Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

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

Yeah, badchad, haven't you figured it out yet? :razz: There's lots of people around here that yap on and on about their own perceptions of sight and sound being all that matters, saying things like, "If you can't tell a difference, then there is no difference" (paraphrased), and similar. However, they RARELY will trust their own perceptions of how good their TV pictures and rigs' sounds are using different cables....UNLESS they can see the cables being used. :rolleyes:

headrott

teekay0007 wrote: »

Yeah, badchad, haven't you figured it out yet? :razz: There's lots of people around here that yap on and on about their own perceptions of sight and sound being all that matters, saying things like, "If you can't tell a difference, then there is no difference" (paraphrased), and similar. However, they RARELY will trust their own perceptions of how good their TV pictures and rigs' sounds are using different cables....UNLESS they can see the cables being used. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for knowedge and experience.

Habanero Monk

I've been reading his write up and the linked to articles and have a ways to go.

Hopefully they are all publicly available.

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

Sarcasm is a poor substitute for knowedge and experience.

I think you mean knowledge. :razz: Your linked thread is a real (long!) snoozer. Thanks, but no thanks. Maybe you could be so kind as to just bullet it for the rest of us.

Meanwhile, while you're doing that - actually, in a fraction of the time necessary for that - I could have someone switch out any number of cables (HDMI and otherwise), without knowing which ones they're putting into use, while playing material that I'm very familiar with and I could tell you exactly which ones sounded the best and/or gave the best picture on MY system and MY TV to MY ears and MY eyes.

Got plenty of experience - decades of viewing movies and videos and listening to a variety of music and soundtracks from various sources with a variety of sources, cables and speakers being used, to know what I like and don't like. Therefore, following the advice given in about every other thread on this forum, "trust your own eyes and ears for what works best for you", "if you can't tell a difference, none exists", etc., etc., I'm confident that my own viewer/listener/evaluator-blinded "test" can give me very valid results for MY needs.

For the rest of you, if it works FOR YOU, you can try to make heads or tails out of the thread/study that headrott linked and DK posted and buy into the notion that you can only tell for yourself what cables work best FOR YOU in YOUR system only if you can see which cables are being used.

headrott

teekay0007 wrote: »

I think you mean knowledge. :razz: Your linked thread is a real (long!) snoozer. Thanks, but no thanks. Maybe you could be so kind as to just bullet it for the rest of us.

Yes, that is what I meant. I see you are refusing to gain some due to laziness. I would suggest that you not give advice on whether some should depend upon blind tests and testing cables until you gain some knowledge about the subject. It's difficult to do if you refuse to read the initial posts that Ray posted. Perhaps your sarcasm and wit will compensate for your lack of knowledge in giving advice about blind testing and cables? I wouldn't count on it though.

teekay0007 wrote: »

Meanwhile, while you're doing that - actually, in a fraction of the time necessary for that - I could have someone switch out any number of cables (HDMI and otherwise), without knowing which ones they're putting into use, while playing material that I'm very familiar with and I could tell you exactly which ones sounded the best and/or gave the best picture on MY system and MY TV to MY ears and MY eyes.

Good, go for it.

teekay0007 wrote: »

Got plenty of experience - decades of viewing movies and videos and listening to a variety of music and soundtracks from various sources with a variety of sources, cables and speakers being used, to know what I like and don't like. Therefore, following the advice given in about every other thread on this forum, "trust your own eyes and ears for what works best for you", "if you can't tell a difference, none exists", etc., etc., I'm confident that my own viewer/listener/evaluator-blinded "test" can give me very valid results for MY needs.

Sure, for your needs I'm sure it can. That does not mean that a blind test is necessary or more importantly, fitting for an audio/video cable test. If you gained knowledge along with your self proclaimed experience you would know this. I can only post the link, Ray has done the homeowrk, and all you need to do is read and understand it.

teekay0007 wrote: »

For the rest of you, if it works FOR YOU, you can try to make heads or tails out of the thread/study that headrott linked and DK posted and buy into the notion that you can only tell for yourself what cables work best FOR YOU in YOUR system only if you can see which cables are being used.

Anyone can do whatever they feel is correct. It does not mean it is correct, however. Again, this involves knowing what method of testing is appropriate for audio/video cables. Please learn for yourself, but it does take some effort on your part.

F1nut

Ray's method of testing is the only one that makes any sense. It's also basically what many of us have been doing for years anyway.

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

I can only post the link, Ray has done the homeowrk, and all you need to do is read and understand it.

Yes, I'm quite aware that's what you can do. I'm also quite confident that I can pick out which cables, that I'd even want to consider for MY system, would sound/perform the best in MY system by comparing them blindly. If you are confident that you can't do it with any such cables in your system that you might be considering, then yes, stand behind the study that DK posted. But, for the sake of others (and me, I can't follow that study :redface: too deep for me) reading this thread, please feel free to explain as to why we should not trust our own blinded evaluation of cables in our own systems.

And as a follow-up, how then, would you suggest we fairly evaluate cables for our systems?

headrott

teekay0007 wrote: »

Yes, I'm quite aware that's what you can do. I'm also quite confident that I can pick out which cables, that I'd even want to consider for MY system, would sound/perform the best in MY system by comparing them blindly. If you are confident that you can't do it with any such cables in your system that you might be considering, then yes, stand behind the study that DK posted. But, for the sake of others (and me, I can't follow that study :redface: too deep for me) reading this thread, please feel free to explain as to why we should not trust our own blinded evaluation of cables in our own systems.

And as a follow-up, how then, would you suggest we fairly evaluate cables for our systems?

Why do you feel it's necessary to compare them blindly? If you are aware of how your system sounds, then any difference in it should be noticable without being unaware of the changes to it. That is my thought anyway.

I am confident that I can both blindly and fully aware of the changes made to my system, determine what affects those changes have upon the audio. So what? This does not mean that a blind study is a correct testing methodology for audio/video. It is also definately not necessary to determin the differences a change or changes made to your gear. This "blind study" argument was brought up yet again in a very general way not regarding one's personal system nor the amount of listening/viewing experience a person has.

Also, I thought you didn't want to take the time to read and understand what Ray posted? Also, in the quote above you stated that that the study is "too deep for me". Are you sure you haven't read Ray's thread? How would you know that I should stand behind what is posted in DK's posted study? Are you just testing me to see if I read the study and know why blind studies shouldn't be used in audio/video cable/gear evaluations?

My suggestions to properly evaluate cables (and other gear) changes in a system are to:

1) Work on the ability to listen without being distracted.

2) Know what you are listening for and practice listening for these audio attributes; that is, audio attributes such as soundstage height, depth, width, clarity, detail, imaging, and dynamics.

3) Take notes on the above audio attributes.

4) Switch gear (cables as an example), and repeat the above steps.

5) Compare notes to identify the differences (if any) in them when switching gear.

badchad

headrott wrote: »

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&

A nice review of the process. A scientific review is different than doing an actual study. The criticisms of the method are weak, and easily dealt with.

headrott

badchad wrote: »

A nice review of the process. A scientific review is different than doing an actual study. The criticisms of the method are weak, and easily dealt with.

Care to be much more specific? In what way are the criticisms weak? How should they be dealt with? More specifically, how is using a series testing methods (blind/double-blind/ABX testing) that were never intended to be used for stereophonic audio (due to the complex nature of the signals invloved) overcome and these testing methods should now be used? Thanks for your time badchad.

mantis

Cable shootouts are extremely easy to conduct yourself. Get 2 cables and compare them. What else really matters?
You get to use your system , your source material , your eyes and ears.
Everything else is basically blah blah blah.

badchad

headrott wrote: »

Care to be much more specific? In what way are the criticisms weak? How should they be dealt with? More specifically, how is using a series testing methods (blind/double-blind/ABX testing) that were never intended to be used for stereophonic audio (due to the complex nature of the signals invloved) overcome and these testing methods should now be used? Thanks for your time badchad.

Sure. The author of the post appeared to do an adequate job of presenting and summarizing a large volume of blinded, stereophonic audio testing data. Valid criticisms of some of the methodologies used were also included.

However, double blind testing has been successfully used to evaluate a vast array of highly subjective, extremely complex sensory phenomena. One example that comes to mind is wine tasting. The method has also been used to examine other things such as taste, smell, sexual preferences, and even affective mood states such as depression, anxiety and PTSD. With such a lengthy track record of success and broad applicability, there is little reason to believe that double-blind testing methods are not applicable to stereophonic audio.

Although criticisms of the methodology were discussed, they seemed to be relatively minor, and fairly easy to address. For example, the author cites a lack of visual soundstage and other tactile stimuli as affecting the results. This could be dealt with by having the subject face the soundstage, in the "sweet spot". In the case of an amplifier or HDMI cable, these items could be placed behind a screen, while leaving the other equipment in plain view.

The author also concludes that: "The A/B/X test setup arrangements and test results have been consistently absurd and consistently statistically similar to guessing.".

Across almost every scientific discipline, an alternative explanation for a lack of statistically significant results is: "There is no difference".

Based on all of the above, I see no reason why the standard, scientific technique of double blind testing couldn't be used to evaluate audio equipment.

F1nut

Based on all of the above, I see no reason why the standard, scientific technique of double blind testing couldn't be used to evaluate audio equipment.

When a $200 Japanese receiver and a pair of OTL mono block amps are judged to sound the same in a DBT, you know the test is completely WORTHLESS for audio purposes.

badchad

F1nut wrote: »

When a $200 Japanese receiver and a pair of OTL mono block amps are judged to sound the same in a DBT, you know the test is completely WORTHLESS for audio purposes.

It may be equally plausible that the test was designed incorrectly. Maybe only experienced audiophiles can tell the difference?

I'd return to my favorite analogy of wine once again: I've had several hundred dollar bottles of wine before. It all tastes pretty much the same to me. Hell, I prefer the $8 bottle from my local store. If you lined up 10 bottles of wine ranging from 5-$1,000, I probably couldn't rank order them.

I'd fail a wine DBT, but that doesn't the method is inapplicable to wine.

headrott

badchad wrote: »

It may be equally plausible that the test was designed incorrectly. Maybe only experienced audiophiles can tell the difference?

I'd return to my favorite analogy of wine once again: I've had several hundred dollar bottles of wine before. It all tastes pretty much the same to me. Hell, I prefer the $8 bottle from my local store. If you lined up 10 bottles of wine ranging from 5-$1,000, I probably couldn't rank order them.

I'd fail a wine DBT, but that doesn't the method is inapplicable to wine.

I think part of the point of Ray's thread is that since the use of blind, double-blind, ABX tests were not intended to be used for complex stereophinc audio (but instead to be used for simpler monophonic audio) that in reality, a blind, double-bilnd, ABX test is inherently designed incorrectly for judging stereophonic audio due to the fact that these tests themselves were not intended to be used for such a purpose. That is, one cannot use a hammer to install a bolt. You need a wrench or ratchet to install a bolt.

Also, one needs to be trained in how to use the wrench or rachet (which granted is pretty simple training). Related to stereophonic audio (and as the example you used, wine tasting), training is necessary to understand how to listen for and describe differences in stereophonic audio. You need to know and understand what you are listening for to explain differences in stereophonic audio (things such as : Soundstage, detail, image weight, transparency, tone, realism, clarity, etc., etc., etc.). You don't need to be blind to the equipment to tell differences in audio equipment, you need to be learned in what you are listening for and how to catalog and describe these differences. The same goes for wine. You don't need to be blind to which wine you are drinking to know what differences in the wines you are tasting. You need to know what aspects of the wines tastes, sensations (tannins, flavors, mouth feel, smells, color, etc., etc. ,etc.) you are trying to describe. You need to be trained in how to identify, catalog, and describe these differences. It has nothing to do with being blind to what audio equipment (or wine) you are judging, it has to do with the training involved in learning to judge audio and/or wine.

That said, since (as you stated) you would fail a wine DBT, it is because you don't have the knowledge and experience to judge the differences in wines to accurately determin which wine is "better" and which is "not as good". Even if you knew which wines you were drinking, you still would not be able to accurately describe the differences in the wines because you lack the knowledge and/or experience to judge them. It has nothing to do with being blinded or not blinded to what is being judged.

If you have the same amount of knowlede and experience in audio as you do in wine, you would also fail a non-blind test and DBT when judging stereophonic audio. This is because you would not have the necessary knowledge and/or experience to accurately identify, catalog, and describe the differences in stereophonic audio signals and the differences different pieces of audio equipment put out. Education and training are what are required to change this. Not being blinded to what you are evaluating.

Toolfan66

tonyb

Bring those bottles of wine by me, I'll rank them for ya. :biggrin:

Listen kids, we can talk about the science of cables until the sun explodes, a defined answer is always going to be allusive. Which is why we always say to try for yourself with your ears and make that decision yourself. We don't need 20 pages on the merit of one thing or another, experience trumps it all.

EndersShadow

tonyb wrote: »

..experience trumps it all.

Thats what she said

BlueFox

If there was not a difference with HDMI cables before, there is now. There is a new sheriff in town who does not BS around.

http://www.thecableco.com/Product/Venom-HDMI

iskandam

Like a lot of folks I started out with the monoprice HDMI cable, then upgraded to Blue Jeans. Couldn't hear or see any difference. Then I tried the Pangea HD-6L, Cardas, Wireworld Starlight, and finally Audioquest Vodka. With the Monoprice, Blue Jeans, & Pangea HDMI's I'd get sparkles and frequent audio drop outs. I blamed the Anthem MRX for it.

When I switched them with the Wireworld Starlight and Audioquest Vodka, the sparkles and drop outs stopped. Picture quality is noticeably improved jumping from those 3 to Starlight and Vodka. Colors are sharper, richer, with improved contrast. I couldn't see any difference between the Starlight and Vodka. Where it gets interesting is the sound. The Starlight has a brighter sound while the Vodka is more neutral and balanced but with better sense of space.

So there is a lot to be said about quality of material and construction with HDMI cables and how they impact picture and sound quality.

gudnoyez

I recently got a 1.5 meter long Audioquest Cocolate and notice a difference between my Monoprice and BJC to justify replacing the cable that came with my Oppo 105D with another Chocolate.

jon s

TBF, I cannot see or hear the difference between an one meter Audioquest Carbon HDMI and a Monoprice HDMI cable... But I can see the difference between a 35-ft Monster M1000 and a generic 35-ft cable...

My experience is that for short runs, all quality HDMI cables are the same.... But for longer runs, a higher quality cable will show some differences as HDMI signals degrade over long runs, cheaper wire will expose the cables weakness.

OTH, I can hear some improvement from my Audioquest Rocket 44 speaker cables and from generic Monster speaker cable... Whether the improvements are worth the steep price can only be determined by the buyer...

txcoastal1

It's not necessarily the what's in the puddin' it's the quality of the ingredients, copper alloys, shielding, and the crimp connections. Pay a little extra and they last longer.

jeremymarcinko

I purchased a generic brand 50ft HDMI cable from cabletrain.com in 2009 for under $30. Never had an issue with it, not one.

F1nut

I purchased two 8' original Monster Cable speaker cables back around 1986 for a $100.00 or so. Never had an issue with them, not one........................until I replaced them and realized how bad they were.

txcoastal1

jeremymarcinko wrote: »

I purchased a generic brand 50ft HDMI cable from cabletrain.com in 2009 for under $30. Never had an issue with it, not one.

But to you ever compared?

jeremymarcinko

^^ valid point. I'm only saying that I have never experienced a drop out, sparkles, connection issues etc. with my cheap cable.

F1nut

txcoastal1 wrote: »

But to you ever compared?

Someone got my point.

F1nut

As long as I have my decoder ring, all is good.