hdmi cables.....

mrloren

ericerik wrote: »

i would think there would be solid proof of superior results by using a very expensive cable rather than the cheap. test results?? of actual signal loss of vid/audio quality ,.etc. i can understand that the most expensive names of cables have or should have much tighter and sturdier pins in the plugs , for a nice solid tight connection between devices using thicker better shielding. but is there any such proof of superior results, concrete evidence. ??? or is the differences only subjective ?

There is a lot of debate of what is better, $3, $30 or $300 HDMI cable. Is there a difference? Yes and No.

First off, cheap cables are soldered together. better cables are crimped AKA cold weld. The solder will add distortion and fail over time, crimped will not.

Better cables use a better copper, cheap cables use the lowest priced copper and the $3 mostly use CCA.

My bro used the cheap cables for a long time. For Christmas a few years ago I got him some Audioquest Pearl. The random pixel flaking on his 82" QLED was gone, sound was a tad better. Now he has Costco Wirelogic or better on all his gear.

There was a test I did years ago when I ran CAT5 in my home. I found some "made in USA" Coleman cable. It was around $130 for the box. A co worker bragged about I paid double the Monoprice wire. We took 100' of mine vs the MP and did transfer test. the good made in USA wire had a solid transfer @ 112Mbs while the Monoprice was up and down over the 25GB ISO file. The Mono was dipping down as low as 85Mbs. We re-crimped and ran the test several times with the same end.

Paying more for a cable that will provide years of enjoyment to me is worth is. Yes i can buy 10 cheap cables and replace every 6 months to a year but why mess with it, hook it up and enjoy.