New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The HDMI Cable Discussion - Page 5

post #61 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post


its a debate, but we can all be one-sided if we choose to be.

 

 


I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.

By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.

 

post #62 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

 

in that respect only thing would be shielding as in the optical cable might crack on cheaper models.
 

 

 



well yeah but then it would just break and not work.  it will be obvious its not working.

 

its like the crazy optical cables which as shielded and have gold plated connections, its all bull poop

post #63 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post
I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.

By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.

 

 

And i suggest looking up trolling...lol
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2410 View Post

well yeah but then it would just break and not work.  it will be obvious its not working.

 

its like the crazy optical cables which as shielded and have gold plated connections, its all bull poop


haha

 

post #64 of 338

ac500,

 

Though I don't like your approach and overall tone in discussion, admittedly you seem to possess the actual technical knowledge to properly back up what you're explaining, as opposed to a few others that appear to be basically reciting scientific documentation without fully understanding the full technical elements of it.  Granted, as you stated, you are a scientist/engineer.  Be that as it may, I'm going to make a few statements here, some are factual, and some, for the sake of conducting this debate in a civil and a fair manner, need to be taken for granted.

 

1. When I previously (a while ago) described the scenario with my HD media player, a $12 HDMI cable and my HDTV (50' Hitachi Plasma), the scenario was very simple. But for those who rewrote or commented on it as if it was a different scenario, please take note.  I had the $12 HDMI cable for more than a year at that time. Suddenly I began experiencing signal fluctuations with it, it either comes and goes, or simply does not catch between the sender and receiver (HDplayer to HDTV). In Frustration I went to the local London Drugs and bought a new HDMI cable, which WAS the cheapest one for $60 (Rocketfish). Came home replaced the cable, and BAM, everything works like a charm.  And ontop of that, certain black levels of the image appeared more prominently, and slightly, ever so slightly, less flush of brightness across the screen. But again, you're talking like 1% of the whole thing. This is what I noticed right away.   Now, in regards to this, here are the following points:

 

2. The experience is not a Placebo effect. For two reasons, 1. I'm very much aware of Placebo, done the research and was skeptical about HDMI cables to begin with. And 2. Since I didn't expect a damn thing from replacing the cable, other than seeing if the old one was the problem, so me seeing a difference by definition could not be a placebo or consumer preference of any of the kind.  Negating this aspect is basically begging the question of this entire debate. This IS the debate. And if you can't concede with this point, then it's not a debate, rather you're talking over me and basically stating 'my way or no way'.  So if that's how you're going to play the game, then feel free to play by yourself, just say the word and I'm out.    So I repeat, a Placebo here is out of the question, period.

 

3. I have two HDmedia players currently. At the time when this occurred, I had only one. I've also tested that cable with the HD player with another TV LCD, Toshiba Regza. Worked fine like a charm. Tested it at my father's house, 2 different TV's, worked like a charm.  Tested that media player with a new HDMI cable on the Plasma, worked like a charm.   So, clearly, there is some discrepancy between the Plasma and that player via the HDMI. However, the common factor is the HDMI, this is obvious logical deduction.  I've also contacted the manufacturer (Sarotech, Abigs in Korea), had a friend who was going to Korea bring it to the After Service department for inspection. Diagnostics ran, all systems checked, firmware checked. All in order.  So that factor is not the issue. 

 

4. The TV is not the issue, nor is 'retarded' as you claim. I've contacted Hitachi as-well, and they had no explanation to this, and further, did not even see this as an issue. Clearly, a new media player worked fine with both HDMI cables. XBOX works great, XBOX360, works great, Home Surround via HDMI, works great. No component with any HDMI or non-HDMI connection had any issues with this TV. The TV is fine. It's going into its 4th year, and it kicks butt all over the place.  So again, TV is not the issue. 

 

Now, before you run off to try and explain how it's a component issue or something else.  This is my statement in regards to HDMI cables, always has and always will be:

 

There is the scientific 'IDEAL' definition of the 'to-spec' or up to standard of HDMI compliance. Clearly it has to be, otherwise, the technology will flop. This is a given. With digital signal, similarly to SPDIF/Toslink and Coax, the signal is encoded digitally and is processed as you stated via 0,1 1,0 and such.  However, with all the technology, with all the fail safes of error detection and correction, the double back-forth signal between sender and receiver, that standard still has a room for marginal error. And as you mentioned before, 1 bit per million bits or so.  Clearly, this 'SHOULD BE' the ideal all HDMI cables should be held to. But, as already established, construction, density and materials used play a factor in how well the signal is passed through. It's not a mere simple issue of it's either showing a picture or not. We're already established that poorly shielded and constructed cables with be prone to distortion and other factors which will affect the overall quality of the picture and sound. To which extent and consistency, that, no one can really tell for sure. And this is because, again, since it's a digital signal, and since even the cheapest and lowest quality cables still go by that standard, those errors or quality issues or differential in overall quality (slightly grainier quality, more flush of whites and less separation of black levels.. perhaps color as-well..) are very very small and minute.. almost to the point of insignificance. The point is, it's not that all HDMIs display, or 'ideally' should display the same quality the same way regardless of the quality or price, but rather, the difference that could be seen, is so small, so meager that paying $50 over $10 is simply not worth it, and any sales person pitching you about major quality improvement, well, is basically giving you a pitch.

 

Further, I never said that the issue with HDMI is isolated to the cable itself solely, rather with a combination of various factors. Similarly to my scenario, any expert or technician that will come to investigate won't know what to say. I mean, come one, TV works with the cable and all other components fine, with exception to one media player. Switch the cable, and it works like a charm. Do the same on a different TV, and everything works fine without any issues what's or ever.   So how do you explain that?  Anomaly... simply put.  Could be as easily explained as the way that this HDMI cable, which is clearly not defective and is up to spec (as it previously worked and still to this day works on the LCD tv with any component) and it's cheaper and lower quality construction, shielding and materials cause some kind of a miscommunication between that particular player and the TV.   But only that cable, that TV and that Media player. Take away the cable, and it's fine.  So, clearly it's a combination between a sender and a receiver, that even with an obviously 'to-spec' cable that is sold as 'to spec' cable, the error detection and correction is simply isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.. or doing it periodically.  

 

Please don't forget that despite the fact that the signal itself is digitally encoded, it is still transmitted via electrical signal. And you (ac500) stated before, all HDMI cables are shielded and constructed in a certain way to prevent and protect from signal disruption and degradation from such factors as radio waves, electromagnetic fields and such and electrical current spikes.  Is this correct so far? 

 

So, please explain to me that anomaly.

And mind you, no Placebo mumbo jambo or personal bias. As I must reiterate that by definition Placebo does not take effect on someone who is aware that it is a Placebo.  You've brought that study previously, and I effectively proved that it was heavily flawed and proves nothing.

 

Oh, and just to prove a point here, I never kept that $60 cable. The difference it made simply wasn't worth the price.

Also, if you effectively find and prove to have bought a quality cable for let's $5.00 that is up to the quality par of a more expensive quality claimed cable from a known brand name, then I won't be one to suggest buying the expensive one.  That would be plain idiotic.

But the trick is effectively proving it beyond discussing scientific statistics of HDMI standards. Clearly many uphold it, but many don't but fly under the radar since their 'performance' is very much acceptable by majority of people.  Trust me, get a cheaply made $1.99 HDMI cable from a dollar store, and a $40 Belkin one from Best buy, take them both to a lab with ideal and controlled settings. Plug them into a 32' - 42' HDTV and play some content for a few hours... and I can guarantee you it'll be very hard to see any difference.. if at all..  But, take those same two cables, plug them in a normal house, to a 50' or larger screen HDTV, a BD, A digital HD, box, an XBOX360 or PS3, all wired into a Premium Home surround receiver HDMI ports... 

 

Then run some content for about 10 hours ... and watch what happens. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Shotor102 - 2/17/12 at 9:12am
post #65 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

 

And i suggest looking up trolling...lol
 


haha

 



A. No need to look it up. I know exactly what trolling is.

 

B. You seem to be conducting a tirade and trolling all too well, that much I am aware of.

 

C. You wrote lol... and followed with haha...???   blink.gif

 

So... you laughed out loud... and then... um.... chuckled.....???

 

 

 

 

post #66 of 338

I have seen this debate go round on the forums for over 10 years and it is like a religion.

 

Where as audio performance is subjective and can never be tested apart from THD/IHD (and some actually prefer higher THD as more pleasing to the ear), what is good about video is a visual change like this is easy to see. I will do a controlled recording at some point and post the results on AVS forums for more entertainment.

post #67 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post



A. No need to look it up. I know exactly what trolling is.

 

B. You seem to be conducting a tirade and trolling all too well, that much I am aware of.

 

C. You wrote lol... and followed with haha...???   blink.gif

 

So... you laughed out loud... and then... um.... chuckled.....???

 


Oh dear...

Kill me.

 

 

post #68 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post


Oh dear...

Kill me.

 

 



How about if I get Chris Tucker to come down there and slap you...

 

Cause he'll do that.

post #69 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post



How about if I get Chris Tucker to come down there and slap you...

 

Cause he'll do that.


mate - I'll absolutely love that!

Then we can do some Michael Jackson moves together.

I'm not chinese though...but I am in Paris...

 

So can we have a like rush hour 4?

Except without attacking them with some bad-ass Jakie Chan moves, I blast them with my D2K's and my HDMI CABLES :D!?

 

I think that's a perfect plot.

post #70 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by agisthos View Post

Im not interested in debating those who read theoretical white papers and presume to understand how the real world works. 


I lol'ed hard at this. Your cables are made in Bosnia or something?

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post


I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.

By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.

 

 

You are right, this isn't a debate in the sense of something mainly subjective. If we were discussing food, I could say I prefer cow and you say you prefer pork. None of us is right because taste is determined by our palatine glands and how our brain interprets that information, which has so many variables it's just pointless. However this isn't subjective. This is more like one group explaining they studied a vehicle which operates on gas (here I go with the car analogies again) through a controled combustion occuring inside an engine, and another group insisting this vehicle is propelled forwards through some magical inexplicable event.

 

As for the situations where people swear they hear/see a difference, I understand this is a common occurrence. However that's like someone coming in saying they swear the sun didn't rise on the East but in the West. No matter how many people say so you won't believe it because that would mean fundamental changes had happened, like the Earth switching its polar orientation overnight, without anyone else noticing. Are you going to have a polite debate with as much regard for their opinion as you have for yours?


Edited by LizardKing1 - 2/17/12 at 10:16am
post #71 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

1. When I previously (a while ago) described the scenario with my HD media player, a $12 HDMI cable and my HDTV (50' Hitachi Plasma), the scenario was very simple. But for those who rewrote or commented on it as if it was a different scenario, please take note.  I had the $12 HDMI cable for more than a year at that time. Suddenly I began experiencing signal fluctuations with it, it either comes and goes, or simply does not catch between the sender and receiver (HDplayer to HDTV). In Frustration I went to the local London Drugs and bought a new HDMI cable, which WAS the cheapest one for $60 (Rocketfish). Came home replaced the cable, and BAM, everything works like a charm.  And ontop of that, certain black levels of the image appeared more prominently, and slightly, ever so slightly, less flush of brightness across the screen. But again, you're talking like 1% of the whole thing. This is what I noticed right away.   Now, in regards to this, here are the following points:

 



That was a great read - OK,  I have some things to add to this, and I might be wrong:

 

If I went from bestbuy or wherever it is, and bought that $12 cable, i would be expecting to get $2 quality from ebay

If I went and bought a $60 cable I would expect to get $30 quality.

 

Now by quality I mean, shielding, cable quality, reliability, plating etc.

Where it because senseless is when you are buying a $100 or 200 hdmi cable, and try comparing it to something worth only $30 from ebay.

 

Now this is my issue mainly - its due to marketing I guess.

 

I went into FNAC, which in france is like your bestbuy, or for the UK crowd, like currys, to buy a DVI to HDMI cable.

To my surprise and shock the cable was being sold at 40€.

Quite literally a wire that is worth, and I kid you not, like-for-like look, feel etc on amazon £5, thus around 8€.

 

This is what shocks me the most.

Its retailers like bestbuy, flipping the HDMI cables for such a HUGE profit.

 

Now this principle however doesn't apply, if you're buying it straight from monster for example, or a private cable company. But can you see what I'm getting at here?

To me the "expensive cable you find online" such as null audio etc, are just like buying it from fnac, except they make the cables look nice, and by all means have little better specs (with shielding, materials used) but by no means are they worth $200.

 

For the differences in HDMI, I actually have a prime example:

Now you'll have to explain to me all that jargon, as I don't understand the conversions etc, but when I plug my xbox 360 via HDMI 1.3b TO DVI wire into my ASUS monitor, being a 1080i one, the image is nice and smooth, and the edges are nice to look at.

When i plug a HDMI 1.3b to HDMI 1.3b (flat cable style) into another screen, this time being a SAMSUNG TV, which is 1080p, i see a lot of sharp lines and unbearable visuals.

 

Now I have a theory that the wire I'm using is faulty, (the hdmi to hdmi one) as when I plug a HDMI TO DVI ADAPTER to the wire, my ASUS monitor doesn't pick up the signal, and when it does, its temperamental. 

 

(The wires/adapters/monitor linked above, are the exact ones I have)

 

Finally, I would never consider buying this sort of HDMI cable, even though it might perform the same as this cable for example.

(please ignore the 1.3 and 1.4, i know they are different and one carries up to a certain resolution or signal -> im saying if they were the same spec...i would never be drawn to the first one, ever)

 

 

Also, out of interest, would this affect the quality?

 


Edited by Totally Dubbed - 2/17/12 at 10:39am
post #72 of 338

This is primarily addressed to shotor, but also anyone else who is doubting and questioning the "scientific view" that many of us are using:

 

1) If you're suggesting that the cheap cables merely meet spec while higher quality cables surpass it, that would be easy to test and report. You don't see companies claiming their cables will have significantly higher transfer speeds than required or that they have significantly reduced errors. They'll go on and on and on about materials used, shielding applied and all sorts of other things they did to improve the signal. Yet, you still don't see a simple report of improved data transmission which, at the very least, meets our current understanding of how the technology functions.

 

2) Questioning the scientific viewpoint is a bit silly with the evidence you suggest might disagree. We understand how the technology works and understand what kind of changes in image are possible, yet you suggest that maybe it's more complicated than our present understanding. Fortunately, these cable companies know all this magical stuff that helps but can't explain why or prove anything beyond perceived differences. Obviously, it makes sense to just assume that people are honestly seeing a difference.

 

3) It wouldn't be that hard to see if there is a difference as perceived by the viewer that doesn't fit into the 0's and 1's idea. Show me a group of people that can accurately identify better cables in blind testing with a rather high success rate and then we'll have a reason to investigate the possibility that something is different. It really isn't that hard, yet none of these companies have even bothered trying to create such an experiment. If no one can consistently identify the cables used under blind testing, then clearly it's a more complex issue of psychological perception than a more complex issue of data transmission. If the human factor is a much more likely explanation, it's not that unreasonable to look to that first. By comparison, we understand human thought a lot less than we understand HDMI technology.

 

4) Your story is still not a reliable test. To suggest that you were skeptical therefore impervious to perceptual errors is SERIOUSLY underestimating the human mind. You said you didn't expect there to be a difference. So you plug in the cable and suddenly it works! It did make a difference! Now let me focus on the image to see if I notice anything.... is the image better now?! That's just one (admittedly stupid) way that your perception could be affected. The mere fact that the cable worked and that your attention was focused on looking for differences and identifying changes could have led you to believe or expect a difference. Even if you were skeptical before, that is enough to give your mind the idea to look for or expect differences. Your particular mood (excitement and joy that your expensive equipment is working again) could have resulted in a more favorable opinion of the image displayed. Again, that's just one of many ways that your perception could have been altered.

 

Seriously... show me a repeated blind test with people perceiving differences and identifying the cables with reasonably high accuracy (hell... I'd consider above 75% a start) and maybe there's reason to investigate it. If it's not blind, it's useless. If it's not repeatable, it's useless. If it's not consistent, it's useless. If the accuracy is close to chance, it's useless. If there is so certainly a difference at the perceived level and the cables are directly responsible, it would be AMAZINGLY easy to test and no one has done it successfully. This is why I'm more likely to stick to the 0's and 1's. That has been tested and has strong evidence behind it. It's well understood and can be explained. The lack of reliable perceived evidence leaves no reason to question the concept of how digital signals work. I'm open to the idea that there's a difference, but I need some reasonable evidence. I'm really not asking for that much.

post #73 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotor102 View Post

As I must reiterate that by definition Placebo does not take effect on someone who is aware that it is a Placebo.

That is incorrect. Evidence suggests that the placebos can be effective even when the subject is aware that they are receiving a placebo. See Placebos without deception.

You cannot legitimately rule out the placebo effect simply because you were aware of the possibility of the placebo effect.
post #74 of 338

Just to let you know, I will answer Shotors and others technical etc. questions about cables in a while, but I'll be away for a little bit due to a fever. In a few days I'm sure I'll be back and capable of giving a coherent reply that doesn't reflect my current fever-induced delirium :P

 

What the... is that a pony in my living room!?


Edited by ac500 - 2/17/12 at 4:17pm
post #75 of 338

And it's not like the placebo effect is the only perceptual error or influence over perception that we have.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: