Getting "called-out" for not wearing the Beats

[dorino]

Quote:

 
I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you with my reply LK.
You see, in the example of my media player and the HDMI cable issues, I merely bought the first HDMI cable I saw in London drugs. The purpose was to buy any new HDMI cable to test on the tv+hd media player with the intentions of returning it upon inspection, which I did by the way (which shows you that I'm not that particular when it comes 
to my home theater setup). Also, as I stated before, I was a skeptic at the time and expected nothing.  All I needed was to see whether there is a problem with my tv, hd media player or the cable itself. And the results proven to be the cable. Me noticing difference in image quality was actually a shocker. It was there, staring me straight in the eyes.  As fr the other scenario. I knew that the exhibition was to show something, but I really didn't know which was which.  All I know is that there was a difference.  For me, who happens to be very keen on small details and know what constitutes to a high quality imaging, I would be able to see which is the ideal image. However, others may simply prefer the image through the lower grade cables...just like in the link you provided. 
This is why research is tricky.  This is also why I say that if you're going to invest $5000 or more in your home theater, might as well get the high grade components and and cables. One single cable won't do much... But a combination where all cables and components are high grade will provide an overall improvement...it won't be big or huge... But ...definitely noticible.

 
Are you still trying to say expensive HDMI cables make a difference in certain situations or no?

 

[mastershake2393]

Can we at least stay in the realm of headphone-related topics? 
 
With that being said, there is absolutely no difference between HDMI cables for the majority of people. I can guess 5 in 100 people would say they could tell a difference if they were told which cable was the more expensive cable. 1 in 100 would say they could see a difference if they weren't told which was which at all. 
 
Placebo effect at its finest, gentlemen. 

 

[LizardKing1]

One big thing we need to settle here: there is a huge difference between someone seeing a difference and there being a scientifically logical difference. I would say in that situation, Shotor, placebo effect wasn't as existent as I might have thought. But even if the entire Head-Fi reports "night and day" differences between USB cables, it will mean nothing to me compared to a scientific study on USB data transmission. We shouldn't be thinking "well only very few people notice this difference", what needs to be asked is "is there even a difference?". First we understand if it's even physically possible to exist a difference between 2 cables in terms of data reception and decoding, and then we'll worry about wether we can see/hear that difference. In this case, I'm afraid there isn't a difference in decoding, so any change we notice is inside us (that sounded nasty). Human perception is the last tool I'd pick when trying to prove something.

 

[ac500]

I'm not even going to respond to the article Shotor posted about HDMI cables, it's so obviously uninformed and biased (although they do a good job trying to look like they're weighing evidence "fairly"). 
 
Anyway I agree we should stay on headphone topics.

 

[LizardKing1]

I read it too. A decent read, although they put lyrical wax subjectivism on the same relevance scale as hard evidence. This isn't a debate of opinions, it's science versus eloquence.

 

[authistic]

 

[tribestros]

Low quality HDMI are poorly built thus leave artifacts on the screen and are susceptible to interference.  They are just 0s and 1s but how the 0s and 1s get there is a big difference.  Nevertheless, the most I'd spend on HDMI cable is $40 if I was hooking up some sick-ass Logans or something.

 

[Shotor102]

Quote:

Low quality HDMI are poorly built thus leave artifacts on the screen and are susceptible to interference.  They are just 0s and 1s but how the 0s and 1s get there is a big difference.  Nevertheless, the most I'd spend on HDMI cable is $40 if I was hooking up some sick-ass Logans or something.

That's exactly the point I was making, and the same goes for the study in the link I provided.
 
AC500, not sure why you'd claim that the study done was uninformed? The method was clearly outlined. It wasn't subjective either. No results were either overcolored with favoritism one way or another.  In fact, in after results discussion, the study clearly states that the results were inconclusive. Thus leaving the matter as open ended for now; where it's clearly shown that a possibility of differences between higher and lower grade exists, and further, despite scientific statistics on the matter (0's and 1's), it would be visible and noticeable to a certain extent.  The reason why it wasn't cut an dry is because the difference in quality lower grade cables cause are not consistent everytime. As already tested and shown, much of it could happen a certain time.. and then not another time.. then it could re-occur another time at a different frame sample, and the next time it will be somewhere else. And this goes as well as for the audio/video sync.  Those issues were never observed with higher grade cables.  However, since most... and I mean probably 90% of the general public won't really care so much about a second here... a split second there... and so forth... And further, since scientifically either cable falls within the accepted standard of display, the priority to get more expensive cables to remedy this will be fairly low.
 
Trust me that I know about Placebo from someone who is going to major in Psychology. Yes, it is real, no doubt. But, I would definitely know when it's placebo at play and when it's not.  As I said, when you don't expect something to happen, how can Placebo take effect. The first scenario was something you may consider a blind test sample (not purposeful.. but nevertheless, that's what it was), and I was shocked myself. 
 
Science can hold many assertions in regards to facts and such..but it doesn't always cover every single aspect. Going back to headphones here, this could be analogous to the whole lower and sub-sonic frequencies. As stated before, human hearing is within the 20hz-20KHZ frequency.. correct?  Yet, sound engineers, audiophiles, professional musicians attest and swear that while the science may hold truth, adding the sub frequency notes actually adds to the whole spectrum of sound; somehow makes it fuller, better and more real and 3 dimensional sounding.  And this isn't me stating this, this is a wide consensus...   Is that Placebo as-well?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[tmars78]

That test proved absolutely nothing. And from what I get from it, it proves more for the people saying they don't matter than to the shotor who said they did matter. According to the chart at the end, 18 people said there was no difference, compared to the 12 that said there was, which was split between the cheap one and the expensive one. So even if there were a difference, it in no way correlates to price. Shotor was arguing that the more expensive, the better it is, and then posts an article that goes against the very point he was arguing. So in reality, he made the argument we were making, for us. They never say how many they got right, nor how many trials they did this in. Only said they prefer one over the other.  Doesn't mean they actually saw anything. What a pointless article. 

 

[Shotor102]

Quote:

That test proved absolutely nothing. And from what I get from it, it proves more for the people saying they don't matter than to the shotor who said they did matter. According to the chart at the end, 18 people said there was no difference, compared to the 12 that said there was, which was split between the cheap one and the expensive one. So even if there were a difference, it in no way correlates to price. Shotor was arguing that the more expensive, the better it is, and then posts an article that goes against the very point he was arguing. So in reality, he made the argument we were making, for us. They never say how many they got right, nor how many trials they did this in. Only said they prefer one over the other.  Doesn't mean they actually saw anything. What a pointless article. 

Actually the article does state that the number of people preferring the more expensive cables gradually grew with direct correlation to increase of value of the cable.
 
And my argument is and was that if you're going to spend quite a bit on your home theater, then might as-well go for the best components/connectors and cables. Which in result will improve the overall quality of the experience. This could vary from how solid the media is played throughout over time, sync issues, occasional screen floaters, artifacts, stepping, lag issues and transitioning of the signal, decompression or compression by the TV itself due to some tiny error by the digital signal itself.
 
There are far too many things to consider.. 
The article and the study is obviously flawed, but it did make one point very well, there is a difference. What people prefer is up to themselves and no-one else. But, in my opinion, those who will spend that much on their home theater, are people who would be able to distinguish the difference, not only that there is one, but which is actually the more ideal one.
 
 

 

[dorino]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
The article and the study is obviously flawed, but it did make one point very well, there is a difference. 
 

Did we read the same article?
 
 
Quote:

Taken as a whole, though, our audio tests showed no consensus that expensive cables 

[size=inherit]

perform​

​

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home...i-investigated-are-expensive-cables-a-scam/3#​

[/size] better than cheap cables. The only clear conclusion is that people are inclined to disagree about what sounds best, perhaps because the perceived differences were imagined.

 
Spending more on home theater is stupid when you're dealing with digital cables. Go ahead and buy those expensive audio cables, you actually might get better quality. Don't invest in expensive HDMI cables, because they perform identically.
 
 
 

 

[Shotor102]

Quote:

 

Did we read the same article?
 
 
 
Spending more on home theater is stupid when you're dealing with digital cables. Go ahead and buy those expensive audio cables, you actually might get better quality. Don't invest in expensive HDMI cables, because they perform identically.
 
 
 

A. Yes, we did read the same article.
 
and
 
B. Not sure what you mean by spending more on home theater is stupid when dealing with digital cables?  Are you discussing components or actual theater systems?
I never argued that you should spend more on home theater setup to justify buying expensive digital cables.  I'm saying if you're going for a really high end premium set-up, then might-as-well invest properly in all aspects of the setup, not just the main hardware.  
 
If you think they perform the same, then it's your call. From what I've witnessed, they don't.  I can't attest as to how different an $80 cable to a $150 will differ... I'm not even sure if I will be able to tell right away either... but $150 cable to a $3.00 ... let's just say that if I've seen a difference between a $5.00 and a $60 one, then most certainly $150 one will have a difference to the $3.00 one.  It's just how it is.  And please remember that if you conduct a test in optimal settings, it's never an ideal test either. Home setup, how the house/apt is built, what components you have, TV placement, cable placement, modem and PC placement, other devices.. and how the cables are run to the hardware.. under carpet, behind a wall.. or simply strewn around on the floor. People forget that encasing of cables and shielding plays a major component in this, regardless if it's digital (since the claim is that it doesn't matter as long as there's a signal). Though it has been proven that lower quality HDMI cables will be more prone to signal corrosion and disruption.. even if it's a tiny tiny error that involves 1/1000 of a pixel ratio or audio sync, eventually it will translate onto the screen, if happens frequently.  And it has and has been reported quite a few times.  
 
The matter in my opinion here is priority and not so much science. 
 
 
Other than that, there's really not much more I can say in regards to this discussion.
 
 
 
 

 

[dorino]

Quote:

The matter in my opinion here is priority and not so much science.

Sure. Dismiss the science because you think you heard something different.
 
I never meant to say spending money on high end systems was silly, but it's downright stupid to spend money on high end digital cables because there is, factually, observably, scientifically, no difference.
 
There's nothing that's been "proven" about low-end HDMI cables. There are more lemons, sure, but a working cable works exactly the same because that's how digital cables work. Obviously shielding is important - but the cost of a properly shielded cable isn't in the 100s of dollars.
 
 
You're incredibly wrong and you'll never concede, I know, so let's get back on track here. Beats. Annoying.

 

[Totally Dubbed]

A cheap class HDMi does the SAME job as a very over-priced HDMI
 
The main differences are:
-Gold plating, for protection of oxidisation -> 99.9%
-Better cabling, so it doesn't rip as easily - such as braided esk cable
-Shielding to prevent interference
-Solid and sturdy heads to prevent from long term wear and tear
 
Then it comes down to:
1.3a, 1.3b, 1.4
1.4 being the most expensive due to it transferring not only video and sound but a 3D signal too.
 
With all that in mind:
-Cheap cable such as an amazon basics should be no more than: £5
-"Expensive cable" which I have from ebay, should be no more than £15
 
Anything more (apart for a 20m HDMI etc) is stupid, who ever pays over £20 for a HDMI, say for a 2m length and thinks he is doing the best he can, should be slapped - simple and clear cut
(I worked for LG, and I saw people being ripped off in local retail stores by buying £50-100 cables)
I didn't say anything apart from one person that came back and bought 3 TV's from me directly, I told them - please don't fall for this HDMI BS - please buy yourself a cheap cable from amazon or ebay, you'll be better off quality and money wise.
 
 
Back on topic:
 
No I haven't been told that the beats are BETTER - I have just heard people saying how they like the beats, and how they think they are cool.
In all fairness the beats ARE GOOD and they ARE COOL - depending on your age that said
 
But they are in no sound, shape or form worth that stupid price tag.
I thought the beats pros are worth around £100 - not a penny more
That said, only for people that want very forward mids/highs, and punchy bass, with a tight clamp - I personally couldn't stand the hefty clamp, the weight, nor the mids/highs, and neither the comfort, as the pads weren't great either - but the bass was nice and I enjoyed that aspect of it
 
You pay style over comfort, which I am sure most of u are aware of, even people buying it are aware of it too.
Thing is, you get a certain point were you think:
Yeah OK, style is nice, but I don't see myself buying a £10,000 suit from Armani, that's just stupid (think of that as an example)
There is a limit for some, and none for others.
 
If "noobs" as I like to say it, want to buy over-priced headphones, let them do so - if they ask for your advice, give it to them bluntly and honestly, then if they start bragging b1tch slap them - it usually does the trick. Or the more orthodox way is to let them try your headphones, but I prefer the latter.

 

[tmars78]

Quote:

Actually the article does state that the number of people preferring the more expensive cables gradually grew with direct correlation to increase of value of the cable.
 
And my argument is and was that if you're going to spend quite a bit on your home theater, then might as-well go for the best components/connectors and cables. Which in result will improve the overall quality of the experience. This could vary from how solid the media is played throughout over time, sync issues, occasional screen floaters, artifacts, stepping, lag issues and transitioning of the signal, decompression or compression by the TV itself due to some tiny error by the digital signal itself.
 
There are far too many things to consider.. 
The article and the study is obviously flawed, but it did make one point very well, there is a difference. What people prefer is up to themselves and no-one else. But, in my opinion, those who will spend that much on their home theater, are people who would be able to distinguish the difference, not only that there is one, but which is actually the more ideal one.
 
 

No where in that article does there show there is a difference. All it said was people "preferred" one over another, and never did it correlate with price. There was no where in that article that said what people saw was actually a difference. Look at these 2 pictures, which one do you prefer? 
 
A)

 
B)

 
You might prefer A and I might prefer B. That's pretty much what they did. They proved nothing. They managed to prove you can write a 4 page article attempting to prove something, and not prove anything. 
 
 
 
And there is no difference in those pictures, btw. Even when looking at the same EXACT thing, you can perceive differences. Your brain is very good at doing that very thing.