Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

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.

tonyb

That's where you are wrong Monk. Metallurgy does make a difference in sound otherwise everyone would use the same cable regardless. The old 1's and 0's argument has been proven false time and time again, your a tad behind the curve on this one my friend.

I'm not setting out to change anyones mind on this, believe what you will, no skin off my nose. However if you seek further enjoyment, and wonder what a good quality cable can bring to the table, let your own ears/eyes be the judge, not me, and certainly not anyone else here.

F1nut

The science and theory that some of you rely solely on has over the years often been proven wrong and some times by the same people that proclaimed things to be a certain way to begin with. One should never put all their eggs in one basket.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

That's where you are wrong Monk. Metallurgy does make a difference in sound otherwise everyone would use the same cable regardless. The old 1's and 0's argument has been proven false time and time again, your a tad behind the curve on this one my friend.

I'm not setting out to change anyones mind on this, believe what you will, no skin off my nose. However if you seek further enjoyment, and wonder what a good quality cable can bring to the table, let your own ears/eyes be the judge, not me, and certainly not anyone else here.

Did you read ANY of the industry papers that were linked? The ENTIRE point behind both hardware an software protocols is to minimize error and standardize implementation. Even discounting HDCP and ICT which are two of many protocols that make up HDMI, the entire schema is digital for a reason of GUARANTEED data delivery. HDMI is a differential interface with complementary pairs to to ensure data integrity.

In two HDMI cables as long as the 1's and 0's get there the same way the same time you get the same output.

I'm interested in any peer reviewed and published data that you have to present. So far Kuntasensei is the only one to present anything valid, and I'm the only one that has put out a more than friendly invite for people to put their conjecture to the test.

CAT5e as example: I'm going to get the same data rates from one properly terminated length of cable that I am from any other properly terminated same length.

I'm telling you if I put you front of a test bed and have you A/B on a remote between mirrored output on an IPS display you are going to fail miserably. You CAN NOT do it reliably. I guarantee it.

BlueFox

Any truth to what this guy says?

"HDMI is an abortion of an interface that was crammed down our throats by Sony and Hollywood. Silicon Image was the party that made it all possible.

The idea by Sony was to have the audio and the video both on the same cable, to avoid confusing the schmucks who buy their Sony TV sets at Best Buy and can't figure out how to connect it. Hollywood demanded "content protection", and it was decided that HDCP as developed by Intel would suffice. Silicon Image was determined to develop the silicon chips so that they could cash in on the cash cow.

Of the many problems associated with HDMI, the audio quality is totally handicapped for lack of -- a pin! They designed the connector before they finished designing the system. They didn't have enough pins to also have a master audio clock.

So with HDMI, the audio clock is derived from the video clock. For high-def TV, the video clock runs at either 74.25 MHz or 74.25 * (1000/1001) [thank you NTSC!!!]. The audio clock runs at multiples of 48 kHz. Of course, these are not related. So the receiver has a PLL to regenerate an audio clock based on instructions from the transmitter (source) telling it what to do.

The result is the worst jitter of any system yet invented. It truly sucks.

Much later, they added a thing called Audio Rate Control in HDMI 1.3a. This puts a buffer and the master audio clock in the receiver. Then commands are sent upstream on the CEC line telling the player to speed up and slow down as necessary to keep the buffer full.

The only people to use this are Sony (HATS) and Pioneer (PQLS), but both use proprietary implementations that prevent use with other equipment.

And the fee for using this pile of steaming dog dung? $30,000 per year in licensing fees. It's a beautiful world, no?"

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/8/82566.html

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

Any truth to what this guy says?

"HDMI is an abortion of an interface that was crammed down our throats by Sony and Hollywood. Silicon Image was the party that made it all possible.

The idea by Sony was to have the audio and the video both on the same cable, to avoid confusing the schmucks who buy their Sony TV sets at Best Buy and can't figure out how to connect it. Hollywood demanded "content protection", and it was decided that HDCP as developed by Intel would suffice. Silicon Image was determined to develop the silicon chips so that they could cash in on the cash cow.

Of the many problems associated with HDMI, the audio quality is totally handicapped for lack of -- a pin! They designed the connector before they finished designing the system. They didn't have enough pins to also have a master audio clock.

So with HDMI, the audio clock is derived from the video clock. For high-def TV, the video clock runs at either 74.25 MHz or 74.25 * (1000/1001) [thank you NTSC!!!]. The audio clock runs at multiples of 48 kHz. Of course, these are not related. So the receiver has a PLL to regenerate an audio clock based on instructions from the transmitter (source) telling it what to do.

The result is the worst jitter of any system yet invented. It truly sucks.

Much later, they added a thing called Audio Rate Control in HDMI 1.3a. This puts a buffer and the master audio clock in the receiver. Then commands are sent upstream on the CEC line telling the player to speed up and slow down as necessary to keep the buffer full.

The only people to use this are Sony (HATS) and Pioneer (PQLS), but both use proprietary implementations that prevent use with other equipment.

And the fee for using this pile of steaming dog dung? $30,000 per year in licensing fees. It's a beautiful world, no?"

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/8/82566.html

Most certainly is true on the audio side. Which is why HDMI isn't an audiophile interface. The thing with going digital is you can add all sorts of DRM: HDCP, ICT. Google 'Closing the Analog Hole' and you will find one of the many reasons that HDMI was implemented.

Even Component R/G/B was capable of 1080i. Good ole VGA which is ~25 years old is still capable of surpassing 1080P.

The minimal buffering isn't a problem if there is never a buffer under run. The whole 'if a tree falls in a forest' thing.

And as usual HDCP and ICT are all hacked. HDCP has caused many a nightmare getting a DVD/BR player - Receiver - TV to handshake properly.

The cable is minimal in all of this however since most of the issues are software. Hardware is typically the easier part. There is a reason Apple has Display Port and Thunderbolt.

The real solution has been out there for ages however: CAT5e cabling. Even a 100Mbit connection can do 1080P w/o breaking a sweat. Check out HD Base T http://www.hdbaset.org/

100 Meter distance and I'm sure Audio Quest would then come out with a $3000 100 meter run of the stuff and another 7 page debate would debut.

tonyb

Just a little something from a Whathifi'er about his beliefs. The difference here Monk, is he at least tried them. Not saying everyone will hear or see a difference, but most who do, don't go back to monoprice HDMI cables for a reason.



.
I was wrong about HDMI cables!

Sat, Feb 23 2013, 12:37AM
.





duaplex

duaplex's picture

Offline


Joined: 22 Feb 2011

Posts: 823







For years I have argued how the cheap HDMI cable was no different to an expensive version.

However, today at the Bristol show I purchase 3 Chord Active Silver cables and it totally blew me away. For bluray playback or fir anything where data is being read actively from a disc, there is a massive boost in sound quality, the sound was sharper, crisp and punchier. Picture was also warmer, deeper in colour and rich. I am still reeling from the shock, I fully expected there to be no difference and to a certain degree I was right... Using it with sky, no difference, PC, no difference. However, bluray yes, music yes and even gaming.

My wife walked in and said "the tv looks better and sounds better". She was unaware of the test I was conducting, so that was unbiased from a non audiophile/videophile.


__________________

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

Just a little something from a Whathifi'er about his beliefs. The difference here Monk, is he at least tried them. Not saying everyone will hear or see a difference, but most who do, don't go back to monoprice HDMI cables for a reason.

I remember mentioning BJC, but not Monoprice for my comparison offer. The difference here is I'm willing to eat my own dog food rather publicly.

teekay0007

tonyb wrote: »

My wife walked in and said "the tv looks better and sounds better". She was unaware of the test I was conducting, so that was unbiased from a non audiophile/videophile.


__________________

Wow!!...Sounds like a vote in favor of evaluator-blinded studies to me! :cheesygrin:

mantis

So 8 pages of back and forth ,whats the point? Who wants to make a closing statement on HDMI cables?

I want 10baseT to be the new standard. Then we can all argue about Ethernet cables. Cat 7 is the new standard. Screw HDMI

vcwatkins

Habanero Monk wrote: »

The whole 'if a tree falls in a forest' thing.

I would encourage you to walk into the forest to listen for yourself.
Craig

SholaBaby

ft_townman wrote: »

Over the weekend i decided to do a little test of my own b/c i was tired of the back and forth about whether or not high priced HDMI's are worth it over cheap 10 dollar versions. I used sum Wally world HDMI $10, and a Audiophiles cinnamon HDMI, which isn't really anything super special, $70. I tried my cheaper quality Samsung 60hz LCD TV and my bigger 240hz Samsung LCD with both cables for about 5 min. each, watching Planet Earth on bluray with fast moving to very slow moving scenes.

Let me say this first...THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I had a friend watch with me just to make sure my eyes didn't deceive me. We started out with the Wally World one and ya it was a good picture don't get me wrong. But after looking at it hooked up with the Audiphiles HDMI we both immediately looked at eachother and said holy S*#t. The picture was so much crisper, cleaner, and more vivid, it seemed. We hooked up the cheap one again and it was like night and day to me. Everything seemed flat and dull. I am sold that it DOES matter which HDMI you have. If you don't believe me that's cool but try it for yourself and really study the details of the picture not just looking at the image as a whole.

Yes sir, I think there sure is a HUGE difference especially with the latest version which is 4.1 that can support ethernet signal as well. I guess that is the thing with all the latest Hi-Tech devices, sometimes you can hardly figure out the diferences until you test them side by side like I am having now with Oppo-103 and 105.

scubalab

Monoprice HDMI cables have worked great for me too1

alex_i

tonyb wrote: »

For years I have argued how the cheap HDMI cable was no different to an expensive version.

However, today at the Bristol show I purchase 3 Chord Active Silver cables and it totally blew me away. For bluray playback or fir anything where data is being read actively from a disc, there is a massive boost in sound quality, the sound was sharper, crisp and punchier. Picture was also warmer, deeper in colour and rich.

I think the discussion about HDMI cables today is much more emotional than it needs to be. Of course you have the super cheap cables (which are mostly crap from the manufacturing viewpoint) and the super expensive cables (which are mostly a rip-off). If you consider the fact that all cables are providing the same signal quality and that some cables are supporting more features than others (see 5 Differences in HDMI Cables ) than you will quickly see that a $5 High Speed HDMI cable from any brand you like is probably the best choice. I am happy with my Amazon cables for more than 3 years now and never had any issue with them. That's a pretty unemotional judgement :loneranger:

polkfarmboy

Crap system and crap hdmi cables go hand in hand

tonyb

alex_i wrote: »

If you consider the fact that all cables are providing the same signal quality and that some cables are supporting more features than others (see 5 Differences in HDMI Cables ) than you will quickly see that a $5 High Speed HDMI cable from any brand you like is probably the best choice. I am happy with my Amazon cables for more than 3 years now and never had any issue with them. That's a pretty unemotional judgement :loneranger:

If you consider the fact that one may have to try different cables and see for themselves......that too is a pretty unemotional piece of advice. Wouldn't you say ?

cnh

You guys do KNOW that there is a HISTORY to the above debate on this site? Go back a few years and see WHO believed WHAT about HDMI cables and WHAT they NOW believe. It is an eye-opener, to say the least. Suffice it to say that HDMI cables drifted into the analog debates over audio cables in "recent" years. And once that happened, all the old cable debates reproduced themselves. The above, reprises those debates which are perennial in the audiophile world!

I say, "enjoy" your cables!

cnh

tonyb

Greeks....what can they possibly know about history. :razz::cheesygrin::cheesygrin:

Habanero Monk

The Integra DTR-60.5 HDBaseT Receiver preview at AH.

328 feet over Cat5/6 and 100 watts of Power Over Ethernet (POE). I hope this standard gains traction and replaces HDMI. Oh to have a locking connector.

greatauror28

I'm using a red monoprice 3ft cable to my AVR-to-plasma hdmi connection and am also using 4 cheap $15 hdmi cables for my dvr, bluray, ps3 and apple tv. And they are working ever since.

Haven't notice degradation of picture, sound or anything perceivable.

Maybe i'll try those Audioquest or Monster cables and do a double blind test. Someday.

badchad

Across all these "cable debates", I'm always amazed that there appears to be very little (if any) double-blind assessment. If I were a cable manufacturer, I'd think it was a nice marketing advantage to have data describing my claims.

tonyb

badchad wrote: »

Across all these "cable debates", I'm always amazed that there appears to be very little (if any) double-blind assessment. If I were a cable manufacturer, I'd think it was a nice marketing advantage to have data describing my claims.

So buy some and do it yourself.

People have different perceptions of sound so double blind test don't always paint an accurate picture. Then again, the ONLY picture that needs to be painted is one drawn by YOUR own conclusions with YOUR ears.

EndersShadow

badchad wrote: »

Across all these "cable debates", I'm always amazed that there appears to be very little (if any) double-blind assessment. If I were a cable manufacturer, I'd think it was a nice marketing advantage to have data describing my claims.

Why bother, isnt that what a good return policy is for? Besides even with legit data the diehard folks would still find something wrong with the test to invalidate it. Buy, try and if you dont like return....

My local hi-fi shop has cables they will let me try their cables (with a deposit of course). I havent ever taken them up on their offer as they dont carry the brand that I wanted for interconnects or speaker cables.

That said I plan on taking them up on their offer with some of their Audioquest power cables in the near future.

headrott

badchad wrote: »

Across all these "cable debates", I'm always amazed that there appears to be very little (if any) double-blind assessment. If I were a cable manufacturer, I'd think it was a nice marketing advantage to have data describing my claims.

Obviously you haven't read Ray's excellent thread regarding the history of Blind Tests. Please read this and get back to us afterwards.

Link: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&