I love puppies, do you?

cnh

WilliamM2.

Has you there. When I had to set up my son's Samsung LCD his comcast box only had DVI out. The set HDMI and component, no DVI of course--not these days! We had component RGB cables and I didn't feel like driving to the city to buy a DVI-HDMI converter for an HD broadcast picture. Knowing that the best signal I could get from that box was 1080i and that component handled that fine. I said don't worry about it hook it up with the cable it'll be fine. But make sure you use HDMI for your XBOX and PS3!

cnh

sucks2beme

I've been on a lot of sites. All cable debates turn ugly.
End of story. It's not just here.

I subcribe to the "right tool for the right job" approach.
HMDI, normally any reasonable quality cable will do. You'll see
with some research that many here do like the value and quality
of a cable like Blue Jeans. But for analog in higher end systems,
better cables come into play. We are all about finding good
performance values in low, middle and high end. That goes for
amps, sources, cables, speakers, etc. And each step up goes
up in price. The trick is to know when to say "when".

Starting out the thread clearly stated would of kept this
thread more civil. I have heard someone on another site
slam custom headphone cables with out ever listening to
one. But, prices like they are, I also understand why people are
leery of the benifits. In audio, it's always best to state what you
have tried and your experience, not random quotes found online.

Mantis brings a lot of practical experience to the table here,
especially in HT apps. I'm pretty much a 2 channel knuckle dragger.

mantis

cheddar wrote: »

Dan,

Thanks for the response. I recently planned a run of hdmi cable from one side of a room, up to the attic, and back down to the other side of the room. And the length of the run ballooned out pretty quickly. I think that you can get silver in an HDMI cable much cheaper than $400 from the discount vendors. At what point do you think a copper run might start to degrade a signal and a silver cable might start to have a benefit? If you don't mind me trying to slip one more question in...

Most cables will crap out around 45 feet. There are other options to using a solid cable. They are called HDMI over CAT 5. Many companies make them but some are not that good. I have seen some work flawlessly and others fail all the time. Binary's new models are suppose to be very good but I have yet to see them perform good. I have seen them fail. Key Digital also makes HDMI over cat 5 but they have had rocky failure rates.
Running HDMI over 45 feet is tuff man. I do this for a living and really have no little success doing so. Audioquest builds 50 foot cables that work but you will pay a lot for them. Also Key digital makes high quality long HDMI cables that work. Price is always a problem here. I have used a 30 foot Blue Jeans cable and it worked. But remember you need a 1.3 certified cable High speed. If this rating is not from HDMI do not buy the cable . I don't care what the deal is.

Dan

cheddar

Thanks man, up 1 8ft wall, down another, maybe 20-30 ft to run up into the attic, avoid having a cable across the floor and stringing it across. It's going to be close. I have a 30ft cable I've used before too with success, I forget if it's from blu-jeans or monoprice. But if silver helps and I can get a longer cable to work for a decent price, it might be worth a try. I'll try and take as much length out as possible. Why do these things always have to be so close...:rolleyes:

digitalvideo

comfortablycurt wrote: »

The title of your thread is "Crutchfield admits Monster/Audioquest are scams". This makes the supposed topic of HDMI cables pretty unclear, and makes it sounds as if you're saying that ALL cables are a scam.

Perhaps a more appropriate title would have been "Crutchfield admits Monster/Audioquest high priced HDMI cables are a scam".

Once again, everyone is agreeing with you on the subject of HDMI cables. I'm really not sure what the argument here is.

If you're that concerned about it, do your own comparison. I doubt that the CSR from Crutchfield you spoke with is the end all of knowledge about audio equipment. I have trouble believing that he'd recommend buying a cheaper product. That's what his job is.

Like I said before, there are plenty of idiots out there willing to spend 400 bucks on an HDMI cable. If they want to buy them, how does it affect us? If they think there's an improvement, whether that improvement is imaginary or real, then it was worth their money. If they think it's better, then it is.

Well how long do you think the topic title should be? If you read the first paragraph of my post on the opening post it mentions HDMI cables. Not all thread titles on this website nor most others list every specific word in the short thread title, there's only so many words you can fit in the thread title of a subject. Now if you're whining that I didn't put the words HDMI in the opening title well don't be so lazy and read the opening post of the first paragraph and that will give you more information on what the title is about.

Face

With that kind of arrogance, it's no wonder you're not winning any popularity contests around here.

comfortablycurt

digitalvideo wrote: »

Well how long do you think the topic title should be? If you read the first paragraph of my post on the opening post it mentions HDMI cables. Not all thread titles on this website nor most others list every specific word in the short thread title, there's only so many words you can fit in the thread title of a subject. Now if you're whining that I didn't put the words HDMI in the opening title well don't be so lazy and read the opening post of the first paragraph and that will give you more information on what the title is about.

You need to quit digging this hole deeper.

Hows this for a short, to the point title?

"High priced HDMI cables are a scam".

That was hard wasn't it?

Had you taken 30 seconds to run a search on this topic you would have found that there have been numerous other threads on this exact same topic before. I think there was a thread about this very thing about 3-4 weeks ago actually. You couldn't post this in that thread?

You keep searching for proof to a claim that no one in this thread has made. Everyone agrees with you. Get over it, and quit arguing with yourself, it's making you look rather foolish.

This thread has gotten pointless, aside from the great information that Mantis has posted. I'm done.

digitalvideo

Face wrote: »

With that kind of arrogance, it's no wonder you're not winning any popularity contests around here.

Absolutely not, I'm getting criticized because I didn't put the words "HDMI" in the opening thread title but I mentioned HDMI many times in the post. I'm being nitpicked apart over silly meaningless nonsense just because I didn't put "HDMI" in the title. Grow up kids and stop being catty little queens. You really do remind me of all the dorks in the science glass in high school who acted like prissy queens and got your asses kicked by the jocks, seriously. lol

okiepolkie

Like Dan, I do this for a living, and have a little experience with different grades of hdmi cables. I'm not going to get into the price differences, other than importance of high quality(often high priced) hdmi cables over long distances. This goes for hdmi over 19 conductors, or 16, as in a cat5e solution.

As with any other electrical transmission over copper, two things can hinder playback of content over hdmi. Length of the wire, and diameter of each individual strand of copper.

Moving forward, hdmi specifications have changed(what's new?). Dan mentioned the fact that we will soon see networking, control, and more 3D source material. Current market cables past 20ft will have a more difficult time passing these signals to their fullest potential. As a result of this, I'm skeptical of putting any hdmi cable in above that 20ft mark. Dan also mentioned hdmi over cat5/cat6, and this is a little safer way to go, as cat5 essentially has more copper, at 22awg per strand, rather than the 26-32 found in many of the standard cables. The extra copper allows for a higher bandwidth to pass through the cables.

What is needed for "future" signals:

- Constant twist ratio, which leads to equal distances for conductors
- Individual strands need to be "identical" in length, because if data does not reach the display at the same time, the signal does not sync up to the display, causing the picture to be choppy(start/stop) or non-existent. Some of the hdmi over cat5 kits require the installer/end user to terminate the hdmi differently than standard 568a/b termination, because if you separate the pairs, you are changing the lengths ever so slightly.
- The larger the conductor, the better. Future signals need all the room they can to move from the source to the display. HDMI over coax is actually a great future proof method, because you are using (5) 18awg cables, which have the capacity to run higher bandwidth data.
- Proper equipment to "repeat" and decode the signal. If the signal is not repeated properly through a receiver, then the data does not reach the display at the same rate, and we end up with the same problem as above.

So what do you need to watch out for?

- companies that don't meet the "current standards", as mentioned above, especially ones over 15-20 ft
- anything over 15-20 ft, use an hdmi over cat, or hdmi over coax solution. And it needs to be (2) cat5's to carry the full 1080P+ signal.
- If someone wants to spend $400 on a cable, that is up to them. I don't spec 6ft, $400 hdmi cables into systems, but I will do a $400+ cable after 30+ feet and I know it will meet all current, and some possible future specifications. At 30+ feet the standard hdmi, hdmi over cat, and hdmi over coax are all in the $400+ category, and I have decided to use the cat or coax solutions to cover my butt.

And finally, here is a breakdown of composition of some of the Audioquest hdmi cables. They are different.

digitalvideo

cnh wrote: »

WilliamM2.

Has you there. When I had to set up my son's Samsung LCD his comcast box only had DVI out. The set HDMI and component, no DVI of course--not these days! We had component RGB cables and I didn't feel like driving to the city to buy a DVI-HDMI converter for an HD broadcast picture. Knowing that the best signal I could get from that box was 1080i and that component handled that fine. I said don't worry about it hook it up with the cable it'll be fine. But make sure you use HDMI for your XBOX and PS3!

cnh

I'm installing a Comcast DVR converter box next week through my Pioneer SC-05 reciever. Am I going to get HD programing?

sucks2beme

So the correct answer is the AQ HMDI is overkill for most applications,
As opposed to "scam"?

cheddar

That's the way I'm reading it. If there are high end audioquest cables that work for certain long run applications while almost all other cables would fail, there's more to AQ's design than just cosmetic differences as the original post said. And these differences like silver conductors do add value, just not in the majority of applications where the components to be connected are right on top of or next to each other.

digitalvideo

When it comes to my application for HDMI, my TV is right above my entertainment center, the entertainment center has the reciever, BD player and soon Comcast box which is only 3.5" feet from the tv, so my HDMI wires are short.

polkatese

sucks2beme wrote: »

So the correct answer is the AQ HDMI is overkill for most applications,
As opposed to "scam"?

bingo was his....

okiepolkie

cheddar wrote: »

That's the way I'm reading it. If there are high end audioquest cables that work for certain long run applications while almost all other cables would fail, there's more to AQ's design than just cosmetic differences as the original post said. And these differences like silver conductors do add value, just not in the majority of applications where the components to be connected are right on top of or next to each other.

Yep.

cheddar

Now if we could have only had this conversation in the first place without all the scam and conspiracy drama, we could have wrapped this up on page 1. Thanks to dan and okiepolkie for making this thread not a total waste of time. I've got to give a lot of thought to what I'm going to do about my hdmi run...seems like it's better to have other ICs and wire longer than messing with the hdmi cable. I really wanted to clear the space around my HDTV, tho.

digitalvideo

cheddar wrote: »

Now if we could have only had this conversation in the first place without all the scam and conspiracy drama, we could have wrapped this up on page 1. Thanks to dan and okiepolkie for making this thread not a total waste of time. I've got to give a lot of thought to what I'm going to do about my hdmi run...seems like it's better to have other ICs and wire longer than messing with the hdmi cable. I really wanted to clear the space around my HDTV, tho.

Why not keep your HDMI wires as short and simple as possible by having the tvas close as possible to the entertainment center or shelves where you put your reciever and PS3 or BD player for short cable runs? I got all my HDMI cables like I said above less than 5" feet long.

williamgauci

digitalvideo wrote: »

I talked to a Crutchfield customer service rep on the phone yesterday about wires and connections and he told me the AudioQuest HDMI cables that are in their top of the line series (HDMI-3) that sell for around $400 dollars are the same cables that are in their lowest end series (HDMI-A) for $40 bucks, and in his own words: "The $400 cable is just a prettier cable on the outside, you're paying for outside cosmetics." AudioQuest has four HDMI cables in it's HDMI lineup and they are all the same, it's a complete scam and rip off.

When I asked about speaker cables he said to just go with Monster's Standard basic cable which is their cheapest one as they are all the same. I looked at BlueJeans website and their speaker cables and HDMI cables are thicker for the same price or cheaper.

When it comes to HDMI ratings the AudioQuest $400 cable is CL-3 rated and the BlueJeans HDMI cable Series-F2 is rated CM for in-wall installation (higher than the typical CL2 or CL3). So just stick to Bluejeans cables.

I thought I'd chime in, I've been lurking for years here just soaking in things. I'm by no means one of the 5000 posters. Having said that, Digitalvideo, as highlighted in your OP you simply stated that a Crutchfield CSR made the statement that the low and high end AQ HDMI cables are identicle with the exception of the outer covering and you're only paying more for outside cosmetics.

Your own link proving your point actually shows that there are differing internal and external construction materials, so as many others have pointed out, there is no real validity to the Crutchfield's CSR statement. It would go a long way if you would admit that your own link proves that statement incorrect. Instead you then tried to deflect by asking others to prove a $400 cable provides better performance than a $40. Something that no one really claimed other than bringing out issues with cheap cables over long lengths for the purposes of correct data transmission. Maybe I missed it after reading through almost 140 posts, but I don't think you acknowledged that the AQ site does prove that they do indeed have different materials in construction.

There is a lot to debate regarding digital cables, especially regarding lengths and materials. All cables are not created equal, sure it's healthy to debate different merits, but the bottom line is that your original post by your own link is not true. You never started out asking the merrits of copper vs silver cable construction.

cheddar

williamgauci wrote: »

All cables are not created equal, sure it's healthy to debate different merits, but the bottom line is that your original post by your own link is not true. You never started out asking the merrits of copper vs silver cable construction.

Or short vs. long cable runs, for that matter. Which he now seems to be able to give lots of advice on ... :rolleyes:

snow

williamgauci wrote: »

I thought I'd chime in, I've been lurking for years here just soaking in things. I'm by no means one of the 5000 posters. Having said that, Digitalvideo, as highlighted in your OP you simply stated that a Crutchfield CSR made the statement that the low and high end AQ HDMI cables are identicle with the exception of the outer covering and you're only paying more for outside cosmetics.

Your own link proving your point actually shows that there are differing internal and external construction materials, so as many others have pointed out, there is no real validity to the Crutchfield's CSR statement. It would go a long way if you would admit that your own link proves that statement incorrect. Instead you then tried to deflect by asking others to prove a $400 cable provides better performance than a $40. Something that no one really claimed other than bringing out issues with cheap cables over long lengths for the purposes of correct data transmission. Maybe I missed it after reading through almost 140 posts, but I don't think you acknowledged that the AQ site does prove that they do indeed have different materials in construction.

There is a lot to debate regarding digital cables, especially regarding lengths and materials. All cables are not created equal, sure it's healthy to debate different merits, but the bottom line is that your original post by your own link is not true. You never started out asking the merrits of copper vs silver cable construction.

+1 great post. My oppinion is that the one and only true reason the OP said what he did was to stir up the crap. He wanted/wants a debate on the merits of what he feels is overpriced HDMI cables no different than a 100 like threads on a 100 other forums. Please dont save us from ourselves if we want to purchase high end or botique HDMI cables, speaker cables, IC's, Power cords let us do so without calling us fools if we didnt feel they made a difference we wouldndt buy them simple as that. If they dont make a difference to you fine then dont buy them no one is forcing you to do so and no we neither need to or want to prove that they make a difference. All we can and should do is post our experiences and oppinions and let every individual decide for themselves whether the same holds true for them.



REGARDS SNOW

okiepolkie

digitalvideo wrote: »

Why not keep your HDMI wires as short and simple as possible by having the tvas close as possible to the entertainment center or shelves where you put your reciever and PS3 or BD player for short cable runs? I got all my HDMI cables like I said above less than 5" feet long.

For many installations, this isn't desirable or practical. I can't think of a theater installation that I've completed where the equipment was less than 20 feet away from the projector. Most times, it is 30-50 ft away, and the last one I did required a run of 65ft.

In my own home, I have a central rack that houses audio and video components for the whole house. From that central location, I can distribute my audio and video sources to different parts of the house.

From that central rack to my primary television, it is approximately 35 feet. I am using one of the better Audioquest cables because I knew its would be reliable. Every component that doesn't work, costs me money, so performance has to be consistent. As far as hdmi cables, at any length, Audioquest and Ethereal have proven to be consistent. So in most of my installations, I stick with those two brands at any length.

digitalvideo

My entertainment room is the main room for tv and right now is the only room hooked up with HDMI cable all connected within a few feet of one another. The wire that I needed to pull through the ceiling and through the walls was the Comcast cable from my electrical box in the basement, I had to snake it through the ceiling panels and wall so the Comcast cable is a good 30 feet from the splitter to the tv.

I don't have a projector, I have a plasma and like I said the tv is hung on the wall and right under it is the shelves that house the reciever, BD player so the HDMI wires from the boxes and to the tv are very short.

digitalvideo

williamgauci wrote: »

I thought I'd chime in, I've been lurking for years here just soaking in things. I'm by no means one of the 5000 posters. Having said that, Digitalvideo, as highlighted in your OP you simply stated that a Crutchfield CSR made the statement that the low and high end AQ HDMI cables are identicle with the exception of the outer covering and you're only paying more for outside cosmetics.

Your own link proving your point actually shows that there are differing internal and external construction materials, so as many others have pointed out, there is no real validity to the Crutchfield's CSR statement. It would go a long way if you would admit that your own link proves that statement incorrect. Instead you then tried to deflect by asking others to prove a $400 cable provides better performance than a $40. Something that no one really claimed other than bringing out issues with cheap cables over long lengths for the purposes of correct data transmission. Maybe I missed it after reading through almost 140 posts, but I don't think you acknowledged that the AQ site does prove that they do indeed have different materials in construction.

There is a lot to debate regarding digital cables, especially regarding lengths and materials. All cables are not created equal, sure it's healthy to debate different merits, but the bottom line is that your original post by your own link is not true. You never started out asking the merrits of copper vs silver cable construction.

AudioQuest's HDMI cable scam is no different than Monster's is, it's just AudioQuest's business practices are different and aren't as in your face "Walmart" type of imperialism. No, I don't believe AudioQuest's $400 cable will out perform their cheapest HDMI cable.

AudioQuest even says on it's website that all their cables are: "PVC CL3 rated jacket."

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm

Bluejeans much cheaper priced cable is rated CM for in-wall installation (higher than the typical CL2 or CL3)

http://www.audioquest.com/

Again, we have happy AudioQuest customers here who got ripped off buying AudioQuest HDMI wires and want to blindly defend them when their expensive HDMI wires are no different than Monster's expensive but no different HDMI wires. It's fine to be loyal to a company but don't let it cloud your judgement with bias.

Now you want to debate the merits of AudioQuest's $400 HDMI wire that has a little silver on the outside. So that little 6.1% silver is worth $350 more than their basic HDMI cable when all HDMI cables that are 1.3a Category 2 certified perform the same? Just admit that AudioQuest along with Monster in their HDMI division is a big scam, go tell them I said that, go send this post to the ceo. lol

williamgauci

Digitalvideo, you still won't acknowledge that what you stated in your OP isn't correct and that what the Crutchfield CSR stated isn't correct. That's all I was stating with my post.

I then acknowledged that there is room for debate with regard to cables. Personally the 3 hdmi cables I have don't add up to $100. No one asked you if AQ's $400 cable would outperform their cheapest. I think for the most part we all agree that a 6' $400 cable is overkill.

Now you want to debate the merits of AudioQuest's $400 HDMI wire that has a little silver on the outside. So that little 6.1% silver is worth $350 more than their basic HDMI cable when all HDMI cables that are 1.3a Category 2 certified perform the same? Just admit that AudioQuest along with Monster in their HDMI division is a big scam, go tell them I said that, go send this post to the ceo. lol

Honestly, I think you're argueing with yourself again. Who said any of this? I refferenced the fact that AQ's higher end cable has silver in it for the sole reason of acknowledging that the construction of their various cables are different contrary to the statement in your OP. That is all, up until this post I didn't know a AQ cable from a Walmart brand cable. I have no stake in defending cable brands or quality, I just felt it was nesessary to point out the inaccuracy of the OP.

AudioGenics

There is a very old saying....

"Buyer Beware"

F1nut

digitalvideo wrote: »

AudioQuest's HDMI cable scam is no different than Monster's is, it's just AudioQuest's business practices are different and aren't as in your face "Walmart" type of imperialism. No, I don't believe AudioQuest's $400 cable will out perform their cheapest HDMI cable.

AudioQuest even says on it's website that all their cables are: "PVC CL3 rated jacket."

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm

Bluejeans much cheaper priced cable is rated CM for in-wall installation (higher than the typical CL2 or CL3)

http://www.audioquest.com/

Again, we have happy AudioQuest customers here who got ripped off buying AudioQuest HDMI wires and want to blindly defend them when their expensive HDMI wires are no different than Monster's expensive but no different HDMI wires. It's fine to be loyal to a company but don't let it cloud your judgement with bias.

Now you want to debate the merits of AudioQuest's $400 HDMI wire that has a little silver on the outside. So that little 6.1% silver is worth $350 more than their basic HDMI cable when all HDMI cables that are 1.3a Category 2 certified perform the same? Just admit that AudioQuest along with Monster in their HDMI division is a big scam, go tell them I said that, go send this post to the ceo. lol

You sir, are here to simply stir up trouble. You bring nothing positive to this fine forum, so feel free to leave as we have had enough of you.

shack

The IL just gets longer and longer.

digitalvideo

williamgauci wrote: »

Digitalvideo, you still won't acknowledge that what you stated in your OP isn't correct and that what the Crutchfield CSR stated isn't correct. That's all I was stating with my post.

I then acknowledged that there is room for debate with regard to cables. Personally the 3 hdmi cables I have don't add up to $100. No one asked you if AQ's $400 cable would outperform their cheapest. I think for the most part we all agree that a 6' $400 cable is overkill.



Honestly, I think you're argueing with yourself again. Who said any of this? I refferenced the fact that AQ's higher end cable has silver in it for the sole reason of acknowledging that the construction of their various cables are different contrary to the statement in your OP. That is all, up until this post I didn't know a AQ cable from a Walmart brand cable. I have no stake in defending cable brands or quality, I just felt it was nesessary to point out the inaccuracy of the OP.

Well first of all that Crutchfield rep was correct and you're not, as he said you're paying hundreds of dollars more for cosmetics, you're welcome to call up Crutchfield and debate with all of the reps on the phone for all I care lol And I don't believe that Bill Crutchfield will hire people who don't know what they are talking about and I'm not that big a fan of Crutchfield so don't think I am advertising for them, but I'll bet my life savings the people he has working for him know far more than most on here. I would give the nod to mantis as one of the few on here who actually practice what they preach.

It is a scam to put a little piece of silver on an end and claim it will make a difference and charge $350+ more for it, now that's a scam, they're taking customers for a ride and dumb customers still fall for it and that's why you're seeing companies liek BlueJeans, Monoprice make more money, a larger profit with honesty and integrity as more people educate themselves on Monster and AudioQuest's "HDMI DIVISION" cables. Now I need to say again, Monster and AudioQuest's speaker and Toslink cables could be excellent and well worth the price, but we're talking about HDMI here. I might even buy an AudioQuest or Monster speaker cable if something happens to my Bluejeans 5000ue speaker cable.

DarqueKnight

shack wrote: »

The IL just gets longer and longer.

I am shocked, and a little bit appalled, that you would chose to ignore such good entertainment.

cheddar

digitalvideo wrote: »

It is a scam to put a little piece of silver on an end and claim it will make a difference and charge $350+ more for it, now that's a scam, they're taking customers for a ride and dumb customers still fall for it and that's why you're seeing companies liek BlueJeans, Monoprice make more money, a larger profit with honesty and integrity as more people educate themselves on Monster and AudioQuest's "HDMI DIVISION" cables.

Why do you rant so loudly about things you don't really know much about? You obviously didn't understand much of the discussion I've been having with mantis. AQ is not just putting a little piece of silver on the end of their cables. With any hdmi cable, you have a conductor that runs through the inside of the jacket and carries the signal the length of the cable. With most hdmi cables, this conductor is made of copper of a certain guage (size) wire. Some hdmi cables plate their copper wires with silver for better performance. And it appears that AQ uses a conductor that is 6% silver. You can continue to just ignore facts that don't support your rant, but the truth is that putting all that silver in as part of the conductor is more than a cosmetic scam. It actually changes the way the cable handles the signal and will show a marked difference in performance over long cable runs vs cheaper hdmi cable as both mantis and okiepolkie have confirmed.

Both 'honest' companies that you mention, Blue Jeans and Monoprice, sell hdmi cables that contain silver specifically for enhancing longer length run performance.