New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 8

post #106 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

I'm talking about psychology instead. 

Thus why, you would need to be trained of have done the tests to prove both are the same, before moving unto "people's opinions"


I have no doubt that many people would "see" a difference. The placebo effect can sometimes be pretty strong. Also, evidence suggests that more expensive placebos are more effective than less expensive placebos.
post #107 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


I have no doubt that many people would "see" a difference. The placebo effect can sometimes be pretty strong. Also, evidence suggests that more expensive placebos are more effective than less expensive placebos.


if only i was doing something with engineering i would carry it out + would be very interesting for my final year dissertation at uni...

 

I could get away with the study of placebo that said - as I, myself have experienced it.

 

 

post #108 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

Now, CC as for you doubting what I saw, well, there really isn't much more to be said. You either believe me and try to look up for other reasons why I saw and heard what I did, or you don't. And to me that would read as you basically calling me a liar.  Your theories and speculation on the idea that just because I bought a more expensive cable, an inherit suggestion was playing in the back of my head that a quality may be improved may automatically accompany it... Well, this may be true in theory. But, this differs from an individual to an individual.  As per Placebo criteria, if I am and was in the state of mind that a more expensive cable will produce better quality is basically a marketing sham, then trust me that I was very critical of myself not to be susceptible to such or any placebo effects, or the likes of it.

 


 

I think you misinterpreted what I meant with these comments. First off, I'm not calling you a liar. I will admit that I don't think there is a difference, so I think your reported perceptions may have been flawed, but that's not the same as lying. I am willing to consider the idea that your reports were accurate, pending stronger evidence that we may be able to see a difference. Anecdotal evidence is simply not a good source of evidence. This is especially true when we could easily find some experimental evidence. Without a sufficient amount of control over variables, it's VERY unclear why a difference is reported. That's why I keep (endlessly) repeating that there needs to be a blind study conducted that shows repeatable, consistent and accurate identification of high and low quality cables. I don't care who is telling the story about seeing a difference, until you eliminate as many variables as possible there is a lot more (well founded) evidence to suggest that there shouldn't be a difference.

 

Also, I'm not suggesting that you might have perceived a difference because you spent more on the cable. I'm suggesting this:

1) You needed a cable to test if the old cable was the cause of the problem

2) You could only find a more expensive cable to test with

3) You plugged it in having no expectations of it fixing the problem (or improving quality)

4) To your surprise, that fixed the problem. 

5) You are now elated that the TV is working. You may be focusing more on the quality/condition of the display to make sure everything is working. That may be causing you to notice more details than before. Maybe your memory of the image quality from before is slightly inaccurate. Your sudden good mood may have altered your judgement of the quality. Maybe the lighting was different. The room temperature being more comfortable may have done something.

 

Basically, I'm suggesting that you may have become more open to the idea that the cables make a difference for a moment and in that moment, for whatever reason, you perceived a difference. We can't be certain why you perceived a difference and it's entirely possible that the difference was inaccurately attributed to the cable as that was the change in the system that you were aware of.

post #109 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Lemon View Post


 

I think you misinterpreted what I meant with these comments. First off, I'm not calling you a liar. I will admit that I don't think there is a difference, so I think your reported perceptions may have been flawed, but that's not the same as lying. I am willing to consider the idea that your reports were accurate, pending stronger evidence that we may be able to see a difference. Anecdotal evidence is simply not a good source of evidence. This is especially true when we could easily find some experimental evidence. Without a sufficient amount of control over variables, it's VERY unclear why a difference is reported. That's why I keep (endlessly) repeating that there needs to be a blind study conducted that shows repeatable, consistent and accurate identification of high and low quality cables. I don't care who is telling the story about seeing a difference, until you eliminate as many variables as possible there is a lot more (well founded) evidence to suggest that there shouldn't be a difference.

 

Also, I'm not suggesting that you might have perceived a difference because you spent more on the cable. I'm suggesting this:

1) You needed a cable to test if the old cable was the cause of the problem

2) You could only find a more expensive cable to test with

3) You plugged it in having no expectations of it fixing the problem (or improving quality)

4) To your surprise, that fixed the problem. 

5) You are now elated that the TV is working. You may be focusing more on the quality/condition of the display to make sure everything is working. That may be causing you to notice more details than before. Maybe your memory of the image quality from before is slightly inaccurate. Your sudden good mood may have altered your judgement of the quality. Maybe the lighting was different. The room temperature being more comfortable may have done something.

 

Basically, I'm suggesting that you may have become more open to the idea that the cables make a difference for a moment and in that moment, for whatever reason, you perceived a difference. We can't be certain why you perceived a difference and it's entirely possible that the difference was inaccurately attributed to the cable as that was the change in the system that you were aware of.


Fair enough for not calling me a liar. Mind you, I am not saying that you ARE, what I said was that you doubting what I claim to be true in my eyes to be inaccurate according to your views and standards, feels to me like being called a liar (but that's a personal bias). But again, I'm aware that you're not trying to claim that I am lying since you DO believe that I perceived a difference. The thing left for me now is to make YOU believe that what I perceived wasn't Placebo, different perception or inaccuracy of expectation or memory. 

 

Here are the reasons:

 

1. I did blind tests. I had my father switch cables on me without telling me which is which. On his 32' and 42' LCD's (Toshiba and Samsung) and My own 50' Plasma (Hitachi) and 32' LCD (Toshiba Regza).  Not only it was with the two different cables, but also between two of the cheaper cables (which he bought as-well and didn't care at all about any of this).  He could not tell any difference at all from any kind. Although he did prefer the Plasma Display over all the LCD's. Not for the size matter, but for the inherit nature of Plasma Panels to display the picture in a more natural way.   As for me, on 32's and 42' LCD's and the Plasma . I noticed a slight difference in brightness or gamma or I'm not sure which in particular. Just that one display appeared to have slightly more emphasized dark levels.  I also couldn't tell which cable was which. That difference was really really small. My father couldn't tell and thought I was messing with him. Now I say again, I didn't really prefer one over the other, since slight brightness does very little to me.   I am a videophile, but that difference didn't justify $30 - $40 extra, especially since I bought a new HD media player which had no issues with either HDMI cable. 

 

2. The issue between the Old HDmedia player and the Plasma via cheaper cable is still unresolved. And the only factor that appears to be in common is that HDMI cable. So clearly, regardless of its to spec capabilities, its construction, shielding and materials used, some communication error between the components has occurred in order for this signal fluctuation to happen.

 

3. I don't agree with your Point #5. And this is why:

A. If have no expectation, either to quality or display itself. Anything that I see, I see it at once since I am watching the screen. The was no timely buffer for me to process this elaborate pseudo - psychosomatic mind job you discuss.  As I said, I was far too critical of myself not to be influenced by any of it.  And again, as per placebo effect (thus far), as long as you're aware, you're not prone to its effects. Plain an simple. 

 

4. I did blind and double blind tests.  Same lighting, same temp, same day, and same hour. 

The next tests were a different day, all at the same time as-well.  No lighting or shadow factors. And if they were, then they would have affected my perception either way.

 

5. To reiterate, I saw a difference, but didn't favor any in particular. Therefore, returned the cable. Thus, I have no bias and no reason to promote what you call a  baseless and anecdotal claim against a world of science.

 

6. The evidence is anecdotal by definition, but it doesn't mean it is not real or true.  Remember, science can't accept this because the reported differences seen are inconsistent. And as I already elaborated previously, the reasons why there would be errors or signal interference or such are inconsistent and pretty much random.   So how could any blind tests be inclusive to the global phenomenon?

It's impossible to reproduce the same results the same way, even with the same cable.  It's a digital signal carrying so much information over an electrical signal..  

 

That is the reality of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #110 of 338
I'll believe it when someone shows me hard data as evidence that the digital transmission is different. I want to see the checksum before it enters the cables and again when it arrives at the destination. If it is different, consider me convinced.

Sorry, but until then I have no choice but to say that all anecdotal views and opinions are based on placebo. Not trying to insult anyone, that's just how I feel.
post #111 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

And again, as per placebo effect (thus far), as long as you're aware, you're not prone to its effects. Plain an simple.

And again, evidence suggests this isn't the case. At a minimum, what you are asserting cannot simply be assumed to be true. So, yes, the placebo effect remains a plausible explanation.
post #112 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

I'll believe it when someone shows me hard data as evidence that the digital transmission is different. I want to see the checksum before it enters the cables and again when it arrives at the destination. If it is different, consider me convinced.
Sorry, but until then I have no choice but to say that all anecdotal views and opinions are based on placebo. Not trying to insult anyone, that's just how I feel.


You do realize that no matter how good the cable is, the signal, its strength, or even how good the quality of the components is.

 

You can have a $400 setup of 32' 720p in your bedroom hooked up to a Coby BD player, or a $10,000.00 setup up in your living room consisting of the state of the art Samsung or Sony LED's with the highest Refresh rate possible smart TVs, top of the line 7.2 receiver with quadruple inputs for HDMI's Toslinks and Coaxes, full on Compatibility for any device, 3D, Master audios. Your speaker setup could be stellar and sound like a million bucks.  But... at the end of the day, no signal that is being transmitted from any device is the same signal that is being received. It's never a 100% of the signal.  It's very close in margin, but never EVER the same signal.

post #113 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


And again, evidence suggests this isn't the case. At a minimum, what you are asserting cannot simply be assumed to be true. So, yes, the placebo effect remains a plausible explanation.


Which evidence? Did we read the same article?

 

This is directly from the discussion YOU provided:

 

 

Quote:
The first phase of the discussion will be designed to enhance expectation. Patients will be asked whether they have heard of the placebo effect and what they think of it. After a brief exchange geared
to supporting any positive feelings the patient may have about placebo effects, the practitioner will then talk about the evidence supporting the idea that just
taking placebo pills with a positive expectation initiates still poorly understood effects that can have a profound impact of illness. It will be clearly explained that placebo are made of "inert" substances like sugar pills but have been show in clinical trials to improve patient symptoms.

 

The only evidence shown here CLEARLY is that the subjects were well informed of what Placebo entails, but at the same time, informed that while the pills that they will be taking are in fact inert, have been shown in clinical trials to improve symptoms.   

 

You need to re-read this again and understand that this is a mind game played on the subject in favor of the study and to manipulate its results (which it obviously did). They were still deceived since they were TOLD that those inert pills have been proven to show improvement in clinical studies and experiments.  It's basically the same as me telling someone who knows very little about HDMI technology, explain to him the scientific approach. Then show him two different cables that are going to be used, one from Monoprice and one from Monster.  Then explain to him that empirical studies show and prove that there will be no difference in display and sound.. However, in previous quality tests, the Monster cables were proven to be a favorable choice of used cable.

Then I will expose him to viewing a clip using the monoprice cable, tell him it is a monoprice cable. Then, switch the cables, tell him that now it is a Monster cable being used. 

 

Result - I doubt that this person will state that he sees no difference. Unless he is aware that he being manipulated in such a way, he will most likely favor the Monster cable and will claim to see a better quality image.    Do you think that is still informed positive Placebo effect?   The answer is no. He was deceived. He was basically told 'this scientifically should not work at all', but 'has shown to work'...    So.. which is it? Does it work or doesn't it?   And a person who inherently wants to see or get better (IBS symptoms or HDMI display), will  most likely be prone and susceptible to such manipulation. 

 

As CClemon stated, this is just skimming off the top on this study. 

 

Much like anything, in this world, there aren't that many things that aren't plausible in THEORY, but effectively proving them to be true is a different story.

This study proved nothing to support the claim that Placebo works without the deception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #114 of 338

I'm not sure if he meant EXACTLY the same. Doing the same test with the same cable will yield different results as there will always be some sort of errors and it's unlikely that they would be at the exact same point in the data stream. To make that statement more reasonable:

 

Do the same test as he described with the exception of comparing the number of errors between cables. I'd say it should be done with multiple trials just to show consistency. That would be a very simple way to identify any significant differences between the cables. It would also be useful to see the kinds of errors that occurred with explanations of exactly how that would have translated on the screen. That would help with understanding whether or not the errors would be something considered reasonably visible.

 

Not all evidence is anecdotal. If something is recorded from an experiment, it's not anecdotal. It's not anecdotal to take measurements of errors in data transmission. There's not the error of human recollection in a report like that. It would be anecdotal to take measurements of errors, not record them, but report them at a later date from memory. I've conducted a few experiments that uses self-reported measures on various scales. The data is all original from the participants and I can access the actual forms  used in the experiment to confirm that information. All of the sessions were also recorded on video which would mean it's not anecdotal. 

 

The list of things that I suggested could have affected your perception was just a bunch of examples of small things that have shown to have effects in the past. I was simply trying to make a point of how little it takes to alter our perception. One of the studies I conducted involved the manipulation of mood and the affects it has on analyzing a given set of information. It's kind of silly how amazingly easy it is to change perceptions. My point was that it's unlikely that everything was considered in the design of your test and the methods used would not pass as scientific. The fact that it wasn't documented in a scientific manner from an unbiased party (participant not also an experimenter) makes it unreliable information.

 

To be more specific, I'm not necessarily doubting your perception. I'm actually focusing on the idea that presenting that experience as any sort of evidence is not reasonable. The test you performed would not meet any reasonable expectations for a published scientific paper. There is a lot of evidence, founded in theory that is backed by a lot of data, that suggests there should not be a significant difference in the data successfully transferred through different cables (of the same HDMI version), not to mention differences on a level able to be perceived by humans. My criticism towards the side that suggests that differences can be seen is an overwhelming lack of reasonably scientific data to support it. A test of the data transferred through 2 different cables would be amazingly easy to see and test for significant differences, yet there's a lack of that evidence. For those that suggest there is more to it than just 0's and 1's and that there is a difference that can be perceived (yet, not shown through a test of data transmission), there's a lack of any reasonably scientific test with proper documentation, methods, and control over variables. The results should also be repeatable.

 

Keep in mind, I'm coming from an extremely scientific view. Any time a publication is release, the author should try to point out any flaws they see with their own methods and should be open to criticism. That is partially covered in the peer review process that comes before publication, but also extends to any time after a study is published. In the pursuit of progress, I hope anyone looking to further our understanding of topics like this is open to criticism, ready to criticize and ready to investigate further to eliminate potential issues.

 

I am open to the idea that there is a difference that can be perceived. Having looked at existing evidence on the topic, I believe there is a lot more support for the idea that there will not be a difference detectable by humans. There are plenty of claims that I would say warrant a proper study, but I don't believe there is any existing evidence that is sound enough to reasonably conclude that there may be a difference. So... enough to investigate but not enough to draw conclusions.

post #115 of 338

So now we're just debating placebo effect. You don't need to be oblivious to have it work, you can know something is a placebo and it still has effects on you. The idea that some human being, because he is aware of placebo, is imune to it, is ridiculous. When I'm drunk I can be aware of the 4 beers I've had and that does't make me sober.

post #116 of 338

Clearly, when I bought that HDMI cable, it was never intended to be a documented experiment or any sort of work with a mind-set to be used as an empirical study to be published.

Mind you that at that time I wasn't even considering a change in video quality, rather picture, yes/no, and that's it. To me, at that time was basically this. New HDMI cable works with the HDmedia player and the TV, i.e. I see the image on the screen=good enough for me.  Nothing else and nothing more.

 

So trust me that I clearly understand and am very much aware that what I describe could not be used as any empirical evidence, or to that effect in any published study. It meets very little criteria of a credible study or a research (trust me that I know this all too well.) 

 

As for the argument that specific cable testing to show specific error codes and how they would be translated onto screen, visually and audibly... That, I am actually skeptical of.

As I discussed already, I actually am convinced that there many production lines from different manufacturers that produce and sell HDMI cables that meet the very minimum of the standard. And regardless of their proprietary testing methods which would show that their cables meet the HDMI standard spec compliance. Or even objective testing to be conducted on these cables. The errors or fluctuations in signal that will be reported with the test, will hold the claim that the onscreen translation will be exceedingly meaningless. Not only because of the claim that humans could not possibly tell, but also because the fluctuations are too random and inconsistent.  In one test it might show this margin of distortion or signal interference or degradation, while the same cable will show something slightly different on the next test.    Further to that, remember that these tests are conducted in controlled environments (labs and such) where conditions are ideal and possible outside interference is limited.  So I say again, those tests can show quite a bit, but clearly can't predict every single parameter of a household potential interference, which in addition, to be taken in consideration to the components that HDMI cable will be used with. TV to BD? XBOX to TV? HD player to receiver? BD to receiver and than another HDMI cable from the receiver to the TV.. 

 

That last scenario alone can throw an entire hypothesis of a single HDMI lab cable testing into a frenzy of a whole new set of possible variables to account for quality issues (if they occur at all).

 

As for the 0,1,0,1 argument.

 

Although my experience is anecdotal here in terms of empirical evidence, I, and only I alone know best on this matter. And in light of that, I firmly stand on the side that claims that while 0,1,0,1 holds the claim that the signal would be the same irregardless of the pricing of the cable, there is more to it than that.  Whether it can or could be proven...?

 

Well clearly at this point, no. 

However, in light of so much of it being reported...

 

Should it be ignored and dismissed, and for that matter, should not be suggested to consumers as plausible options? Most definitely NOT!

 

Remember what my initial statement was (back in the beats thread).  If you're going to have an entry to mid level set up at home, then I won't suggest spending much on HDMI cables. Monoprice is fairly known for selling fairly solid performing cables in decent price ranges. 

 

But, if you're going to go all out on this Hi End High profile set-up, and I'm talking multiple components, multiple HDMI cables going into one receiver, and then one going into a TV. High possibility of at least one HDMI cable going through a wall and out.. 5.1 or 7.2 Master Audio decoding.. 3D, LED, 240hz refresh rate, 55' or larger panel...  

 

Clearly the above setup will easily go over $5000, providing that you are buying a High End TV and Home Theater components.  Do you really want to get by with a $15 - $20 HDMI cables for this?

Even if the scientific approach holds that there should be no issues ....  

 

I know I won't. For the amount I spend on that theater system, I might as-well go for the HDMI cables from outlets claim to be the best in the business, and of course, those who offer lifetime warranty.  (There are others that do this beside Monster)  

 

For $5000 and over .... I would definitely choose a brand name $50 - $100 cable over a No-name brand that claims to be of the same quality. 

 

As for recommendations, I will definitely suggest experimenting, and most definitely WILL NOT disway them from the brand name cables; especially if the cable needed is longer and needs to go through a wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 2/19/12 at 4:12am
post #117 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

So now we're just debating placebo effect. You don't need to be oblivious to have it work, you can know something is a placebo and it still has effects on you. The idea that some human being, because he is aware of placebo, is imune to it, is ridiculous. When I'm drunk I can be aware of the 4 beers I've had and that does't make me sober.



1. No we are not.   However, the Placebo discussion here is very much relevant to the HDMI discussion.. and so appears to be (despite me thinking otherwise) heavily correlated to reported claims of improved quality via more expensive and claimed HDMI cables.

 

 

2. You don't have to be oblivious.  Also, I never said that anyone who is aware is automatically immune to such, specifically if he was already exposed to the placebo ahead of time. 

Remember, for Placebo to be effective, 2 things need to happen, Deception, and Suggestive wording, imagery or other forms to plant the idea in the subject's head.  Also, I didn't say that every one is susceptible to Placebo either. Some, in fact, many, are simply un-affected by some placebos.

 

3. It's impossible to attribute a definite yes/no to a person with one placebo scenario. In one study one person might react positively while in another, no effect at all. Much of it depends on state of mind, personality itself and personal bias towards the subject being tested.

 

4. Are you actually serious with the Beer example?   The mere fact that you suggest that your body is already affected by something else (in your case drinking Alcohol, which is basically POISON)

negates the criteria of Placebo effect. 

 

Also, how exactly does drinking beer equals to giving yourself a placebo.  Also, state of mind altering agents... vs Placebo discussion...???

 

 

post #118 of 338

This whole debate could be settled with a good tester (or if one does not exist a series of tests with the proper equipment).  When you're running CAT5/CAT6 cable for networking there are testers which you can plug in at each end and will thouroughly test whether the run meets spec (Interference, kinks in the wire, and other factors can cause a run to fail and need to be re-pulled).  Since all data transmitted is digital this is easily possible and should also be quite possible with HDMI.  I lack the proper equipment to do any testing but if anyone thinks they have it the HDMI 1.3 spec is available for public download (1.4 spec is only available to HDMI Adopters).

 

While I personally stand on the side that states the cable either meets spec or it doesn't and a cable that meets spec is all you ever need I would like to see how many cheaper cables actually do meet spec for their length.  I currently remain skeptical that what Shotor experienced is in fact due to the cable but I cannot discount it, just as he lacks conclusive evidence to prove it I lack the conclusive evidence that would disprove it.  (I do however suspect that the problematic cable did not meet spec)  Without thorough testing I don't ever see an end to this debate.

 

(Edited for clarity after re-reading)


Edited by AltairDusk - 2/19/12 at 7:59am
post #119 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post



You do realize that no matter how good the cable is, the signal, its strength, or even how good the quality of the components is.

You can have a $400 setup of 32' 720p in your bedroom hooked up to a Coby BD player, or a $10,000.00 setup up in your living room consisting of the state of the art Samsung or Sony LED's with the highest Refresh rate possible smart TVs, top of the line 7.2 receiver with quadruple inputs for HDMI's Toslinks and Coaxes, full on Compatibility for any device, 3D, Master audios. Your speaker setup could be stellar and sound like a million bucks.  But... at the end of the day, no signal that is being transmitted from any device is the same signal that is being received. It's never a 100% of the signal.  It's very close in margin, but never EVER the same signal.

If $5 Monoprice, $100 Monster, and $500 Audioquest cables are all within spec, in terms of functionality, they are the same cable. Unless you're going for bling factor, it's a waste. Unless someone can show scientific evidence, my mind won't change.
post #120 of 338
Thread Starter 

Bling factor -> ebay

FAW SHAW

 

Only cost £8 -> 2m

 

Here is my optical cable:

My Optical Cable

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: