HDMI Cable doesn't cost me a fortune

[sanlyn]

No ghosting or soft picture or lame here with Monoprice HDMI cables. They have been excellent for me. A bad HDMI cable will produce "sparklies", or no picture, or causes no signal/intermittent signal on broken wires, but an HDMI cable CANNOT make a picture soft or cause ghosts. Digital signals do not work that way. A bad analog cable can do those things.

Exception. I'm afraid u_q confuses digits with the wires they're supposed to flow through. Many people apparently believe that all wire somehow "manages" what becomes of those critters. Wire has absolutely no idea what's going thru them, and a bad connector or insulator can be found anywhere.

Buy what you want. This stuff is so cheap you can try more than one. That's how I managed to work my wy through nearly three dozen models and brands of HDMI. The main factor for most people when auditioning HDMI is that if you can see and hear something from your TV, it works.

[aedipuss]

sorry but for some reason you seem to think hdmi is variable. it's not, you either get the audio and video or you don't. there is no difference as to what is carried over different cables. there are various types of hdmi cables to accommodate things like audio return channel, networking over hdmi, etc. but, as long as you have one rated to the spec you need they are all the same.

HDMI transmission is a technique called transition-minimized differential signaling. I discuss this at length in the original article, so I'll just sum up here. TMDS is very robust, and means that even if the signal is very weak, or picks up noise along the way, the 1s and 0s get received by the display exactly as they are in the source. As the signal gets worse and worse, the picture/sound quality stays exactly the same.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20056502-1/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57321956-221/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same-part-2/
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57540275-221/still-more-reasons-why-all-hdmi-cabl...-are-the-same/
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57592539-221/4k-hdmi-cables-are-nonsense/
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57551588-221/hdmi-cable-buying-guide/

[Brad]

Sanlyn already admitted previously that nothing will make him change his mind on this topic, so do we really have to go in circles in yet another thread?

The info is here for the OP to read, at least.

[aedipuss]

gotta try to spread the real gospel

[usually_quiet]

Exception. I'm afraid u_q confuses digits with the wires they're supposed to flow through. Many people apparently believe that all wire somehow "manages" what becomes of those critters. Wire has absolutely no idea what's going thru them, and a bad connector or insulator can be found anywhere..

The only reason you always drag out this maxim when discussions about HDMI arise is because you don't really understand how HDMI works, but there is no reason why the OP should remain misinformed due to your invincible ignorance.

For the OPs benefit, here is a simplified explanation most people should be able to understand. The picture information in an HDMI signal is organized into groups of ones and zeros, which represent data for one pixel. Either the ones and zeros arrive intact or they don't. If the data representing one pixel is corrupted, it produces a single pixel that is the wrong color, a "sparklie". If the data for many pixels becomes corrupted, it produces snowy picture because lots of pixels are not the right color. If too much data is lost, there is no picture at all.

[sanlyn]

Yeah, you're right. I'm in the right forum, but the wrong discussion. Everyone knows that anything with "digital" on it is perfect. This entire discussion is a waste of the O.P.'s time. It's ridiculous to recommend one digital component over another. To say that one wire or one BD player or TV is "better" than another, etc., is foolish. In answer to the O.P.'s query, I'd say: avoid your nearest BestBuy, Walmart, or similar vendor -- their prices are too high. Online is always cheaper, even with shipping added. In a world where two digits reign supreme, question nothing.

[sambat]

In Canada, the CBC looked at this years back.
Here's the relevant part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eEy5AqJ91Y

[sanlyn]

And remember that uTube is digital, so it's perfect as well. Always. However, there's no video on the link provided.

[jagabo]

In Canada, the CBC looked at this years back.
Here's the relevant part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eEy5AqJ91Y

Apparently not available outside Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2008/02/packing-the-deal.html

[sanlyn]

Yes, I just spent 45 minutes looking for a copy somewhere. The last I saw on a Monster test was on one of their pricey digital audio coax jobs. 3 feet for $100. Heaven knows what it would cost today. The claw-tooth connector was citicized for ripping RCA jacks out of their sockets on removal (that happened to me, too. $80 to have a tech replace the jack on a $800 CD player from Harvey's New York). This was around 1998 or so. The cable failed to pass the 75-ohm nominal impedance test at required frequencies. It turned out to have the same impedance curve as ordinary hookup wire, which is about 30 ohms. No wonder it sounded so weird. I wonder what happened to that testing site. It was associated with an import firm called FatWyre. FatWyre has changed much since then. I see they now have a great deal on a nice $28,000 cable (takers, anyone?). I guess they don't carry their budget lines any more.

I wouldn't recommend FatWyre as a suitable source.

[snoop85]

Found this article when I was looking for advice on HDMI cables:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1292371/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-n...absolute-proof

Why spend more when there's no difference whatsoever?

[jagabo]

Found this article when I was looking for advice on HDMI cables:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1292371/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-n...absolute-proof

Why spend more when there's no difference whatsoever?

Sanlyn will say he looks at pictures, not numbers. So that test is irrelevant to him.

[sanlyn]

It might be more accurate to say, why spend more if you can't see the difference? Price isn't a reliable guide anyway.

You'll note that the article mentions the tests were conducted with uncalibrated displays. That's a no-no in any professional reviewer's book. But most people don't calibrate their displays. After all, they're "digital" and they should all look alike (the article noted that they didn't. That's impossible, isn't it?).

[jman98]

sanlyn - Dude, now you're just becoming a petulant child because somebody didn't say what you wanted to hear. I have no personal issues with you at all as I think you're a good member here, but you are prone to NEVER give up. You're notorious for continuing to post in threads where the OP is not listening and you're just wasting your time, but you bang out reply after reply trying to get through thick heads with ears that are closed. You also are a person a very strongly held beliefs who doesn't like it when people don't agree with those beliefs. You long ago made your points and maybe you had a point with your sarcastic reply in post #36, but now you're just being a baby who won't stop crying until he convinces everybody that he is right. In fact, I'd say that you are actually hurting your previous arguments with your continued petulance and sarcasm and unwillingness to just this thread be. I think the OP long ago got the info he wanted, so you're not doing him any good with your stubborn defense to the death of your thoughts on the subject.

[sanlyn]

Sanlyn will say he looks at pictures, not numbers. So that test is irrelevant to him.

I take heed of both. Picture and sound are the ultimate arbiters. The same cable might work "better" on some equipment, less so on others. Anyone who hasn't noticed this should never spend more than $1.95 for a piece of wire and would be wasting their time reading reviews.

[jagabo]

You'll note that the article mentions the tests were conducted with uncalibrated displays. That's a no-no in any professional reviewer's book.

No. The important tests were done without reference to the displays. They captured the digital output of the HDMI cable and compared that to the digital source. Every bit in the source was captured accurately by the capture card.

A TV is no different than a capture card in this respect. It gets digital data from the HDMI input* and puts it on the screen rather than putting it in a file.

I would have liked to see them run the same test with cables that fail (because they're too long, broken, etc.). Just to see the nature of the errors. I know what those errors are going to be (and other such reviews have shown them) but it would be nice to see further confirmation. Those errors don't take the form of blurry pictures, loss of contrast or saturation, etc. They take the form of sparkles -- bright or dark dots that appear for single frames. Of course, such tests are hard to perform because most failures result in nothing at all being received because the source and sink can't perform the initial handshake.

* Literally, the signal that passes over the cable is analog in the sense that it consists of voltages which can vary continuously with time. But the nature of the signal is such that the reciever only has to detect the difference between two states, representing a 0 or a 1.

[sanlyn]

sanlyn - Dude, now you're just becoming a petulant child because somebody didn't say what you wanted to hear. I have no personal issues with you at all as I think you're a good member here, but you are prone to NEVER give up. You're notorious for continuing to post in threads where the OP is not listening and you're just wasting your time, but you bang out reply after reply trying to get through thick heads with ears that are closed. You also are a person a very strongly held beliefs who doesn't like it when people don't agree with those beliefs. You long ago made your points and maybe you had a point with your sarcastic reply in post #36, but now you're just being a baby who won't stop crying until he convinces everybody that he is right. In fact, I'd say that you are actually hurting your previous arguments with your continued petulance and sarcasm and unwillingness to just this thread be. I think the OP long ago got the info he wanted, so you're not doing him any good with your stubborn defense to the death of your thoughts on the subject.

Agreed. Their minds are made up. Their posts are as repetitive as mine are. I realize that divergent views don't get a good reception here. I should know better by now. But someone might profit from a different outlook. I often do.

[sanlyn]

You'll note that the article mentions the tests were conducted with uncalibrated displays. That's a no-no in any professional reviewer's book.

No. The important tests were done without reference to the displays. They captured the digital output of the HDMI cable and compared that to the digital source. Every bit in the source was captured accurately by the capture card.

That is absolutely correct. I'm positive that no bit was missing.

[jagabo]

Of course, I watched them on a display. I think that was my mistake. I should have just compared readouts of bits.

If you admit that the video frames received by the TVs were exactly the same as the video frames transmitted by the source, where are the differences in picture quality coming from? Does the TV somehow know what cable you're using and then performing different digital filtering for different cables?

[sanlyn]

Anyone who can answer that one will have answered all the ads, subjective reviews, and in-person auditions. Reading data bits, but no noise analysis, nothing about audio quality, contrast, color fidelity, impedance. Just counting bits. So what happens to all the bits means to me that the bits are there, but something gets lost or added in transmission. No answer for that, because no one seems willing to put numbers on it. The same world condition exists for digital coax audio, which supposedly just transmits bits. I can't account for that either, I just know that I bought and returned a lot of digital wire that sounded from so-so to awful on some highly regarded audio gear. Where does the hard treble or muddy bass come from? How do you get stairstepping with one wire and not with another? Uneven impedance, I'd guess, which none of these tests measure. Careless connector design, maybe. Inferior insulation. I once bought from some pricey outfit that claimed freezing and congealing multi-stranded wire made a big difference. It sure did: I saw so much noise I RMA'd the product. I can only surmise that wire does something to signals, which is proven. If I had time to get a physics degree, I could address that with numbers and oscilloscope pics. Otherwise, no one seems to have looked for an answer beyond the obvious.

That some claim to see a difference and some don't has nothing to do with personalities, numbers, or menatality. It's just the way people are. It keeps BestBuy and Walmart in business and benefits my community. It could simply be a matter of component synergy. Seeing as how even my wife (who knows nothing about all this stuff) could tell when I tried a new cable without my informing her, I take it that I'm not hallucinating. Seeing as how my father-in-law likes seeing Oprah stretched out to 350 pounds and looking like Mr. Hyde in drag on his Sansui, I'm grateful that I don't have to sit and watch. All I did was recommend some budget wire that I and others have used and been pleased with.

[budz]

Yawns.....when will a mod close this thread! Hahaha!

[redsandvb]

Suppose I'm willing to spend $20-$30, what can I get that is good for that price ?

Just adding another option, don't think I saw them mentioned: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/hdmi-cable.htm

[sanlyn]

BlueJeansCable = highly reliable, also designs pro setups. They build their own stuff. Have tried the one suggested and many others from bjc. Never been disappointed.

[PowerFalcon]

Can you buy Blue Jean Cables locally, what would be the equivalent ?

[sanlyn]

Almost all of BJC's cable products are custom made to meet demand, and many products involve at least partial manual assembly. They are individually tested. BJC uses mostly U.S.-based Belden core wire (the wire maker is Belden, not "Belkin", the latter being mass-produced imported generics like others sold in stores). It's not feasible to maintain local-store inventories of such products. However, the 4-foot and 6-foot Series-FE are listed on Amazon. Many of their specialty cable designs are patented, unavailable elsewhere. BJC has been around for a long time; they have outlived most of the smaller web-based cable outfits. You'll find few if any complaints about BJC or their customer service. They ship fast and accept returns no questions asked. What any of this has to do with overall subjective judgements about their performance won't ride well in this forum, but suffice it to say that they are guaranteed to meet current (and even future) specs, built far better than cheapies, tend to be more durable and intelligently designed than many big name brands, and have built up a large customer base over the years. If you can get a big outfit like Belden to make some of your own patented wire assemblies for you, you're not a minor player.

At the price range quoted and with build specs as advertised, there are no look-alikes that I know of. Two of my really picky videophile friends use them. I still use their older version for a 30-foot hookup.