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

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

I have tried explaining this to numerous people ever since hdmi became the
standard. It's an impossible task - most just don't accept that an
inexpensive hdmi cable will produce identical sound and picture quality to a
very expensive one.

They read reviews on Amazon et al, from gullible fools who have spent £100
on an hdmi cable and then swear blind that it has made a huge difference to
picture quality - and they swallow it hook line and sinker.

Still - it's their money and if they want to throw it away it's up to them!

--
Kev

"Ret." wrote in message ...



I have tried explaining this to numerous people ever since hdmi became the
standard. It's an impossible task - most just don't accept that an
inexpensive hdmi cable will produce identical sound and picture quality to a
very expensive one.

They read reviews on Amazon et al, from gullible fools who have spent £100
on an hdmi cable and then swear blind that it has made a huge difference to
picture quality - and they swallow it hook line and sinker.

Still - it's their money and if they want to throw it away it's up to them!

--




someone at work suggested the same.
i asked them if an expensive usb cable for their printer would result in
clearer prints......



-- Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:36:43 -0000, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

someone at work suggested the same.
i asked them if an expensive usb cable for their printer would result in
clearer prints......

That's a good one!

--
Vincent

"Ret." wrote in message
...
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

I have tried explaining this to numerous people ever since hdmi
became the standard. It's an impossible task - most just don't
accept that an inexpensive hdmi cable will produce identical
sound and picture quality to a very expensive one.

They read reviews on Amazon et al, from gullible fools who have
spent £100 on an hdmi cable and then swear blind that it has
made a huge difference to picture quality - and they swallow it
hook line and sinker.

Still - it's their money and if they want to throw it away it's
up to them!

--
Kev



Come on. Someone's got to keep Rip-Off Russ in the style to which
he has become accustomed!


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

"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

In pharmacology it is known as the placebo effect. If you believe something
works then your brain tells you it does.

--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

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

In pharmacology it is known as the placebo effect. If you believe something
works then your brain tells you it does.

I suppose if you had spent over £100 on a lead you would say it was
better even if you knew it wasn't otherwise you would look a complete tit.

On 15/01/2011 23:19, Martin 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

In pharmacology it is known as the placebo effect. If you believe something
works then your brain tells you it does.

I suppose if you had spent over £100 on a lead you would say it was
better even if you knew it wasn't otherwise you would look a complete tit.

The person who said it was better would still look a complete tit :-)
oh aye, as they would for buying the thing in the first place :O)

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?

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.

--
Vincent