Quote:
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.