I need a long (about 100 feet probably) HDMI cable. I found this cable http://sewelldirect.com/Accell-Ultra-Run-HDMI-Cable-35.asp
They even have a longer version. Has anyone tried these cables?
Thanks.

That's pretty long. Make sure you have a backup plan, ideally a few cat6 incase you have to do that, and/or conduit.

Has nobody tried these cables?

I'd go for the Blue Jeans Cable Belden Series-1 HDMI cable. It is an extremely high quality cable (with no signal boosters built-in). BJC says they have tested the cable at lengths up to 125ft without degradation to a 1080p/60 video signal.

You may want to shoot them an email and see if it fits the bill.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm

Oops. Man I even looked at their website as I think I'm going to get one of there 100ft subwoofer cables. Guess I didn't look very closely! Thanks.

So as this is quite a bit more expensive than the other cable I was asking about, what does everyone think? The cheaper one has a built-in repeater. Does that mean it's lower quality so needs a repeater? What do your guys think (or experience) with repeaters in cables?

Thanks for the help.

Oops. Man I even looked at their website as I think I'm going to get one of there 100ft subwoofer cables. Guess I didn't look very closely! Thanks.

So as this is quite a bit more expensive than the other cable I was asking about, what does everyone think? The cheaper one has a built-in repeater. Does that mean it's lower quality so needs a repeater? What do your guys think (or experience) with repeaters in cables?

Thanks for the help.

I would definitely vote the BJC HDMI cable as being of the highest quality. I read up before I purchased my 45ft. HDMI cable (in-wall run) and the BJC Series 1 HDMI cable was rated for the distance I needed and did not require a signal booster, which I wanted to avoid. Since this was an in-wall run, I didn't want to skimp on quality.

While the Bluejeans cable is the best HDMI cable I've seen, I have seen it fail and a shorter run solved the problem. This was on a very finicky display, however, where other displays worked just fine on an inferior cable and also on the BJ HDMI. My point is that, as Kurt at bluejeans will tell you, that while the cable should work to pass everything, not all devices are the greatest at receiving that signal properly, or sending it, etc. So while you can be confident that it's among the best cables out there, don't assume that it is guaranteed to work with the particular devices in question, in that particular installation. Test with the equipment in question before you put it in the wall and finish the wall, because you don't want to be out in the cold. And preferably also test it in that wall with everything on nearby that might cause interference problems. Everything HDMI, no matter how robust in theory, has the potential to fail, and there are lots of things that pro installers have seen fail that should have worked (and were "guaranteed" to work) just fine, from active cables to media adapters/baluns.

Always have a backup plan, preferably conduit so you can pull new cable, or different cable(cat, coax) altogether for a media adapter solution, if needed.

While the Bluejeans cable is the best HDMI cable I've seen, I have seen it fail and a shorter run solved the problem. This was on a very finicky display, however, where other displays worked just fine on an inferior cable and also on the BJ HDMI. My point is that, as Kurt at bluejeans will tell you, that while the cable should work to pass everything, not all devices are the greatest at receiving that signal properly, or sending it, etc. So while you can be confident that it's among the best cables out there, don't assume that it is guaranteed to work with the particular devices in question, in that particular installation. Test with the equipment in question before you put it in the wall and finish the wall, because you don't want to be out in the cold. And preferably also test it in that wall with everything on nearby that might cause interference problems. Everything HDMI, no matter how robust in theory, has the potential to fail, and there are lots of things that pro installers have seen fail that should have worked (and were "guaranteed" to work) just fine, from active cables to media adapters/baluns.

Always have a backup plan, preferably conduit so you can pull new cable, or different cable(cat, coax) altogether for a media adapter solution, if needed.

Great advice! As of this time I don't have a backup plan if my 45ft. BJC HDMI cable doesn't work, but I'm going to test it before I install it. I don't expect there to be any issues.

Thanks for all the help guys. Looks like its a matter of try it and see. So I need to check their return policy in case it doesn't work. But assuming I can return it, looks like I will try the 100ft subwoofer and 100ft HDMI from Blue Jeans. I tried to measure for the HDMI and I might, repeat might, be able to get away with the 75ft but it could be close. So I think I will stick with the 100ft and try it.

Thanks again guys. I always appreciate the help.

I got around to testing my BJC 45ft. Series-1 HDMI cable tonight and it works like a charm. I thoroughly tested it with every single source I have (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, HD DVR) and noticed no degradation in picture quality.

Big thumbs up to the folks at BJC! :D

Good news. It may be a while before I get to that point (buying a piece at a time) but I will post my results.

Having read BJC articles it sounds like its also a factor of the receiver and TV, as well as the cable. So for what its worth my TV is a Pioneer PDP-5070HD (had it for over a year) and I plan on buying the new Onkyo 606 receiver (next purchase) once they start shipping in a week or two. After that I will try the HDMI cable.

I plan on getting the Series-1 cable. Is that what you got?

You could get a 75 ft cable, and an equalizer (repeater), and another 10 or 15 ft cable. That would give you a shorter run, and the benefit of an equalizer, and the benefit of quality cables at lower price. I would still recommend the BJC cable -- I have a 35' 24gauge from them that works like a charm.
You would want to mount the equalizer somewhere accessible, though, so you could swap it out if it ever broke. Behind a wiring plate of some sort, or in the basement or a closet, probably.

Well if I go with a repeater that brings me full circle to the original cable I asked about. If I wanted to go with BJC cable and get a separate repeater, what repeater would people recommend? BJC themselves don't seem to recommend the use of repeaters. Thoughts........

Accell UltraRun HDMI Cable with Built-in Booster 35m
Features
Built-in miniature signal equalizer and booster for exceptionally long cable runs of up to 147 feet
Supports resolutions of up to 1080p (1920 x 1200 computer resolution)
Triple metal shielding protects against EM and RF interference
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Listed CL3 rated cable for in-wall installation
Fully compatible with HDCP compliant components
Low power, powered directly from most HDMI sources
Works with DVI devices when coupled with an HDMI to DVI adapter
24K gold-plated connectors and contacts provide superior connectivity

Specifications
TMDS Rate: Up to 1.65 Gbit/sec
Input Video Signal: 1.4 Volts p-p
Input DDC Signal: 5 Volts p-p (TTL)
Power Input (typically not needed): +5VDC, 500mA (adapter included)
Input/Output Type: HDMI 1.1, 19-Pin Single Link
Maximum Supported Resolution: 1920 x 1080 at 60 Hz

I notice it says HDMI 1.1 - should this be a concern?

A HDMI 1.3 cable is designed for a higher bandwidth than a 1.1 cable, and thus has more margin. However, if the cable says 1.1 and says it passes 1080/60p, and that is what you want to use (no enhanced color depth, etc), then it should work.

I've used the following equalizer for 1080/60p, although I used it as a connection dyke to string two cables together (it still did the equalization, but that probably wasn't needed):
http://www.monoprice.com/products/search.asp?keyword=2849&x=0&y=0

So given that I'm only looking to send 1080i (my TV is a Pioneer PDP-5070HD) so 1080p is not an issue for me, going with a HDMI 1.3 cable will give me even more chance of success given the extra margin. Correct?

Thanks.

P.S. And more scope for upgrade in the future. Replacing cables in the future is something I don't want to do. So a 1.3 cable would be a better bet than a 1.1 cable. Correct?

So a 1.3 cable would be a better bet than a 1.1 cable. Correct?

No, not necessarily. The 1.1 could be superior.

Sounds like its very much a matter of trial and error. Try the BJC cable and if it doesn't work, try the other cable with built-in booster. If it doesn't work either then I guess try two shorter cables with the booster mentioned in the middle. Surely one of those options should work.

Yup. Welcome to the world of HDMI. :-/

I guess sometimes there just isn't a right answer. Thanks for all the help and advice. I will post my results when I get around to buying the BJC cable. I think I will be ordering my receiver (Onkyo 606) next week. After that its that cable.

Thanks again. This forum has been a great help to a newbie like me.

One final stupid question. As we are talking about digital cables (HDMI), I assume that it will be obvious whether it "works" or not. It will either work or not. Correct?

The 1.1 could be superior.

Yes. But the GUARANTEE that the 1.3 cable makes is a higher guarantee that the GUARANTEE that the 1.1 cable makes. Thus, if both cables are designed exactly to spec, the 1.3 is superior.

assume that it will be obvious whether it "works" or not.

That is correct. Typically, it will work fine, or it will show a black/blue screen. There is a narrow band inbetween where you will get random "sparkly" pixels or random purple lines or similar artifacts. That band is pretty narrow, right around the edge of performance, so if you get those artifacts (rather obvious, especially on dark scenes) then you probably should call it a fail.

Yes. But the GUARANTEE that the 1.3 cable makes is a higher guarantee that the GUARANTEE that the 1.1 cable makes. Thus, if both cables are designed exactly to spec, the 1.3 is superior.



That is correct. Typically, it will work fine, or it will show a black/blue screen. There is a narrow band inbetween where you will get random "sparkly" pixels or random purple lines or similar artifacts. That band is pretty narrow, right around the edge of performance, so if you get those artifacts (rather obvious, especially on dark scenes) then you probably should call it a fail.

OK. Perfect. That's what I needed to know. Thanks for the help and advice. Appreciate it.

BJC now offers more length options. It was just 75ft then up to 100ft. Now they offer 70,80,90 and 100ft options. Having measured I'm going to try the 80ft length.

Yes. But the GUARANTEE that the 1.3 cable makes is a higher guarantee that the GUARANTEE that the 1.1 cable makes. Thus, if both cables are designed exactly to spec, the 1.3 is superior.


But many were never submitted to meet 1.3. It could be a superior cable, even if it was older, before 1.3 came about.

OK. I know it's been a long time but I have finally just installed my 80ft long HDMI cable from Blue Jeans Cable. And so far so good.

I know I've sort of asked this question already but with a long HDMI cable you can't get "snow" or "interference", correct? It will either work or not? Or if right on the edge you get very noticeable "sparkles", correct?

The reason I ask is if I get really close to the screen (50 inch plasma) it looks a little "snowy" but of course it may always look like that and I never look that closely. I guess I'm now paranoid that the quality has dropped whereas it probably hasn't.

Thanks guys.

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

Here is a test audioholics did with many different HDMI cables.

Thanks for the link to the article.

In my case I'm only using 1080i no 1080p.
Secondly it's coming from a TivoHD that sends everything as 1080i not as native resolution. So a follow up question is given that fact does that mean that the bandwidth used is the same no matter what channel (meaning source) is being viewed. Meaning does an analog source upscaled by Tivo to 1080i generate the same data as if it came from a 1080i channel? If that's the case any differences between channels must be from my source (cable provider) rather than "interference". Does that make sense?

Thanks.

Finally I have seen "pixelation" on digital or HD channels sometimes, how does that differ in appearance from "interference sparks" or HDMI signal quality issues?

Thanks again.

...if I get really close to the screen (50 inch plasma) it looks a little "snowy" but of course it may always look like that and I never look that closely. I guess I'm now paranoid that the quality has dropped whereas it probably hasn't.

It depends somewhat on what you mean by "snowy." Many images will look mottled at fine detail in solid color areas, simply because the source material is like that. For example, motion picture film often has a sort of dye-cloud effect in dark areas which is part of the nature of the film; if you're viewing this in close detail it might seem "snowy" in a way.

Pixel-dropout sparkle with a failing HDMI cable is pretty obvious. Usually the dropout pixels will either render as white or as a solid primary color (for some reason I see them in green fairly often), and usually they'll all be the same color. Accordingly, if you see lots of green or white one-pixel sized dots all over your screen, that's probably HDMI pixel dropouts. If, instead, you feel that you're seeing a bit of crawly, cloudy, random color in solid color areas that's probably simply what the source material looks like. Sometimes you'll see the latter for the first time when you view material at higher resolution than before, simply because lower-resolution gear tends to smear out these dye-cloud kinds of effects. At the extreme, standard VHS tape, for example, will pretty well obliterate that effect because it simply can't provide enough color definition or resolution to distinguish small areas from horizontally-adjacent areas sharply.

...does an analog source upscaled by Tivo to 1080i generate the same data as if it came from a 1080i channel? If that's the case any differences between channels must be from my source (cable provider) rather than "interference". Does that make sense?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here but will give it a whirl.

An analog source upscaled by your HD Tivo is NTSC standard-def. The source itself being analog, and being by the nature of NTSC rather low-quality, it will differ from a native 1080i digital broadcast or cable (ATSC or QAM) signal considerably. If you are seeing a lot of noise in it, it is fairly likely that that's because the signal coming into your home has a lot of noise in it; this is quite common as most cable companies do an absolutely wretched job of keeping signal quality clean. I have Comcast here in Seattle and the analog channels have always looked atrocious.

I am not sure how the TiVo handles these internally but my guess would be that it encodes the NTSC broadcast in MPEG-2 and sticks that on the drive; then, at playback, it upscales it, and delivers that upscaled image through the HDMI port. The datastream it sends through the HDMI port will have the same basic characteristics as it would if the original source had been an ATSC or QAM channel, but of course the quality of the picture that datastream represents may be considerably different.

Finally I have seen "pixelation" on digital or HD channels sometimes, how does that differ in appearance from "interference sparks" or HDMI signal quality issues?

If by pixellation you mean that areas of the screen become consolidated into multi-pixel rectangular blocks of the same color (which is also called "macro-blocking") then this will look completely different from HDMI signal quality issues. HDMI is run uncompressed and cannot cause macroblocking; if you see macroblocking, that's in the source.

If I've misunderstood any of what you've asked or you need some further explanation, let me know...

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

Hi Kurt,

Wow. Great info and from BJC. Perfect.

I think you have pretty much confirmed the conclusions I'm already coming too. From your description of what I called "pixelation" and you called "macroblocking", that is exactly what I was seeing. The square blocks is definitely what I was seeing. It wasn't on all channels, or even all digital or all HD channels, and I would have thought if it was a signal issue down your cable it would affect ALL channels. Or at least all channels using the same bandwidth - meaning all digital or all HD. And it wasn't.

I have also now realized that I had to add a new coax (100ft) cable to the Tivo's new location. Of course this might have added the source of a weaker signal. In fact I also remembered about an hour ago that I have a signal booster that I have now added into that coax line. I plan on doing some testing using Tivo's signal meter to see if I can see any difference with and without it.

Finally of course the most likely problem is my cable provider. Let's face it they normally are! And it might have just been my bad luck that poor signal happened at the same time I was doing all these changes. I will give it a few days and see what happens and do testing with and without the signal booster.

Thanks so much for the detailed reply. I think I'm now pretty sure it's not a problem with our long HDMI cable as it only the squares (sorry - macroblocking) and not all the same color either.

Thanks again.

By the way, I might not have been completely clear there; when I say "the same color" referring to the squares, all I meant was that within a square, the contents will be all one color. When a picture goes to macroblocking, of course, the various squares will each have a different color from one another, but the point is that all of the detail within them has been obliterated.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

OK. Yes may squares are different colors but they are "large" squares rather than pixel size which it sounds like is what I would see if it was HDMI signal quality issues. In fact the squares I'm talking about, I have seen occasionally before I even had this long HDMI cable and they look like the same "squares" you see on bad satellite reception.

In fact I thought your same "all the same color" comment was referring the pixel-dropout sparkles rather than macroblocking.

Ah...okay, now I see. And yes, typically (though not necessarily) when one sees pixel dropouts, they will all be the same color as one another. My suspicion would be that this is because in any marginal failure there's a good chance that two of the three data channels are getting through just fine and the third is failing. How that renders will then depend on issues like what the colorspace is, and how the display behaves in the face of corrupted data.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

I just realized that I never really thanked you Kurt. That's great customer support and I appreciate that. By the way everything is looking great. A few days after we started this posting, I had a problem across the border with my cable. So it was all a signal issue. Looks great now.

Thanks again.

I need a long (about 100 feet probably) HDMI cable. I found this cable http://sewelldirect.com/Accell-Ultra-Run-HDMI-Cable-35.asp
They even have a longer version. Has anyone tried these cables?
Thanks.I think the limit is usually around 50 feet for really good cables. Monoprice.com has a converter that extends it like 50 meter (150 ft) over 2 cat5 cables, it will be cheaper that way also. I don't think that you can go that far with 1080p (shorter range) but if you are doing 1080i or 720p it should be fine. I think they are like 100 bucks and a 100ft cat5 cable should be like 10 or 15 each.

Kurt,
Are there any unamplified, 30ft, Category 2, HDMI cables made?