Projector power cable upgrade, anyone? [Text View]

smitty

10-30-07, 03:33 PM

smitty -

He asked for experiences, but he didn't want opinions? What does that mean?

And he doesn't want theories... Meaning he doesn't want some empirical basis for comparison?

The people advising the OP to avoid high-priced cables are giving advice that bears scientific scrutiny - everything else is entirely subjective.

Marc

I've just seen zillions of these threads on this forum and elsewhere where someone asks if anybody has tried a higher end cable of some type with a certain component and whether they have noticed a difference. To me, that's someone asking for others to provide their experience or observations with the product at issue in a certain context. In response, you typically get dogmatic statements from folks who have no experience with either upgraded cables (or even with the components in question) to the effect that all cables are "snake oil," or that it's all placebo, or that cable can't improve the wiring to the house, etc., etc., blah blah blah. I think there is a time and a place for debates over whether cables should or should not make a difference, etc. (although nothing new is ever said) but every thread that asks for actual "experience" typically gets these same type of responses by a few trolls. It's unfortunate, and not really responsive, IMO.

Now if someone wants to say, "Hey, I tried an upgraded power cable with my Pearl and found no difference whatsoever. I think upgraded power cables are not worth the money in terms of improving the video performance of the Pearl," well fine. That's helpful. But to just say "upgraded power cables are snake oil" or something to that effect, without providing any basis for such an assertion, is not really what the OP seemed to be asking for, is not really helpful, and is just designed to start an argument (which is why most people who say such things say them.)

Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :)

P.S. I have no opinion one way or the other whether an upgraded power cord will help the OP's Pearl. It may or may not. That's why I always recommend people try it for themselves and see -- as opposed to listening to people they don't know who just can't wait to jump into threads containing innocent little questions like the OP's in order to make categorical statements about what must or must not happen in someone else's system and enviroment.

Glimmie

10-30-07, 04:45 PM

The OP didn't ask for opinions about whether power cables are snake oil, or whether they should made a difference or not given the vagaries of house wiring; he asked if anyone was using one, and what they observed. In other words, he asked for actual experence, not for opinions and theory. :rolleyes:

Tony, one you thing you might try is to purchase a cable on 30-day or 60-day return and try it yourself. If it doesn't yield any improvement, return it. (I've been meaning to try this myself since I've had some success in taming some sibilance in my high-end audio system with an upgraded power cord.)

No one can argue what another person hears or sees as those sensations are only within that person's brain. So if you hear a difference in sibilance by changing power cords I cannot argue what you hear.

OTOH, scientific and commen sense are overwhelming in disfavor of power cord differences provided the said "stock" cord can deliver the required wattage of the component. If for example I am feeding a high power amplifier outputting substantial audio wattage wiith an 18 gauge power cord. Then I replace it with a 14gauge or 12 gauge "audiophile" power cord I will hear a diference and measure one as well. But I can get the same results by replacing that 18ga power cord with a $5 12ga or 14ga power cord from Home Depot. It's not the expense of the cord that matters, it's the gauge of the wire.

As for source and video components (CD payers, preamps, etc) upgrading a power cord is pointless beyond some ferrite bead RFI filtering that some high end cords do offer. Most anyone knows the thousands of miles of aluminum wire the utility grid is built with along with the hundreds if not thousands of transformers, fuses, and circuit breakers in line. And next is the low cost wire used within the home wiring it's self. Science aside, does it make any sense after all that the final 6 feet of power cord makes any perceivable difference?

And there is another point to consider: Why don't the recroding studios and television mastering facilities use these high end power cords. I know for a fact they don't because for the past 25 years I have been building them. Some will argue that the media producers are cut throat "for profit" businesses and could care less about quality. If so then why do we spend $100K on VTRs. $40K on video monitors. If after spending $40K on a 32in picture monitor, don't you think we would spend another $500 for a high end power cord if it made a difference?

smitty

10-30-07, 04:53 PM

No one can argue what another person hears or sees as those sensations are only within that person's brain. So if you hear a difference in sibilance by changing power cords I cannot argue what you hear.

OTOH, scientific and commen sense are overwhelming in disfavor of power cord differences provided the said "stock" cord can deliver the required wattage of the component. If for example I am feeding a high power amplifier outputting substantial audio wattage wiith an 18 gauge power cord. Then I replace it with a 14gauge or 12 gauge "audiophile" power cord I will hear a diference and measure one as well. But I can get the same results by replacing that 18ga power cord with a $5 12ga or 14ga power cord from Home Depot. It's not the expense of the cord that matters, it's the gauge of the wire.

As for source and video components (CD payers, preamps, etc) upgrading a power cord is pointless beyond some ferrite bead RFI filtering that some high end cords do offer. Most anyone knows the thousands of miles of aluminum wire the utility grid is built with along with the hundreds if not thousands of transformers, fuses, and circuit breakers in line. And next is the low cost wire used within the home wiring it's self. Science aside, does it make any sense after all that the final 6 feet of power cord makes any perceivable difference?Glimmie, I respect your opinion, but I'm not going to debate the issue on this thread becuase I think it's beyond the scope of what the OP was asking for and I don't want to help contribute to the waste of bandwidth that will result if we advance the same old tired arguments pro and con that have been advanced on a bazillion threads before, none of which ever change anybody's minds on this subject. :)

Glimmie

10-30-07, 04:59 PM

Glimmie, I respect your opinion, but I'm not going to debate the issue on this thread becuase I think it's beyond the scope of what the OP was asking for and I don't want to help contribute to the waste of bandwidth that will result if we advance the same old tired arguments pro and con that have been advanced on a bazillion threads before, none of which ever change anybody's minds on this subject. :)

OK, fine I will answer the origional poster directly.

No, In my expereince* I have never seen any improvement or impairment to a video or audio component due to the quality of the power cord! We use in our facilities low end consumer projectors, Panny AE1000U, mid end projectors, Sony Quala, and the big Christie theater class projectors. The big projectors do need a special power cord of sorts, three phase 120/208v at 30 amps but it's about $50 in parts from an ordinary electrical supply house. The wire is plain old 10/5 SO cord and a Hubble plug - nothing unique.

*Like I said above I work in the TV and film mastering business. We (which includes my piers) don't use special power cords period. We do throw out the stock power and use smaller 18 to 24in cords in many cases for reasons of cable dress and rack space. BTW, those 18in cords cost $1.64 in qty of 10.

mblank

10-30-07, 05:58 PM

Actually, I used to be one of those audiophile people who compared cords and who always detected a difference, so when I wrote my earlier note, it WAS with experience about this.

The fact is that people's subjective experience is so colored by outside factors that there is simply no way to translate one person's experience to another's. That leaves us with objective tests, and no controlled test has ever demonstrated a difference between things like power cables, once obvious parameters like wire gauge are removed from the equation. The problem with uncontrolled tests is their findings can't be extrapolated, since circumstances will never be the same.

And, finally, as Glimmie says, the professionals who actually make the content that you watch and listen to do NOT use this sort of equipment. All things being equal, I would assume that they know better than a lay person - after all, many (if not most) of them are passionate about the quality of their work and many have enormous budgets which would cover the cost of any number of fancy cables.

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with spending a lot on something that provides pleasure or a "better" experience, regardless of whether that "better" experience can be verified objectively.

Marc

Tony Huang

11-02-07, 12:31 AM

Hi, OP here. Really didn’t expect or want to start yet another debate on the subject that’s why I worded my question the way I did: Those of you who are using a fancy cable, what are you using and is it worth it?

Someone mentioned above if “the final six feet” would make a difference. I used to think the exact same thing until a friend made this analogy: imagine a highway, no matter how bad the traffic is from A to B, as long as B to C (the final miles leading home, if you will) is all free and clear, that is all that matters: having the final six miles of nicely paved, litter-free highway all to yourself after that hundred-mile bottleneck.

Now I’m not sure if electrons behave the same as cars but it does make some kind of sense and that’s why I am giving it a try. For the record, I have not subscribed to the idea, I am still collating.

Another thing occurred to me:
Will I be able to remember what I saw with cable A after the few minutes it takes to switch cables and re-start the projector with cable B, and then cable C?

maddogmc

11-02-07, 12:47 AM

....
Will I be able to remember what I saw with cable A after the few minutes it takes to switch cables and re-start the projector with cable B, and then cable C?

The answer is NO.

The belief in "super" power cables is like religion. There is no proof, only personal perception and faith. If it makes you feel like you have a better system, it's your money, spend it.

mblank

11-02-07, 01:22 AM

Tony -

Great question!! And, indeed, there have been many studies done that demonstrate conclusively that memories of images, sounds, etc. are incredibly unreliable, even after very short periods of time, and are easily influenced by external factors (intentionally or not).

If it pleases you to buy expensive cables, go for it! And if you want to rationalize the decision based on your experience with those cables, that's great too. But to ask for someone else's experience ... that's tough. You not only have the impossible task of trying to correlate a stranger's subjective experience with your own, you also have to deal with the fact that someone who has already purchased "fancy cable" has every incentive (consciously or not) to support that decision after the fact.

Marc

p.s. The "final six feet" analogy is laughable if you think about it.

p.p.s. You should be aware that "giving it a try" leads to madness; I can pretty much guarantee that you will experience exactly what you expect to (or what the salesman expects you to).

jiujitsu35

11-02-07, 01:41 AM

mblank

11-02-07, 02:07 AM

jiujitsu35 - I am saying only that a properly constructed power cord of sufficient gauge is all one needs. As far as HDMI cables go, I doubt that any two manufacturers make their cable "the same", if by the same means "the same in every respect". I do believe that any two properly constructed HDMI cables that meet the specification perform the same; don't you? Your last question couldn't be more irrelevant - maybe I have a 200" 16:9 screen that I watch from the next county, or maybe I have a 70" screen that I put my nose up to - does size matter?

Marc

p.s. If you believe I'm wrong, kindly point me to some evidence that isn't anecdotal.

smitty

11-02-07, 02:31 AM

The answer is NO.

The belief in "super" power cables is like religion. There is no proof, only personal perception and faith. If it makes you feel like you have a better system, it's your money, spend it.And there is no "proof" they don't make a difference.

And while it may be "personal perception" (we are talking about the senses of hearing and sight and how sounds are heard or things are seen and perceived by the brain), it's not a matter of pure faith, as there is some evidence that power cables make a difference. You may not find the evidence to be at all persuasive, and I would agree with you that it has yet to be "proved", but there is evidence (just as there is evidence for certain religious beleifs.) :)

smitty

11-02-07, 02:41 AM

And, indeed, there have been many studies done that demonstrate conclusively that memories of images, sounds, etc. are incredibly unreliable, even after very short periods of time, and are easily influenced by external factors (intentionally or not).

These studies are not entirely relevant to the issue at hand. Basically, it's apples and oranges in this context. For example, studies that show that someone who hears a two second tone and then a short time later cannot identify the tone or match it to another tone (many of the studies are of this genre) are not relevant to whether a person who is intimately familiar with how his projector looks or how his stereo system sounds will be able to detect a slight change in the video or sound due to a change in a power cord or some other device (assuming for the sake of argument that a change actually occurs).

Or to put it another way, I may have a very short term memory of a specific tone that is played for me, but I know exactly what my daughter's voice sounds like, and whether she has a cold, even if I haven't talked to her for a week. I don't forget exactly what her voice sounds like over a very short term.

joerod

11-02-07, 07:25 AM

I use "upgraded" powercords for some of my equipment. Mainly because they are longer and can reach further. I do like the fact that they are thicker and not a skinny-cheap build...

izzihd

11-02-07, 08:45 AM

I don't get why this has to be so black and white. We tweak and nudge our projectors to get the picture just so. What's so hard about ordering a power cord - lots of local and mail order places offer FREE trials.

If you see a difference - consider keeping it.
If you don't, return it.

Pretty painless given all the other tweaks this crowd tries.

coldmachine

11-02-07, 08:52 AM

Maybe if people were more aware of how stabilzed PSUs operated this would not be an issue.

bobpaule

11-02-07, 12:51 PM

Get the high end Panamax power conditioner with video isolation circuitry, now that will bring an improvement.

As for team Viagra-Stereophile NYHA Class III gang the more money the better :)

joerod

11-02-07, 02:05 PM

Oh yeah, the 7500 PRO Power Management System from Panamax! ;)

maddogmc

11-02-07, 02:14 PM

I will admit that I am not a believer in special power cords. However, I normally keep "Dogbert" sitting on top of my monitor and I swear it is not as sharp when he falls off. I really think he draws negative energy from the screen and makes it sharper when he is in close proximity.

Gary Lightfoot

11-02-07, 02:37 PM

I tried a couple of 'special' power chords with a pj I had and couldn't see any difference over the standard chord that came in the box. I then tried the chords on both the pj and the source but still couldn't see a difference.

If you want a shorter lead, cut it down and refit the plug. If you want a longer lead, buy the same size flex (or larger) and put your own plug and socket on it. It doesn't cost much and if you're not confident about doing it yourself, you should be able to find someone who is capable of doing it for you.

Gary

Otto J

11-02-07, 03:48 PM

Someone mentioned above if “the final six feet” would make a difference. I used to think the exact same thing until a friend made this analogy: imagine a highway, no matter how bad the traffic is from A to B, as long as B to C (the final miles leading home, if you will) is all free and clear, that is all that matters: having the final six miles of nicely paved, litter-free highway all to yourself after that hundred-mile bottleneck.

I have two major gripes with this analogy: One, you automatically assume that the road up until the final six feet actually IS a bottleneck. Who says there's any bottlenecks in the cabling up until this point? Try thinking of it this way instead: You're travelling all alone on a nice, wide, empty highway, until you're six miles from home. From there, the highway widens from four lanes to six lanes. Who gives a s**t, it doesn't make any difference. Two, the assumption that it's the final six miles that matters - what's up with that? If the bottleneck is before this point, you won't get more cars through, just because the last six miles are open. Try thinking of it as water through a pipe instead, if you like. If it's a 1" pipe all the way to your house, having a 2" pipe the last six yards won't make any difference.

Now, if you actually bothered reading this far, I actually use "better cables" for most of my products. The only reason I do this, is because I bought some shielded cables to try avoiding some humming and dropouts that I had in my system. I believe that there's a fair reason to do this, not because of the cabling itself making a difference to the power, but because of the potential problems with interference between cables. Now, did the "hifi" cables make any difference in my system? Not the least bit. Not even to the issues I was trying to sort out.

In video, I even believe that any difference in performance is much easier to evaluate than in audio: I believe that various test patterns are more demanding to display correctly than real-life material. Hence, I will claim that if you can see any difference in real-life material, you should be able to put up a test pattern that will isolate and magnify the difference. Thus, if you think you see a difference in real-life material, but don't see a difference in the kind of test pattern that should isolate the issue that you believe you see, then what you saw was placebo.

I don't believe in high-end cabling making any difference, especially not in video, and certainly not in power cabling. I have never experienced an improvement in image quality when upgrading from good, standard-quality cables, to super-duper-special hifi-cables. I just don't think that's where the bottlenecks are. However, I _do_ believe that it's possible to use the wrong _type_ of cables, and to buy cables that are just horribly awful - say, badly shielded coax cables for instance. I just don't believe that it's that expensive to make a cable in a way that it doesn't create a bottleneck.

I know of people who claim that changing power cables on their flatscreen increased brightness to the point that they turned down the contrast control on their tv. And I actually believe that they believe it... But it just doesn't prove anything else than that some people are quite susceptible to placebo. We all know that such an effect being caused by a change in power cable simply isn't possible.

mblank

11-02-07, 03:49 PM

smitty

11-02-07, 07:14 PM

The argument that there needs to be proof that special cords DON'T make a difference is a tired one at best. First, a negative can't be proved. Second, there is no scientifically accepted rationale for why a special cord would make a difference; therefore, the burden of proof is on the side of those who argue otherwise. You are making an extraordinary claim, so you should be held to a high standard, especially when you are asking others to invest in that claim's truth.

I don't see anybody is this thread saying that there has to be proof that upgraded cords don't make a difference. The burden of proof is not on anybody. This isn't a court of law or a peer-reveiwed scientific journal. It's a hobbyists form. The OP asked if people had tried upgraded power cables and what their experience was. I don't really see how the "burden of proof" is relevant in that context of that inquiry, and thus, my point about the "burden" was simply in response to an earlier post that suggested someone has to "prove" something.

Indeed, the burden of proof argument only arises because the "skeptics," as is routine in every thread of this sort, always jump in with this argument (I believe it is on page 6 of the "Upgraded Cables Don't Make A Difference Handbook"). :D Well, those who think power cords make a difference don't have to "prove" anything to anybody when someone asks what people have experienced, and those who think it's all a bunch of hooey don't have to "prove" anything either.

Let's all beleive what we want to beleive, and give the guy the courtesy of providing the "experience" he's asking for (which you and others alaready have) and leave the scientific disucssion and sophistic arguments about "burden of proof" to another day and another discussion. :)

Phil Olson

11-02-07, 09:47 PM

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of science and it is important if a guy is hood winked into buying a $150 power cord when $15 worth of parts from Home Depot will do just as well, if not better.

It is easily proved through double blind testing that 'boutique' cables do absolutely nothing for performance, so much so that 'true believers' have been known to actually try to discredit double blind testing as prejudiced.

Electrons moving through cables is a rather well understood phenomenon all the way into the Gigahertz regions. Take if from the pro's posted earlier, if they can spend megabucks on VCR's, monitors, etc. and just use plain old power cables, that's all you need to know.

As one of my friends used to say, "If you want to know how to make a million dollars, do you talk to 'Joe Blow' down at the local garage who's always full of ideas or do you talk to a millionaire? :D:D

If you're going to put your faith in someone, put it in the pros that use this stuff for a living. Whether power or HDMI, as long as the cable is engineered to meet or exceed minimum requirements for it's intended use that's all that's needed, particularly in this age of switching power supplies and digital sound/video.

Just my $.02 as a retired electrical engineer whose worked on everything from switching supplies to 3.6GHz radio, etc. ;)

jiujitsu35

11-03-07, 02:50 AM

I have been a fan of after market power cords for more than ten years and I can tell you that they do make a difference.I'm not here to try to change any ones mind but to tell me that every hdmi and power cord look the same is just not correct.Try one day an hdmi from mono price that runs for $35.00 for 35 ft and compare it to a kimber cable that cost around $300.00 on a screen 106 inches or bigger and tell me that you can't tell that the kimber has more focus,pop,better saturation of colors,more detail.That is the price you pay for perfection,don't get me wrong I was happy with the mono until I did the (a b) with the kimber.

smitty

11-03-07, 12:19 PM

It is easily proved through double blind testing that 'boutique' cables do absolutely nothing for performance, so much so that 'true believers' have been known to actually try to discredit double blind testing as prejudiced.

There are several problems with double blind testing (which have also been discussed at length in various threads on this forum and elsewhere) including, but not limited to, the fact the DBT's typically do not mirror the actual conditions under which people listen to music, watch video, etc. And it's only natural that people question the tests if they don't reveal the results that they believe reflect reality. That's some pretty bad "bootstrapping" to argue that one side of a scientific issue must be wrong because they question test results that don't favor their position. There's always an issue with tests dealing with human perception as to whether all the variables are being accounted for, etc.

As for putting my faith in the pros, I'm a "pro" in a certain area, and there are lots of idiot "pros" in my profession, lots who are just plain wrong about many things, and lots who make different judgments than I would or others would because of their paticular circumstances, motivations, etc. I'd rather make my own judgments in areas where I am competent to make a judgment -- and I am competent to make a judgment on what I see and hear. And if I don't see or hear a difference, I'll return the cable and use a $5 one from radio shack. IMO, trying and seeing for yourself (which practically costs nothing) makes more sense than relying on what some "pro" you don't know allegedly does (the source of what he does being double or triple hearsay) who may have different motivations than you do and who is operating in conditions you are not familiar with and that may not mirror your environment.

BTW, I was the biggest skeptic ever a few years back on this issue, and the archives may even contain previous posts by me in the audio forum taking the "skeptics" viewpoint. My personal opinion is that upgraded cables of various types may make a difference in some situations. I use some very inexpensive cables where I don't think an upgraded cable changes anything. But I also use an upgraded power cord in one of my audio systems, becuase it reduced substantially some sibilance in the system, which was grating to the point that I could not listen to the system for more than an hour at a time.

Anyway, why do some people care so much that someboy makes their own judgment on this issue and does what makes them happy? Are we really so paternalistic (and judgmental) that we have to "save" everybody from themselves (assuming arguendo the "skeptics" are 100% right)? :confused:

mblank

11-03-07, 12:52 PM

smitty

11-03-07, 02:50 PM

smitty - I doubt you are competent to judge what you see and hear, if "competent to judge" means being able to reproducibly hear or see differences between properly constructed cables in a blind (no less double-blind) setting.

Your arguments about blind and double-blind testing are simply specious; they attempt to do away with the only possibly reliable way of determining differences under controlled conditions.Well, you assume away the entire issue if you say the DBT's are infallible and they are the only evidence we can use to evaluate the issue. :rolleyes:

What you are doing, with a recommendation of expensive power cords, is far worse - it's paternalistic in the "do it because I say so" manner, rather than the "do it this way because" manner. It's also somewhat solipsistic, in that it implies that your subjective judgment should overwhelm the entire body of scientific reasoning.

But I'm not telling anyone to buy an upgraded power cord, nor am I stating that they must make a difference in someone else's setup, or that the upgraded cord s right for someone else. I've simply said that an upgraded cord worked for me in one particular application, and that, given that most cables can be purchased on retrun, people (i.e., the OP) should consider tyring one in their setup (if they are curious about the possible benefits) and make their own judgment based on what is right for them.

Contrast that to this position: "Power cables can't possibly make a difference in any setup and if you see a benefit in your setup and it makes you happy, you are imagining things, and therefore your happiness is based on a false premise and must be remedied. So you must not even try any such cable in your setup in the first place as we "skeptics" and the "pros" have determined in advance the right answer on this issue for you and everybody."

I think the former position is more reasonable, and much less paternalisic. :D

mblank

11-03-07, 03:12 PM

smitty -

You're just putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "infallible"; I would say, however, that they will provide the closest approximation to the truth.

Here's how I contrast the two statements:

Mine states a belief based on science and the experience of the vast majority of professionals who aim to achieve the highest quality reproduction of sound and video.

Yours represents a statement of faith based on subjective experience, despite what's shown by science and experience.

As long as the OP understands this, I'm comfortable that he'll make the best decision for him. However, for your statement to stand alone would, I think, be an injustice to the OP.

Marc

p.s. This is, in effect, the argument between evolution and creationism - one of science vs. faith, although the stakes here are trivial.

stanger89

11-03-07, 03:31 PM

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

smitty

11-03-07, 04:56 PM

p.s. This is, in effect, the argument between evolution and creationism - one of science vs. faith, although the stakes here are trivial.That argument is from page 8 of the "Upgraded Cables Don't Make A Difference Handbook." :D In any event, assuming the cable "skeptics" are the evolutionists, I don't think that does justice to the position, as the arguments that cables don't make a difference are much more formidable than the arugments in favor of evolution. :D

In any event, the discussion's been interesting (even though I always promise myself not to get involved in these things anymore). Take care. :)

owl1

11-04-07, 12:44 PM

A few years ago at CES nordost used Valhalla PC's on an switch to show the effects of different grades of Nordost cabling on a Plasma setup. Apparently it was quite apparent and obvious that they made a difference and since some of these PC's were being sold for thousands of dollars it was a real hit for them. Being a recovering audiophile I keep several PC's and power conditioners from various manufacturers around and found that certain combinations of cords as well as PC's work best with differing projectors. That this it is clearly visible to me is not a joke. I have no interest in promoting this practice. What I found in audio was that PC's made a difference, not necessarily better but just different. Some did provide major improvements but the only person you're trying to satisfy is yourself. If you don't want PC's to make a difference don't try them. If you are curious about it, there are vendors like the Cable Company who will loan you PC's out of their "library" to experiement with. To me the best PC's for video are the ones with the highest rejection of EMI and RF. Simple physics but I currently am using MIT PC with a filter network to good effect on my projector setup. I tried perhaps 4 or 5 in my closet's "collection" before settling on it. On my Ruby it provided a less noisy (grainy) yet vibrant picture with deep blacks and saturated colors. Of course, some projectors with well designed power supplies will be less sensitive to changes made on the "final four feet" so try it for yourself you might just learn something. Or not.

MikeSp

11-04-07, 01:12 PM

<SNIP>
To me the best PC's for video are the ones with the highest rejection of EMI and RF. Simple physics but I currently am using MIT PC with a filter network to good effect on my projector setup. I tried perhaps 4 or 5 in my closet's "collection" before settling on it. On my Ruby it provided a less noisy (grainy) yet vibrant picture with deep blacks and saturated colors. Of course, some projectors with well designed power supplies will be less sensitive to changes made on the "final four feet" so try it for yourself you might just learn something. Or not.

The EMI and RFI rejection makes perfect sense. Other than that, I wonder how physics would explain improvements providing that a hospital grade outlet were used with the high end PC's -- with many sources of degredation of power between the ending outlet and the entrance panel -- it is not possible in physics to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear:D

MikeSp

stanger89

11-04-07, 01:27 PM

To me the best PC's for video are the ones with the highest rejection of EMI and RF. Simple physics but I currently am using MIT PC with a filter network to good effect on my projector setup. I tried perhaps 4 or 5 in my closet's "collection" before settling on it. On my Ruby it provided a less noisy (grainy) yet vibrant picture with deep blacks and saturated colors.

Got a camera, since you've got the PJ and the cables and the difference is apparent, it should be easy to get a picture of the difference.

jiujitsu35

11-04-07, 02:40 PM

Got a camera, since you've got the PJ and the cables and the difference is apparent, it should be easy to get a picture of the difference.You are kidding right.There is no way that a pic is going to catch the improvements.Just look at all the pics that all of the avs people put out for enjoyment.Those pics never tell you the real deal.Quality of camera,transfer to computer and on and on.I shouldn't have to tell you this you know this already

stanger89

11-04-07, 02:55 PM

Same person, same camera, same settings, same projector, taken back to back, should be able to show things like "less noisy". It's when you get into different people taking shots with different auto metering of different projectors, on different screens that pictures are not worthwhile.

zamboniman

11-04-07, 03:23 PM

Anybody that thinks a super power cord makes any difference (assuming the original is of sufficient gauge as previously noted) doesn't know the first thing about electrical circuits and power design. If they did they would know that the first handful of circuits takes that 120AC signal and is converting it to DC for the circuits in the component.

The amount of regulation, filtering, ripple, rectification, etc.. are all very measurable and any difference in last 6 ft power cord would be easily lost. If anyone wants to know if there is a difference measure the power inside the device with a scope.. pre and post fancy cord. If the cord does make any difference then shame on the designer of the component being connected. The power supply circuit is then inadequate. For the hudreds and thousands of dollar equipment in question.. there is no question. The designer has allowed for all power conditions and the stock cord. If not I'd be getting my money back in a hurry.

I'd go as far to say that whatever power cabling is in the wall is of better quaility than the last 6' of stock or fancy cable.

mblank

11-04-07, 04:13 PM

jijitsu -

As stanger89 says, it's crazy to expect screenshots to provide accurate color, etc. But surely a significant difference, using the exact same setup except for the cords, would be visible, right? The poster said it wasn't subtle, after all...

zamboniman has it exactly right. If there are differences, they must be measurable, unless there is a further claim that human vision and/or hearing are more sensitive than measuring equipment (a claim that would be laughable).

Marc

owl1

11-06-07, 10:08 AM

Got a camera, since you've got the PJ and the cables and the difference is apparent, it should be easy to get a picture of the difference.

Here are some "after" shots: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=930143

Glimmie

11-06-07, 01:55 PM

Try one day an hdmi from mono price that runs for $35.00 for 35 ft and compare it to a kimber cable that cost around $300.00 on a screen 106 inches or bigger and tell me that you can't tell that the kimber has more focus,pop,better saturation of colors,more detail.That is the price you pay for perfection,don't get me wrong I was happy with the mono until I did the (a b) with the kimber.

HDMI is four parallel balanced transmission digital streams, R,G,B, CLOCK, or Y,RY,BY,CLOCK. Now based on the fact that the electrical signals represent codes for pixle values, how can a "better" cable "povide more focus, better pop, better saturation"?

It can't!

A poor cable will cause missing pixels and unreliable operation. However any data that does make the trip will be unaltered., A cable carrying a digital bit stream cannot alter the analog aspects for the signal the bit stream represents. It's not possible.

Now any electrical signal is analog. All the analog attributes such as capacitance, inductance, etc will degrade the bit stream. However that does not equate to poor "analog" image quality. It's usally a go or no go proposition.

JerryW

11-06-07, 10:58 PM

maddogmc

11-06-07, 11:10 PM

JerryW and Glimmie,

You guys just don't get it!

This is all about beliefs. Logic and science don't have any place here!

;):p:rolleyes:

jiujitsu35

11-07-07, 08:17 AM

HDMI is four parallel balanced transmission digital streams, R,G,B, CLOCK, or Y,RY,BY,CLOCK. Now based on the fact that the electrical signals represent codes for pixle values, how can a "better" cable "povide more focus, better pop, better saturation"?

It can't!

A poor cable will cause missing pixels and unreliable operation. However any data that does make the trip will be unaltered., A cable carrying a digital bit stream cannot alter the analog aspects for the signal the bit stream represents. It's not possible.

Now any electrical signal is analog. All the analog attributes such as capacitance, inductance, etc will degrade the bit stream. However that does not equate to poor "analog" image quality. It's usally a go or no go proposition.
If you are ever in the Miami area please let me know.Why in the world would I come on a thread that doesn't believe and tell you that there is a difference.The test that I do with different hdmi's are done with 3 to 4 guys and we all see the difference.Just try it one day with a wife or friend.Get a top of the line Wireworld or a Harmonic tech that is only $99.00 a meter and compare it to a normal in the box hdmi or even a mono price.I did the test with the mono prices best hdmi cable a 35 foot run against a Kimber and the Kimber looked better.Just so you know the Harmonic looks better than the kimber.I hope that we are all talking about testing on big screens 106 and up and not plasmas.I was just like you guys not a believer and now with my dedicated electrical l,dedicated ground rods,after market outlets,after market powercords and and after market hdmi.Remember it all starts in the electicity.I hope you do believe in clean electricity.

HogPilot

11-07-07, 08:52 AM

If you are ever in the Miami area please let me know.Why in the world would I come on a thread that doesn't believe and tell you that there is a difference.The test that I do with different hdmi's are done with 3 to 4 guys and we all see the difference.Just try it one day with a wife or friend.Get a top of the line Wireworld or a Harmonic tech that is only $99.00 a meter and compare it to a normal in the box hdmi or even a mono price.I did the test with the mono prices best hdmi cable a 35 foot run against a Kimber and the Kimber looked better.Just so you know the Harmonic looks better than the kimber.I hope that we are all talking about testing on big screens 106 and up and not plasmas.I was just like you guys not a believer and now with my dedicated electrical l,dedicated ground rods,after market outlets,after market powercords and and after market hdmi.Remember it all starts in the electicity.I hope you do believe in clean electricity.

This isn't analog - we're talking digital here, 1's and 0's. Within the scope of this discussion, you either get the correct picture at the other end or you don't. Flipping bits won't make the image less sharp or less saturated, it will simply create errors in the picture that will be glaringly obvious. Unless, of course, the cable is smart enough to know which bits to flip to create a less focused or less saturated image, which would be very impressive for a cable indeed!

R Harkness

11-07-07, 09:23 AM

There are several problems with double blind testing (which have also been discussed at length in various threads on this forum and elsewhere) including, but not limited to, the fact the DBT's typically do not mirror the actual conditions under which people listen to music, watch video, etc.

That has always been a specious argument against blind testing. Not only does it not hold up even on casual consideration, it goes directly against the rigorous evidence compiled by and about blind testing.

First, in blind testing you are merely listening carefully to determine audible differences. This is NO DIFFERENT than the type of concentration typically used by many audiophiles to determine differences when they are comparing different pieces of gear. I've been in the audiophile game for decades and virtually everyone audiophile I personally knew did "shoot-outs" between one piece of gear or another, to determine if they heard sonic differences or benefits. They listen for all those details that are supposed to change when you swap components - timbre changes, slight frequency emphasis/de-emphasis, slight changes in soundstage depth, slight changes in bass quality, slight changes in image focus etc. This is JUST the type of minutia audiophiles listen for intently.

And then, suddenly, when asked for just that type of concentration, the only variable being removed is the knowledge of which component is being used, one gets: "Whaaa...I can't do it. You're making me concentrate too hard looking for little differences! I just want to relax."

Sorry. No. When I did blind testing it essentially mimicked just the type of concentration I used during sighted testing. Only the blind testing would reveal whether I actually COULD hear a difference, or whether it had been due to expectation effect/bias etc. And it's so ironic that
the HUGE system-revealing differences espoused by audiophile writers, audiophiles, and audiophile marketers suddenly become so minute that it's too stressful to even detect them once you can't see the component.

Also, there is no reason blind testing can not be employed in a way that perfectly mimics even the "I just want to listen over weeks and absorb the vibe" stuff. You could set up a blind test in a home, that simply extends for
much longer periods, with the "switch" being thrown at the person's leisure.

But...all that is not really necessary anyway. Because research shows (and there is PLENTY of research concerning all manner of audio devices - not to mention all the blind testing done for audio codecs and compression schemes) that it is quicker switching between sources that bring out audible differences, vs longer times between switching sources. The idea that more precise, clinical-level testing for audible differences is LESS suited to hearing diferences goes exactly against the research. Clinical testing involves first establish under what conditions people are able to pick out subtle sonic differences. THEN you do tests under those conditions. Far from
making people less acute at hearing differences, people can become MORE ACCUTE listeners via the training associated with
clinical-level tests.

And it doesn't even have to be blind; I have programs myself used to train audio professionals, such as engineers, recordists, mixers, masterers, that train you to hear minute differences in audio codecs, compression etc. You get BETTER at discriminating minor sound differences as you concentrate in a way you don't typically concentrate on music when relaxing.

And btw, this:

T In any event, assuming the cable "skeptics" are the evolutionists, I don't think that does justice to the position, as the arguments that cables don't make a difference are much more formidable than the arugments in favor of evolution. :D

Your views on cables and arguments against blind testing, vs the evidence acquired by critical research, are not surprising in light of that comment.

R Harkness

11-07-07, 09:43 AM

BTW, for those who think that the purported visible differences rendered by
different video cables would be impossible to represent in screen shots, I disagree.

Carefully taken screen shots can capture an on-screen image in great detail.
I've done tons of them and compared them to my display. And in a screen shots comparison of the visible effects of video cables, the issue isn't whether your camera can capture the image with perfect color fidelity. The issue is whether it can capture ENOUGH about the image to show relative differences in color saturation, color shifts, sharpness, image detail, image smoothness, contrast etc - the areas of improvement touted by cable manufacturers.

I have done more screen shots of my plasma than any mentally healthy individual ought to. :) I know that one click up or down of any image control on my display - minute adjustments of the color control, contrast control, brightness etc...shows up in my screen shots. If the color is one click different from screen shot A vs screen shot B, you can see it when you compare two screen shots.

Given this, remember the magnitude of the claims of cable manufacturers
and many who tout visible differences. They tout things like greater color saturation, better black levels, better contrast, smoother image, more dimensionality, sharper image etc. These differences are purported to be so visible that people are to spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars to acquire those differences.

Surely if my camera can easily render the differences in the most minute adjustments of my display's picture controls, it could also pick up those glorious image quality changes purported for expensive video cables. Color saturation either changes or it does not. Contrast changes or it does not. Image detail, sharpness or smoothness changes or it does not. And today's digital cameras are easily sensitive enough to capture real and significant changes, should the subject of the shot change in any visibly appreciable way.

Having done just such a test, comparing 4 different cables from relatively inexpensive, to pro grade (but not unreasonably priced) Canare cables, to more expensive, to uber-expensive....the results were: no detectable differences. I even produced the shots for a blind video cable test for AVS members. The results were consistent with chance; no cable stood out statistically as looking better, once the results of a big poll were finished.

BTW, if anyone wants to look at those cable shots and try to see a difference, they are still up on my image web site:

http://www.pbase.com/chunkofunk/video_cable_comparison_screen_shots

The 4 component cables compared range from something like $40 up to $600 (as I remember it). The cables compared are: Ultra Link, XLO, Canare, Nordost. But their identities are hidden as simply "Cable A, B, C, D."

seanyuki

11-07-07, 10:04 AM

Anyone using "better" power cables (PS Audio Prelude for example?) for their projector, specifically a VW50 Pearl, and/or their Blu-ray player, specifically a PS3?

What cables have you switched to and are they worth it?

I am using NBS OMEGA EXTREME a/c power cords for my Sony 40' XBR2 and
Sony BDP-S1. The picture has more depth than using the standard power
cords.

Otto J

11-07-07, 01:04 PM

I have been a fan of after market power cords for more than ten years and I can tell you that they do make a difference.

No, you cannot tell me that. You can tell me that they do make a difference _to you_. If you want to tell me that it is an indisputable fact that they make a difference - prove it!

I'm not here to try to change any ones mind but to tell me that every hdmi and power cord look the same is just not correct.Try one day an hdmi from mono price that runs for $35.00 for 35 ft and compare it to a kimber cable that cost around $300.00 on a screen 106 inches or bigger and tell me that you can't tell that the kimber has more focus,pop,better saturation of colors,more detail..

Allright. I did that comparison (well, not with a kimber, but with several comparable cables). I can't tell that the _insert brand name here_ cable has more focus, pop, better saturation of colors, or more detail. You wanna know why? It's just not technically _possible_ for an HDMI or power cable to affect any of these issues. Anyone saying otherwise, simply don't know how digital video works.

Specifically, just to point something out that's easy to comprehend: If it has "better saturation of colors", I should be able to put up a SMPTE color bars pattern, and measure (or, indeed see) a difference in saturation. If not, then the "better saturation" simply isn't there. Provided, of course, that the standard cable is of a quality that allows the picture to get through without issues.

I do, however, sell my customers Audioquest cables, even though I don't believe it makes any difference to the PQ. Why? Because I know that they won't cause them troubles. Like I said, a cable can be so cheap that it's just a bad cable, an this can cause issues, if nothing else then in the long run. I've seen HDMI cables work just fine the first time you plug them in, and the third time you plug them in they simply break. This is a perfectly good reason to sell a quality cable. But a quality cable doesn't have to be overly expensive. I would be just as happy selling any other brand of fairly priced, quality cable. I just happen to have a good relationship with the Audioquest distributor, I like the feel of the cable, they're not overly heavy which can cause issues with the connectors, and I have good experience with the durability of them. These elements are important to me, because I like to keep my customers up and running, without issues.

I'm willing to believe, however, that a more stable power supply improves performance of, say, a projector. The problem is, I'm not willing to believe that changing the power chord to something expensive gives you more stable power supply. Shielding can give you benefits, so shielding the cable could be an issue. I happen to have shielded cables throughout my system where available - just in case, and I like the feel of a quality product. But you know what? They really weren't that expensive.

Glimmie

11-07-07, 02:42 PM

Even more importantly, IT'S ENCRYPTED!

That means the exact same bits MUST - NO IFS ANDS BUTS OR SILVER CABLES - come out one end that went in the other end. ANY difference, even just ONE BIT, will turn a perfect frame into pure noise.

Furthermore, the decryption process guarantees that there are no timing problems like "jitter" - its always buffered and reclocked.

Thanks! I forgot all about the HDCP. This nails it closed.

Glimmie

11-07-07, 04:16 PM

=jiujitsu35;12151848I was just like you guys not a believer and now with my dedicated electrical l,dedicated ground rods,after market outlets,after market powercords and and after market hdmi.Remember it all starts in the electicity.I hope you do believe in clean electricity.

Whoa! You live in Miami and have a dedicated ground rod for your AV system? Would that be a seperate ground rod apart from the ground rod installed at your electrical meter or panel?

You are sitting on a time bomb every time an electrical strom comes through and that happens a lot in Miami.

I'm not going to bother even explaining the danger. Someone else here can waste the time or just do a search as I have expalined this before along with others.

I will give you a hint why a seperate ground rod is pointless never mind a lightning fire hazard. There's a lot of highly sensitive electrical instruments on the Space Shuttle, submarines, even civilian aircraft, right?Where's the ground rod? And electrical ground and the Earth are not a hand in hand solution to ground problems. The Earth soil has nothing to do with it.

maddogmc

11-07-07, 06:51 PM

jiujitsu35

11-07-07, 08:05 PM

No, you cannot tell me that. You can tell me that they do make a difference _to you_. If you want to tell me that it is an indisputable fact that they make a difference - prove it!

Allright. I did that comparison (well, not with a kimber, but with several comparable cables). I can't tell that the _insert brand name here_ cable has more focus, pop, better saturation of colors, or more detail. You wanna know why? It's just not technically _possible_ for an HDMI or power cable to affect any of these issues. Anyone saying otherwise, simply don't know how digital video works.

Specifically, just to point something out that's easy to comprehend: If it has "better saturation of colors", I should be able to put up a SMPTE color bars pattern, and measure (or, indeed see) a difference in saturation. If not, then the "better saturation" simply isn't there. Provided, of course, that the standard cable is of a quality that allows the picture to get through without issues.

I do, however, sell my customers Audioquest cables, even though I don't believe it makes any difference to the PQ. Why? Because I know that they won't cause them troubles. Like I said, a cable can be so cheap that it's just a bad cable, an this can cause issues, if nothing else then in the long run. I've seen HDMI cables work just fine the first time you plug them in, and the third time you plug them in they simply break. This is a perfectly good reason to sell a quality cable. But a quality cable doesn't have to be overly expensive. I would be just as happy selling any other brand of fairly priced, quality cable. I just happen to have a good relationship with the Audioquest distributor, I like the feel of the cable, they're not overly heavy which can cause issues with the connectors, and I have good experience with the durability of them. These elements are important to me, because I like to keep my customers up and running, without issues.

I'm willing to believe, however, that a more stable power supply improves performance of, say, a projector. The problem is, I'm not willing to believe that changing the power chord to something expensive gives you more stable power supply. Shielding can give you benefits, so shielding the cable could be an issue. I happen to have shielded cables throughout my system where available - just in case, and I like the feel of a quality product. But you know what? They really weren't that expensive.I will not argue with you.I'm here to try to help people,I will just keep thinking that what I'm seeing is better.I just might be crazy and so are my other buddies.It just amazes me that you are going to tell me that cables that I tested didn't look better.I sure wish one day when you come down to Miami that you can give me a visit.I will open my home to you and let you sit down to show you every thing that I have been talking about in the last couple of post.Again I will go back to my crazy world

jiujitsu35

11-07-07, 08:17 PM

True story related to earth grounds...

I saw two earth ground systems less than 100' apart show a voltage swing > 4KV during a nearby lightning strike.

The point is : MULTIPLE GROUNDS IN ANY SITUATION WITH COMMON COMMUNICATIONS/ELECTRICAL WIRING PRESENTS A DANGEROUS SITUATION UNLESS PROPERLY BONDED BY A EXPERT ELECTRICIAN!!!!!!!!!!Just so you know the grounding rods are on the side of my house where the ac unit is.They are 8 feet apart and under ground.I don't want to hear that lowing your ohms on your ground doesn't make a difference,because if you do then I know you don't know anything about this hobby

Glimmie

11-07-07, 09:24 PM

Just so you know the grounding rods are on the side of my house where the ac unit is.They are 8 feet apart and under ground.I don't want to hear that lowing your ohms on your ground doesn't make a difference,because if you do then I know you don't know anything about this hobby

Well you see with some of us here it isn't just a hobby. It's career.

jiujitsu35

11-07-07, 11:37 PM

Well you see with some of us here it isn't just a hobby. It's career.Nice talking to all of you guys,I 'll go back into my hole and enjoy my little hobby.

Otto J

11-08-07, 03:16 AM

I will not argue with you.I'm here to try to help people,I will just keep thinking that what I'm seeing is better.I just might be crazy and so are my other buddies.It just amazes me that you are going to tell me that cables that I tested didn't look better.I sure wish one day when you come down to Miami that you can give me a visit.I will open my home to you and let you sit down to show you every thing that I have been talking about in the last couple of post.Again I will go back to my crazy world

I'm sorry that this discussion seem too heated for you to keep on. However, I'm here to help people too, and (mostly) to gain knowledge myself. I don't gain customers from posting on an american forum...

What I'm saying is: I've tested cables just as well as you have. I've tested with both real-life material and test patterns, and when I conducted the experiment, with material I know well, I can't find a difference. Why is my experience worth less than yours? OP asked for experiences, and my experience is that there's no difference, and I can tell you exactly why (it simply isn't technically possible, as others have explained above). You want to tell me there is a difference, even though you can't explain why, and the OP should take your word for it, better than mine, even though I have an explanation and you don't? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not telling you that you didn't see a difference. I'm telling you that to my knowledge the difference you're claiming to see, simply isn't possible. Hence, to believe your claim, I would like some information about how this difference is possible. Not just "take a look for yourself" - I already did that. You're the one claiming that there definately is a difference, you even pointed out the exact differences you saw. I'd like to recreate these differences using test patterns, because then I can tell you exactly why these differences exist. That should help your argument, so this would only be an advantage to you, provided that you're right. So, tell me, if you see an indisputable difference in color saturation, why can't I see this difference using a SMPTE color bars test pattern? A pattern like this is created to _exxagurate_ such differences, so please don't tell me the difference only shows up with real life material.

I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm just saying that your mind decieves you. I would also like to keep this debate on a reasonable level, I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and I won't tell you that just because I make a living of this, my word is worth more than yours. Pulling rank isn't an argument. Sadly, I live too far away to pay you a visit, although I think that could have been very nice.

jiujitsu35

11-08-07, 08:51 AM

I'm sorry that this discussion seem too heated for you to keep on. However, I'm here to help people too, and (mostly) to gain knowledge myself. I don't gain customers from posting on an american forum...

What I'm saying is: I've tested cables just as well as you have. I've tested with both real-life material and test patterns, and when I conducted the experiment, with material I know well, I can't find a difference. Why is my experience worth less than yours? OP asked for experiences, and my experience is that there's no difference, and I can tell you exactly why (it simply isn't technically possible, as others have explained above). You want to tell me there is a difference, even though you can't explain why, and the OP should take your word for it, better than mine, even though I have an explanation and you don't? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not telling you that you didn't see a difference. I'm telling you that to my knowledge the difference you're claiming to see, simply isn't possible. Hence, to believe your claim, I would like some information about how this difference is possible. Not just "take a look for yourself" - I already did that. You're the one claiming that there definately is a difference, you even pointed out the exact differences you saw. I'd like to recreate these differences using test patterns, because then I can tell you exactly why these differences exist. That should help your argument, so this would only be an advantage to you, provided that you're right. So, tell me, if you see an indisputable difference in color saturation, why can't I see this difference using a SMPTE color bars test pattern? A pattern like this is created to _exxagurate_ such differences, so please don't tell me the difference only shows up with real life material.

I'm not saying you're crazy, I'm just saying that your mind decieves you. I would also like to keep this debate on a reasonable level, I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and I won't tell you that just because I make a living of this, my word is worth more than yours. Pulling rank isn't an argument. Sadly, I live too far away to pay you a visit, although I think that could have been very nice.

Thanks for putting it in kind words.I really don't have scientific proof.I'm just making judgements with my eyes and bringing some friends that are not really into high end audio and video.I also have my four hardcore friends.What's funny is that at times the difference is not subtle.Just like when I do ab's with different bluray players or dvd players.I hope that we can be on the same page when talking about sources like bluray ,dvd players,projectors.It's a little tough on me because if I ever told you that all projectors look the same you would tell me I'm crazy.Thanks again for hearing me out and if you ever need to talk about it we can chat one day

scaesare

11-08-07, 09:11 AM

Just so you know the grounding rods are on the side of my house where the ac unit is.They are 8 feet apart and under ground.I don't want to hear that lowing your ohms on your ground doesn't make a difference,because if you do then I know you don't know anything about this hobby

"Lowering your ohms"?

How about "Heightening your penitential"?

Gary Lightfoot

11-08-07, 01:29 PM

I've found placebo plays a big part in what we expect to see or hear. I remember some years ago reading about a DVD players performance in a magazine, and when a friend brought the DVD player over for me to see it on my projector, I thought I could see an over brown image in places, just like the article suggested. However, on re-reading the article I realised I had mis-read it, as it had actually said the colours were 'over blown'. The PJ was calibrated to D65, so the 'over brown' that I thought was there was purely in my mind because that's what I been lead to believe would be there.

Another time I bought some new rear speakers and placed them in the same place my old rear speakers were. I payed a movie and thought 'wow, I'm hearing sounds I never even knew were there!'. However, when I put the old speakers back, those very same sounds were still being reproduced in exactly the same way, so again, I was hearing what I expected to hear - a better speaker.

Mr Poindexter did a test on here a few years back where something like 9 audiophiles were subjected to an ABX test between some mains flex and high end speaker cable (a tad under $2000 IIRC). The results were around 48% correct, which is the same as tossing a coin. One of the testers said that in one of the tests the differences were like 'night and day'. When the results came back he discovered he'd chosen the mains flex as the better cable.

But if you think you can see or hear something with a new cable, then the outlay has been worth while for you.

Gary

Otto J

11-08-07, 01:37 PM

Thanks for putting it in kind words.I really don't have scientific proof.I'm just making judgements with my eyes and bringing some friends that are not really into high end audio and video.I also have my four hardcore friends.What's funny is that at times the difference is not subtle.

I'm actually not telling you to give me scientific proof. All I'm asking you is to point out to me _exactly_ what difference you experience, and _exactly_ where you experience it. i.e. "POTC 1 at 12 minutes 47 seconds, look at the sleeve of his shirt, it is much more saturated with cable A than with cable B". This should be possible for anyone, regardless of technical knowledge. If the difference is "not subtle", it should be possible to point out specific changes in this way. If the difference is in "overall feel of the image", I'm simply not going to believe you. Just like you're going to believe your own eyes in seeing a difference, no matter how many people tell you that you're wrong, I have the right to believe MY eyes in not seeing a difference, regardless of how many other people see a difference, at least until someone can actually point out the difference.

And yes, we don't have to get unfriendly just because we disagree.

Otto J

11-08-07, 01:54 PM

I've found placebo plays a big part in what we expect to see or hear. I remember some years ago reading about a DVD players performance in a magazine, and when a friend brought the DVD player over for me to see it on my projector, I thought I could see an over brown image in places, just like the article suggested. However, on re-reading the article I realised I had mis-read it, as it had actually said the colours were 'over blown'. The PJ was calibrated to D65, so the 'over brown' that I thought was there was purely in my mind because that's what I been lead to believe would be there.

I've actually experienced quite clear differences in an A/B comparison, that turned out to be listening to the exact same setup twice! (by accident, someone forgot to change the cables...). This is one of the most clear examples of placebo I've ever experienced. I'm not saying that _any_ difference should be explained by placebo, I'm just saying that a fair amount of reasoning might be a good thing, when one is evaluating setups. If you experience a difference, why not try to point out what causes the difference, isolate it and understand it better, and then take better advantage of this particular issue. For instance, if you're able to isolate that in your setup solid-core cables sound better, you don't have to waste your time listening to a bunch of multi-core cables. You can't just try out every single cable on the market, to find that magic cable that works perfectly in just your system. It would make a lot more sense to try to understand the differences better, because then you would be better at singleing out the best products.

Unless, of course, the search itself is what you're looking for, which is actually quite often the case. It's "boring" to decide that cables don't make a difference, because then you don't get to listen for the difference!

It's kinda like Joey on Friends, eating Ice Cream (quote from memory):
"Ow, Ice Cream headache"
"Why don't you eat the ice cream slower then?"
"Because then I wouldn't get ice cream headache!! Ow, ow"

jiujitsu35

11-08-07, 04:49 PM

I'm actually not telling you to give me scientific proof. All I'm asking you is to point out to me _exactly_ what difference you experience, and _exactly_ where you experience it. i.e. "POTC 1 at 12 minutes 47 seconds, look at the sleeve of his shirt, it is much more saturated with cable A than with cable B". This should be possible for anyone, regardless of technical knowledge. If the difference is "not subtle", it should be possible to point out specific changes in this way. If the difference is in "overall feel of the image", I'm simply not going to believe you. Just like you're going to believe your own eyes in seeing a difference, no matter how many people tell you that you're wrong, I have the right to believe MY eyes in not seeing a difference, regardless of how many other people see a difference, at least until someone can actually point out the difference.

And yes, we don't have to get unfriendly just because we disagree.

The best way to explain is less focus.One cable makes the other look a little out of focus.The whole room is taking notice.I would not call it placebo and we don't go in comparing wanting to spend more money.I'm starting to think that most of you guys don't have the resolution to be able to tell or your using plasmas or small tv's.Just so you know I'm running a RS-1 1080p,Vutec silverstar screen 106in,Lumagen Radiance,Toshiba hd,sony bluray all lines dedicated including my projector plus a dedicated ground.Using what I have mono price 22 awg hdmi from my projector to my Radiance and when my friend brings his Kimber there is a difference, and actually kimbers 1 meter looks worse than wireworlds top hdmi.Come on down buddy let me show you the light.I sure remember when I used to fight it.

jiujitsu35

11-08-07, 04:55 PM

Otto J

11-08-07, 05:36 PM

Can someone answer me about the different quality movies I'm seeing.I hope the difference from a great looking bluray and a poor looking bluray is not a placebo effect.Please tell me that what I'm really seeing is all the movies that are bluray or hd look the same.Swear that I see some poor looking movies but now I'm really starting to second guess myself

Noone said that there isn't difference in PQ from different movies, or different PJ's. But if you're trying to tell me that the difference in cables are anything like the difference from a good blu-ray to a poor blu-ray, we're further from each other than I thought.

stanger89

11-08-07, 05:44 PM

The best way to explain is less focus.One cable makes the other look a little out of focus.The whole room is taking notice.I would not call it placebo and we don't go in comparing wanting to spend more money.

Sorry but that type of difference is just not possible with a digital connection like HDMI. Something like that would be possible with an analog connection like VGA or Component, where the cables (if extremely poor quality or very long) can cause high frequency filtering.

However it doesn't work that way, the signal either gets there, and gets interpreted correctly, or it doesn't. And when it doesn't you get very obvious things like:
No Picture
Sparkles

Not to mention that if it's encrypted (HDCP) if the signal doesn't make it across the cable quite right, there's no way to decrypt it, the data is destroyed.

That's one of the biggest benefits of digital transmissions, it's very robust in that it can't be "changed a little". A cable can't low-pass-filter a digital signal and "change the picture" without destroying the data and thus the picture.

You've used OTA HD broadcasts right? The picture quality doesn't change based on the signal strength right? 80%, 90%, the quality doesn't change, the picture quality is alwasy the same, until...

Until you reach the point where the receiver can no longer correctly interpret the signal, and what happens then? The picture goes all blocky, it breaks up, it goes away entirely.

HDMI works the same way, except at the pixel level rather than frame/packet level.

Does the quality of the cable between your PC and the internet make the text on the AVS website any clearer, more vibrant, more saturated? Does the quality of the USB cable between the mouse and the PC make the mouse any more accurate?

I'm starting to think that most of you guys don't have the resolution to be able to tell or your using plasmas or small tv's.

Ah, the classic fallback: "If you don't see it, your equipment must not be good enough". :rolleyes:

Just so you know I'm running a RS-1 1080p,Vutec silverstar screen 106in,Lumagen Radiance,Toshiba hd,sony bluray all lines dedicated including my projector plus a dedicated ground.Using what I have mono price 22 awg hdmi from my projector to my Radiance and when my friend brings his Kimber there is a difference, and actually kimbers 1 meter looks worse than wireworlds top hdmi.Come on down buddy let me show you the light.I sure remember when I used to fight it.

Again, screenshots, taken with the same camera, same parameters (ISO, Aperture, shutter), same physical location relative to the screen, without changing the focus (you'll need a good DSLR), taken back to back with the two cables would most certainly show such differences as you describe.

Can someone answer me about the different quality movies I'm seeing.I hope the difference from a great looking bluray and a poor looking bluray is not a placebo effect.Please tell me that what I'm really seeing is all the movies that are bluray or hd look the same.Swear that I see some poor looking movies but now I'm really starting to second guess myself

I really hope you're kidding, of course different movies, shot with different, cameras, of different content, with different film, different camera operators, run through different mastering and different encoding can result in different end quality.

But taking a poor quality BD and running it through a wireworlds HDMI cable won't make it look any better than when you run it through a monoprice cable. Likewise, running a high quality BD through a monoprice cable won't look any worse than through a wireworlds cable.

Otto J

11-08-07, 06:09 PM

The best way to explain is less focus.One cable makes the other look a little out of focus.The whole room is taking notice.I would not call it placebo and we don't go in comparing wanting to spend more money.

Great. I have several test patterns to exxagurate differences in focus. If I put up these patterns, the difference should be easily noticable. Again, could you point me to a specific scene in a specific movie, where you see a difference in focus? (I'd much rather you stuck with color saturation, because that would be much easier to relate to without being in the same room).

I'm starting to think that most of you guys don't have the resolution to be able to tell or your using plasmas or small tv's.Just so you know I'm running a RS-1 1080p,Vutec silverstar screen 106in,Lumagen Radiance,Toshiba hd,sony bluray all lines dedicated including my projector plus a dedicated ground.

I'd hate for this to be a pissing contest, but let me just tell you that in that case, your setup is the one limiting the ability to tell differences in source material or equipment, not the ones I've been using. I don't have one specific setup, I change gear all the time, but the RS-1 is not the sharpest or most detailed PJ outthere (it's one of the ones I've been using), although it's a good PJ in it's own right. A Silverstar screen, like it or not, also puts it's own fingerprint on the image, which by nature will cloud over any differences by other parts of the chain. I'm not saying that I use ultra high-end gear or anything, just that the gear I've used is no less likely to show the differences than your setup. Think Sim2 HT3000, Sim2 D80, Samsung 710, indeed the RS1, that kind of stuff. Screens from Stewart, Screen research and a couple of other brands probably not known in the US. Pioneer plasmas. In some of these setups, small changes like the difference between AVC and VC-1, was _easily_ noticable. In others, you couldn't tell the difference. So, please, you can disagree with me all you like, but don't tell me that the hardware I play with isn't good enough to show a difference of a cable, if there is any.

Your next move is to tell me that in that case, I don't have the skills to see the difference. Well, again, I don't want to pull rank or make it a pissing contest, but I actually do this for a living. I would even be thrilled to see even the tiniest difference in HDMI cables, because selling expensive cables is a great way to make more money. I'll even admit that if a customer asks for an expensive version of the cable I'm showing him, I don't tell him that I don't think there is a difference. I'll take his money if he's that desperate to part with it, and most of the time he'll be happier that way.

Once again, if you can see a difference in real-life material, I can see the difference in test patterns if it's actually there. I have test patterns that will prove to you that your projector is worse at resolving the full 1080P resolution accurately than some 1080P DLP's, to the point that it looks like two different test patterns being shown. If you're saying the RS1 is good enough to show differences in cables, then why can't I spot _any_ difference in detail, using the very same test patterns that _easily_ points out the difference between two _very_ good projectors?

Come on down buddy let me show you the light.

I'd like to, but I'm not going to get on a plane for 16 hours, just to prove a point... ;-)

Perhaps I should tell you that I'm actually a convert myself. I _have_ seen the light. I've been into testing cables for quite some years, mostly audio. However, I "saw the light" when I realized just how far placebo can take your impression of what actually hits your ear or eye. So, I've tried to do what I can to take placebo out of the equation: Recreate differences that I experience by watching test patterns. Recreate a listening experience in a blind setup. Sometimes I can recreate the experience, sometimes I cannot. Power cables and HDMI cables are part of the group where I may experience a difference when changing the cables, but as soon as I go into the specifics of it, it turns out that the difference wasn't there. In other words: I believe that you and your buddies see a difference. I just don't believe that the difference is actually there. And if you want me to believe, show me how to see it. It shouldn't be that hard, if the differences are as noticable as you say they are.

jiujitsu35

11-08-07, 08:38 PM

Great. I have several test patterns to exxagurate differences in focus. If I put up these patterns, the difference should be easily noticable. Again, could you point me to a specific scene in a specific movie, where you see a difference in focus? (I'd much rather you stuck with color saturation, because that would be much easier to relate to without being in the same room).

I'd hate for this to be a pissing contest, but let me just tell you that in that case, your setup is the one limiting the ability to tell differences in source material or equipment, not the ones I've been using. I don't have one specific setup, I change gear all the time, but the RS-1 is not the sharpest or most detailed PJ outthere (it's one of the ones I've been using), although it's a good PJ in it's own right. A Silverstar screen, like it or not, also puts it's own fingerprint on the image, which by nature will cloud over any differences by other parts of the chain. I'm not saying that I use ultra high-end gear or anything, just that the gear I've used is no less likely to show the differences than your setup. Think Sim2 HT3000, Sim2 D80, Samsung 710, indeed the RS1, that kind of stuff. Screens from Stewart, Screen research and a couple of other brands probably not known in the US. Pioneer plasmas. In some of these setups, small changes like the difference between AVC and VC-1, was _easily_ noticable. In others, you couldn't tell the difference. So, please, you can disagree with me all you like, but don't tell me that the hardware I play with isn't good enough to show a difference of a cable, if there is any.

Your next move is to tell me that in that case, I don't have the skills to see the difference. Well, again, I don't want to pull rank or make it a pissing contest, but I actually do this for a living. I would even be thrilled to see even the tiniest difference in HDMI cables, because selling expensive cables is a great way to make more money. I'll even admit that if a customer asks for an expensive version of the cable I'm showing him, I don't tell him that I don't think there is a difference. I'll take his money if he's that desperate to part with it, and most of the time he'll be happier that way.

Once again, if you can see a difference in real-life material, I can see the difference in test patterns if it's actually there. I have test patterns that will prove to you that your projector is worse at resolving the full 1080P resolution accurately than some 1080P DLP's, to the point that it looks like two different test patterns being shown. If you're saying the RS1 is good enough to show differences in cables, then why can't I spot _any_ difference in detail, using the very same test patterns that _easily_ points out the difference between two _very_ good projectors?

I'd like to, but I'm not going to get on a plane for 16 hours, just to prove a point... ;-)

Perhaps I should tell you that I'm actually a convert myself. I _have_ seen the light. I've been into testing cables for quite some years, mostly audio. However, I "saw the light" when I realized just how far placebo can take your impression of what actually hits your ear or eye. So, I've tried to do what I can to take placebo out of the equation: Recreate differences that I experience by watching test patterns. Recreate a listening experience in a blind setup. Sometimes I can recreate the experience, sometimes I cannot. Power cables and HDMI cables are part of the group where I may experience a difference when changing the cables, but as soon as I go into the specifics of it, it turns out that the difference wasn't there. In other words: I believe that you and your buddies see a difference. I just don't believe that the difference is actually there. And if you want me to believe, show me how to see it. It shouldn't be that hard, if the differences are as noticable as you say they are.
I'm fefinitely not claiming to have the best resolving picture.I guess that I was surprised with everyones response.I will just leave it there and each one can just believe what they want.This is all in fun and when someone tries to change someones mind like I have been trying it's a no win situation.Guys lets just all enjoy what we got.Maybe with some trust I will send one of you guys a 1 meter brand name hdmi and a 1 meter free with hd from direct tv hdmi.We might be able to have some fun with that.

Noah

11-08-07, 09:23 PM

Hi folks,

Not trying to take the crazy train off the rails, Osbourne style, but ferrite beads were mentioned earlier in this thread. I tend to use them pretty blindly on power cords of sources and displays, but I've never really been able to see an A/B difference.

Can anybody clue me in on the theory and methodology behind them? What resulting differences should I be looking for, if any?

mblank

11-09-07, 02:02 AM

Ferrite beads actually improve the acting in most films I see, though the writing often suffers as a result. YMMV.

Marc

Tony Huang

11-09-07, 11:34 AM

I am using NBS OMEGA EXTREME a/c power cords for my Sony 40' XBR2 and
Sony BDP-S1. The picture has more depth than using the standard power
cords.

Thanks!

Noah

11-09-07, 12:39 PM

Ferrite beads actually improve the acting in most films I see, though the writing often suffers as a result. YMMV.

MarcInteresting. If I put them on all my gear, will it have any affect on the writers' strike?

Also, when Robin Williams wears them on his toes during filming, how many times will the word "heartwarming" be used in the resulting trailer?

GGA

11-09-07, 02:02 PM

HDMI is four parallel balanced transmission digital streams, R,G,B, CLOCK, or Y,RY,BY,CLOCK. Now based on the fact that the electrical signals represent codes for pixle values, how can a "better" cable "povide more focus, better pop, better saturation"?

It can't!

A poor cable will cause missing pixels and unreliable operation. However any data that does make the trip will be unaltered., A cable carrying a digital bit stream cannot alter the analog aspects for the signal the bit stream represents. It's not possible.

Now any electrical signal is analog. All the analog attributes such as capacitance, inductance, etc will degrade the bit stream. However that does not equate to poor "analog" image quality. It's usally a go or no go proposition.

I did not realize HDMI carried a balanced video signal and I am bit confused about it.

I understand a balanced audio analog signal can be better because of the noise cancelling which could directly affect an analog signal.

I'm guessing a balanced digital audio signal gets the same benefit by not transmitting the common mode noise into the analog section.

But I'm not sure why a digital video signal that goes to a digital projector should be balanced. As I understand it, the pixel will either be perfect or it won't be there at all.

Also do SDI and HD-SDI have balanced video signals?

Glimmie

11-09-07, 04:33 PM

I did not realize HDMI carried a balanced video signal and I am bit confused about it.

I understand a balanced audio analog signal can be better because of the noise cancelling which could directly affect an analog signal.

I'm guessing a balanced digital audio signal gets the same benefit by not transmitting the common mode noise into the analog section.

But I'm not sure why a digital video signal that goes to a digital projector should be balanced. As I understand it, the pixel will either be perfect or it won't be there at all.

Also do SDI and HD-SDI have balanced video signals?

Yes HDMI and DVI use balanced pairs for the three video signals and the clock. The same reason you mention - noise immunity and commen mode rejection. Even though the image is carried by the bi-level bitstream values, the bit stream is still an analog electrical signal subject to all the problems of analog voltage transmission over copper wire. It's just that the end effect of these analog deficiencies manafest themselves differently. Rather than bandwidth loss and noise you get pixel dropouts or in the case if an encrypted signal, total loss of the image.

CAT5 10/100 base Ethernet is also a balanced pair topology. Two pairs are used one for transmit and one for receive.

USB is also a balanced pair system with transmit and receive sharing the single pair much like RS485. So is 1394 or Firewire.

RS422 and RS485 though rare in consumer settings are used extensivily in industry in place of RS232. Unbalanced RS232 by the book and send only 9600 baud 50 feet reliably. Balanced RS422 can send 38400 baud over 4000 feet!

SDI and HDSDI are unbalanced but require precision 75ohm coax cable. These are treated like RF signals. AES-3 is also distributed via 75ohm coax. AES-1992 is 110ohm balanced pair. SPDIF is electrically the same as AES-3. The difference between consumer SPDIF PCM and AES-3 are minor ancillary data uses that for the most part are ignored by equipment.

There is (was) a balanced analog video standard that used 124ohm triax cable. This was used almost exclusivily by the telephone company (old AT&T) to send broadcast video many miles. This is largly obsolete to the best of my knowledge replaced by DS3 digital lines.