Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

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?

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.

Habanero Monk

F1nut wrote: »

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

Point, set and match!

I haven't use every type of Ethernet cable out there either. Again when you can pick your cable from another competent HDMI cable in a blind A/B manner then you will have actually scored.

tonyb

So those characteristics, or analog thinking as you say, aren't possible in HDMI ? How so ? Transmission of data is one thing, how it sounds is another. Certainly we can agree that metallurgy alone and it's various forms can complete the data transmission and sound somewhat different doing it...no ?

The same reason all cdp's don't sound the same. A laser is picking up the same data but other aspects of that cdp will alter the final sound. Same with cables.....design, metallurgy used, connectors, all alter sound to some degree good or bad.

pitdogg2

another thread that is about to get the AXE

BlueFox

kuntasensei wrote: »

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.

There is no such thing as digital transmission over a cable. What is being transmitted are analog square waves, not 1s and 0s. All analog characteristics affect this transmission.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/draft

kuntasensei

tonyb wrote: »

So those characteristics, or analog thinking as you say, aren't possible in HDMI ? How so ? Transmission of data is one thing, how it sounds is another. Certainly we can agree that metallurgy alone and it's various forms can complete the data transmission and sound somewhat different doing it...no ?

No, they aren't possible. The data doesn't change. The 1s and 0s don't become SHINIER as a result of having a better cable. The question is whether the data packets arrive intact or not at the sink end (which in the case of audio would be the AVR). There will be ZERO difference between two cables whose data arrives intact at the sink end. It's technically impossible. And if the data does NOT arrive intact, it doesn't degrade the way poor signal does on analog... It just doesn't arrive. There's a threshold within which the sink end can interpret a 1 from a 0, then for every group of 1s and 0s in that packet, there are checksum bits that are used to ensure that the packet arrived intact. If not, there are redundancies to ensure that there's another set of leads to fetch that data from, primarily to rule out RF interference on one set of leads or the other. If the data packet does not arrive intact, you get an audio dropout. You don't get "decreased soundstage" or anything like you would ascribe to analog because that digital data is impervious to such things as it reaches the sink end. Any change in sound takes place beyond the sink end, at the AVR's decoding stage.

Can you have a cable that is superior in construction? Absolutely. Does that alter the sound presuming both the cheaper and more expensive cables transmit the data packets to the sink end? NO. All better quality gets you is the potential for a longer run of cable or slightly less work for the TMDS decoding at the sink end since it will have to fall back on redundancies less often. However, such redundancies do NOT have an effect on the quality of the sound - the packet either arrives or it doesn't. TMDS packeting rules out the jitter-related issues we saw with PCM over TOSlink. Therefore, all you have is 1) the quality of the source up to the HDMI port's encoder, and 2) the quality of the decoder on the sink end. Now, if you were changing cabling beyond the decoder at the sink end, then YES, that could create an audible difference based on metallurgy, etc. because then you're back to an analog stage. See previous statements about speaker cables and interconnects. But from HDMI cable to HDMI cable, the sound from the source can not logically change in the ways people claim they are hearing. The data either arrives or it doesn't, the same way data cables for hard drives do. It's a completely different paradigm than analog cables, because HDMI is a digital cable using digital transmission methods, not things like phase, voltage, resistance, RF interference, etc. that matter in the analog world. The same goes for video, where people are claiming certain cables improved things like saturation or contrast... whereas that's quite impossible, since unlike analog, those signals aren't being reconstructed based on analog cables. They're being reconstructed at the display side from packetized digital data that tells the display's decoder what color combination goes where. An RGB value doesn't magically change because you got a better cable - the display still sees the same RGB value and its decoder displays that value on screen when called for. When those packets don't arrive intact, it's a block of values that gets dropped, which is why if enough packets are dropped (as happens when a cable is at the threshold of failure), you get visible artifacts that tell you the display can't decode the picture. This is usually exhibited by a screen with an overall pink tone or "snow" as the display tries to reconstruct the packets predictively to avoid complete failure (which is a feature of the HDMI chipset), or by the picture not displaying at all or dropping in and out as the transmission of the signal across the cable drops beneath the threshold. Pretty sure we've posted signal charts that show this phenomenon occurring.

tonyb wrote: »

The same reason all cdp's don't sound the same. A laser is picking up the same data but other aspects of that cdp will alter the final sound. Same with cables.....design, metallurgy used, connectors, all alter sound to some degree good or bad.

My point exactly. Different sources can have different sounds. However, using the same source, changing HDMI cables can not alter the audio quality even in theory, because there's no analog audio transmitted over HDMI - just packets of data. What those packets of data are when encoded is dependent upon the quality of the source, not the cable that digitally connects the head end to the sink end. And this has been explained in this thread repeatedly, yet despite all of the science behind it, there are still people who think they hear it. And I'm not demeaning their experience... If they hear it or see it, then it was worth the money to them.

kuntasensei

BlueFox wrote: »

There is no such thing as digital transmission over a cable. What is being transmitted are analog square waves, not 1s and 0s. All analog characteristics affect this transmission.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/draft

This has already been explained here in-depth. The square wave is used to transmit the data packets via TMDS. The charts we've posted here show how that wave is received at the sink end, at which point it either arrives in a pass state (meaning it doesn't impeach upon the threshold eye dictated by the HDMI chipset) or a fail state (meaning the peaks and valleys get rolled off due to signal degradation until they impeach upon that threshold, causing the bit in that packet to fail detection, at which point redundancy is used via the checksum value of the entire data packet).

Can things like RF interference affect that signal? Absolutely. That's why HDMI has phase-reversed redundant leads the way balanced audio cables do - to minimize the effects of RF interference. But the point is that analog effects on that digital signal don't exhibit themselves the way they do on strictly analog cables, since the square wave is just a means to transmit the data packets themselves - NOT THE AUDIO OR VIDEO via analog means. The packets arrive... or they don't. If they don't, you get a failure in decoding, which according to the people who designed HDMI can ONLY exhibit itself in the ways I've previously outlined.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

There is no such thing as digital transmission over a cable. What is being transmitted are analog square waves, not 1s and 0s. All analog characteristics affect this transmission.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/draft

Yes and when you have incomplete data you will experience drop out and re-transmit (for protocols that support such) It's the same for your data networking also. There is even jitter buffer in networking where a threshold can be set for recoverable errors. Errors where the end user or application doesn't know any error occurred. You certainly never got this with purely analog transmission schemes.

Now if the data error is unrecoverable you will get large drop out and the end user will certainly notice. Hence block errors in HDMI display when a problem happens. But when a problem ISN'T happening one HDMI cable isn't going to out do another properly functioning HDMI cable.