Why all HDMI cables are the same...

[Porscheguy]

So says CNET

news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20056502-1.html?tag=epicStories

[ausman]

sadly the article has many flaws in it, there multiple things that can cause those effect and affects both internal and external to the hdmi cable and ports..

[DYohn]

That article may be incomplete concerning all the issues facing HDMI and the potential problems involved with using it, but there is nothing incorrect in the article.

[Porscheguy]

I thought it was well written but I'm no hdmi expert......

[flamingeye]

I have no complaints for my 50' monoprice hdmi cables

[Porscheguy]

I bought a 50' on Amazon for $19.95 and it works great.....

[emaja]

I would probably say that the CABLES are the same, but the quality of the connectors can vary greatly. The author does mention that bulky connectors can pull on the jack, but if you tie your cables correctly with some slack and support that will never be a problem.

Eric

[copperband]

I thought hdmi cables are all the same until I bought a couple of used audioquest hdmi cable from a member here and my tv picture is brighter than my < $10 hdmi cable. So I say to a certain extent it does make a difference

[LCSeminole]

If you haven't already read this, anyone that is interested in HDMI cables should read Blue Jeans Cable take on the subject.

www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-cable-information.htm

[jamrock]

Back in the days of pure analog, I found the cable discussion to be so intellectually dishonest that I completely stayed away from any discussion dealing with cables both inter-connects and speaker cables. The manufacturers were so voodoo, snake oil oriented that you start to vomit at the mention of certain manufacturers.

Once digital transmission took over, you felt the rush of fresh air into the discussion, and you believed that all this hocus pocus nonsense would sink into nothingness, because you cannot massage digital, fixed value 1s and 0s. You either get it or you don't. WRONG! They're baaack!

Great read LC, but I don't think that it will change any minds. There are those who will report better color rendition, better black level, crisper highs, more refined mid range, tighter bass, when using their favorite cable. And on it goes!

[bootman]

Jul 2, 2011 18:02:36 GMT -5 jamrock said:

Once digital transmission took over, you felt the rush of fresh air into the discussion, and you believed that all this hocus pocus nonsense would sink into nothingness, because you cannot massage digital, fixed value 1s and 0s. You either get it or you don't. WRONG! They're baaack!

You do know that any digital signal traveling over copper is riding an analog waveform and therfore subject to degradation.

It isnt always all or nothing.

[jamrock]

I have never seen a grainy digital picture. And, I get digital broadcasts by cable and over the air. My TV goes black with this message: "SCRAMBLED CHANNEL OR WEAK SIGNAL" So, unless there is sufficient signal strength, I get nothing. Then again, this might be just a Florida/Comcast thingy.

[reaper60]

I can say that I was using a 3 year old 1.1 HDMI cable that was not cheap. I bought a new 3D LED TV, and found that the picture wasn't quite right, all the 3D was blurry and looked terrible. I invested in the Monster M2000 cables which claim to have the highest bandwidth, are 1.4a certified, have Ethernet support, and should carry me over for many many years. Since the switch my 3D is now much clearer and actually enjoyable to watch. I have no drop out of audio or video, and I see no need to upgrade from here.

I can say I got these for less than the $200 advertised price on ebay. You can google them and find them in the $75 range for the 10 and 12 footers. If it is snake oil, then perhaps I like the taste of snake oil? =o) Still haven't gotten me on board with the power cables though. I'll have to DiY for one cable and see if there is an audible difference.

[bootman]

Jul 2, 2011 18:39:06 GMT -5 jamrock said:

I have never seen a grainy digital picture. And, I get digital broadcasts by cable and over the air. My TV goes black with this message: "SCRAMBLED CHANNEL OR WEAK SIGNAL" So, unless there is sufficient signal strength, I get nothing. Then again, this might be just a Florida/Comcast thingy.

So you have never seen macroblocking or anything else that affects video when MER/BER is bad?

Every digital picture is pristine?

[iceman66]

Jul 2, 2011 18:45:29 GMT -5 reaper60 said:

I can say that I was using a 3 year old 1.1 HDMI cable that was not cheap. I bought a new 3D LED TV, and found that the picture wasn't quite right, all the 3D was blurry and looked terrible. I invested in the Monster M2000 cables which claim to have the highest bandwidth, are 1.4a certified, have Ethernet support, and should carry me over for many many years. Since the switch my 3D is now much clearer and actually enjoyable to watch. I have no drop out of audio or video, and I see no need to upgrade from here.

I can say I got these for less than the $200 advertised price on ebay. You can google them and find them in the $75 range for the 10 and 12 footers. If it is snake oil, then perhaps I like the taste of snake oil? =o) Still haven't gotten me on board with the power cables though. I'll have to DiY for one cable and see if there is an audible difference.

3D was not supported in 1.1, so it is not a surprise that a 1.4a certified cable cleared things up - any 1.4a certified cable would have.

[jamrock]

I'm not saying that every digital picture is pristine. Far be the thought. What I'm hinting at is that the cables will transmit to the sink whatever information it receives. It cannot make that digital signal any better. Maybe worse, but not better! Black level, color accuracy, noise, picture detail, etc. are all the result of the quality processing of the TV and/or BRP. Never the cable. And even as iceman66 explained above, the picture improvement was not due to any property of the cable, it was just using the wrong cable before to begin with.

In order to improve on any signal that enters one end of a cable, it will require that digital signal be converted to analog and under go some form of processing. What device is contained in a dumb piece of wire to accomplish that unless the connector at either end of the cable has such a device. Then, it would not be an ordinary cable. Am I right or wrong?

[stiehl11]

Jul 2, 2011 20:22:08 GMT -5 jamrock said:

In order to improve on any signal that enters one end of a cable, it will require that digital signal be converted to analog and under go some form of processing. What device is contained in a dumb piece of wire to accomplish that unless the connector at either end of the cable has such a device. Then, it would not be an ordinary cable. Am I right or wrong?

You're not wrong per se, and neither is bootman. A digital "wave" as it goes across copper is analogous to an analog wave, however it's bandwidth is extremely narrow as it only have to transition between low voltage and high voltage. The longer distance the digital wave travels the more degradation that signal can experience; this is expressed in signal to noise ratio. As the digital wave degrades it will want to become a constant state or "flat line". Long before this happens, though, it will be totally unrecognizable by the receiving source. How that source deals with a significantly degraded signal is up to the programming of the source. It may simply throw that packet of information out giving you a degraded sound and/or picture. Or, it may shut down until a recognizable packet is sent. Make no mistake, when a source throws out a sizable amount of packets to make it noticeable the result does not have an analog equivalent. You likely have noticed this as "blocks" on your video signal or a very odd, digital sound to your audio. The more packets lost the more extreme the result.

The digital wave, though, can be "repeated" to improve it's signal to noise ratio and allow it to travel farther than it could originally on it's own. Oddly enough, these devices that do the "repeating" are called (wait for it) repeaters. These devices take the digital wave and reconstructs it, digitally. There is no analog conversion of the digital wave and re-digitization. It simply takes the high voltage state and re-transmits it at the correct voltage to be recognized as a high voltage state and the same for the low voltage. This is something that no wire can do. This can only be done by a powered device with some grade of logic to be able to tell the difference between a high voltage and low voltage state. Of course, if the signal is so degraded by time it gets to the repeater that it can not tell the difference then, based upon the logic of the repeater, it may drop the bit, the packet or simply give it the best guess based upon it's logic.

So, as stated earlier, a cable (or fiber optic strand) can not improve a signal in and of itself. However, if a cable has something that would increase the noise ratio (and thereby degrade the signal so as to not be able to have the high/low voltage change states recognized by the receiving source) then you would get a degraded result after reconstitution of the analog pattern. And, that degradation would not manifest itself as a comparable analog distortion.

I hope I've helped with this.

[jamrock]

I am going to beat this dead horse one more time for good measure. I gather from your piece that you are agreeing with my statement that; a cable in and of it self, cannot improve a signal. It can only do 1 or both of 2 things: Transmit the signal unaltered, or degrades it. Cables along with repeaters and signal amplifiers can help to transmit digital signal over long cable runs. However, they do not improve upon the original signal.

[stiehl11]

You are correct, jamrock.

[jamrock]

Thanks for the tutorial. I learned something today