Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

kuntasensei

Jhayman wrote: »

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

And again, you're not helping... Keep it civil.

ZLTFUL

If you honestly hate it so much here, then why don't you go away? You have disdain for a large majority of the members here, your posts are roughly 90% trolling/bashing/complaining, you don't appear to own a single Polk speaker and have expressed outright vitriol towards those who do. So again, I ask, why stick around? If your sole purpose is to troll the forums and not add anything constructive, then you are wasting not only your own time but the time of people who come here to actually find answers.

Justification in a hobby as *subjective* as this doesn't have to be a dollars and cents thing. If your ears (or in this specific case, eyes) tell you a story you like, then why does it matter to you what anyone says? Were you not held as a child? Are you just looking for someone to hug you? Stop wasting everyone's time and move along. This is a very good discussion with the only one interjecting insults and vitriol being you and you alone. Sure, there have been disagreements, but you are the only one calling people names or insulting their choices. It isn't your money, so please explain to me why it matters what they spend it on? Are you jealous that you can't afford to test multiple options in your own home? Don't be. Some people buy the horse and some people shovel the ****. If you're a shoveler, then enjoy what you can afford but don't begrudge the buyers their ability to make choices on a whim if they want.

Jhayman wrote: »

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

Lost240

I need to see this to believe it

quadzilla

kuntasensei wrote: »

quadzilla, I've asked several times in this thread and no one has answered except the OP (who said blurring, I believe). What artifacts did you see that were cleared up by the better cable?

I'm not really a "videophile" or whatever, so my vocabulary in this area fails. All I can say with certainty is that with the el-cheapo cables, the picture was not as clear and crisp as it was with the upgraded cables. The image seemed to have kind of a graininess to it that wasn't there with the upgraded cable. Also understand that the "upgraded" cables were merely 10s of dollars, as opposed to 10-12 dollars. I'm fairly certain I paid under a 100 each. I just got the Sony flat cables (http://store.sony.com/p/HDMI-cable/en/p/DLCHD20HF). They do fine for me.

kuntasensei

Okay. Do you still have the old cables? Just wondering, 'cause it would be interesting to see if any anomaly shows up using test patterns when you swap from one to the other.

cnh

Well, why doesn't someone just "ask" an an Engineer in the field. Someone who helped design the specs for HDMI in its various versions. There must be "standards" in the broadcasting/film industry, no? The idea that things can be better or worse is really an analog metaphor...is that really applicable to digital which is more either/or? On/off. Received/not-received.

In the digital to analog audio world one can integrally reach a limit: one approaches a limit where the parts become infinite and an analog wave form is described. But. when you view an HDTV you are seeing a DIGITAL picture which your eye, at a far enough distance AWAY from the screen, resolves into something that seems analog but never is! It remains a digital picture on the screen, all you have to do is get close enough to confirm that. So, in a way, unlike DACs in the audio world and cables in the audio world, the video world and its cable is digital to digital (hence the pass/fail idea?).

When a "professional" calibrates your TV he/she uses all kinds of patterns, software and devices to do so, so obviously, he/she is calibrating against a "set of standards". And that set should also be able to "judge" what the acceptable test parameters are. I do believe that that is part of what is being argued here in the Pass-fail theory presented above?

The long and the short is that I do not believe that people are processing what Kunta.. is saying above. He is NOT saying there are not standards for HDMI cables and quality or that there are no differences but there is a point at which (and it is not that pricey) where these things become irrelevant, no longer apply, once we've met the "criteria". There is NO MORE or LESS when the criteria are met.

cnh

Conradicles

I know one way to tell picture quality that has nothing to do with color, depth etc. Watch a channel like ESPN that has the words/information flowing across the bottom of the screen. Try various cables and see if there is a difference with the integrity of the words/characters. Then you may be surprised with the results that defy logic.

BlueFox

cnh wrote: »

Well, why doesn't someone just "ask" an an Engineer in the field. Someone who helped design the specs for HDMI in its various versions. There must be "standards" in the broadcasting/film industry, no? The idea that things can be better or worse is really an analog metaphor...is that really applicable to digital which is more either/or? On/off. Received/not-received.

I have not swapped HDMI cables enough to add anything HDMI specific to this thread. However, from a digital perspsective, I have multiple RCA S/PDIF digital cables used to attach the music server to the DAC, and each cable has its own sound. The more expensive the cable the better the detail and soundstage. I do not see why this cannot also apply to HDMI cables. In this situation, until proven otherwise, I will believe those who say that can see a difference.

kuntasensei

BlueFox wrote: »

I have not swapped HDMI cables enough to add anything HDMI specific to this thread. However, from a digital perspsective, I have multiple RCA S/PDIF digital cables used to attach the music server to the DAC, and each cable has its own sound. The more expensive the cable the better the detail and soundstage. I do not see why this cannot also apply to HDMI cables. In this situation, until proven otherwise, I will believe those who say that can see a difference.

As I've explained in this thread, S/PDIF = no error check at the sink end, just data and clock, and it sends only the raw binary 1s and 0s (so a single bit can be affected by noise or signal degradation). HDMI = data, redundant phase-reversed data (to cancel out the effect of RF interference - see XLR cables), clock, compression into 10-bit digital words with 2 bits of checksum data (which is why single bits can't be altered by cable quality - they aren't reconstructed until the display), then decoding of that 10-bit digital word back into the binary at the sink end with rejection of any corrupt packets of data that fail the checksum. S/PDIF has its own sound because its packets of data are susceptible to alteration by the cable. HDMI doesn't have that issue because any alteration via interference is first negated by the redundant data feed, then IF there's still corruption, error checked so that corrupt packets simply aren't used - which is when you lose picture. In this case, the quality of the cable determines the maximum length that the cable can be and still retain enough signal to handle the bandwidth for a given resolution and frame rate.

Signal-wise, it's like the difference between using RCA as an interconnect vs. balanced XLR, which is why XLR cables have a lower noise floor - noise is rejected due to the redundant signal leads reversed in phase.

kuntasensei

Conradicles wrote: »

I know one way to tell picture quality that has nothing to do with color, depth etc. Watch a channel like ESPN that has the words/information flowing across the bottom of the screen. Try various cables and see if there is a difference with the integrity of the words/characters. Then you may be surprised with the results that defy logic.

They don't defy logic... It just becomes a question of what causes the issue. If you're talking ESPN, you're talking 1080i video (which doesn't require nearly as much bandwidth as 1080p from a Blu-ray player, so if your cable is showing issues at 1080i, it will likely fail at 1080p altogether). The reason I mention that this is 1080i is because horizontal scrolling is susceptible to how well your display handles deinterlacing, since 1080i video is actually 2 sets of alternating 1920x540 frames.

If you're seeing issues with horizontal scrolling, this can be an indicator to tell you where in the signal chain you do the deinterlacing. For instance, many AVRs can now convert 1080i to 1080p instead of your display... and depending on what chipset your AVR uses compared to what your display uses, it may be preferable to do so.

But the HDMI cable can't alter this deinterlacing step - it merely sends the data for each frame to your display. Then, since your display has to display this 1080i video at its native panel resolution (1080p), the display circuitry that receives the data then deinterlaces it to create a 1080p RGB signal, which is then fed to the LCD panel, plasma matrix, etc. This is why you shouldn't judge changes in quality using 1080i video - because there are too many things in the signal chain that can cause poor deinterlacing at the display (though the HDMI cable isn't one of them). A good calibration disc (like Spears & Munsil) will have 1080i horizontal scrolling patterns so you can assess this with your display. You also shouldn't judge quality changes using broadcast television, since transmission issues before your source encodes to TMDS will create a garbage-in/garbage-out situation (because OTA digital transmission doesn't have the robust error-rejection and checking that HDMI has, and cable/satellite alter the bandwidth so they can squeeze in more channels, which causes its own video artifacts). Ideally, you want to assess quality based on a source that isn't susceptible to this - such as a Blu-ray player. Also, if your cable/satellite box itself outputs 1080p, then it is handling the deinterlacing... so you may find that it's best to let that source output the native resolution and let a device further down the line handle the deinterlacing. Cable/satellite boxes rarely have the quality of deinterlacing that you see in more AVRs and displays now.

mantis

cnh wrote: »

Well, why doesn't someone just "ask" an an Engineer in the field. Someone who helped design the specs for HDMI in its various versions. There must be "standards" in the broadcasting/film industry, no? The idea that things can be better or worse is really an analog metaphor...is that really applicable to digital which is more either/or? On/off. Received/not-received.

In the digital to analog audio world one can integrally reach a limit: one approaches a limit where the parts become infinite and an analog wave form is described. But. when you view an HDTV you are seeing a DIGITAL picture which your eye, at a far enough distance AWAY from the screen, resolves into something that seems analog but never is! It remains a digital picture on the screen, all you have to do is get close enough to confirm that. So, in a way, unlike DACs in the audio world and cables in the audio world, the video world and its cable is digital to digital (hence the pass/fail idea?).

When a "professional" calibrates your TV he/she uses all kinds of patterns, software and devices to do so, so obviously, he/she is calibrating against a "set of standards". And that set should also be able to "judge" what the acceptable test parameters are. I do believe that that is part of what is being argued here in the Pass-fail theory presented above?

The long and the short is that I do not believe that people are processing what Kunta.. is saying above. He is NOT saying there are not standards for HDMI cables and quality or that there are no differences but there is a point at which (and it is not that pricey) where these things become irrelevant, no longer apply, once we've met the "criteria". There is NO MORE or LESS when the criteria are met.

cnh

I have many times. You wouldn't believe the different answers I get. It actually pisses me off some of the things I get told. But one common ground that all engineers have told me about all cables is what I have been saying for a number of years now. For the record I say it again

" Once you achieve the goal , nothing more can be done". So IF you have a HDMI cable that has the ability to pass all of the signal properly everytime all the time with NO errors , then buying a more expensive cable at the same exact length will not improve anything. Why? Because there is nothing more to give. You start with a digital audio and video signal , you have to send it to the next device in line to use it , the cable has to get it there unaltered in every single way , once this achieved , your done.
Now back to the link with the test with little differences , no matter how small they are , there are differences in how both of these cables performed sending data from one thing to another. This means there is still flaws in the signal path. Better quality cables are required IF you want to send 100% of the signal unaltered.

IF a cable can't get 100% of the signal from A to B , then that cable is not doing it's job. Except able tolerances are not excepted here. If a cable can perform and not need a curve to qualify , then the job is done , if you need a range or curve if you will , then the cable is not doing the entire job.

Now for all of you who love to go on technical side of things , HDMI by spec works or it doesn't . When I was trained in HDMI , I was told it works or it doesn't , there is no room for any error. Green screens are not possible , speckles on the screen are not possible , video drop outs are not possible. These are the words from the trainer from HDMI LLC. But in the really real world , we all have experienced all of these things. It was so bad in the beginning that most of us professional went back to component video and digital audio VIA Optical or Coax. For True HD or DTS MA we ran 6 channel out for audio and component for video. This is also after the disaster of DVI. Most of you haven't experienced what I have being in the field and seen more failure in the last 7 years then anything ever in our industry.
Don't ever tell me that a cheap HDMI cable is all I need to get the job done. I have seen more fail then I care to speak of. I have had shoe string quality analog interconnects that where free in the box with tape decks and cd players that never ever failed. I have seen them perform there job for 20 years with no failure. I have seen brand new HDMI cables right out of the bag or box work , then fail or not work at all right out of the original package. This includes for some reason an online favorite Monoprice cables. I'm here to tell you not only are HDMI cables terrible but the technology is terrible as well. It needs to go away and die. I would like to see 10BaseT take over or Thunderbolt technology.

polkfarmboy

kuntasensei wrote: »

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):


'Nuff said.

Well from that review I have done the same test as I too own the wireworld hdmi but my version is the silverstarlite thats is in the range above. I had the same results of not being able to tell picture quality apart from a cheaper one

Inspector 24

I run a 3' HDMI to the Reciever, 3' HDMI to the Balun, through 30' Cat5, and another 3' HDMI cable, and I can't honestly say I've noticed a difference in PQ from when I had a 20' run of HDMI straight from the BRP to the PJ, other than a slight flicker when the fridge downstairs turns on and off.

Does that mean anything?

:razz:

leftwinger57

If this is all true then my problems I have had maybe had nothing to do w/ Cablevision but my store bought off shelf cables.
cablevision only offers 6' cords and I always needed longer ones. I have to now try to save and get some decent cables to be absolutely sure where the problems are.With me and my sheet cords or still w/Cablevision.They went all digital and everyone who never needed a box now has to have one and they changed their boxes to Samsung. This if it works wow.I have all those problems mentioned,depixalizing ,audio cut out,minor delay w/ changing stations.So now where Monoprice,Signal,Parts Express?

kuntasensei

The problems you're describing sound more like weak signal to your cable box than anything to do with HDMI. Digital cable always has a slight delay when changing channels. If you're seeing the picture degrade into blocks (like poor MPEG compression), that's not HDMI... That's more likely either your cable box not getting enough signal (or excess noise), meaning they need to come meter the cable to check the signal strength and SnR... or your cable company itself is just receiving a crappy feed and then passing it on to all their customers.

Not saying it wouldn't be worth trying a better HDMI cable, but I wouldn't go crazy with it.

kuntasensei

Inspector 24 wrote: »

I run a 3' HDMI to the Reciever, 3' HDMI to the Balun, through 30' Cat5, and another 3' HDMI cable, and I can't honestly say I've noticed a difference in PQ from when I had a 20' run of HDMI straight from the BRP to the PJ, other than a slight flicker when the fridge downstairs turns on and off.

Does that mean anything?

:razz:

Yeah, it means you were smarter than me! I should have done Cat5 and baluns when I did my run.

pitdogg2

kuntasensei wrote: »

The problems you're describing sound more like weak signal to your cable box than anything to do with HDMI. If you're seeing the picture degrade into blocks (like poor MPEG compression), that's not HDMI... That's more likely either your cable box not getting enough signal (or excess noise), meaning they need to come meter the cable to check the signal strength and SnR... or your cable company itself is just receiving a crappy feed and then passing it on to all their customers.

I would say it is more to do with the compression. Cable and Satellite companies are compressing more than ever to get more bandwidth for other things they want to put in the pipe.

headrott

pitdogg2 wrote: »

I would say it is more to do with the compression. Cable and Satellite companies are compressing more than ever to get more bandwidth for other things they want to put in the pipe.

I would agree with this.

kuntasensei

pitdogg2 wrote: »

I would say it is more to do with the compression. Cable and Satellite companies are compressing more than ever to get more bandwidth for other things they want to put in the pipe.

That's a given, but then ALL of their customers would be getting the same audio dropouts and blocking (which is possible if none of them complained, I guess). leftwinger, do you have any friends/family with the same company? If they're seeing the same problems, then... well, like pitdogg2 said, not much you can do about that. Either way, probably not a HDMI issue.

May still be worth having them check your line. I had borderline signal once and would get what you're describing, and they eventually found out it was because our hoodlum neighbors opened up the junction and spliced their own line in using a splitter (which dropped our signal 3dB).

kuntasensei

mantis wrote: »

Now for all of you who love to go on technical side of things , HDMI by spec works or it doesn't . When I was trained in HDMI , I was told it works or it doesn't , there is no room for any error. Green screens are not possible , speckles on the screen are not possible , video drop outs are not possible. These are the words from the trainer from HDMI LLC. But in the really real world , we all have experienced all of these things.

Yeah, and if the decoding in the TVs worked as HDMI LLC wanted them to, none of those things would happen. TV manufacturers seem to have allowed a looser threshold for failure than the specs call for.

mantis wrote: »

I'm here to tell you not only are HDMI cables terrible but the technology is terrible as well. It needs to go away and die. I would like to see 10BaseT take over or Thunderbolt technology.

I think the thing people fail to understand (in general and in this thread) is that HDMI isn't a video or audio cable... it's a DATA cable, like you have in your network or inside your computer going to your hard drive. It bears many similarities to the SATA interface for hard drives. Having a better cable on your hard drive isn't going to improve the data that it receives so long as it's working in the first place, just like a better network cable isn't going to change your data along the way somehow.

I'm with you on wanting something like 10BaseT instead. With gigabit ethernet already being a known entity as far as cable lengths go, I'm not sure why that's not PLENTY of bandwidth for 4k video. I'm not that familiar with Thunderbolt as far as what lengths of cable you can reach without corruption, but the bandwidth is mighty impressive.

sodablue

headrott wrote: »

So, what meter are you using to measure imaging and soundstage width and depth? Or, are you referring to measuring these with your ears, brain and consciousness?

Can you identify the difference between two cables without seeing the cables and knowing how much they cost?

F1nut

sodablue, that blind dog don't hunt here.

kuntasensei

sodablue wrote: »

Can you identify the difference between two cables without seeing the cables and knowing how much they cost?

I'd be more impressed if they could pick which hard drive cable in their computer transmitted data the best... or which ethernet cable in their network has the best signal. Oh, right, that's ridiculous... because they're just data cables. Like HDMI. :razz:

F1nut

kuntasensei, I fully grasp what you are stating about the technology, but obviously there's more to it than that otherwise folks wouldn't report the differences they do. I suppose one could fall back on the placebo effect and while that may be for some folks, it sure as heck isn't for all.

kuntasensei

That's the thing though... How can there be a difference? Your display receives the data, then interprets it into a picture. Same data = same exact picture. Different cable = same data. Increased sharpness... more vivid color... more depth to the picture... These are analog video concepts, and not applicable to digital video transmission.

I don't doubt that they're seeing a difference, nor do I doubt that some cables are better than others in construction, materials, etc. The question I have is: If they're seeing differences, WHY? Because unlike analog, the picture is not dependent upon the signal strength. The only thing that can change the picture is the display's controls AFTER the digital is decompressed at the display, which rules out the cable as the cause of the change.

Now, you CAN have settings in the TV that can greatly affect quality. For instance, in my case, I learned that my Epson 8500UB loses chroma resolution if you feed it any other color space than RGB. It shouldn't... but it does, and Epson confirmed it after I sent them pics and a testing methodology to reproduce it. Also, the Epson does a better job at deinterlacing than my AVR or cable box does, so I was losing quality there before I tested it to find the best setting. I would totally believe that things like those could be the culprit here... but a data cable? I just don't see how.

headrott

sodablue wrote: »

Can you identify the difference between two cables without seeing the cables and knowing how much they cost?

Sure I can if they are hooked up to my gear. But why would I need to be "in the dark" when comparing them? And, why use a method of cable comparisons that was not designed to be used for stereophonic audio? If you search regarding blind tests, this has been fully (I mean very fully) debated in the past here on the forum.

kuntasensei wrote: »

I'd be more impressed if they could pick which hard drive cable in their computer transmitted data the best... or which ethernet cable in their network has the best signal. Oh, right, that's ridiculous... because they're just data cables. Like HDMI. :razz:

I haven't checked to see if I can specifically hear a difference between hard drive cables (per se) but I can hear an audible difference (especially in the high end) after a CD is copied to a CD-R and repeatedly copied over 20 times.
Also, I use an ethernet cable to transmit the DSD signal (from an SACD player) to my DAC and can easily hear differences in the cables I hook up. Tonality, imaging, etc. are better when switching from a "standard quality" ethernet cable to one made with solid core PCOCC-A Acoustic Revive ethernet cable. Yep. Why? Because as I have stated to you earlier in this thread, the digital signal is transmitted faster and more efficiently from the SACD player to the DAC making the D/A conversion more efficient and making what you hear sound better. Yep. "Data" can still be electrically and dynamically influenced. Yep. As I stated earlier, your level (scale) of observation may need to be refined more before you can see and/or hear it however. Yep.

Here is a link to the LAN cable: http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_cable.html

kuntasensei

headrott wrote: »

Also, I use an ethernet cable to transmit the DSD signal (from an SACD player) to my DAC and can easily hear differences in the cables I hook up. Tonality, imaging, etc. are better when switching from a "standard quality" ethernet cable to one made with solid core PCOCC-A Acoustic Revive ethernet cable. Yep. Why? Because as I have stated to you earlier in this thread, the digital signal is transmitted faster and more efficiently from the SACD player to the DAC making the D/A conversion more efficient and making what you hear sound better.

I'm throwing my hands up at this point... If you hear a digital signal magically create analog-based changes, then you're their target audience. Go in peace, my brother.

Jhayman

I hear ya brother..
But I'm wondering myself if Headrott is hearing a change after copying his CD and if said CD was say 695mb in size and after it was copied the file was still 695mb in size does that not mean 100% of the information was copied therefore a bit for bit Perfect copy?
Meaning it can't be different ..unless maybe the copied copy is of poor quality CD material?

kuntasensei wrote: »

I'm throwing my hands up at this point... If you hear a digital signal magically create analog-based changes, then you're their target audience. Go in peace, my brother.

sodablue

headrott wrote: »

Sure I can if they are hooked up to my gear. But why would I need to be "in the dark" when comparing them? And, why use a method of cable comparisons that was not designed to be used for stereophonic audio? If you search regarding blind tests, this has been fully (I mean very fully) debated in the past here on the forum.

I kid... I kid....

There's been numerous studies done with wine. Same wine, different label, and people are absolutely convinced the label that looks like the more expensive one is clearly better tasting.

The placebo effect is real.

BlueFox

headrott wrote: »

Also, I use an ethernet cable to transmit the DSD signal (from an SACD player) to my DAC and can easily hear differences in the cables I hook up.

In April 2013 issue of the absolute sound they are covering the 2013 Consumer Electronic Show that manufacturers use to demo their new gear. On page 76 they talk about Ethernet cables and how the new AudioQuest Vodka Ethernet cables provide a "drastic" improvement.

"You don't know how much you are missing in naturalness, detail, and focus until you replace your stock Ethernet cable with a good one like the Vodka."

Price is $250/meter