables are just a ripoff, over that distance you arent gonna get signal loss enough to cause the cable not to work at all.

If you are gonna use a HDMI cable over a long distance, like 20mtrs between rooms etc, get a better quality cable, but still the super expensive cables arent worth, somewhere in the middle is about right.

i got a used demo cable for $30 for 3 meters, works dreamily

I think you get the same thing with fiber-optic cables too. Why a 1.5m cable full of glass would be better then another 1.5m cable full of glass is beyond me.

When i bought my sony tv the salesman from HN also tried hard to sell me a HMDI cable + LCD cleaner + Surge protector for $180.

He figured i've already spent 2k what's another 180.

I told him i already bought 3 hdmi cables for $30 and a surge protector for $15. I told him to keep his $135 LCD cleaner. He shut his trap.



last edited by GuessWhosBackAgain at 14:32:59 19/Nov/08

I'm not an electronics guy, but HDMI carries a digital signal yeh, so it either works or it doesn't, unlike VGA that can have attenuation & noise 'cos its an analog signal? Is this a scam?

Well you still get attenuation and noise on the cable, but it wouldn't manifest itself as degradation of the actual audio/video. A crap cable would merely put an upper limit on the cable length before the receiver chucks a spack.

If it already works for you then you definitely don't need a better cable. The actual quality of the audio/video won't improve. On top of that I would like to see return loss graphs of the expensive cables to actually justify the insane amount they want to charge. My view? They are probably not much better than regular cables anyway.

I think you get the same thing with fiber-optic cables too. Why a 1.5m cable full of glass would be better then another 1.5m cable full of glass is beyond me.

Yeah at 1.5m I'd like to think even the cheapest cable would be more than sufficient to meet the specs.

last edited by parabol at 14:41:24 19/Nov/08

yeah unless you need strong shielding because of devices nearby causing interference or long cable runs any digital cable should be the same as another.

I'm sure they could argue impedence, resistence, etc etc, but in reality as long as a cable is able to pass all the 1s and 0s through in the correct sequence and timing, then one can't really be better than the other.

You're pretty much right... I think better quality cables have less corruption over distance... better insulation and better quality fittings... thats about it.

I can't see picture quality being too much better (over 1.5M)

parabol, some fancy electronic equipment in here that might mean something like what you were asking: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/06/the_truth_about_monster_cable.html

Get them from EZYHD.COM.AU

I ordered a couple of HDMI cables at 2pm Thursday (paid by CC) and they were on my desk 9.30am Friday. Sweet.

Although I haven't actually used them yet, they appear to be of good quality and most people that have bought from there are happy.

They were about 1/2 the price of even the cheaper stores such as Jaycar. Except you do have a bit of shipping on top of that.

Once you get upto the 10m cable it is basically the same price as in the stores. I had to get one of these, $100 :(

Depends on the versions of the cables as well. Different HDMI versions have different features. I would say if you need to ask why spend $100 then don't bother getting one. Its a digital signal and will look exactly the same.

After paying $10 for my 1.5M HDMI cable, I couldn't ever justify paying any more than that. There's absolutely no need, unless you're going to be taking the signal over some big distances.

parabol, some fancy electronic equipment in here that might mean something like what you were asking

That's actually quite interesting. The eye-diagrams clearly show a difference in quality of the signal, but ... the skeptic in me is just begging for a test to be done by someone other than the company selling the product and to see what real-world difference it makes (to justify the 500-1000% premium).

I also wouldn't mind learning exactly what "low grade cable" they used and how it compares with say, a regular cable. And just as I typed that I came across Part 2 of the article:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-battlemodo/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-268788.php

They reckon at 2m it makes very little difference what cable you use. At longer distances they show monster being better but it still failed one of the tests (hehe).

Part 3: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/the_truth_about_monster_cable_2.html

He says mixed results and to try cheaper cables with a store exchange-guarantee before even touching Monster cables :)

I'd agree with that conclusion. If you're not seeing obvious signs of problems, then a better cable really isn't going to do anything useful. I guess I'm a little biased against a company charging 10x while not providing 10x the benefits.

last edited by parabol at 15:10:44 19/Nov/08

parabol; Choice Magazine (independent not-for-profit australian group) is doing a review of HDMI cables soon because of this very issue; hopefully it will finally put the discussion to rest.

last edited by Nathan at 15:27:53 19/Nov/08

Just read the gizmodo article, its interesting in that it confirms my suspicions - that a HDMI cable that is not good enough will be readily obvious to an untrained eye due to visual glitching on screen.

Depends on the versions of the cables as well.

I believe technically there's no versions, but simply the newer version has a higher bandwidth - better shielding etc. So a "1.3 cable" is one that has been tested to conform to the bandwidth requirements.

mongie: Sorry this forum sucks sometimes and I Accidentally deleted your post.

mongie: Sorry this forum sucks sometimes and I Accidentally deleted your post.

No one would have read it anyway.

there was an article about this on SMH the other week.

here is the jist.

Clint DeBoer, editor of audio visual magazine, Audioholics, conducted performance testing of a range of HDMI cables this year, and concluded: "At lengths less than four metres you can just about use silly string (OK, not really) and get HDMI to pass at any current resolution. Don't spend a lot on these cables and if you want to save money you won't let anyone at a big box store talk you into buying from them.

"For cables over five metres it's a good bet that you'll want to stick with trusted manufacturers who deliver on their specs."

We've got a too long HDMI cable going to our 1080p projector at work, It worked fine for a while but now shows visible corruption/artifacts on the screen. VGA and Component cables all show fine over the same length.

How long stinky?

I don't have the exact distance on my, but when the AV guys came in to install it they said we were gambling and had about a 50/50 chance of it artifacting. It would be at least 15 metres, maybe 20.

I bet if I threw a smaller res down in it'd probably fix itself, but I couldn't be arsed.

Ok, I have a 10m run at home and it's fine but it's only being going for a week or so.

Hope it doesn't end up going s***ty on me.

HDMI for say Top End gear but for Joe Blow with an LCD cheapy no.

I could clearly see a difference on my YumCHa Widescreen when i connected my DVD player from *Composite* up to S-Video. Im currently using a 3 piece component cable for video only (not sure what thats called) and it looks identical to DVD.

STandard Foxtel has a terrible picture quality but the Foxtel HD is incredibly good on the HD channels. I would want HDMI in that case.

*haha thx


last edited by FaceMan at 20:21:34 19/Nov/08

my sd component foxtel is fine over scart to component (5plug)

HDMI may not be of any benefit to lower quality sources but they are more convenient that one cable does the lot.

I bought a SCART to component cable from Jaycar when we got our new television in order to get the best Foxtel picture I could (standard Foxtel) and it cost me $39. Same cable at Wow was closer to $70 or $80.

Have considered getting Foxtel Digital but might wait for a bit (I think it's around $200 for the install). I suppose it's worth it but I have more pressing purchases at the moment.

We should be getting our "free" Blu-ray player soon (came with TV). Apparently Samsung are one of the few brands that provide a free HDMI cable with the unit.

Pays to shop around.

There is absolutely different versions of HDMI cable, not just bandwidth. Triggers, TrueColour, Deepblacks and there is even dual link. Bandwidth seriously degrades on HDMI cables over 2M regardless of the quality obviously better quality is better. You can actually lose available resolutions if your cable is too long. Especially if you are using dual link etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multimedia_Interface

I have about 30M of audioquest 1.3a in my house as the devices actually use the features and enjoy the extra bandwidth. It runs about $300m retail.

last edited by Ross at 17:02:02 19/Nov/08

The wikipedia article completely disagrees with your statement.

HDMI 1.3 has defined two categories of cables: Category 1 certified cables which have been tested at 74.5 MHz (1080i/720p) and Category 2 certified cables which has been tested at 340 MHz (1600p) to reduce the confusion about which cables support which video formats.

DeepColour etc at the cable level is just more bandwidth. A different "version" cable would imply more wires or a new pinout, neither of which is true. Perhaps you disagree with that definition of "version" though.

last edited by Nathan at 17:19:07 19/Nov/08

Surely it is just a function of hamming code, distance and cable grade.

For 1.5 metres, I am pretty sure that is within the 'spec' for vendors to plaster HDMI 1.x compatible across their packaging.

Get them from EZYHD.COM.AU

+1. Order a few times from them and although the prices went up a bit recently I just ordered 2 more 5m HDMI cables @ $40each. Never had any issues with service etc.

Heres a little training session for you all.

I could clearly see a difference on my YumCHa Widescreen when i connected my DVD player from Component up to S-Video. Im currently using a 3 piece component cable for video only (not sure what thats called) and it looks identical to DVD. M

• Composite = 1x Yellow RCA


• S-Video = PS/2 style connector - has seperate luma and chroma.


• Component = RGB or YPbPr. Uses 3 cables, normally red, blue and green.
  
  
  
  • RGB = (Red + Blue + Green) - Criticized for its waste of bandwidth.
  
  
  • YPbPr = Luma + Difference between Blue and Luma + Difference between Red and Luma
  
  
• HDMI = Digital signal (10101010101010) that carries an un-compressed signal + SOUND.

So, to clarify. Composite -> S-Video -> RGB -> YPbPr -> HDMI

(although once you get to YPbPr, you're doing pretty well)

last edited by mongie at 17:37:40 19/Nov/08

Your arrows are the wrong way around mongie!

I think the arrows are showing progression from worst to best, and not being the literal '>' greater than sign.

or he spent too much time in maths thinking about TV.

Yeh but its the internets stinky, everyone uses > for greater than.

For example, "hog > stinky" makes sense whatever the context!

Fixed for your viewing pleasure.

Yes but triggers are on different rails right?

and lipsync triggers? I am not going to read the article just thought I would reference it :)

Ahhh ok, I read it. You are right

http://www.interfacebus.com/HDMI_Pinout_Bus.html has the pinout.

The lipsync trigger functionality would be carried within the TDMS channel

TMDS channel

HDMI carries video, audio, and auxiliary data via one of three modes called the Video Data Period, the Data Island Period, and the Control Period

Of the other channels, DDC comes from PCs (?) to allow the system to find out what resolutions are supported, and CEC provides the functionality that lets one HDMI device control another. In other words, everything that matters is in the TMDS channel.

this reminds me of a post one time where sqarkyD compared some crazy expensive high end cable to a coathanger and the coathanger was the same or better or something

Yes, don't know why but just always assumed it was new pins.

ross = fail

yes i did, but the importance of the bandwidth was still in the spirit of my post :)

I also learned something which has never happened on QGL before. I am having sync issues's at home and after reading that weak HDCP signal strength bit I believe it is causing some problems.

So, to clarify. Composite -> S-Video -> RGB -> YPbPr -> HDMI

Thx for clearing that up.

Im guessing it looked as good as S-video because my YumCha TV couldnt do any better quality.

Jesus f***ing christ. Pro tip:


http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~boldajis/images/rno.jpg http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~boldajis/images/rno2.jpg

wow that's 10 minutes of your life that's not coming back.

Or maybe it will

When I moved house and had to buy long-arse video cables for the new setup, I shopped online:

http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3833

HEAPS cheaper than aussie stores. Genuine cables. Fast delivery - I was impressed.

I hate when people say "it's digital, so it either works or it doesn't" when refering to digital video. You can still get interference with a digital signal, but instead of getting snow/lines/buzzing you get artifacts, dropped frames and audio glitches.

I was under the impression that the true strenth of HDMI is that it uses error correction (in the same way network cables do) to reduce the reliance on shielding.

Oh, and nobody has mentioned that the different versions of HDMI have included improvements in audio capability. AFAIK any HDMI cable should work for any version of the HDMI interface (e.g. If you have a HDMI cable from 2004, it should work to connect two HDMI 1.3 devices).

I hate when people say "it's digital, so it either works or it doesn't" when refering to digital video. You can still get interference with a digital signal, but instead of getting snow/lines/buzzing you get artifacts, dropped frames and audio glitches.

Thats exactly what we mean when we say 'it works or it doesnt' - can an untrained eye/ear easily identify the problem? The digital age gets rid of the audiophile/videophile crap about improvements. You either have a HDMI cable that provides a glitch free experience, or you don't, and its completely obvious to anyone which you have.

AFAIK any HDMI cable should work for any version of the HDMI interface (e.g. If you have a HDMI cable from 2004, it should work to connect two HDMI 1.3 devices).

If it can carry the bandwidth (suitable shielding, wire gauge, build quality etc) , yes.

I think the point is not that digital can't be interfered with, but as long as the cable meets the standard and is capable of transferring all the bits in the right order at the right time, then there isn't a difference between them.

I don't usually revive old threads but this link deserved a post:

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp

AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable

Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.

haha

and woven jacketing to reduce vibration

i think a part of my brain just broke

I have always thought that high end cables are a farce, but I did have issues with a sony tv that had a claimed 1080p native res, thought I would try out hdmi from a htpc. What I got looked like arse 4-8bit colour. Three different video cards, different drivers and still it was crap. Only had the one hdmi cable so could test it further. There is a episode of dig or make, can't remember which were they go into making your own cables. Will have to find it

Some salesman are f***ing fail. I bought a big prosumer video camera that you would only ever keep in a case, mount on a tripod, etc.. and generally treat with respect. And this VideoPro idiot tries to sell me a neck strap to hang the camera off. What the f***.

AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable

What a joke.. if anyone's interested in a high quality premium link cable then I can supply them for half that price at $250!

What the f***

Yeah it's amazing what they try to match up decent hardware with.

My dad bought a decent blu-ray player for his home entertainment gear the other day when I was around. He reached into the box to find the standard HDMI cable just to do a quick test, the only cables in there were RCA. Wtf! We lol'd.

Really, RCA? As in composite cables? I didn't realise there were Blu Ray players that even had composite output, that seems totally retarded.

Really, RCA? As in composite cables?

Yep :P