On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:52:07 +0000, Vincent
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:37:50 +0000, Pendrag0n wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:19:47 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:27:27 +0000, Paul Heslop
wrote:

On 11/01/2011 20:29, Professor Strabismus wrote:
"Vincent" wrote:
Most of us already know that expensive HDMI leads offer no visual or
audible performance issues whatsoever over a cheap one, but some still
argue it's worth paying for expensive HDMI leads and that you can "see
the difference". Uhuh.

I stumbled upon this article today which does some pretty definitive
tests. They even went into the framebuffer to see the raw data that
the TV was receiving and ran an MD5 checksum on it to prove that the
data the TV set received when using a cheap HDMI £1.50 lead (including
delivery) versus a £130 Monster cable is identical down to the very
last bit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...oundry-vs-hdmi

--
Vincent

What a great article. Yeah I know I'm a bit slow, but my brain uses
Amazon non gold plated channels /

I have often found all the claims for super duper cables to be
dubious, certainly in my experience. Be it for sound or video. I think
sound and video is a classic cases of beauty is in the eye/ear of the
beholder. Like all this fine wine cobblers. I just don't *get it*. I
can say its nice or not (cheap cable) but someone else can give a
10000 word essay on how nice, or not it is. Can thee and thou really
be so far out of sync, or is it purely imagination and snobbishness? I
suspect the latter.

Any audiophiles care to comment?

The bottom line is simple. If the cable is being used to transfer
digital information, then it will either work perfectly with
absolutely no loss of quality whatsoever, or it'll have very obvious
problems (massive breakup, complete loss of signal, doesn't work at
all, etc).

Therefore, unless you have an environment where there is a lot of
interference that can disrupt the digital signal, or you're trying to
run VERY long lengths (e.g. 50 metes or more), where cheap cables
simply do not work at all, then there is no benefit to using expensive
cables other than perhaps their aesthetics (they do often look
better).

If, however, cheap cables don't work for whatever reason, then you
MIGHT in some rare circumstances get an expensive cable to work where
the cheap one didn't.

If the cable is being used for any analogue connections, then any
loss/interference in the cable, even if it's small, will directly
effect what comes out the speaker/screen. So decent quality cables are
more important in these types of connection.

However, for the most part, with most people's equipment, there will
be no genuinely perceivable difference, even in analogue connections.
Other factors (i.e. the quality of the equipment itself) play a MUCH
bigger factor. Also it's human nature to try and believe the £1,000
you just spent on that "kettle" power cable was worth it, even if
nobody else can tell the difference, but it's mostly snake oil.

best tea I've ever had

"Vincent" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:37:50 +0000, Pendrag0n wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:19:47 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:27:27 +0000, Paul Heslop

wrote:

On 11/01/2011 20:29, Professor Strabismus wrote:
"Vincent" wrote:
Most of us already know that expensive HDMI leads offer no visual or
audible performance issues whatsoever over a cheap one, but some
still
argue it's worth paying for expensive HDMI leads and that you can
"see
the difference". Uhuh.

I stumbled upon this article today which does some pretty definitive
tests. They even went into the framebuffer to see the raw data that
the TV was receiving and ran an MD5 checksum on it to prove that the
data the TV set received when using a cheap HDMI £1.50 lead
(including
delivery) versus a £130 Monster cable is identical down to the very
last bit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...oundry-vs-hdmi

--
Vincent

What a great article. Yeah I know I'm a bit slow, but my brain uses
Amazon non gold plated channels /

I have often found all the claims for super duper cables to be
dubious, certainly in my experience. Be it for sound or video. I think
sound and video is a classic cases of beauty is in the eye/ear of the
beholder. Like all this fine wine cobblers. I just don't *get it*. I
can say its nice or not (cheap cable) but someone else can give a
10000 word essay on how nice, or not it is. Can thee and thou really
be so far out of sync, or is it purely imagination and snobbishness? I
suspect the latter.

Any audiophiles care to comment?

The bottom line is simple. If the cable is being used to transfer
digital information, then it will either work perfectly with
absolutely no loss of quality whatsoever, or it'll have very obvious
problems (massive breakup, complete loss of signal, doesn't work at
all, etc).

Therefore, unless you have an environment where there is a lot of
interference that can disrupt the digital signal, or you're trying to
run VERY long lengths (e.g. 50 metes or more), where cheap cables
simply do not work at all, then there is no benefit to using expensive
cables other than perhaps their aesthetics (they do often look
better).

If, however, cheap cables don't work for whatever reason, then you
MIGHT in some rare circumstances get an expensive cable to work where
the cheap one didn't.

If the cable is being used for any analogue connections, then any
loss/interference in the cable, even if it's small, will directly
effect what comes out the speaker/screen. So decent quality cables are
more important in these types of connection.

However, for the most part, with most people's equipment, there will
be no genuinely perceivable difference, even in analogue connections.
Other factors (i.e. the quality of the equipment itself) play a MUCH
bigger factor. Also it's human nature to try and believe the £1,000
you just spent on that "kettle" power cable was worth it, even if
nobody else can tell the difference, but it's mostly snake oil.

I have followed this advice and bought five HDMI leads from Amazon
Marketplace for 45p each. Now off to buy the new telly to test them with.
--
Chris R

On 23/11/2011 18:37, Pendrag0n wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:19:47 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:27:27 +0000, Paul
wrote:

On 11/01/2011 20:29, Professor Strabismus wrote:
"Vincent" wrote:
Most of us already know that expensive HDMI leads offer no visual or
audible performance issues whatsoever over a cheap one, but some still
argue it's worth paying for expensive HDMI leads and that you can "see
the difference". Uhuh.

I stumbled upon this article today which does some pretty definitive
tests. They even went into the framebuffer to see the raw data that
the TV was receiving and ran an MD5 checksum on it to prove that the
data the TV set received when using a cheap HDMI £1.50 lead (including
delivery) versus a £130 Monster cable is identical down to the very
last bit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...oundry-vs-hdmi

--
Vincent

What a great article. Yeah I know I'm a bit slow, but my brain uses
Amazon non gold plated channels /

I have often found all the claims for super duper cables to be
dubious, certainly in my experience. Be it for sound or video. I think
sound and video is a classic cases of beauty is in the eye/ear of the
beholder. Like all this fine wine cobblers. I just don't *get it*. I
can say its nice or not (cheap cable) but someone else can give a
10000 word essay on how nice, or not it is. Can thee and thou really
be so far out of sync, or is it purely imagination and snobbishness? I
suspect the latter.

Any audiophiles care to comment?

The consumers association did a test using an expensive and cheap cable
coupled with a high end TV+blu ray player and found no difference. IIRC
the gadget show did the same with the same result.

I'm no pixel peeper so I can see no difference between the picture/sound
I get with a £3 cable from 7day shop and the £20 one that came with the
blu ray player. And £3 cable is longer!

Mike