New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 18

post #256 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moj0 View Post

@ Totally Dubbed, you are correct. TVs and Bluray players have specs such as 1.3, 1.4 etc. If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4 for example, you could still use your "old" HDMI cable you used with your HDMI 1.3 TV and player. That's what I was saying - about the cable.


yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol 

 

Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)

post #257 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post


yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol 

 

Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)


Dude, did you read what I wrote? Read it again so that it sinks in.

 

post #258 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moj0 View Post
Dude, did you read what I wrote? Read it again so that it sinks in.

 

No need to be rude ;)
 

And in fact it doesn't even make sense:


 

Quote:
If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4 

 

I know what you mean - but your getting confused then accusing/insulting me of not reading lol

 


Edited by Totally Dubbed - 3/16/12 at 7:33am
post #259 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

No need to be rude ;)
 

And in fact it doesn't even make sense:


 

 

I know what you mean - but your getting confused then accusing/insulting me of not reading lol

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post


yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol 

 

Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)

It's rude to ignore what someone says completely and stay fixated on your own opinion, rather than question yourself about what the truth of the matter is.

Here's a link to confirm what I'm saying but you seem like you don't understand.

About HDMI cables: "all HDMI products cannot make any reference to HDMI version numbers."

"High speed" cable is all that's required to watch 3D Bluray. High Speed cables have been on the market since the PS3 came out like 5 years ago - which is my memory bookmark.
 

 

post #260 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moj0 View Post

It's rude to ignore what someone says completely and stay fixated on your own opinion, rather than question yourself about what the truth of the matter is.

Here's a link to confirm what I'm saying but you seem like you don't understand.

About HDMI cables: "all HDMI products cannot make any reference to HDMI version numbers."

"High speed" cable is all that's required to watch 3D Bluray. High Speed cables have been on the market since the PS3 came out like 5 years ago - which is my memory bookmark.
 

 

I'm not ignoring what you have said - but what you are saying is false (at least this is my assumption, as I've worked for LG ;) )

It's not an opinion its a fact lol.

 

Also, as said above, please don't be rude.

 

EDIT:
Some links for you:

http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-hdmi-1-3-and-1-4/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

 

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/3d.aspx


Edited by Totally Dubbed - 3/16/12 at 8:25am
post #261 of 338

Yeah there are plenty of spec changes between version 1.3 and 1.4 devices. Talking about cables, I can still use a 3 year old HDMI cable to watch (1.4) 3D bluray.

post #262 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moj0 View Post

Yeah there are plenty of spec changes between version 1.3 and 1.4 devices. Talking about cables, I can still use a 3 year old HDMI cable to watch (1.4) 3D bluray.


Well "plenty" more like higher res support and better 3D capabilities :)

 

 

post #263 of 338

Just wanted to add a bit about placebo (as if that hasn't be discussed enough)...

 

Though ac500's post wasn't describing placebo, he is correct in mentioning it as something that could have an effect. Since burn-in is a well known idea, many will expect results which will have an effect on their perceptions. Getting used to the headphones definitely has an effect and it's possible that someone is also experiencing a placebo effect, if they had been exposed to the idea of burn-in. Of course, all of that would be in addition to any actual changes.

post #264 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

 

No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.

 

One thing to note is that there is definitely an additional psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.


Actually, I have yet to see even one article that consistently shows that Break-In actually exists or works the way it is described to; being a drastic change in sound.  If you have a link to an article or some empirically published study in regards, I would love to read it and see if I can pick any holes in it.  Just as there are 'scientific' arguments from engineering standpoint that Break-In exists and works, there are 'Scientific' arguments from engineering standpoint that it simply does not, but rather a matter of perception. 

 

 

 Here's an article that elaborates on this pretty well.

 

http://headphonebreakin.blogspot.ca/

 

 

As for the Placebo effect.  Once again, I urge you to conduct more research on what Placebo entails exactly and on what properties and grounds it is actually proven efficient, and on which it does not.  I've discussed this with Doctors, M.D.s, Psychologists to name a few, and the notion is fairly obvious; in order for a Placebo to work and be effective, two things must occur:

 

1. Deception

and/or

2. The Mind deceiving itself  -  This is more or less similar to the concept of the movie Inception. The person is somehow being introduced to some notion, and the subconscious automatically draws an idea from that notion.

 

And that's about it.  And yes, Placebo is real, and yes, many people are affected by it and are unaware. However, asides from the ethical implications of its use, therapists and M.D.s don't like using it because it has potential limited effectiveness; thus, it is solely based on a state of mind which by its nature is prone to change and being unpredictable.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 3/17/12 at 11:45pm
post #265 of 338

The article you posted actually kind of supports the idea that break-in exists. Not definitively, but it shows more support than doubt.

 

Here's the article ac500 was referring to: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

 

By no means a perfect test, but it's somewhat compelling for further investigation.

 

Here's the subjective test they did: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/testing-audibility-break-effects

 

In theory and from the little evidence we have, there is reason to believe that break-in is possible. There is a proposed cause and some results that support the idea. I haven't really seen any proposed explanations against the idea that the mechanical movement will be affected with use over time and no evidence that suggests that there is no difference over time.

 

Arguing semantics is missing the point. He used the term placebo incorrectly. The meaning should have been understood. There are likely psychological effects that also contribute to changed perceptions of the sound over time. As I explained, placebo is still a possible contributing factor.

post #266 of 338

Well the test was pretty good. You could see a trend in the FR variation, except for the 20 hour measurement, so I'd say you can draw some conclusions from that test - break-in did happen. If it the differences were just from driver placement in regards to the microphone, the curves wouldn't align that well. But since you don't even get to a 1dB change, I think saying it's a very obvious night-and-day difference is excessive.

post #267 of 338
Thread Starter 

Oh well be it proved or not proved.

Which dynamic drivers have u guys owned?

And if they correspond to some I've owned - I can tell you that break-in or whatever you want to call it changed the sound sig.

Not because I was getting used to it - as I was A/Bing

 

For example:
TFTA 1V vs TFTA 1XB - almost the same sound sig - one has less bass than the other.

One was broken in the other not - I could hear the difference A/Bing

Has anyone ever done that?

 

EDIT:
ANd I also don't find the burn-in effect as present in headphones.

Generally there is a very SLIGHT difference in headphones - but when it comes to earphones - that's another story.

I found that I've gotten used tot he D2K's sound sig, rather than feeling they were burned-in.

The sound sig "changed" but I find I got used to the sound - instead of anything really changing.

 

When I put earphones on - not only does the sound sig get more familiar to me:
ie coming from d2k's and putting on the mg7's

But the initial sound i could hear fromt he denon c710's for example vs what they sounded like 20hrs later was DRASTICALLY different.

C710 description out the box: And I'm not joking here (I came fromt he C751's):
-Bass uncontrolled

-Bass non very present

-Bass sounded almost like there was a problem with the driver

-Very sibilant

-Forward mids

 

After 20-50hrs:
-Less sibilant

-Better highs

-Bass unbelievably punchy and accurate

-Soundstage opening up

 

What did it for me, and summarised burn-in to its fullest effect was how the bass had changed.

Meanwhile, throughout the 20hrs of initial burn-in i was re-visiting my C751's, which sounded better.

After burn in, the C710's beat the 751's hands-down.


Edited by Totally Dubbed - 3/18/12 at 7:19am
post #268 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Lemon View Post

The article you posted actually kind of supports the idea that break-in exists. Not definitively, but it shows more support than doubt.

 

Here's the article ac500 was referring to: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

 

By no means a perfect test, but it's somewhat compelling for further investigation.

 

Here's the subjective test they did: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/testing-audibility-break-effects

 

In theory and from the little evidence we have, there is reason to believe that break-in is possible. There is a proposed cause and some results that support the idea. I haven't really seen any proposed explanations against the idea that the mechanical movement will be affected with use over time and no evidence that suggests that there is no difference over time.

 

Arguing semantics is missing the point. He used the term placebo incorrectly. The meaning should have been understood. There are likely psychological effects that also contribute to changed perceptions of the sound over time. As I explained, placebo is still a possible contributing factor.

 

Here's the thing, my argument is never stating 'Breaking does not exist', rather that 'any evidence is still very much inconsistent to draw conclusive summation'. Which is why I found it a bit analogous to the HDMI discussion. Although the test itself and the nature and design/engineering behind speakers and headphones tends to lead to stronger presumption of break-in properties/hypotheses, it is still unporven without a shadow of a doubt. 

 

Personally I don't really fall into any camp. When I buy headphones I do treat them to the Break-In process as much as I can, but to be honest with you, I have yet to been able to conclude audible change; or at least not the one described as per Break-In audible change.  Clearly some manufacturers suggest break in period, but some others don't.  Also, it is commonly known that it is very unhealthy to run speakers or headphones at blasting volumes right off the bat, rather gradually..  Not sure how much this aspect supports break in, but it certainly hints of flexibility within the driver itself and adaptation to abuse and usage. 

 

As for subjective blind tests, even if done properly, with Double-Blind standards, ruling out Placebo effect, conducting multiple experiments via Between Subjects design and Within designs and applying every possible balancing method like Latin Square and such... We are still dealing with technology that apparently produces inconsistent performance within the said products. As already established, even with the same model from the same make (high end), the Sound and FR still fluctuates.  Even if you get 2, 3, or even 10 headphones that are measured the same fresh out of the box, there is still no telling how they would respond with usage and how they will differ along the way.  Yes, one can conduct intermittent measuring every so and so hours just like in the cited link, but what about the hours in between? That is still not measured. And even if you use the 'Best Guess' Method (within a marginal range), remember that anything within that marginal range could also be significant and meaningful in terms of sound and how one may hear those differences.

 

As for the Placebo, I wasn't arguing semantics. I was just responding to the comment ac500 made in regards that people should stop denying being under or affected by Placebo. 

Yes, we all know Placebo exists and real, but regardless of that fact, it is still a mental state of mind, and naturally some people are more prone to it, while others are simply not. I'm not suggesting immunity of some sort, but while Placebo effect could be easily achieved and proved, realistically it doesn't affect people that quickly and that drastically; at least not to the levels ac500 seems to suggest.  

 

Please remember, again, that for Placebo effect to occur, deception of the mental state of mind has to occur, and majority of the time, by the researcher.

Also, please don't confuse Demand Characteristics with Placebo, which sometimes is the case with experiments and reasearch.

 

 

 


 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 3/20/12 at 11:16am
post #269 of 338

Eighteen pages and it is now time for some test results -

 

C-net on there being no difference between HDMI cables

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20056502-1/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/

Test of HDMI cables

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1282699/hdmi-investigated-are-expensive-cables-a-scam/3

Another test with video games

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi

One with lots of cables

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/hdmi-cable-testing-results

 

In conclusion

 

1 - HDMI either works or it does not. By not working that means pixelating, ghosting or lines appearing.

 

2 - length matters and some cables will not work at shorter lengths than others

 

3 - cost of cable has little influence on how long a cable can be before it stops working

 

4 - comparison tests find little to no difference between cables of any price and any difference that is supposedly seen again is not reflected in the price of the cable.

 

I bought a £6 ThatCable HDMI off eBay after reading the above test results. Others may make a different decision, its up to them.

post #270 of 338

Well now I'm totally convinced.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: