Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

Habanero Monk

chumlie wrote: »

Whats MWAF ?

Midwest Audio Fest put on by Parts Express outside of Dayton Ohio. It'll be attended by a bunch of people that also know a $200 6ft length of cable isn't going to outperform $20 of same.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Midwest Audio Fest put on by Parts Express outside of Dayton Ohio. It'll be attended by a bunch of people that also know a $200 6ft length of cable isn't going to outperform $20 of same.

You mentioned what $20.00 cable, but failed to mention a $200.00 cable to compare it to? Just because a cable costs $200.00 doesn't mean it will outperform a $20.00 cable. Why not state a cable that uses well designed solid pure silver and/or PCOCC (copper wire) with excellent dialectrics and well designed, implimented and high quality material shielding and construction? That makes more sense than simply stating "a $20 cable vurses a $200 cable". You are trying to "bring down" a high quality cable to the level of a "cheap" cable. I define a "cheap" cable as one using low quality materials, design, and construction. I define "high quality" as mentioned above.

Also, as I brought up before; what blu-ray player are you hooking these cables up to? In the video you posted, I would guess it was a $175.00 blu-ray player (at best). I cannot read the brand name on it, however (I would need a bigger screen than my laptop screen to read it). What display/projector/screen, etc. are you displaying and playing the blu-rays on? If you are doing a similar test as in the video you posted (i.e. using a $175 blu-ray player and hooking up a $20 and $100 HDMI cable to it to "compare", I would say you probably won't notice a difference in picture quality. This is because you are using a blu-ray player that is equivalently capable of displaying a better picture as the $20 cable. Of course you won't see a difference). That is, with lower quality design and parts (i.e. capacitors, resistors, rectifiers, etc.,etc,.ect.) used in the blu-ray player, you cannot put out a higher quality picture and sound.

F1nut

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Midwest Audio Fest put on by Parts Express outside of Dayton Ohio. It'll be attended by a bunch of people that also know a $200 6ft length of cable isn't going to outperform $20 of same.

Nothing like making a prediction before you or the bunch of people you somehow think you speak for actually try different cables. Your bias is glaring and therefore your thoughts on the matter should be dismissed outright. What is also glaring is your lack of a response to the comment about your inexperience with other HDMI cables.

Life can be tough when you bite off more than you can chew.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

You mentioned what $20.00 cable, but failed to mention a $200.00 cable to compare it to?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

How about Blue Jean Cable BJC Series-FE 6 ft vs ~ $200 6ft that anyone wants to bring?

headrott wrote: »

Just because a cable costs $200.00 doesn't mean it will outperform a $20.00 cable. Why not state a cable that uses well designed solid pure silver and/or PCOCC (copper wire) with excellent dialectrics and well designed, implimented and high quality material shielding and construction? That makes more sense than simply stating "a $20 cable vurses a $200 cable". You are trying to "bring down" a high quality cable to the level of a "cheap" cable. I define a "cheap" cable as one using low quality materials, design, and construction. I define "high quality" as mentioned above.

I'm throwing this out there for anyone that would like to unequivocally demonstrate that $$ buys performance when it comes to some 6ft HDMI cables. That is why I am leaving the $200 brand open to what ever. It's just beer.

headrott wrote: »

Also, as I brought up before; what blu-ray player are you hooking these cables up to?

I will bring a computer with two identical ATI Radeon's and a display device with multiple HDMI inputs. The displays will be mirrored in Windows and the participant can A/B with remote between cables. This will be single blind as I will know which display is which but not participating.

headrott wrote: »

What display/projector/screen, etc. are you displaying and playing the blu-rays on? If you are doing a similar test as in the video you posted (i.e. using a $175 blu-ray player and hooking up a $20 and $100 HDMI cable to it to "compare", I would say you probably won't notice a difference in picture quality.

ATI Radeon's are without reproach when it comes to Picture Quality.

Habanero Monk

F1nut wrote: »

Nothing like making a prediction before you or the bunch of people you somehow think you speak for actually try different cables. Your bias is glaring and therefore your thoughts on the matter should be dismissed outright. What is also glaring is your lack of a response to the comment about your inexperience with other HDMI cables.

Life can be tough when you bite off more than you can chew.

You are always welcome to attend and have a blast and let me buy you a few beers. Chew on that.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm throwing this out there for anyone that would like to unequivocally demonstrate that $$ buys performance when it comes to some 6ft HDMI cables. That is why I am leaving the $200 brand open to what ever. It's just beer.



I will bring a computer with two identical ATI Radeon's and a display device with multiple HDMI inputs. The displays will be mirrored in Windows and the participant can A/B with remote between cables. This will be single blind as I will know which display is which but not participating.



ATI Radeon's are without reproach when it comes to Picture Quality.

Let me just sum up your post by saying you obviously didn't comprehend and/or are ignoring what I stated in my past couple posts. You are not going to see a difference in HDMI cables using a computer (with a low quality (low quality again defined as lower quality capacitors, resistors, transport mechanism, laser, etc., etc.) blu-ray player in it compared to say even a Denon DVD-A1UDCI let alone an even better player) as a source for displaying your picture.

ATI Radeon's might be without reporach when it comes to displaying picture quality.........in computers. One problem with stating that ATI Radeon's are without reproach in picture quality is partly that you are only looking at one single aspect of the entire system. That is, you are looking only at the video processing (in the ATI Radeon card). What about the transport mechanism? What about the capacitors, resistors, bridge rectifiers, etc., etc., etc., what about the quality of laser used to read the blu-ray that are involved in making the data signal being sent through the HDMI cable and then converted by the display? (ie. projector, LED tv, plasma tv, LCD tv). But my argument would be that a stand alone high quality blu-ray player will absolutely outperform your computer based "blu-ray player". This is because the quality of parts used in a stand alone player such as the Denon DVD-A1UDCI (although there are even better examples) are much better than your computer based blu-ray player. You problem with comparing HDMI cables is you aren't looking at the "full picture" (yes pun intended) of everything that goes into displaying the picture you see and the audio you hear. That is, you are not looking at a fine enough scale and not a broad enough view when it comes to displaying picture quality differences in HDMI cables.

Also, I think you should participate in the comparison after you actually assemble a video system that is actually capable of displaying the differences in higher quality and lower quality HDMI cables; because the system you spoke of above will not do it (just as it did not do it in the video you posted).

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Let me just sum up your post by saying you obviously didn't comprehend and/or are ignoring what I stated in my past couple posts. You are not going to see a difference in HDMI cables using a computer (with a low quality (low quality again defined as lower quality capacitors, resistors, transport mechanism, laser, etc., etc.) blu-ray player in it compared to say even a Denon DVD-A1UDCI let alone an even better player) as a source for displaying your picture.

ATI Radeon's might be without reporach when it comes to displaying picture quality.........in computers. One problem with stating that ATI Radeon's are without reproach in picture quality is partly that you are only looking at one single aspect of the entire system. That is, you are looking only at the video processing (in the ATI Radeon card). What about the transport mechanism? What about the capacitors, resistors, bridge rectifiers, etc., etc., etc., what about the quality of laser used to read the blu-ray that are involved in making the data signal being sent through the HDMI cable and then converted by the display? (ie. projector, LED tv, plasma tv, LCD tv). But my argument would be that a stand alone high quality blu-ray player will absolutely outperform your computer based "blu-ray player". This is because the quality of parts used in a stand alone player such as the Denon DVD-A1UDCI (although there are even better examples) are much better than your computer based blu-ray player. You problem with comparing HDMI cables is you aren't looking at the "full picture" (yes pun intended) of everything that goes into displaying the picture you see and the audio you hear. That is, you are not looking at a fine enough scale and not a broad enough view when it comes to displaying picture quality differences in HDMI cables.

Also, I think you should participate in the comparison after you actually assemble a video system that is actually capable of displaying the differences in higher quality and lower quality HDMI cables; because the system you spoke of above will not do it (just as it did not do it in the video you posted).

Who said anything about BR playback?! I thought we were talking about Image Quality and HDMI cables. Not all things are Blu-Ray.

Again a properly configured ATI is hard to beat. Check Anandtech.com sometime for their benchmarks on the Radeon lineup.

BlueFox

I can't believe this has gone on for 7 pages. Of course, there is a difference in HDMI cables. Whether it is apparent will depend a number of other factors; the source, the material, the display, the power for the source and display, the power cables, and whether the viewer has the ability to discern any differences.

Habanero Monk

I mention a computer as a source with an ATI display card and all the sudden things like diode's and lasers get brought up. Never mind the fact that you can get full blown H.264 demo files that *gasp* don't come on a shiny disc of any sort but are downloads. No lasers required. And people want to pretend to be an authority on hardware? Someone should email HD Tracks and let them know that they are doing it wrong.

Check out the AVS Calibration Suite. It's all download. I would love to see someone here go and pick it apart.

Ok. How about I try to lay hands on an Oppo 103 and IPS display? Or someone can provide an Oppo and I can provide an IPS display.

Yes computer will require some tweaking. This cuts both ways in that the learning curve is there but future upgrade potential is also there.

EndersShadow

Habanero Monk wrote: »

This is post is here just to stir the pot and continue on with the trolling. Please continue to argue with me as I enjoy making you mad

I fixed your post above

Also you remind me of a couple memorable posts from current CP members:

You were on my Ignore List, but you are too damn entertaining, like a circus monkey, so I took you off - H9

We shouldn't laugh at people like you, we should pray for them. You have my prayers for a speedy rehabilitation you sad, silly little man - Jstas

And last but not least:

Arguing cables is like arguing religion. You are likely never going to change anyone's mind, and it is not much fun if you are sober - nwohlford

kevhed72

So, what hdmi cable am I supposed to buy?

ZLTFUL

kevhed72 wrote: »

So, what hdmi cable am I supposed to buy?

Monoprice. There. **** stirred.

:cheesygrin:

Habanero Monk

EndersShadow wrote: »

I fixed your post above

Also you remind me of a couple memorable posts from current CP members:


And last but not least:

Keep playing around with old Carver gear that needs an over hall and leave this to the adults.

Interesting soon as I propose a shoot out of a ~$20 BJC cable vs anyones ~$200 cable (6 ft) it all goes sideways as in lasers and diodes. Funny because Image Quality can be discerned with data that doesn't come off a shiny disc. What happens if it comes off of solid state devices? Is it now: The sand and the solder?

It doesn't even have to be a video source. There should be a difference with just a high resolution Picture. I know a group of professional photographers that shoot with Nikon D6 and equivalent Canon. I'm sure I can get even RAW file output from them to compare cables with. Bring it all in with Adobe Light room.

tonyb

kevhed72 wrote: »

So, what hdmi cable am I supposed to buy?

One that fits your budget, that's obvious I would think. Don't read too deep into all this. When it comes to audio/video, we buy the best we can afford, period. Grab an Audioquest hdmi, good quality and won't break the bank. If all you can afford right now is BJ's cables, cool....run with that.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Who said anything about BR playback?! I thought we were talking about Image Quality and HDMI cables. Not all things are Blu-Ray.

Again a properly configured ATI is hard to beat. Check Anandtech.com sometime for their benchmarks on the Radeon lineup.

The video you posted used BR to determine these "differences in cables". Not to mention, that is what many people are used to viewing video signals from (or perhaps DVD). Speaking of DVD, I have a Denon DVD-5910 that is considered one of the best DVD players ever assembled even to this day. When hooked up to a proper display, you will easily see the differences in HDMI video cables. I know, I've done it.

I have no interest in "checking out Anandtech.com" for the purposes of displaying movies because I have no interest in using a computer as source for movies (or music for that matter). If we are talking about video games, by all means I will check out Anandtech.com. Meanwhile, please consider a much better source and display for this test.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

The video you posted used BR to determine these "differences in cables". Not to mention, that is what many people are used to viewing video signals from (or perhaps DVD). Speaking of DVD, I have a Denon DVD-5910 that is considered one of the best DVD players ever assembled even to this day. When hooked up to a proper display, you will easily see the differences in HDMI video cables. I know, I've done it.

I have no interest in "checking out Anandtech.com" for the purposes of displaying movies because I have no interest in using a computer as source for movies (or music for that matter). If we are talking about video games, by all means I will check out Anandtech.com. Meanwhile, please consider a much better source and display for this test.

Anandtech isn't a video game sight. You seem to be a bit under educated.

In the HQV testing the ATI Radeon 7660D garnered a 199 points out of 210 possible, the Intel HD 4000 197. The only areas that the Radeon didn't dunk the ball was on some scaling of lower resolution video. So if you have a VHS collection you are out of luck.

So now you are basically in disagreement with some of the outfits that designed the benchmarks.

There is no evidence that supports your supposition that ATI/nVidia are 2nd seat to dedicated BR Players especially when it comes to 1080P and even 1440i/p displays.

I'm not sure how your lack of desire for using a computer as a source correlates into a computer can't be a top shelf choice for Video or Audio. As it currently sits modern GPU's blow that Denon of yours out of the water.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Anandtech isn't a video game sight. You seem to be a bit under educated.

I think you missed my point, but we'll carry on.........

Habanero Monk wrote: »

In the HQV testing the ATI Radeon 7660D garnered a 199 points out of 210 possible, the Intel HD 4000 197. The only areas that the Radeon didn't dunk the ball was on some scaling of lower resolution video. So if you have a VHS collection you are out of luck.

So now you are basically in disagreement with some of the outfits that designed the benchmarks.

There is no evidence that supports your supposition that ATI/nVidia are 2nd seat to dedicated BR Players especially when it comes to 1080P and even 1440i/p displays.

I'm not sure how your lack of desire for using a computer as a source correlates into a computer can't be a top shelf choice for Video or Audio. As it currently sits modern GPU's blow that Denon of yours out of the water.

Again, I think you missed my point. The average person does not use their computer to watch movies. I don't and never plan to. Same with music. I have not used my computer, and don't plan to. I think (so far) the average person feels this way. The average person watches movies and listen to music from a dedicated BR, DVD, or CD/SACD player (for digital). Also, again the method of testing HDMI cables you posted in your video was from a BR player. So, BR should be used (for the previously mentioned reasons) to determine if differences in HDMI cables can be assesed. Also, you again failed to realise that a video processor (or DAC, etc.) is but one small aspect in the chain that leads to what a person see/hears from a system. What about the rest of the system and the components that make up that system? (And by components, I am including the capacitors, resistors, diodes, rectifiers, etc., etc., etc.).

My point (which apparently you haven't caught onto yet) is that you cannot base an entire system on one small aspect of that system. You need the entire system to be made with high quality parts and a well designed layout. Without these things (in their entirety) you may not see/hear the differences in HDMI cables. I won't even begin to go into the perception one is capable of, perhaps eventually you will understand this much. Please think about it.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

I think you missed my point, but we'll carry on.........

No I'm not missing any point. You seem to think Anandtech is a video game centric site. It simply isn't.

headrott wrote: »

Again, I think you missed my point. The average person does not use their computer to watch movies.

You missed the point of using a computer rig for ease of A/B testing between cables. I added the fact that the ATI Radeon is without question a picture and video quality leader via the HQV 2.0 benchmark. Why are you experiencing failure to launch in this regard?

headrott wrote: »

I don't and never plan to. Same with music. I have not used my computer, and don't plan to. I think (so far) the average person feels this way. The average person watches movies and listen to music from a dedicated BR, DVD, or CD/SACD player (for digital). Also, again the method of testing HDMI cables you posted in your video was from a BR player. So, BR should be used (for the previously mentioned reasons) to determine if differences in HDMI cables can be assesed. Also, you again failed to realise that a video processor (or DAC, etc.) is but one small aspect in the chain that leads to what a person see/hears from a system. What about the rest of the system and the components that make up that system? (And by components, I am including the capacitors, resistors, diodes, rectifiers, etc., etc., etc.).

Well, HQV score of 199 out of 210 certainly speaks to the cards ability. I didn't fail to realize anything. Just not buying your unsubstantiated argument. Plus we aren't speaking to how people store and play back their content. We are talking about the differences in HDMI cables. We are talking about how your rather nice, but dated Denon, can't even do what a modern video card can do. For the purposes of testing a computer with two display cards for the purposes of comparing two 6 ft HDMI cables is perfectly adequate.

Even if we were to get into the issue of actual play back and what people use, this is an enthusiast forum with enthusiast solutions. Even Ender has a computer based setup. While he ad-hom'd in this thread I don't see him, as another IT professional, coming out to defend your POV either.

headrott wrote: »

My point (which apparently you haven't caught onto yet) is that you cannot base an entire system on one small aspect of that system. You need the entire system to be made with high quality parts and a well designed layout. Without these things (in their entirety) you may not see/hear the differences in HDMI cables. I won't even begin to go into the perception one is capable of, perhaps eventually you will understand this much. Please think about it.

Thinking about it leads me to the point that most music and video are now produced on computers. With caps, diodes, resistors, lasers etc...

I made my point. I doubt anyone here is going to attend MWAF, besides me and a few friends, try this out and toss back some beers later.

To the OP get something like the ~$20 BJC cable. It's shielded, uses good materials, and well constructed. All the overwhelming evidence says it is good as it gets. If you want to ignore all the research out there otherwise and listen to mere conjecture that is fine also and there are outfits waiting for your money.

F1nut

So, the fact that many of us here have tried different HDMI cables in our homes on real HT rigs and found there is a difference is mere conjecture?

kuntasensei

F1nut wrote: »

So, the fact that many of us here have tried different HDMI cables in our homes on real HT rigs and found there is a difference is mere conjecture?

You believe you saw/heard a difference... and therefore, it's money well spent for you, even if it is cognitive dissonance from an existing analog paradigm.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

So, the fact that many of us here have tried different HDMI cables in our homes on real HT rigs and found there is a difference is mere conjecture?

Yeah Jess....he is. Isn't this how all cable threads go down ? Those with no experience tend to find anything that may support their reasoning or why they can't/won't invest in cables as part of their system. The only thing missing is a Roger Russell article....again.

Let your own eyes/ears be the judge as we say. Not everyone can hear or see differences and that's cool too but it sure doesn't define the topic.

F1nut

kuntasensei wrote: »

You believe you saw/heard a difference... and therefore, it's money well spent for you, even if it is cognitive dissonance from an existing analog paradigm.

And what HDMI cables have you tried?

EndersShadow

F1nut wrote: »

And what HDMI cables have you tried?

Monoprice 1 dollar v Monoprice Premium cables

Habanero Monk

F1nut wrote: »

So, the fact that many of us here have tried different HDMI cables in our homes on real HT rigs and found there is a difference is mere conjecture?

Pretty much... That is why a dual video card rig with a high quality display and the ability to A/B without knowing which is which. Keep in mind I'm not advocating a $3 cable. I'm advocating something like the BJC cable for $20.

I don't think you can bring any properly functioning ~$200 6 ft HDMI cable to the test and expect to nail it 14 out of 15 attempts. After you have proper shielding, no signal bounceback (signal termination), adequate gauge there isn't much else to do.

It's the same reasoning I wouldn't give Denon $500 for an Ethernet cable. I don't need to hear a bunch of people talk about how well the Denon cable does vs a 6ft patch cable that cost $10 because the underlying protocol (both soft/hardware) are well understood.

On either HDMI or Ethernet I can make a case for spending a little more money to ensure the mechanical steadfastness of said cable. AT&T sure shipped a lot of junk patch cables with the Netopia routers they used.

Habanero Monk

EndersShadow wrote: »

Monoprice 1 dollar v Monoprice Premium cables

Being in Indy your pretty close to Dayton...

WilliamM2

F1nut wrote: »

So, the fact that many of us here have tried different HDMI cables in our homes on real HT rigs and found there is a difference is mere conjecture?

Absolutely. Was there ever any doubt?

kuntasensei

F1nut wrote: »

And what HDMI cables have you tried?

What invisible clothes have you modeled? The science is the science, man. But like I said, if you believe you perceived a difference, it was money well spent to you.

F1nut

kuntasensei wrote: »

What invisible clothes have you modeled? The science is the science, man. But like I said, if you believe you perceived a difference, it was money well spent to you.

As I thought, just like Monk and Billy you haven't and therefore speak without merit.

Point, set and match!

tonyb

kuntasensei wrote: »

The science is the science, man.

Cool, we all dig science around here. So then kindly explain what scientific technique or tool is used to measure tone, soundstage width and height, or how long a note floats in the air. If one so exists, I want it.

kuntasensei

tonyb wrote: »

Cool, we all dig science around here. So then kindly explain what scientific technique or tool is used to measure tone, soundstage width and height, or how long a note floats in the air. If one so exists, I want it.

Explain what scientific technique is used to transmit tone, soundstage width and height, etc. over a digital transmission medium that uses error-corrected binary in packets that either make it or don't BY DESIGN. Because all of those things you're referring to are remnants of analog thinking, and aren't technically possible via HDMI... and I think previous posts in this thread have proven that to be the case. But again, there are people here who, despite all that evidence from people who are actually in the industry, "believe" that a better cable made a difference. And they're not wrong... because if they perceived one, it was worth it to them. But it doesn't change the science, no matter how much your outdated analog mindset wants to make it so.

And those people will continue to believe that the Emperor is wearing shiny new clothes... no matter how much you argue the technical merits of such claims. That's why I'm surprised that this thread has gone on for so long now. It isn't even like the speaker cable or interconnect debates where there are factors that obviously come into play and there is provable science behind it... HDMI is designed to transmit packetized data that either makes it there or doesn't.

Kudos to Habanero Monk for at least TRYING to offer an in-person comparison, despite the nitpicking that seems to have surrounded it. Not that it would have changed anyone's minds one way or the other.