How to record TV show to PC using HAUPPAUGE HD-PVR DEVICE?

[jagabo]

I don't spend much time watching test patches. They don't have the subtlety, complexity, or motion of video.

That is a completely disingenuous statement. I could have used any image but I used a test pattern so it would be easy to spot the bad pixels. It was simply an example of the type of errors you get with HDMI cabling. HDMI errors cannot cause a loss of subtlety, complexity, or motion.

CNET? I gave up on them long ago.

Another disingenuous statement. You don't think they can take a photograph of what was on the screen?

[sanlyn]

It was simply an example of the type of errors you get with HDMI cabling.

I realize that. What the tests show are the way certain gear handles test patterns. That can tell only so much. It does not convince me that what I'm seeing thru my preferred HDMi looks cleaner, more vibrant, convincing, etc., than what I'm getting thru my preferred component setup, which would obviously have many of the same errors. I actually use both. And on all tv's. I see a difference. HDMI has something missing; and the audio has audible glitches such as a shallow soundstage, in pretty much the same way that digital audio has something "missing" compared to a good turntable setup (I said a "good" setup, not a BestBuy or ConsumerReports setup, and certainly not anything like that godawful alluminum-arm Technics DJ turntable). I'm talking about my preferred wire, not the ones I threw away. I've rejected HDMI and non-HDMI alike.

HDMI errors cannot cause a loss of subtlety, complexity, or motion.

I disagree. I see more problems with the HDMI I tried than with inferior analog wire. What I see thru a lot of HDMI stuff is some or all of the following: poor contrast, especially murky shadows and a lack of natural vibrance -- or the opposite, an exaggerrated, unnatural highlight "glow" effect, mostly with silver-plated HDMI. Poor color accuracy, specifically noticeable in skin tones -- too red, too green, too grayish, or otherwise just not "real". Image softening (common). Phony edge enhancement effects, as in halos, moire, stairstepping, subtle flashing or odd "disturbances" with motion and pans, sparkles on high-contrast edges. Color noise, specifically blotches in skin shadows and highlights (usually cyan, sometimes magenta). Noisy reds. One or more oversaturated or visibly "off" primaries or secondaries, usually involving blue. I've seen some of that with inferior analog wire as well, but not to the same extent. Examples of any or all these problems are from Monster (uniformly the worst), Belkin, Dynex, Rocketfish, AcousticResearch, Amazon's big sellers ("Basics" and MediaBridge), Kimber, BetterCables, BlueJeansCable, Cardas, Tributaries, Cambridge Audio, Profigold, Falcon, and everything sold by monoprice, to name some I've tried. Could not be corrected with calibration, seen on LCD and plasma, and did not need test patterns to see these problems.

Some things I commonly hear with HDMI audio are: the aforementioned shallow soundstage (common), poor channel separation, poor dynamics (common), bloated or nearly absent bass (usually bloated), steely treble -- or muffled treble (aka "Bose effect") -- recessed midrange, hollow vocals, fuzzed-out crescendos and utterly confused mass vocals, muddy drum beats, off-pitch pianos and woodwinds, upper midrange spikes, and more. I realize that some sources just sound this way, but if most or all of the junk goes away with different cable I can't blame the source.

I'm not the only person on the planet who's noticed this. http://www.whathifi.com/reviews/accessories/hdmi-and-video-cables

[jagabo]

It was simply an example of the type of errors you get with HDMI cabling.

I realize that. What the tests show are the way certain gear handles test patterns. That can tell only so much. It does not convince me that what I'm seeing thru my preferred HDMi looks cleaner, more vibrant, convincing, etc., than what I'm getting thru my preferred component setup

You are confusing the accuracy of the transmission (what I'm arguing) with the processing your TV does. HDMI can faithfully transfer the digital frame buffer of the source to the digital fame buffer of the sink (HDTV). When using analog transmission the source frame buffer is converted to analog, analog is transmitted over the wire, then the sink converts that analog video back to digital. You can be sure that virtually every pixel is different between the source's and the sink's frame buffers. Once the picture is in the frame buffer the HDTV will perform some processing to get it to the actual display.

I already said that you might prefer the processing your TV does to the component input over what it does to the HDMI input. But you cannot argue that the transmission of the data is more accurate with component.

HDMI errors cannot cause a loss of subtlety, complexity, or motion.

I disagree. I see more problems with the HDMI I tried than with inferior analog wire. What I see thru a lot of HDMI stuff is some or all of the following: poor contrast, especially murky shadows and a lack of natural vibrance -- or the opposite, an exaggerrated, unnatural highlight "glow" effect, mostly with silver-plated HDMI. Poor color accuracy, specifically noticeable in skin tones -- too red, too green, too grayish, or otherwise just not "real". Image softening (common). Phony edge enhancement effects, as in halos, moire, stairstepping, subtle flashing or odd "disturbances" with motion and pans, sparkles on high-contrast edges. Color noise, specifically blotches in skin shadows and highlights (usually cyan, sometimes magenta). Noisy reds. One or more oversaturated or visibly "off" primaries or secondaries, usually involving blue.

Those are issue with the TV's processing, not the tranmission.

[sanlyn]

jagabo, I'm familiar with the technology. I hope you don't think I'm talking about my TV (I have 3). I watch at least a dozen setups for a great many hours, mine and several local movie fans'. Issues with my TV's processing? Odd that if we use better cables the problems are gone. I returned a pricey Yamaha a/v receiver because it had poor upsampling on all my TV's; exchanged it for a DENON with AnchorBay chip and upsampling is darn near perfect, bye-bye almost all of the macroblocks and banding from all 3 sets. Should I blame all three TVs, or the Yamaha?

[gll99]

...........

[
Thanks for taking the time to explain, much appreciated!

OK, I just found a deal for the HD PVR Gaming Edition (1488) http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr2-gaming.html for $139 plus taxes, is this better?

I also found out that MythTV only works on Linux (I'm using Windows 7 x64), is the included software ArcSoft ShowBiz so bad that even using it just for recording is bad? (not for editing, just recording).

Thanks.

The 1488 is probably fine if you don't care about 5:1 audio. I'm not sure though what other design improvements they might have made in the 1504 or the 1519 for that matter. Other than the audio port that's a bit of the unknown.

I'm on Winxp sp3 so can't help with Win7. Someone else may have experience with that and can comment.

I don't use mythtv but (I could be wrong) isn't NextPVR a similar free alternative.

Can't help you much with Showbiz since I still haven't opened my box yet. My device space is pretty crowded right now and my 2nd pc is giving me a bit of grief so I am saving the unboxing for a relaxing day. I'm still using the original 1219 with the bundled Arcsoft Total Media Extreme software which I find pretty flexible for capture (Better than Avermedia which has crippled the same software even more but that's another story). I only wish it would output true m2ts files with 192 byte packets instead of .ts files with a 188 byte packets and a misnamed .m2ts extent . I use their software when I have lots of cuts to do within the video but when I just want to trim the ends or remux to a true .m2ts file, I use tsmuxer (tsMuxerGui) which can also be used to create a simple no menu avchd.

There is also a way to start the capture using Graphedt which I sometimes use. It's a simple graph but it has the advantage of being able to manually pause and restart the capture to skip some of the commercials.

[jagabo]

Odd that if we use better cables the problems are gone.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how any of the problems you mentioned could be caused by errors in digital transmission of uncompressed video frames.

[Nelson37]

Jagabo and Sanlyn - Man, I remember this debate from back when the music biz started to go digital.

The debate between anolag and digital will never go away, until everybody who grew up with analog is gone.

Sanlyn, what Jagabo is saying, and I agree, is that while there may be digital conversion issues, with differences among equipment, it is not possible for different HDMI cables to affect the image in any large-scale fashion. Random, point errors are possible but something like a dimming or color shift of the entire image, just cannot happen DUE TO THE CABLE. Changing the HDMI cable alone won't cause such effects, the only error there could be from the cable would be random pinpoints of slight variance in random different parameters.

Now with analog, all that goes out the window. It's the nature of the signal. Here I agree with Sanlyn, cables and indeed everything in the chain, including the weather, can have an effect on analog sound and video. I also agree that digital "loses something". That I notice it more in music is maybe because most of the music I am familiar with was done amalog. Video has improved more dramatically while going digital, music hasn't changed so much. Old analog video looks bad, old analog music sounds right.

[jagabo]

Now with analog, all that goes out the window. It's the nature of the signal. Here I agree with Sanlyn, cables and indeed everything in the chain, including the weather, can have an effect on analog sound and video.

Transmission via analog cabling will always be inaccurate, especially with high speed signals (HD component video and VGA). Any device sending it or receiving it will perform some kind of manipulation of the signal. I suspect most TVs perform noise reduction, sharpening, and levels adjustments at the very least. Those are normal in any A to D conversion.

[sanlyn]

Jagabo and Sanlyn - Man, I remember this debate from back when the music biz started to go digital.

The debate between anolag and digital will never go away, until everybody who grew up with analog is gone.

Nope. SOrry. Sales in vinyl, turntables and pickups, tube amps, etc., is reviving among the younger set, CRT's are used in video archival and mastering shops, and many so-called all-digital CD's are mastered on tape. There are still people around with good eyes and ears.

Sanlyn, what Jagabo is saying, and I agree, is that while there may be digital conversion issues, with differences among equipment, it is not possible for different HDMI cables to affect the image in any large-scale fashion.

Not only is it possible, it happens on the time. I think, though, that you're exaggerrating the scale. You're fortunate in that you can't see most of this junk. You can save lots of time and money.
QUOTE=Nelson37;2230826]Random, point errors are possible but something like a dimming or color shift of the entire image, just cannot happen DUE TO THE CABLE. Changing the HDMI cable alone won't cause such effects, the only error there could be from the cable would be random pinpoints of slight variance in random different parameters.[/QUOTE] A great many people on the planet would disagree with you. All day long.

Now with analog, all that goes out the window. It's the nature of the signal. Here I agree with Sanlyn, cables and indeed everything in the chain, including the weather, can have an effect on analog sound and video. I also agree that digital "loses something". That I notice it more in music is maybe because most of the music I am familiar with was done amalog. Video has improved more dramatically while going digital, music hasn't changed so much. Old analog video looks bad, old analog music sounds right.

It's good that we agree somewhere. Analog video was crap; digital source is a vast improvement. I can't say that much for monitors and TV's. The only thing that improved there was geometry. I still get to see a good, well made, well calibrated CRT now and then with my movie club. I sure miss mine. As for the old off-brand CRT's, sansui's, goldstars, overrated toys like the old SONY Wegas, today's TV's are used in a manner that makes new stuff look as bad as the old stuff, with artifacts.

[sanlyn]

Now with analog, all that goes out the window. It's the nature of the signal. Here I agree with Sanlyn, cables and indeed everything in the chain, including the weather, can have an effect on analog sound and video.

Transmission via analog cabling will always be inaccurate, especially with high speed signals (HD component video and VGA). Any device sending it or receiving it will perform some kind of manipulation of the signal. I suspect most TVs perform noise reduction, sharpening, and levels adjustments at the very least. Those are normal in any A to D conversion.

Oh, my. I have a few references that say you're wrong and that coax wire is superior to HDMI wire in every respect, but I'm talking to the wind. You're talking conversion and I'm talking wire. Conversion, I'm with ya. Twisted-pair stranded-core high-impedance? No. Bad choice. The HDMI idea about avoiding extra process has something to it, but they screwed up on the wiring. What can I say? HDMI was designed by data people who only watch video in sports bars thru clouds of smoke. Marketing works wonders, though.

[usually_quiet]

Jagabo and Sanlyn - Man, I remember this debate from back when the music biz started to go digital.

The debate between anolag and digital will never go away, until everybody who grew up with analog is gone.

Nope. SOrry. Sales in vinyl, turntables and pickups, tube amps, etc., is reviving among the younger set, CRT's and analog/digital both are used in video archival and mastering shops, and many so-called all-digital CD's are mastered on tape. There are still people around with good eyes and ears.

Young people follow every fad, especially the expensive retro ones. I grew up with vinyl, but don't miss the pops, crackles, hissing and other problems that are inherent with vinyl when you don't have the best equipment or pristine records to use with it. I am much happier with CDs.

[sanlyn]

I grew up with vinyl, but don't miss the pops, crackles, hissing and other problems that are inherent with vinyl when you don't have the best equipment or pristine records to use with it. I am much happier with CDs.

The average CD player isgarbage, the worst sound I've ever heard. Any CD player less than $500 is worthless; worthy ones cost more than that, and their owners usually augment later with outboard DACs. Most of my albums are decades old. You abused your vinyl to begin with, so you can't complain, but try scratching a CD sometime.

I listened to our old vinyl copy of the White Album (original issue) last weekend. CD? No comparison.

We have a couple of generations now who don't know what good sound is, and I've met people who have never heard live acoustic music. They really do think that live music sounds like their Walmart amp. We'll be in an electronic, cultural Dark Age very soon now if not already. It's a shame.

[Brad]

Random, point errors are possible but something like a dimming or color shift of the entire image, just cannot happen DUE TO THE CABLE. Changing the HDMI cable alone won't cause such effects, the only error there could be from the cable would be random pinpoints of slight variance in random different parameters.

A great many people on the planet would disagree with you. All day long.

They can disagree all they like. It's meaningless until they bring some evidence to the table.

Never mind evidence, you haven't even presented a hypothesis for how a wire can precisely shift the values of 124 million individual pixels per second in such a way that the image becomes uniformly "too red" with a certain cable.

[sanlyn]

I've posted links earlier, and elsewhere, both technical and, let's say, empirical. They were ignored, and you would ignore them as well.

You buy what you like (in which case anything would do), and I'll be picky.

[usually_quiet]

I grew up with vinyl, but don't miss the pops, crackles, hissing and other problems that are inherent with vinyl when you don't have the best equipment or pristine records to use with it. I am much happier with CDs.

The average CD player isgarbage, the worst sound I've ever heard. Any CD player less than $500 is worthless; worthy ones cost more than that, and their owners usually augment later with outboard DACs. Most of my albums are decades old. You abused your vinyl to begin with, so you can't complain, but try scratching a CD sometime.

I listened to our old vinyl copy of the White Album (original issue) last weekend. CD? No comparison.

We have a couple of generations now who don't know what good sound is, and I've met people who have never heard live acoustic music. They really do think that live music sounds like their Walmart amp. We'll be in an electronic, cultural Dark Age very soon now if not already. It's a shame.

Vinyl does eventually wear out if it is played and enjoyed no matter how carefully it is cared for or how expensive the equipment. It's only a matter of time. It just wore out faster with what the average person could afford back in the day. CDs definitely are much easier to keep in good condition and sound better than records when they are played on equipment that ordinary people feel they can afford to own.

No, I was raised to appreciate culture and unlike a certain other participant in this thread, I was also raised not to denigrate everyone who won't or can't spend the money to have the best audio equipment. I saw William Steinberg conduct the Pittsburgh Symphony at the Syria Mosque in Pittsburgh when I was a youngster and as a young adult living in Chicago, I saw Sir Georg Solti conduct the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. I'd say my family and I made much better use of our limited funds than if we had bought better machines for playing records and CDs.

[sanlyn]

....did without and scrimped for years, bought each piece once, searched for deals and closeouts and refurbs, and didn't change components every 18 months or with any first generation of new technology. DVD players were out for 5 years before I got my first. It still works, and took 10 years to find a better replacement. Grew up visiting concert halls in Indianapolis and New York, worked my way thru college for 4 summers backstage and rehearsal assist on operas and musicals. So don't feel alone.

CD's wear out, too, and the layers bust apart. Everything wears away. There's no way around it.

[Brad]

I've posted links earlier, and elsewhere, both technical and, let's say, empirical. They were ignored, and you would ignore them as well.

Since you won't offer a hypothesis, I will offer the obvious one. I think you can guess: placebo effect. Your experiences of different video qualities with different HDMI cables are completely real, for you. But they don't translate into observable differences in the data being received from the wire.

You mentioned placing numbers on qualitative impressions, but all you need to provide proof of your claims is a $90 HDMI capture card. If it's the cable that is causing the difference, the capture card will grab those altered frames, no?

I have a card but can't prove the negative that no cable causes color shifts in my captures. Digital Foundry already provided negative test results of cables anyway.

what dictates your decision to buy and use a piece of wire? If all wire of a certain type gives the same results, then on what (other than price and overall construction) do you base your decisions?

Not sure what you're fishing for here, if anything.

Three factors come to mind:
- form (I picked up four "super slim" HDMI cables recently because the connector is "40% smaller" and the cables are far thinner than normal cables; I've also bought some purely for the color of the exterior)
- price
- availability (local retailer vs having something shipped)

[sanlyn]

Not only am I not envious of your setup, but I'm relieved I don't have to live with it. Enjoy. Any article or recommendation for something better would be a waste of your time. However, I certainly agree: you see and hear no difference, and all wire looks and sounds alike to you. I don't doubt that at all, and never did.

[Brad]

I love how you somehow read into my post as being boastful simply because talking down is the tone of your own posts. At the same time, you've transformed my request for some sort of hypothesis into a request for something like "HDMI cable reviews" from What Hi-Fi that offer no evidence or mechanism either.

You throw out these experiences you've had with different cables and enter into debates with a closed mind, coming from the position of "the cable debate will never be ended." I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong, and would like to be shown how.

Maybe I'm coming at this all wrong. If you believe that the model of reality created by your brain is a 100% accurate reflection of objective reality, that optical illusions are actually a result of different photons falling on the eyes, then we're not going to get very far in a discussion of what is and isn't possible with video cables.

[sanlyn]

No, I don't think anyone's brain is "a 100% accurate reflection of objective reality". I don't know how you see my impressions as "talking down" if my subjective experience is different than yours -- while your saying that what I see and hear is illusion, placebo, hysterical imaginings, or whatnot is somehow "talking up" ??


Well, let's see -- if the testimony of video experts who are technically knowledgeable with a trained and experienced eye for video performance is of no consequence and merely the meanderings of lunatics, then no one -- and, I mean absolutely no one of any stature of any kind in any field, whether art or science, would be good enough, whether their field of expertise is video, audio, music, art, fashion, cars, scenery, wine, or cherry tarts. I'm positive as well that engineers in the field who disagree with your opinion and can furnish spec or principle that counters yours wouldn't be good enough, either. I've seen enough threads of this kind (one yesterday, in fact, in the avsforum), so I've learned the futility of submitting "evidence".

There is no "test" of what any HDMI (or other) cable physically does to pixels. Well, no, I qualify that: there are published tests from cable manufacturers in the broadcast industry that get into mind-boggling minutiae about what a signal looks like going into their wire and how it looks at the other end under test and real-world conditions. Great, but the tests always look good for the maker and the competition isn't mentioned. There are a great many tests for HDMI cables: those tests are always limited and always the same: either the signal appeared unbroken at the other end, or it didn't. Pass/Fail. These testa re specifically designed to yield limited information and foregone conclusions. In this respect, all wires are the same: they either work, or they don't. For scoffers, those are the only tests that count, because they are impossible to refute. It's either there or it isn't. I heartily agree, it can be only one or the other.

So there is no debate. I agree that you discern no difference.

You probably don't like these guys, either (and I thought their HDMI and some other of their cables threw a rather tame and uninteresting image):
What's The Matter With HDMI?
HDMI Cable: An Overview
HDMI -vs- Component Video

[bendixG15]

You keep reinventing the same old arguements ...............

[sanlyn]

BendixG15, what is this "reinventing" crap? You telling me I post a creditable source, and you come at us with this BS "invent" crap? You're not discussing anything, you're just playing around. And I thought you were serious -- sure as hell had me fooled. Stop wasting our time and bandwidth with your mental paralysis.

-30-

[Brad]

Forgive the long post broken up with quotes.

I don't know how you see my impressions as "talking down" if my subjective experience is different than yours

How would you interpret this statement if someone else said it to you: "Any article or recommendation for something better would be a waste of your time"? I don't read that as being some sort of "different but equal" subjective experience; it's something along the lines of drinking fine wine and being unable to appreciate its value over some swill.

while your saying that what I see and hear is illusion, placebo, hysterical imaginings, or whatnot is somehow "talking up" ??

Well, that's just it. I've experienced things that I know for a fact weren't real (hypnagogic hallucinations), so I don't consider classifying something as an illusory effect to be insulting. And every human being is subject to the placebo effect.

Well, let's see -- if the testimony

I'd have stopped you right there if I could have. This isn't a courtroom, it's about science and math. Either the same numbers that you put into the cable come out the other end, or they don't. The idea of science isn't that someone with a degree says "this happened" and that's that.

I'm positive as well that engineers in the field who disagree with your opinion and can furnish spec or principle that counters yours wouldn't be good enough, either.

Thanks for assuming bad faith on my part.

There is no "test" of what any HDMI (or other) cable physically does to pixels.

And what of the test that Digital Foundry performed? They included images from a cable that failed to pass 100%. It shows visible sparkles, as the theory predicts.

Their test (an HDMI capture card) is the same one I mentioned earlier.

So there is no debate. I agree that you discern no difference.

Very funny. The debate is about whether there is any difference to be discerned.

You probably don't like these guys, either (and I thought their HDMI and some other of their cables threw a rather tame and uninteresting image):
What's The Matter With HDMI?
HDMI Cable: An Overview
HDMI -vs- Component Video

Assumptions again. As a matter of fact, I was going to link to one of their articles earlier in the thread, but didn't bother since I took it they were on your ignore list based on your dislike for their brand.

I don't see anything relevant to this discussion in the first article. It's just saying that HDMI is a poor design. I'm not an engineer, haven't done any research on that, and have no opinion one way or the other.

The second article, point 3, is a good point in general but irrelevant when it comes to keeping everything in the system the same and just changing the HDMI cable.

And point 4 reiterates what I have been trying to say:

Now, as we've said, up to a point, this degradation along the HDMI cable won't matter; the bitstream gets accurately reconstituted, and the picture on your display is as good as the HDMI signal can make it. But when it starts to fail, it starts to fail conspicuously and dramatically. The first sign of an HDMI signal failure is digital dropouts--these are colloquially referred to as "sparklies"--where a pixel or two can't be read. When these "sparklies" are seen, total failure is not far away; if the cable were made ten feet longer, there's a chance that so little information would get through that there would be no picture on the display at all.

The following section "What Makes one HDMI Cable Better than Another, and Does it Matter?" again refers to sparklies and says nothing about color shifts or the other anomalies you have observed. This is (apparently) an honest cable manufacturer in business to sell higher-priced HDMI cables, and this is the section of their article specifically devoted to saying why theirs are better than the competition's.

So why don't they mention color accuracy, lack of ringing, etc.?

The last article is about HDMI vs component, again irrelevant to the current discussion. That argument is fun and all, and it was what prompted this one, but I would prefer to stay focused on what happens when you keep all aspects of your setup identical and swap out an HDMI cable with another one.

[sanlyn]

If you don't see a difference, it doesn't matter. My placebos keep following the same products around from set to set, and I deal with a great many people who imagine the same things I do, as well as with people who have managed to resist all placebo effects altogether. I appreciate jagabo posting tests that showed some HDMI errors, if those are the numbers you're looking for, but I disagree that the errors don't result in imaging effects. Many cables have imbedded noise-reduction chips, and those seem to be the products that usually get favorable reviews in cable auditions, even when the viewers don't know which cables are being used. Apparently the chips generate placebos that seem to affect a great many viewers in exactly the same way.

I used to spend a lot of time on weekends in a high-end a/v shop. I watched people audition equipment and was curious about their reactions to listening/viewing different products. I found it to be true: some people hear and see differences, some don't. I don't see why you need numbers to "prove" the behavior I've observed. I've even had people tell me they see no difference between different tv's except for screen size, yet others seem to be afflicted with placebo syndrome and claim they don't like the oversaturated reds of a particular TV. Another shopper would say, "Oversaturated reds? No, I don't see that." Those who detected a difference could describe it rather precisely, and without test charts and numbers. Test figures and graphs for tv, PC monitor, and amplfier and speaker response are quite common. I haven't found comparable tests for video or speaker wire, but I do know that people seem to express preferences for certain placebo effects and some detect no difference.

So if you maintain that there is no difference between wires, you're all set. I tend to prefer the same placebos from the same products, and don't like the "bad" placebos I get from some products that show up on one TV or monitor to another. If my HDMI input on my PC monitor tells me that the HDMI cable I'm auditioning displays soft fonts and mild edge artifacts, I stop using that placebo and try others until I find a placebo that doesn't soften details or screw up edges. As there are no test charts for these products, I simply have to personally audition placebos until I find a placebo that is suitable.

If I produced a set of numbers or graphs to show that a wire is "doing something" to the signal that is undesirable, would you then see that effect if you had the numbers in front of you? Those numbers might cause a placebo effect after you saw them. But I doubt it. I think you'd still say you neither see nor hear anything different.

So I contend that I have visual and auditory preferences in my a/v gear, and those preferences are based on my experience using them. How do you put a number on your personal preferences? I'm certain you could "describe" what you like or don't like about something, but how many times do you have someone say, "I don't see why you prefer this. Show me your numbers."

I presented some testimony from experts in their field. You don't like what I have to report, and you don't like what more trained and skilled writers have to say about it, so that's the end of it. I've rejected and RMA'd a lot of wire that I didn't like. They didn't deliver the placebo effect I was looking for, and they failed to do so with a great many other users who also rejected them, for the same reasons. You can attribute these effects to whatever you want, or you can naysay any effects at all. I remain as unconvinced of your evidence as you remain of mine.

[Brad]

If you don't see a difference, it doesn't matter.

It matters because it keeps being brought up in unrelated threads like these.

Apparently the chips generate placebos that seem to affect a great many viewers in exactly the same way.

This is so disingenuous. Again you're bringing up something unrelated to the topic of changing out a wire.

Remember when I asked for a hypothesis? The hypothesis here is: the reduced noise I see is caused by a noise reduction chip inside the "cable" assembly. Tested and confirmed: there is a noise reduction chip inside this particular cable and it performs its function with repeatable results. If I hook it up to a capture setup, boom, the results are visible in A/B comparison.

I've even had people tell me they see no difference between different tv's except for screen size, yet others seem to be afflicted with placebo syndrome and claim they don't like the oversaturated reds of a particular TV. Another shopper would say, "Oversaturated reds? No, I don't see that."

None of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand. There are known mechanisms for how a television set could produce a different image than another model. I'm asking for a mechanism that explains how an HDMI cable might possibly make a signal too red/green/sharp/soft.

I'm also asking for an answer to the question I raised regarding that Blue Jeans Cable article.

If my HDMI input on my PC monitor tells me that the HDMI cable I'm auditioning displays soft fonts and mild edge artifacts, I stop using that placebo and try others until I find a placebo that doesn't soften details or screw up edges.

This sounds like the type of artifact that is quite visible. The type that might show up in a camcorder recording?

If I produced a set of numbers or graphs to show that a wire is "doing something" to the signal that is undesirable, would you then see that effect if you had the numbers in front of you?

It's a starting point for investigation, since it would show practice not matching up to theory. Whether I see the effect doesn't matter so much.

I presented some testimony from experts in their field.

Did I miss this?

I remain as unconvinced of your evidence as you remain of mine.

The difference is that evidence could be brought forth that would change my position. Can you say the same? Is there anything that would cause you to rebuke all of the cable auditioning that you have done and reverse your position?

[sanlyn]

Is there anything that would cause you to rebuke all of the cable auditioning that you have done and reverse your position?

No. Disingenuous of you to ask.

[Brad]

Everything you said in that post makes no sense to me.

What is insincere about asking whether I'm talking to someone with fixed beliefs or ones that can change based on new knowledge?

In what way did I ignore everything you wrote or every reference you posted? In fact I carefully read and very specifically quoted and responded to your points and those of the articles. Meanwhile, you ignore my simply-stated questions. At least I did get one answer.

As for attitude, I can't judge how my own written words come across. To me someone who's being dismissive wouldn't try to offer up possible ways you could bring them around.

[sanlyn]

If you don't believe any of this crap, leave it alone. If you suspect there might be something to it, try what a reviewer or a knowledgeable user recommends, and see for yourself. But telling everyone who describes what they see that it is all an optical illusion because it isn't wearing numbers and because there are no industry-wide published tests all over the place to "prove" that they see what they see, is simply dismissive. So be a skeptic and scoff at it. Won't cost you a thing, not even your time.

[Brad]

Thank you for responding more directly.

If you don't believe any of this crap, leave it alone.

I've said it before, but the reason I've spent time on it here is that the idea keeps coming up in these threads that aren't devoted to the debate. Had you noted initially that your perceptions are these - take them or leave them - and that you don't care to present ideas on how they can be reconciled with the way HDMI is supposed to work, I suspect I would have stayed out of it.

Not all cables need or can afford chips: my budget UK jobs certainly didn't cost enough for that, but I don't know for certain; I just know it has a clean image and full, balanced audio.

A "cable" with a chip inside is a cable in the same way that a smartphone is a phone. Both sides of the debate agree that a cable with an embedded processor can alter image quality, so that one can fall by the wayside.

There are known mechanisms for how a television set could produce a different image than another model. I'm asking for a mechanism that explains how an HDMI cable might possibly make a signal too red/green/sharp/soft.

It's relevant in that it's a similar phenomena, as in saying "this doesn't happen only with wire, it happens with other stuff."

Perhaps this will explain what I mean: an HDMI cable doesn't come with a tint knob.

I have indeed seen edge sparkles from a Monster HDMI. Not enough to destroy the image but plenty annoying

The sparkles seen with bad HDMI cables aren't just at edges. They are random blips that can appear anywhere in the image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sB3rULnAWY

The workaround shown in the video is to lower the bit depth of the signal, bringing the bandwidth sent across the cable down below its tolerance.

There seems to be no interest in testing what happens before total failure. BlueJeans did mention "image degradation" due to build, impedance anomalies, etc., but they didn't define "degradation" precisely.

BJC say what happens before total failure ("The first sign of an HDMI signal failure is digital dropouts"). I couldn't find the phrase "image degradation" but they talk about "signal degradation" in terms of the electrical signal, and they say that a degraded signal can usually still be used to reconstruct the original bitstream.

But I've had VGA cables do the same thing; so I'm not blaming HDMI, I'm blaming the cables.

The limitations of analog connections aren't the same as the limitations of digital connections, just as it is with analog vs digital mastering. To think about it from the reverse, if an analog-mastered LP sounded harsh you wouldn't attribute it to low bit depth. The old paradigm simply doesn't apply.

If professional reviewers with a level of technical expertise are totally lacking in credence because they didn't show up with oscilloscopes, then I'd say you should never bother with reviews that aren't accompanied by numbers and test patterns.

Technical knowledge is nice but it needs to be demonstrated in this specific area. For a subjective review of HDMI cables that would mean firstly acknowledging that one's writing runs counter to all known theory and bench tests. If it included some sort of new theory for how the cable could produce a differing image, that would be something. An alternative would be ABX tests -- but that would produce numbers.

[usually_quiet]

The only thing I could find that is different when comparing the HD PVR2 1512 / 1519 and the HD PVR2 Gaming Edition Plus model 1504 is that they include an ir blaster cable with the 1519. I haven't found any other differences so far. I guess they assume you might want the channel changer feature. From what I read the software is the same and all the connectors seem the same. Not sure if they've dropped the green light with the newer gaming edition but I know the 1519 is blue like the 1212.

The reason I was confused while researching the models and decided to post about the 2 GE versions is because I found many posts and youtube videos that seemed inconsistent with what I was reading about the GE plus and the 1519. Many people just called the model HD PVR2 and didn't make any distinction. Then I realized that they just released the 1519 and 1504 in early Feb 2013 but released the early version of the HD PVR2 GE model 1488 without the spdif connector late last summer.

hi. one questions

i have Hauppage GD PVR Game edition.
Solution to capture 51?


Thanks

The HD-PVR 2 Gaming Edition Plus can record 5.1 channel AC3 audio if the audio source is 5.1 channel AC3 audio. The HD-PVR 2 Gaming Edition will only record 2 channel AAC audio, no matter what you do.

There is an easy way to tell which model you have if you aren't sure. The HD-PVR 2 models able to record 5.1 channel audio have an S/PDIF (or TOSLINK) digital optical audio connection and an IR blaster port. The regular HD-PVR 2 Gaming Edition lacks both of these features.