Super high end 100 ft HDMI

I have a application where I need a 100 foot run for HDMI..

I would prefer copper as it has no electronics that might get obsoleted by some HDMI version change.

What is the very best solution for a 100ft run ? Most super high end copper HDMI cables are a max lenght of 60 feet or so.

If a fiber solution is used can it be truly future compatible ? If so who would you recommend for this solution ?

Indeed... good advice.. I already have dual 3 inch conduits.. Indeed I have done this before

BUT.. Its still a investment in technology or cable and I want the solution to be:

1. Low in jitter and signal degradation. This is actually my primary focus. While I have not seen that much difference in video quality with different HDMI cable, these is NO doubt that a difference exists in doing audio over HDMI so I know I want to keep quality high for the cable. I also dont like the idea of using anything that will degrade the signal and/or add jitter.

2. I dont want to have a client rebuy a expensive cable solution with every new advance in HDMI.. I would prefer a really high end solution from a manufacturer that actually understands HDMI jitter exists and tries to keep it low.

So... If price was no object for this, what product is best ? Anuone with experence in this at all ?

It does not appear any optical products are currently even HDMI 1.4

Gefen says clearly in support forums they are not 1.4 compliant.

Of course copper would be I assume..

Not that I need 1.4 now of course, but this is kinda my point that with each new version of HDMI it seems you need new technology if you use anything but a copper wire..

That's a active solution. It uses amplifiers.

Playing with the HDMI signal in a analog domain to boost signal might introduce jitter and artifacts. I dont know this, but it might have disadvantages. Obviously using active electronics would be signal dependent and might be a issue. No where in the specs on their site does it say its HDMI 1.4 compatible either.

Im not opposed to a active solution. But it would be good to know its better then a optical solution.

I would think a quick conversion to optical and then a long run of 4 optical cables would introduce less issues then a long run of analog copper. Single fiber solution that multiplex the digital signals of HDMI into 1 signal makes me nervous as the multiplexing would seem to introduce timing issues and jitter.

Again. I am just thinking aloud with no actual experence doing A/B with any of these solutions, so its hard for me to know what is the best solution.

good, these guys are pretty reputable and know what they are doing. They know what jitter means and it does say 1.4 ready...

This is good... So active baluns.. Hook those up with some Cat 6 E and I could see that working... Also fairly inexpensive.

BUT....

Is optical less jittery ?

I guess the question is Optical VS Baluns.. Maybe I will email lumagen and ask them. I would be interested to see if they have some valid points against optical...

Maybe the same question to Gefen...

[edit] I have emailed the question to Lumagen and Gefen and given them a link to this thread..

Have you tried listening to various HDMI cables ? To make it easy get a cheap really long one VS a high quality super short one.. For whatever reason, they sound different. I am using super high end gear for reproduction, but I would think its even audible with a more normal system too. With super high end gear, its a very noticeable difference. I notice from your link that you dont believe that cables can make any difference, well in some applications your right, but in other applications they do make a difference. Jitter is a very real technical spec and a cable can contribute to it and this can be audible. So science backs up that using better cables can reduce jitter.

Its not recovery of the audio that seems to be the issue, its the jitter of the recovered audio apparently. I am no expert on this subject tho. I do know I can clearly hear a difference tho.

Video is another matter. Even tho I am using ultra high end gear I have yet to see a difference in picture. Im very aware of picture quality.

HD-SDI also seems to have no picture quality differences with different cables or lengths. I have not listened to the audio from HD-SDI much in a high quality system. This doesn't get used much in my clients home systems, however I do have a client with a D5 machine. I never considered that the audio might sound better with different HD-SDI cables. I use a Teranex for upconversion and in HD applications to do 3:2 removal and post processing like grain removal and dirt and scratch removal for bluray so i dont use HD-SDI for sound transport. I like Belden 7732 for 3G-SDI runs.


Hmmm... That is the question of course. But there are many types of optical extenders. The ones based on multiplexing into one fiber would clearly have more jitter. Im talking about the ones based on 4 optical cables. Also a active balaun based, dual cat 6 system rather then just a copper run.

I am tempted to think a active balaun based system might be the way to go. But a quad optical system might be good too. I have heard privately from a designer of HDMI based gear that quad optical is the best solution for a 100 foot run.

This seems to be a pretty advanced optical system. The issue I have is that they dont mention jitter specs and they say its only HDMI 1.3... I dont see any optical system that says its 1.4 compliant. Not that I need 1.4 of course.

http://purelinkav.com/products/hdmi-...cable-system1/

They do have eye pattern pics of copper vs optical for 33 foot runs..

Glimmie, I am not going to get into a long technical drawn out debate over the merits of technical specs vs audible/visual differences you cant measure. I agree with you that yes, there are companies with little if any technical merit selling cables like snake oil. However there are also companies who actually use Belden R&D and Belden manufacturing to make cables. There are cables that make a difference. Besides,, the conversation is off topic and is best suited to a separate thread. Honestly I dont have the time to debate this 20 year old battle.


And the audio stream jitter might be more perceptible then any video jitter.


Yes but again the perception of the audio jitter may be far more noticeable then the video jitter.


with the file downloaded clearly the cable jitter no longer exists. However if the cable introduces some packet loss and retransmission, and this does happen for sure, then on a streamed audio feed with a D/A process with little if any buffer then obviously you would hear the difference.


Its not about each decrypted packet of data, its about how evenly the stream of packets comes thru and gets decoded. How much stop/start. How much jitter in the decoding of the whole stream, decrypted and all..

You do have a interesting point I had not considered. Does HDCP have better/worse sound then non-HDCP... Interesting thought... I would have to go back to the standard and read up on how it was encapsulated and transported. I assume the same way normal audio is. So it should sound the same, but still worth a listen for fun. Of course I would need non-hdcp and hdcp content that was from the same source... hahaha.. good luck on that one i suppose..


So you would prefer to serialize the data stream and demux it at the other end.. Hmmm... I can see how that would be good. I do like transporting packets using HD-SDI vs HDMI.. Yes I see your point here. As long as mux/demux was done well.... Hmm.... Good point... My bad... My thoughts were more about bandwidth of putting that much into one pipe - even a fiber pipe..


You know,,,, i took some of the first bulk 1694A Belden shipped long ago. Ive pulled more then I could even count and ive done it all in residential homes. It used to be my standard for 292M work in homes. But now with 3G-SDI and SMPTE 424M here, 1694A is not good enough. Anyone doing broadcast or post work should be installing 1794A now. http://www.belden.com/pdfs/pressrel/041210pr.pdf
http://www.belden.com/techdatas/metric/1794A.pdf This is shipping.. Ive been through some already.

You should talk to your company and start using 1794A.


As I said earlier in this thread. HD-SDI ( 292M ) seems pretty immune to jitter effects.. I have not been able to see any differences in long or short runs of any kind of HD-SDI cables.

besides you use files to make bluray master discs not live feeds over 1694A.

But your point is well made. HD-SDI 292M is a great format very immune to about everything until you get to sparkle..

-------

The systems I work with are better then most post houses in the burbank / hollywood area as I have spent time in them. I have 2 clients who do post work. They believe what I do, that some digital cables do matter even if you cant explain why in technical terms. It does seem its the audio digital cables. Sorry its impossible to change my mind on this subject because I have done countless direct A/B's and its always the same. There are differences that cant be explained by simple technical measurements. As a engineer and SMPTE/AES/SID member I do understand the technical aspects of cable and the signals on them. However I dont use test equipment to hear and I can actually hear differences that I cant measure. I believe there are things we just dont know how to measure that make for differences.

Also and importantly to your discussion, its reproduction where jitter matters. Post gear all reclocks, stores, buffers and normally does not deal in real time. Any jitter is resolved along the way by things like hard drive storage, tape or other things that completly remove any previous jitter effects. Its live reproduction where jitter matters.

Lets just agree to disagree on this subject and lets return to on topic discussion.
__________________________________________________

I have heard from a few people on my debate on this subject via email today and it appears I am leaning towards a active balaun solution rather then a optical one. The reason is that it appears that the optical solutions seem to be unstable and a bit buggey. BUT I have not heard from my friends at DTRO-Vision yet. So we shall see..

This is fun because I am learning things... For example...

A hdmi transmitter will put some "pre-EQ" on the signal so a source device will have a set length of cable in mind and doing a really short cable is not a good idea as then the signal is too hot by the time it reaches the receiver and cause issues. So you actually want to match up a length or EQ on a cable setup so the EQ's work out correctly and the levels are good.

I would have thought that a super short run would be the less jittery solution and the best way to go, but that turns out not to be true..

I still have a few more people to hear from on this issue.

Gefen by the way recommend a active balaun solution over a fiber solution for a 100 foot run.

You know I have not even read the HDMI 1.4 spec. I should...

Please not in this thread. Its off topic. There must be a million threads just like it here on the forum anyway. The measurements only people end up using 18 gauge lamp cord as speaker wire and claim its perfect while the other camp uses $5000/ft power cords. The 2 camps point at each other and claim lunacy.

This is a ages old battle that cannot be won and honestly should not be taken up, all it does is waste time and energy.

The only way I have found to address it is to take a measurements-are-all-that-matter person and put them in front of a $500,000 in gear and start swapping out cables. DIGITAL CABLES. When huge differences are heard its fun to watch them try and explain what just happened.. They never admit they might have been wrong, what happens is they settle into "there must be some thing else making the difference - it cant be just the cables".. Denial sets in.

Even faced with direct irrefutable evidence a measurement person will STILL refuse to accept what their ears have just told them. But privately they end up buying better cables when no one is looking, heheheh...

I on the other hand am always open to a direct A/B listening test no matter how ludicrous something might appear. I always keep a open mind. I dont let my engineering background blind me. I FIRMLY BELIEVE that our current understanding of any science field is a ever evolving endeavor and science cannot explain everything perfectly.

Cables do matter. Sometimes profoundly. Many times in ways we cant measure with our current technical measurements. Indeed some $5000/ft power cords CAN make a difference - why ? I have NO IDEA but they do !

Are there wire manufacturers out there that just steal your money and offer little if any performance increase - YES there are - but the majority of people making cables actually do make cables that can sound better some, like Audioquest, make very reasonable priced cables that sound great.

And the thread completely veers off topic.....

Ok well the thread is gone out the window now..



1. I do not sell interconnects. I do not profit from them. Yet I highly recommend really expensive ones. Go figure..

2. Funny part is all the AES guys I know do believe that wire matters. Most importantly they are open to debate as they are professionals.

3. My clients are in fact "pro side formal engineering community".... They use damn expensive cables..

So....

Let me ask you a question and make sure I FULLY understand you... Your saying that a radio shack mic cable will sound EXACTLY the same as a Belden ?

Let me quote some Belden descriptions of cable to help here.


So ACCORDING TO BELDEN the purity of the copper matters for sound even with direct burial.

But wait..


So we can safely conclude from Belden engineering that the quality of the conductor metal can effect sound. Not that you could measure the sound change of course..

The quality of the insulation matters, the geometry matters, how each individual strand is run and insulated matters... The jacket material matters as its a dampening material and prevents microphonics..

Mostly what I see as a engineer looking at these super expensive cables is the application of all these well understood engineering FACTS being applied far better then Belden is doing it. There is no snake oil in what i see. I see pure engineering.

I see pure and very advanced science and engineering at work. AND guess what, I can hear it too... Plainly.. Not subtle.. In fully blind A/B..

SO... AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS... YOUR SAYING THAT A RADIO SHACK MIC CABLE WILL SOUND THE SAME AS A BELDEN CABLE ? IS THAT CORRECT ?

Does the quality of the metal and insulation make a difference in your mind ? It does at Belden ? People like Audioquest just advance this SCIENCE further.

You know.... I know some cable company secrets.. I cant tell,,, but some important high end cable people actually use Belden engineering in developing cables. There is serious science behind the cables you so easily dismiss..


wheeeeeee.... are we having fun yet ?? I just love a good forum debate..