Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

kuntasensei

DSkip wrote: »

What I get from what you're saying K is that any differences are due to a faulty cable, not the quality of the materials etc. If you get artifacts, then it wasn't manufactured as intended, correct?

I've got zero opinion on this because I don't have any experience and, quite frankly, don't care.

The quality of the materials matters more as far as maximum bandwidth. Any HDMI 1.3 cable should pass 1080p/60 or it's poorly designed and shouldn't have made its way through certification. But a silver cable isn't going to pass 1080p/60 better or worse than a steel cable so long as both get the same data to the endpoint without catastrophic failure. However, if you take those same two cables and try to pass a 4K signal across them, the silver cable is far more likely to handle the increased bandwidth than the steel cable. That doesn't mean that the steel cable will produce a 4k picture with degraded quality... It just won't display a 4k picture.

Rather than try to explain why that is, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_effect

Jhayman

I hear ya Kuntasensei...
Go watch Startrek it's Great
, I watched it 3 days ago, Love it.

headrott

kuntasensei wrote: »

Actually, NO. Not really. Because beyond a point that error correction says there are too many errors, what you will see/hear is NOTHING. You don't lose resolution when those errors occur... You simply don't get a picture. Your student has failed.

Let me just respond to this part since you still haven't really responded to the point I brought up in my first post that is related to what is above:

That is in the above response you are referring to dropping below the MINIMUM acceptable level of data transferrence speed and error. What happens if you meet AND greatly exceed this minimum level? You gain faster data transferrence and lower data error and therefore when the data is converted back into audio/video then you will gain improved picture/audio. YES, really.

F1nut

The reason I asked about your thoughts on fiber optic is that at first "they" said/thought the same thing you're now saying about HDMI. However, as time went on "they" discovered that differences in the composition/construction of fiber optic cables do indeed make them different. That is, some perform better than others. Yet they are still folks that think as long as it is passing the 1"s and 0's (pass or fail) it's as good as it gets.

hosedagain

FYI

http://www.learnhdmi.com/hdmi-cable-comparison

F1nut

Jhayman wrote: »

Not really because there are always people willing to part with their money reguardless of what someone tells them..

Conversely, there are people who will not part with their money specifically because of something they read or were told.

where do you think snakeoil comes from..

It's a term used by people like those above that do not try something for themselves. It makes them feel better about their lack of experience.

But hey if you see a difference then you see a difference..

At least they tired it, which is always better than those who won't.

hosedagain

Note the results in this link, comments are interesting

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/4235717

F1nut

hosedagain wrote: »

FYI

http://www.learnhdmi.com/hdmi-cable-comparison

From that article,

HDMI is a digital format - unlike analog, where some amount of noise, or static, is constantly present. A digital signal is basically “all-or-nothing” - you either receive the image in its entirety or not at all.

And again, "they" said the same thing about fiber at first. Now, "they" know different.

K-daugh

not to intrude but.... could anyone give me like a top ten list of quallity brands of hdmi 1 being the best ...basing on build quality 1.4 and ethernet capability as well ..thanks

Jhayman

I have parted with my $$ but in a wisely manner..
I have compared HDMI cables all different brands, Monster, Belkin, generic Nordost and Tom and Jerry and Hagen Das and you know what I found out They are all the same except in COST..BUT I choose to have the prettiest looking cable hooked up to my system..
Snakeoil exists for show, How else do you get a 1 or 2M Power Cable costing more than a 3/4 Of Polk Speaker Line up..

F1nut wrote: »

Conversely, there are people who will not part with their money specifically because of something they read or were told.



It's a term used by people like those above that do not try something for themselves. It makes them feel better about their lack of experience.



At least they tired it, which is always better than those who won't.

Jhayman

Let me add to my last post..
They give all the same picture quality, BUT some are better built and that's it..

mantis

K-daugh wrote: »

not to intrude but.... could anyone give me like a top ten list of quallity brands of hdmi 1 being the best ...basing on build quality 1.4 and ethernet capability as well ..thanks

1) Audioquest
2) Monstercable
3) Key Digital
4) Binary
5) Tributaries
6) Kimber Kable
7) Cardas
8) Honeywell
9) Planer Waves
10) Gefen

headrott

Jhayman wrote: »

I have parted with my $$ but in a wisely manner..
I have compared HDMI cables all different brands, Monster, Belkin, generic Nordost and Tom and Jerry and Hagen Das and you know what I found out They are all the same except in COST..BUT I choose to have the prettiest looking cable hooked up to my system..
Snakeoil exists for show, How else do you get a 1 or 2M Power Cable costing more than a 3/4 Of Polk Speaker Line up..

Personally, I don't care what my cable (HDMI or otherwise) looks like. I am watching the picture quality, not the cable. It seems that the "they" types Jesse brought up are watching what "the experts" or "they" are saying about HDMI cables in online blogs or magazines. What a shame that some are taking what other people are saying, regardless of whether what "they" are saying is fully accurate with their understanding of how digital cables work or not and repeating it to "the less knowledgable snake oil buying crowd". We "snake oil buyers" are such rebels for not simply repeating what we hear and read, but actually telling our experiences.

disneyjoe7

Ok my take on this subject, because you know I had one.... Digital 1's and 0's high voltage vs. low voltage these changes are digital but.... speed affects the high vs. low voltage and this effects the square signal, less quality cables round the square signals.

tonyb

Now you've gone and done it Steve, you've rounded off the edges on the 1's and 0's. Blasphemy my good fellow.

kuntasensei

headrott wrote: »

Let me just respond to this part since you still haven't really responded to the point I brought up in my first post that is related to what is above:

That is in the above response you are referring to dropping below the MINIMUM acceptable level of data transferrence speed and error. What happens if you meet AND greatly exceed this minimum level? You gain faster data transferrence and lower data error and therefore when the data is converted back into audio/video then you will gain improved picture/audio. YES, really.

How have I not responded? You keep saying that, but I think I have addressed this repeatedly.

If you meet and greatly exceed the minimum level, the end result is still the same bits you had before... because digital transmission is subject to the cliff effect - a sudden falloff of transmission, NOT gradual the way analog degrades due to quality/length. Converting from TMDS back to binary at the sink end depends on the block of data arriving 100% intact. If it doesn't, that block of data can't be used AT ALL because it fails the error check. The checksum of that block of data comes back as bad. It simply drops out - it doesn't display at a degraded level of quality, because IT CAN'T. It's not analog video where you have a reconstruction stage based on voltage. The data checking is part of the interface, not something that the display takes time to do - it happens AT THE CHIPSET LEVEL, before the original binary per-pixel data is passed to the television's controls. I have described how that works several times now, and explained why you can't gain improved picture/audio from the higher signal version.

Put simply, 0001110001 still equals 0001110001 from beginning to end. If by the time it arrives, it reads as 0101001000, the error check in the HDMI chipset at the display says "this block of data is not close to correct". It then throws it out entirely, resulting in the picture going blank (or audio dropping out) until the chipset can re-sync the data leads to the clock lead (the waveform that tells it the frequency of data so it knows the right time to read the data leads) and check the next block of data. If the block of data is only slightly wrong, say 1001110001, the part of the chipset that does ISI compensation attempts to guess at which bit is wrong based on the checksum of the block of data. Sometimes, it gets it right and you never notice a pixel out of place. If it happens repeatedly, you get sparkles (dropped pixel data) - NOT a degradation in quality in some analog fashion or a reduction in resolution/blocking like you would see in MPEG compression.

So as I've said... you either get perfect picture, sparkles/blinking due to dropped data, or nothing. Those are the only three states. You can choose not to believe it, I suppose... though the people who designed the interface have said it. But hey, what would they know about the system they designed, right?

I give up trying to convince anyone, despite the fact that no one has given a single scientifically sound reason why digital video data can magically undergo analog-style improvements from a higher signal. If you think the cable gave you an improvement, then to you, it did.

kuntasensei

F1nut wrote: »

The reason I asked about your thoughts on fiber optic is that at first "they" said/thought the same thing you're now saying about HDMI. However, as time went on "they" discovered that differences in the composition/construction of fiber optic cables do indeed make them different. That is, some perform better than others. Yet they are still folks that think as long as it is passing the 1"s and 0's (pass or fail) it's as good as it gets.

I'm pretty sure Toshiba always knew the issues with TOSlink (as did audiophiles familiar with DACs) since it was subject to the same issues as early fiber-optic data transmission, regardless of what "they" may have thought. The difference is that S/PDIF and TOSlink don't have the robust error-rejection that HDMI has built into it at the interface level. It simply has DATA and CLOCK to try and correct for jitter, and when the quality of the cable was poor enough that it couldn't align the two, you got audible errors when the DAC did its conversion. Fortunately, HDMI doesn't have that issue because it's "all-or-nothing" nature is built-in by design.

kuntasensei

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Ok my take on this subject, because you know I had one.... Digital 1's and 0's high voltage vs. low voltage these changes are digital but.... speed affects the high vs. low voltage and this effects the square signal, less quality cables round the square signals.

Yup. That's what is shown in the graphic I posted earlier. If the cable rounds off the waveform into the failure threshold, it causes that bit to be misread - which is when the ISI correction tries to guess the bit based on the checksum value of the entire 10bit word. The dropping (video blanking or audio dropout) is how you know the cable's signal is too close to the threshold. If the cable is borderline at 720p then you send a 1080p signal over it, the increase in frequency then causes that rounding of the signal to hit the failure threshold completely, causing failure to display anything at all. Therefore, the signal quality of the cable can only affect the maximum bandwidth before the signal enters the failure state - there's no half-measure that just degrades the quality of the picture or sound.

kuntasensei

headrott wrote: »

Also, you did respond at all to the fact that data transmission speed will affect the conversion of the data (1's and 0's, NOT video and/or audio) from these 1's and 0's back into audio and video. And, this transmission speed is based upon the data error correction rate.

Had to go back to this quote to clarify something. Data transmission speed is NOT affected by the error correction or slowed down by failed packets. The clock signal remains constant depending on the resolution/framerate you're sending, therefore the transmission speed is also constant. It doesn't read the signal slower just because you've had an error reading one of the blocks of data. The bandwidth required for each resolution at 60fps is roughly as follows:
720p - 83 MHz
1080i - 93 MHz
1080p - 186.6 MHz

So if you have a cable that is already rounding off the signal at 83MHz, it likely won't pass 1080i at 93MHz (and if it does, it will probably have sparkles/intermittent blanking) and almost definitely won't pass 1080p at 186.6 MHz at all.

headrott

I do not think you know what I am saying. Perhaps it's because I am not explaining it well? But.........

It's all about how fine a scale you are "measuring" in, isn't it. At one scale you will get an all or nothing result; at a much finer scale, you will get signal degredation BEFORE you get signal loss. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There is no perfect signal transfer in any format. It's all electrical signals subject to degredation due to loss of speed, errors (despite the so called "built-in" error correction) and poor/lower quality materials and configuration.

You ask for scientific proof. I'll ask for a measuring device to show it. I'll offer my eyes, ears, brain and consciousness, but apparently to you "scientific" types, they are not a good for your standards. Obviously, since you don't have a measuring device to measere what I am saying, and you don't trust my measuring devices then we are at an impass. Since you seem to know all about digital signal transfer, perhaps you can come up with a measuring device to scientifically show what many of us can see and hear. Let me know when you have it figured out and you will have the proof that many of us have had for years and years. Until then, you will have to stick with your limited "scientific proof" to satisfy your audio/video needs as to what reality is. If what you feel is real is only what can be scientifically measured, then many of your brain functions are not real by your definition.

Alternatively, I will stick to my ears, eyes, brain and consciousness and be happy with what I see and hear instead of what a current measuring device (and naysayers) says I should see and hear. I'll take reality over "reality".

kuntasensei

headrott wrote: »

It's all about how fine a scale you are "measuring" in, isn't it. At one scale you will get an all or nothing result; at a much finer scale, you will get signal degredation BEFORE you get signal loss. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There is no perfect signal transfer in any format. It's all electrical signals subject to degredation due to loss of speed, errors (despite the so called "built-in" error correction) and poor/lower quality materials and configuration.

Except that in the case of HDMI, it is designed to get an all-or-nothing result. Digital transmission mediums such as S/PDIF or over-the-air ATSC transmission are NOT designed as such, which is why if you get a dropped data block while watching an ATSC signal on your TV, it results in MPEG-style blocking of the picture. THAT is the result of signal degradation when it comes to digital. I'm not denying that better cables conduct signal better than poorer-made cables. I'm just saying that the design of HDMI and the TMDS transmission system it uses is such that when the electric signal degrades (the rounding off of bits that we keep talking about), this doesn't translate to an analog-style degradation in picture quality because IT CAN'T. The signal loss simply means it can no longer accurately transmit the digital data. You're still applying analog logic (signal strength) to a digital system.

headrott wrote: »

You ask for scientific proof. I'll ask for a measuring device to show it. I'll offer my eyes, ears, brain and consciousness, but apparently to you "scientific" types, they are not a good for your standards. Obviously, since you don't have a measuring device to measere what I am saying, and you don't trust my measuring devices then we are at an impass.

On the contrary, you DO have a measuring device - YOUR EYES. And when you use those eyes with reference test patterns designed to show you that resolution/color is arriving as it should (i.e. a 1080p calibration disk), perhaps you will understand what I'm saying. The series of bits doesn't magically increase the end result because the signal that got it there is stronger. If you want to actually understand this and have a lesser cable to test, download the AVS 709 HD test disc (located here) and use it to display the single-pixel checkerboard pattern. This is the highest frequency pattern you could use to notice a change in quality. Try it on both cables and if you get a picture at all, they will be identical. They have to be by the nature of the HDMI interface. On the same token, bring up the contrast/brightness test pattern and try it on both cables. They will be identical, therefore the better cable can not make the picture appear to have more depth. That's because baseline black will still be digital 16 and peak white will still be digital 240 (though some would say to calibrate your display to 255, but that's another discussion altogether). The same goes for the color adjustment pattern... the sharpness pattern... the motion patterns for 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. They can not be different on the same display because the data fed to them by both cables is identical. If the cable can't handle the bandwidth required for the display to read the data and pass the error check, then it simply doesn't display anything at all. If it's borderline, then it shows sparkles or occasionally drops picture out while it resyncs to the clock signal.

headrott wrote: »

Alternatively, I will stick to my ears, eyes, brain and consciousness and be happy with what I see and hear instead of what a current measuring device (and naysayers) says I should see and hear. I'll take reality over "reality".

If you'd prefer that over understanding the science behind it, then enjoy your improved picture. Personally, I sought out an understanding of all of this when I got into proper reference calibration of my display. Understanding the science behind it gives me the ability to properly calibrate my projector to the standards used when creating the movies I love to watch... so that I can accurately recreate the image intended by the director.

headrott

Your whole counter-argument is always to selectively reply to what fits your agenda (as shown in the selected quotes above), and then try to steer that counter-argument (based on your selective response) to further fit your agenda. That is, you don't really reply to what is being asked or commented on, but you steer your argument to repeat what you have already said over and over. I really don't think you can say anything other than what you read on online blogs, reports, and "studies" that feed your ideas. Their ideas become your ideas and that's all you have to say. Ironically, you repeated what I had to say (in a small portion) in the above reply.

F1nut

A quick look came up with this, http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-difference-between-cheap-and-expensive-hdmi-cables/

While their conclusion is the admitted differences don't matter I would beg to differ as it's the little differences that DO matter. If you draw a line across the 100 level it's easy to see that the $200.00 cable outperforms the cheap one.

kuntasensei

headrott wrote: »

Your whole counter-argument is always to selectively reply to what fits your agenda (as shown in the selected quotes above), and then try to steer that counter-argument (based on your selective response) to further fit your agenda. That is, you don't really reply to what is being asked or commented on, but you steer your argument to repeat what you have already said over and over. I really don't think you can say anything other than what you read on online blogs, reports, and "studies" that feed your ideas. Their ideas become your ideas and that's all you have to say. Ironically, you repeated what I had to say (in a small portion) in the above reply.

If I selectively quote, it's to focus on the relevant question so as not to unnecessarily add length to the post. Ask a clear and concise question and I will answer it.

The funny part is that you and I aren't disagreeing on cable signal quality or the benefits of better cabling. We're just disagreeing on what effect that has at the display. And I'm not just regurgitating things I've read... I'm giving you practical information based on my interest and experience in display calibration. I'm here (and on other AV forums) because of my love of movies and my desire to recreate them accurately at home. I am an enthusiast. It's why I own a SPL meter. It's why I own a colorimeter. It's why I've spent lots of time with calibration discs analyzing the effects of color space on test patterns on my projector, and why I've spent HOURS sitting in front of a laptop correcting the grayscale of my display. It's also why I learned that my Epson projector truncates high-frequency chroma data when sent anything other than RGB. I make it a point to arm myself with the knowledge I need to get the best result because I'm interested.

But hey, I ain't mad at ya'!

kuntasensei

F1nut wrote: »

A quick look came up with this, http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-difference-between-cheap-and-expensive-hdmi-cables/

While their conclusion is the admitted differences don't matter I would beg to differ as it's the little differences that DO matter. If you draw a line across the 100 level it's easy to see that the $200.00 cable outperforms the cheap one.

The little differences do matter, but when it comes to color calibration, you're looking to get the variation down below a certain threshold. If you're within deltaE 1.0 of the ideal color points, it is considered imperceptible. However, no display has perfect color gamut, therefore ISF calibrators typically shoot for a deltaE of 3.0 or lower from ideal (and it's HARD to get that on a display). You're saying "draw a line across the 100 level", but that's not what you should be looking at on the color points because 100 isn't the ideal. What you're looking at is whether the x, y and z coordinates shown below that coincide with the known x, y and z coordinates of the ideal color points in that particular color space. You also have to discount the variations in the first two sets of columns (the lower IRE levels) because colorimeters have a harder time consistently reading RGB at those brightness levels. If you watch the colorimeter readings in real-time at the lower IRE levels, they're far less stable because of the meter itself.

(Yes, I really have spent this much time using ColorHCFR and reading up on proper display calibration. Heh...)

F1nut

But clearly there are differences and that was only between 2 cables.

kuntasensei

F1nut wrote: »

But clearly there are differences and that was only between 2 cables.

It's like you didn't read anything I said. Or that they said. Here's the link to the original forum post that your link was based on:
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=984661

And here was the text of their conclusion (emphasis added):

Looking through the charts, we can see there are some very minor variations - all readings still fall under our acceptable limit of DeltaE 3, and our colours fall in the same spots on the charts. There are some minor variations, but nothing that can't be accounted for with possible read errors in the meter itself. The blacks are the hardest parts to read, and that is where the variations take place. I could probably get a more consistent reading overall by increasing my read times, but I had a powerful need to sleep before 2am.

So, anyway, there are our results. There is no significant difference between our cheapest (and cheapest looking - with non gold plated connector) bundled Toshiba HDMI cable, and the most expensive (and coolest looking - it's freaking purple, with shiny ends and cool looking screws in the connector- check it out!) Audio Dimension 5m HDMI cable.

'Nuff said.

ft_townman

My test, for me, concluded with a better quality picture. Not only me, but my friend saw this as well. I've heard before that HDMI cables don't matter which is why i decided to "see" for myself. I also heard that you definately see a differnece between the 2 when running lengths over 20 or 30 feet. My particular setup only needs a few feet for each HDMI. So i ask you to do a test yourself with your equipment instead of telling us how it "should be." Although i don't expect you to as many don't. You are set in your beliefs and that's fine. But when all we have are our ears, and eyes, and no tool, how can any one person say it's better or worse. Find out for yourself in your application. I can't put my finger on what caused this better picture but all i did was switch the cables, no other calibration of any kind. and like i said i did this on both of my tv's just to be sure.

kuntasensei

Like I said... if you see a subjective difference, it was worth it to you. If you still have the old cable, I would be interested if you could check test patterns as I said earlier so we would have an idea of what the changes you're seeing actually are based on known references. You can download a free disc of patterns here that will play in any Blu-ray player or your PS3. You don't need equipment to do this test... Only your eyes. And if you haven't calibrated your set, this will help you anyway.

I used to have a cheap cable (I believe that was packed in with my old Panasonic S97) that was HDMI 1.1, and it wouldn't pass 1080p at all. So I'm not saying that I haven't seen "a difference", because I did - one cable didn't work, the other one did. The question I'm positing is if, in a system wherein there should not be a difference, there is a difference, how does that difference exhibit itself against known references? If you're game to try it, it would be interesting. For that matter, if you don't want to do it and you still have the cable, I'll pay shipping for you to send it my way and I'll swap it into my system that is calibrated as close to reference as possible to see if it creates visible issues. Could make for a fun exercise!

Jhayman

Kuntasensei , don't worry you can keep explaining it to them till you are blue in the face..
They won't, can't believe you because they have to justify their $$$ HDMI cables and will have to start questioning their beliefs of other audio related gear..lol