In article ,
Lucky13 wrote:

Does this mean all HDMI cables are equal?

Unless they're so bad that the data bits are corrupted, yes.

(Actually, I think there are multiple versions of the HDMI standard,
so it's possible that a cable could not support certain features.)

-- Richard

In message , J G Miller
wrote
On Thursday, July 1st, 2010 at 15:55:33 +0100, Lucky13 pondered:

maybe it was the cheap HDMI cable

What difference would an expensive HDMI cable made?



It would give a wide soundstage and reveal an unbelievable amount of
detail. It would deliver a natural more three-dimensional image with
more realistic colours.

Opps, I've been reading the unbiased reviews of Russ Andrews products
again
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
Alan wrote:

What difference would an expensive HDMI cable made?

It would give a wide soundstage and reveal an unbelievable amount of
detail. It would deliver a natural more three-dimensional image with
more realistic colours.

It turns out that this is not *entirely* false.

I looked up the HDMI versions, and HDMI 1.3 and later support xvYCC
which allows a wider colour gamut to be transmitted. In the unlikely
event that your source and display supported this, then an expensive
new HDMI cable could indeed deliver more realistic colours than a
cheap pre-1.3 one.

-- Richard

On 2010-07-01, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Alan wrote:

What difference would an expensive HDMI cable made?

It would give a wide soundstage and reveal an unbelievable amount of
detail. It would deliver a natural more three-dimensional image with
more realistic colours.

It turns out that this is not *entirely* false.

I looked up the HDMI versions, and HDMI 1.3 and later support xvYCC
which allows a wider colour gamut to be transmitted. In the unlikely
event that your source and display supported this, then an expensive
new HDMI cable could indeed deliver more realistic colours than a
cheap pre-1.3 one.

But no better than a cheap new HDMI cable...

--
David Taylor

(Richard Tobin) wrote:

Lucky13 wrote:
Does this mean all HDMI cables are equal?

Unless they're so bad that the data bits are corrupted, yes.

Indeed. So long as the data gets through, then the cable doesn't affect
the picture. If there is something wrong, then at the threshold of
failure, the errors appear as very obvious bright sparkles in the picture.

(Actually, I think there are multiple versions of the HDMI standard,
so it's possible that a cable could not support certain features.)

Depends what you mean by "feature". The only change in the standards that
affected the cable was that later standards demanded higher bandwidth. For
example, 1080p hi-def progressive requires a high bitrate of 150 Mbits/s
that was too much for some early HDMI cables.

"Lucky13" wrote in message
...
Total crap.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...SH+FREESAT.htm

It's put me off the Freesat platform a little as well to be honest. I
found the picture worse than Freeview (maybe it was the cheap HDMI cable
versus the built in freeview of my samsung 42 inch plasma).

The menus were horrible, the EPG was god awful.... the remote control had
sharp plastic edging. A horrid experience!

If I went for a recondtioned Humax box would my faith be restored?

Works O.K. for me.
And at £60(ish) is not a bad way to get HD satellite.
Much cheaper than upgrading my TV aerial to get Freeview.

Oh, and you don't say which TV you are watching on.
Presumably not the 42" plasma?

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article ,
Alan wrote:

What difference would an expensive HDMI cable made?

It would give a wide soundstage and reveal an unbelievable amount of
detail. It would deliver a natural more three-dimensional image with
more realistic colours.

It turns out that this is not *entirely* false.

I looked up the HDMI versions, and HDMI 1.3 and later support xvYCC
which allows a wider colour gamut to be transmitted. In the unlikely
event that your source and display supported this, then an expensive
new HDMI cable could indeed deliver more realistic colours than a
cheap pre-1.3 one.

Whoa, hold on. The "casual reader" would assume that you're saying that
you might see an improvement in the colours just by plugging in a better
HDMI cable, which of course *is* entirely false.

But if you switch the video source to a mode that support xvYCC, then that
might push up the bitrate to the point that early HDMI cables might
entirely lose the picture, which is what you meant, right?

"Lucky13" wrote in message
...
Total crap.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...SH+FREESAT.htm

It's put me off the Freesat platform a little as well to be honest. I
found the picture worse than Freeview (maybe it was the cheap HDMI cable
versus the built in freeview of my samsung 42 inch plasma).

The menus were horrible, the EPG was god awful.... the remote control had
sharp plastic edging. A horrid experience!

If I went for a recondtioned Humax box would my faith be restored?

Had a Bush Freesat HD since last October. Very happy with it for the price.
Most of the reviews on the Argos website are pretty positive (they can't all
be Argos employees...), and so are independent reviews. I don't understand
your comment about the remote - mine is not sharp-edged at all.

Some of the early 2009 boxes had problems, but later ones seems much better.
..

--

Jeff

In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:

Depends what you mean by "feature". The only change in the standards that
affected the cable was that later standards demanded higher bandwidth. For
example, 1080p hi-def progressive requires a high bitrate of 150 Mbits/s
that was too much for some early HDMI cables.

I think you must mean 150 Mpixels/s.

But even HDMI 1.0 supported up to 165 Mpixels/s, and specifically
includes 1080p/60Hz. So a cable compliant with any version of the
spec should be adequate for all current broadcast television, DVDs,
and BluRay (or however it's spelt). The only exception would be
these silly new 3D things.

See http://www.hdmi.org/pdf/HDMISpecInfo...nalVersion.pdf

-- Richard

On 01/07/2010 21:28, Jeff Layman wrote:
"Lucky13" wrote in message
...
Total crap.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...SH+FREESAT.htm


It's put me off the Freesat platform a little as well to be honest. I
found the picture worse than Freeview (maybe it was the cheap HDMI
cable versus the built in freeview of my samsung 42 inch plasma).

The menus were horrible, the EPG was god awful.... the remote control
had sharp plastic edging. A horrid experience!

If I went for a recondtioned Humax box would my faith be restored?

Had a Bush Freesat HD since last October. Very happy with it for the
price. Most of the reviews on the Argos website are pretty positive
(they can't all be Argos employees...), and so are independent reviews.
I don't understand your comment about the remote - mine is not
sharp-edged at all.

Some of the early 2009 boxes had problems, but later ones seems much
better. .



I found that the edging alone the top perimiter of the remote control to
be quite rough - the part that is the main body of the remote before
they drop in the panel that has the holes for the buttons. Just my 2
cents, I may have had a Friday afternoon remote.

Will a Humax HD box be any better?