| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 127579 | 2012-10-31 22:17:00 | Still more reasons why all HDMI cables are the same. | Trev (427) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1309962 | 2012-10-31 22:17:00 | Here. (reviews.cnet.com) :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1309963 | 2012-10-31 22:46:00 | That article actually tells how they are NOT the same, eg: Long cables/cables with chips Throughout the other HDMI articles, I advised getting the cheapest HDMI cables you can for short runs (under 10 feet or so). As HDMI cables get longer, though, they start running into trouble (more on this in a moment). I've tested regular HDMI cables over 50 feet, and the results were mixed. With some source/display combinations, I got an image. With others, I got sparkles or no picture at all. Enter active HDMI cables. Which refers back to hdguru.com Also, cheap cables are worse as they usually break easier, regardless of how well they work - when they work. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1309964 | 2012-10-31 23:14:00 | When I bought my Onkyo 5.1 amp last year from Hardl Normals it had a $100 Belkin HDMI cable with it. Couldn't get it too work properly and took it back and they gave me another Belkin one. It didn't work properly either and took that back and got a Monster one which I have had no problems with. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1309965 | 2012-10-31 23:40:00 | Quoting from one of the articles "A few months ago we ran a story where I said that there was no reason to spend a lot of money on HDMI cables. I still stand by that. Most cable companies are so incredibly misleading in their marketing/advertising it borders on outright lying." Monster cables(& others) are a ripp-off. the reason hardly Normal sells them is because of the huge profit margins Big fat heavy HDMI cables put far too much strain on the actual socket, it really isnt designed to hold up a big fat heavy cable All my hdmi cables are the cheapies: ie less than $20. For short runs of less than 3m there is no need for anything better. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1309966 | 2012-11-01 00:23:00 | i use a 10 meter un-branded Trademe cable that cost about $20 and have no problems with it. | jonovw (16835) | ||
| 1309967 | 2012-11-01 00:23:00 | When I bought my Onkyo 5.1 amp last year from Hardl Normals it had a $100 Belkin HDMI cable with it. Couldn't get it too work properly and took it back and they gave me another Belkin one. It didn't work properly either and took that back and got a Monster one which I have had no problems with. :) So as you just said, they aren't the same. Which contradicts the thread title... Quoting from one of the articles "A few months ago we ran a story where I said that there was no reason to spend a lot of money on HDMI cables. I still stand by that. Most cable companies are so incredibly misleading in their marketing/advertising it borders on outright lying." Monster cables(& others) are a ripp-off. the reason hardly Normal sells them is because of the huge profit margins Big fat heavy HDMI cables put far too much strain on the actual socket, it really isnt designed to hold up a big fat heavy cable All my hdmi cables are the cheapies: ie less than $20. For short runs of less than 3m there is no need for anything better. I do agree that after a certain point you are just wasting money. But a $2 one is still going to be worse than most. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1309968 | 2012-11-01 01:11:00 | I've had this argument with people before, like has been said under 10ft/ 3M it's not important and they all work the same. Over those lengths it starts to matter but it depends what you use it for, the signal from your freeview box to your TV might only be 720P or 1080i and work perfectly on a 10M cheapie cord, but try the same cable for 3D Blu-ray playback and it might not have the bandwidth to do the Job. There's a big BUT here though (excuse the pun), an online article I read where they exhaustively tested 20M cables to see if they would work at 1440P found that none of them would, they were specifically targetting claims on monster cables marketing that said the cables offered "future proofing". All my cables are in the $10-$30 range, all are over 2-3 years old, and all work perfectly (I have a 2M, 2x3M, and a 5M). There is some point to the more expensive cables but for most home use it's a complete waste of money and even if you do need them you are still being outrageously price gouged. I did get a more expensive cable thrown in when I purchased my last TV, it's thick, inflexible, short, and works no better than the cheap ones. The $2 one if it exists might be worse than most but who cares, if it fails you throw it away and get another one and odds are it will last you years and work perfectly. With digital signals it comes down to loss and bandwidth which are impacted by the length, conductor weight, and cable design. For very short cables the loss is low enough that almost any piece of wire can work so you should really use the shortest cable you can comfortably get away with. If the cable can carry the required signal without dropping the levels below the threshold it will give you a perfect picture, if it's marginal you make get the picture dropping out of sync or get some pixellation, and if it's no good you will get nothing. You won't get a poor picture or any colour difference etc from a cheap cable, it'll either work properly or it won't. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1309969 | 2012-11-01 01:50:00 | The $2 one if it exists might be worse than most but who cares, if it fails you throw it away and get another one and odds are it will last you years and work perfectly. With digital signals it comes down to loss and bandwidth which are impacted by the length, conductor weight, and cable design. For very short cables the loss is low enough that almost any piece of wire can work so you should really use the shortest cable you can comfortably get away with. If the cable can carry the required signal without dropping the levels below the threshold it will give you a perfect picture, if it's marginal you make get the picture dropping out of sync or get some pixellation, and if it's no good you will get nothing. You won't get a poor picture or any colour difference etc from a cheap cable, it'll either work properly or it won't. Exactly, there is a difference, and they are not all the same. At the low end there is some serious crap, while beyond a certain point at the high end price and quality becomes irrelevant. I do not agree with this thread saying "all HDMI cables are the same" From a programmer's perspective, the digital signal either works or it doesn't. But in the real world everything is really analog. Thus cable quality does actually have an impact. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1309970 | 2012-11-02 03:16:00 | I've had this argument with people before, like has been said under 10ft/ 3M it's not important and they all work the same. Over those lengths it starts to matter but it depends what you use it for, the signal from your freeview box to your TV might only be 720P or 1080i and work perfectly on a 10M cheapie cord, but try the same cable for 3D Blu-ray playback and it might not have the bandwidth to do the Job. There's a big BUT here though (excuse the pun), an online article I read where they exhaustively tested 20M cables to see if they would work at 1440P found that none of them would, they were specifically targetting claims on monster cables marketing that said the cables offered "future proofing". All my cables are in the $10-$30 range, all are over 2-3 years old, and all work perfectly (I have a 2M, 2x3M, and a 5M). There is some point to the more expensive cables but for most home use it's a complete waste of money and even if you do need them you are still being outrageously price gouged. I did get a more expensive cable thrown in when I purchased my last TV, it's thick, inflexible, short, and works no better than the cheap ones. The $2 one if it exists might be worse than most but who cares, if it fails you throw it away and get another one and odds are it will last you years and work perfectly. With digital signals it comes down to loss and bandwidth which are impacted by the length, conductor weight, and cable design. For very short cables the loss is low enough that almost any piece of wire can work so you should really use the shortest cable you can comfortably get away with. If the cable can carry the required signal without dropping the levels below the threshold it will give you a perfect picture, if it's marginal you make get the picture dropping out of sync or get some pixellation, and if it's no good you will get nothing. You won't get a poor picture or any colour difference etc from a cheap cable, it'll either work properly or it won't. +1 I have only ever used cheapo's from johcar electronics, and at an eye popping $11.00 each I get perfect picture. A good friend of mine has once commented on the quality of picture I get from my comparatively cheap set to his, and he has only the best that can be had.... |
Sanco (683) | ||
| 1 | |||||