or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › Best hdmi cable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best hdmi cable? - Page 3

post #61 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

"If you get 100,000 or 200,000 bit errors per second"

PROVE TO US THAT YOU ARE GETTING THIS LEVEL OF BIT ERRORS WITH THE "OTHER" CABLES AND I'LL BE ON YOUR SIDE. If you can't then you're just spitting out more nonsense and just wildly speculating (again). You have a golden opportunity to prove your case now.

It would also help if you could show that a valid picture is still produced even with this level of bit errors.

Remember - PROOF (not meaningless words but data, graphs, pictures and other items that can be independently confirmed). And, no response will be accepted which tries to argue negatives (such as stating that we should prove that other cables don't have these errors).

Read my answer to Colm about bit errors. You can find the information yourself by looking up BER, Wire World, Audioquest and Monster sites on the internet. I am talking videos as well as literature. It takes a little work, but it can be done. I am sure if I can do it you can too. 200,000 bit errors is far less than 1% and will not cause loss of picture, but subtle changes in color, lag and sharpness. You know that already, I think you are just kidding me.

You'll truly shock me if you provide actual data that supports your position on the error rates and yet shows a valid picture.

The floor is yours (and take as much space as you need to show all of your data)...

I answered it above.
post #62 of 170
I have stated my believes and findings numerous times.

I have told of my Blind Cable tests with myself and my friends.

I have told of reference professional magazines and their results of the cable differences.

I have told how HDMI organization tests for certification and fees they charge.

I have quoted from manufacturers about cables (which is freely available to anyone doing research).

I fully believe that there are differences in cables and that they can make in a difference in picture quality by giving 100% bits from source to destination.

There are differences in long grain copper and so called oxygen free copper.

I have received from the posters some very useful information, but no real proof of sameness in picture quality.

The sameness in picture quality proof would be if someone would take 50 or so differnet cables and have a number of people watch and listen and say there are no differences.

So in the final chapter, I believe there are differences and that you can see and hear it.

Going on and on serves no purpose.

Thank you for the discusion but I think this is over.
post #63 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

I answered it above.

No, you did not. All you did was spit out mindless non-arguments. You have not shown any proof because you don't have any. None at all. You cannot prove baseless assumptions anyway, so how could you have any proof?

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to keep visiting here without any proof that what you said was true.

So, go ahead and provide actual proof or just go away.
post #64 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

Colm answered one of your questions.

The question concerning "Pop" is answered very easily. Buy and Audioquest Cinnamon cable and try it on your system. See if you get a "Pop", if not then return it for your money back. You can't tell me that what I and my friends have seen is not true, because you were not there.

sure we can...

i don't need to be sitting next to you to tell you that the sky is blue...
post #65 of 170
Sure let's go through this one line at a time (for one last time)...

I have stated my believes and findings numerous times.
You have stated your beliefs (over and over again) but not stated any findings or provided any proof.

I have told of my Blind Cable tests with myself and my friends.
Irrelevent without a test procedure. I'm not sure you actually have friends. If you do have friends, then I'm not sure what they were looking for or even if they were just wanting you to stop by saying whatever they thought you wanted to hear. So, overall your "blind" tests are irrelevent and not admissible.

I have told of reference professional magazines and their results of the cable differences.
None that are reputable with standard practices and procedures or who publish verifiable results.

I have told how HDMI organization tests for certification and fees they charge.
So? We all knew that already. You also misstated minimum versus maximum requirements. Any first year engineering student would get those right for a digital cable.

I have quoted from manufacturers about cables (which is freely available to anyone doing research).
Not provided a single link to backup your quotes. Just heresay.

I fully believe that there are differences in cables and that they can make in a difference in picture quality by giving 100% bits from source to destination.
And have been told multiple times why it isn't physically possible. You have also not provided a single bit of proof of your baseless assumption. Not one shred of evidence.

There are differences in long grain copper and so called oxygen free copper.
So? Irrelevent to this discussion.

I have received from the posters some very useful information, but no real proof of sameness in picture quality.
Once again, you're the one making outrageous claims, not us. You need to provide proof. You might as well be stating that we all should prove we landed on the Moon.

The sameness in picture quality proof would be if someone would take 50 or so differnet cables and have a number of people watch and listen and say there are no differences.
That's your job. The fringe element often uses this tactic of deflecting when trying to prove outrageous claims. Not gonna work here. At least provide some backup to your statements.

So in the final chapter, I believe there are differences and that you can see and hear it.
You may also believe that the Earth is flat, but it doesn't make a difference in the real world (as opposed to your apparent fantasy world of non-physics).

Going on and on serves no purpose.
Then why do it?

Thank you for the discusion but I think this is over.
All you did in the end was waste storage space on the AVSForum server in multiple threads and be embarrassed. Was it worth it?

WE WANT DATA - GRAPHS, PICTURES, MEASUREMENTS, etc. Nothing short of that is proof. You can't supply that, can you?

BTW, if you think for a second that I'm interested in convincing you about anything, you're wrong. I'm concerned about people who don't know better reading one of your appends (or rants) and believing it. Then rather than spending money on good components, they then waste it on $150 6' HDMI cable and get cheaper components. That is the damage that people like you do and it bothers me that snake oil salesmen like you are given the same level of credibility on the web as people who actually back-up their conclusions.
post #66 of 170
^^^

that would pretty much sum it up...

good post andy...
post #67 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

Not really, you have 8 billion bits per second transmitted. 1% of 8 billion is 8 million, so you see that it is less than 1%. It can cause picture change but not picture cancellation. Information came from BER internet explanations, Wire World, Audioquest and Monster videos and literature explanations.

Of course, if this was accurate it would actually be an argument that you can't tell a difference with different cables since you state that this is a small level of random changes. Don't forget to include the randomness of the noise in your calculations (unless this is "smart noise").

Luckily for you your so-called analysis isn't accurate. It isn't accurate because of this thing called "encryption". I've included a link to help you understand what encryption does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption

Trying to keep this simple - what gets sent over the HDMI cable is encrypted data. The encryption algorithms used do not do a change on each bit but instead change blocks of bits at a time. When trying to put those bits back together again at the receiving end, any change in bits will invalidate the entire block and you end up with blocks of data that aren't correct.

Now there is nothing that says the blocks have to be contiguous, so you can encrypt different parts of the picture in the same block. The main goal is to make it difficult enough for someone snooping to put the data back together. The receiving end has the information needed to put the data back together but receives the encrypted data over the HDMI connector. The encryption algorithm is designed to prevent data tampering as well and noise looks a whole lot like data tampering.

So when you did your analysis of pixel changes, it wasn't exactly technically accurate. Actually, it was wrong. Would you like to try again? If you do, you might also want to understand HDCP. I've included a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdcp

Still waiting for actual data from you. How about including links specifically to your data?
post #68 of 170
Hello HDPERSON

As others have said you need to provide a bit of background on your test procedures.

Video is not supposed to 'Pop' out at you unless the cinematographer has gone to great lengths to make it do so.

Start with a Calibrated Display and show measurable differences when you swap from cable A to cable B and folk may take some interest - make assumptions based upon 'Fabless' cable manufacturers marketing claims and you are on a hiding!

I have more HDMI cables at my disposal than is sensible () I can readily see problems with lesser gauge 'long length' cables and can remedy those problems with a heavier gauge cable 9 times out of 10.

None of the 'problems' have any impact on picture or audio fidelity - they are all about getting a complete image, an image with unwatchable artefacts or no image.

Joe
post #69 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post
There are differences in long grain copper and so called oxygen free copper.
There is a difference between long grain copper and OFC, grain size. The result is every so slightly lower resistance which means all other things being equal, the cable made with long grain copper is capable of delivering an adequate signal over an every so small extra distance. It has no effect on picture quality if you aren't getting sparkles or worse.
post #70 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post
I fully believe that there are differences in cables and that they can make in a difference in picture quality by giving 100% bits from source to destination.
So do I. But the errors don't cause they kind of effects you believe they do.

Quote:
The sameness in picture quality proof would be if someone would take 50 or so differnet cables and have a number of people watch and listen and say there are no differences.
Because of the way human brain works, I can guarantee you that some folks will report differences even if you never change cables but tell them you did. What you would have to look for is enough folks saying one cable is better than the other in a statistically significant percentage. And just because they prefer one picture to another wouldn't mean that cable was the better cable. It could mean they prefer the kind of distortion introduced into the picture to a perfect picture, assuming the kinds of effects you believe exist do. In any case, the results of such a test are moot because the kind of differences you are talking about just aren't possible.

You have been encouraging me to try an AudioQuest cable. I encourage you to read up on how video data is transmitted to learn why bit errors will not lead to subtle changes in picture quality.
post #71 of 170
Oh so you can see and HEAR the difference now. Wow, I'd love to read this justification, considering my cables only transmit compressed data that doesn't even get decoded into actual audio until its received by my AVR.
post #72 of 170
Well, to be fair, the clock for that audio is quite likely reconstructed from the TMDS clock, at least that seems to have been the intent of the designers. So anything that affects it could affect the audio clock. But I doubt any effect on the audio is audible considering the way it is derived (many TMDS clock pulses for each audio clock pulse). IIRC the HMDI designers stated that noise and distortion would be about 100 dB down. And that is without a local clock in the playback device.
post #73 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

Well, to be fair, the clock for that audio is quite likely reconstructed from the TMDS clock, at least that seems to have been the intent of the designers. So anything that affects it could affect the audio clock. But I doubt any effect on the audio is audible considering the way it is derived (many TMDS clock pulses for each audio clock pulse). IIRC the HMDI designers stated that noise and distortion would be about 100 dB down. And that is without a local clock in the playback device.

I suspect the original noise in the master multitrack audio recording would swamp any audible effects of the clock. There's probably more quantization noise in a Dolby Digital signal than Dolby TrueHD, due to the lossy compression down to approximately the equivalent of one CD channel. I'm not sure how TrueHD's MLP encoding effects the jitter, but again it's still likely (depending upon the original recording) that the source is much more noisy. However, still inaudible to most people even in good listening rooms. Or for that matter the listening room is likely more noisy than anything we're talking about (people are inherently noisy, even when still).
post #74 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Oh so you can see and HEAR the difference now. Wow, I'd love to read this justification, considering my cables only transmit compressed data that doesn't even get decoded into actual audio until its received by my AVR.

Actually I'd love to read any actual justification of just about anything at this point, but all we get is mindless drivel
post #75 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

Actually I'd love to read any actual justification of just about anything at this point, but all we get is mindless drivel

Are you an adult? All you do is throw out insults. You have not proven a single thing, you appear to be lazy about going on the internet looking at videos and reading literature about things you disagree with.

I know I have won, when the people that I am discussing things with, start up with the insults and abusive words.

Any more words of insult will be reported. This topic discussion is over, I have no more time for someone who believes that you will not get a signal with 100,000 bit errors which comes out to way less than 1% and doesn't know that HDTVs come with error adjustment tech.

Rant away, I will not respond, just report.
post #76 of 170
I've noticed that alk3997 provides helpful, meaningful insight in just about every single thread in this forum; exhibiting a clear understanding into the function of HDMI cables. This is much more than I can say about certain other people who cling to superstitious fallacies perpetuated by shameless marketing.
post #77 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

Are you an adult? All you do is throw out insults. You have not proven a single thing, you appear to be lazy about going on the internet looking at videos and reading literature about things you disagree with.

I know I have won, when the people that I am discussing things with, start up with the insults and abusive words.

Any more words of insult will be reported. This topic discussion is over, I have no more time for someone who believes that you will not get a signal with 100,000 bit errors which comes out to way less than 1% and doesn't know that HDTVs come with error adjustment tech.

Rant away, I will not respond, just report.

Report away. I haven't said anything in violation of the this forum's rules... You have, however, stated things in violation of the laws of physics and that makes you just ignorant and is actually a worse offense. And remember, reporting works both ways. I wouldn't mind if this entire thread was deleted - it would get rid of your mindless drivel so no one reading it in the future would accidentally think it was accurate. So please, please, please, go ahead and report away.

In terms of being an adult, I just worked Atlantis' last landing early this morning in mission control. That's over 25 years (and 110 Shuttle missions) of working on the Space Shuttle program in the onboard computer area. In three weeks, I will be without a job (laid off). Despite the impending layoff, I truly hope you can say you've done something just as productive or even more productive with your life.

With that preamble said - PROVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING instead of just throwing out mindless babble and (now) threats.

And, there is no such thing as "error adjustment technology" and the rest of that sentence isn't even readable English. A Google search on "error adjustment technology" shows five irrelevent hits and this append is one of them! There is however, "attitude adjustment hour". Snake oil salesmen just make me want to go to an attitude adjustment hour. I also would enjoy hearing how I'm the lazy one, since you've not once posted a single link to even an article in the quack magazine you often reference. I've at least given you simple Wikipedia entries to look at as well as a link to the HDMI Org's FAQ. Now, who's the lazy one (and should I report that comment?).

BTW, I gave you the floor to show proof of what you're saying. So far, you have not shown your proof. Where is it?? Hmmm? Can't provide it, can you? Procedures for your listening tests with your reported friends. Can't provide it, can you? Also why do you always say test with 50 HDMI cables? Why not 25 or 75? Where is the rationale? Can't provide it, can you? Where is the data to backup the quack magazine's assertions. Can't provide it, can you?

Finally, just to continue our (actually your) education, the correct names are, "error detection and correction (EDAC)" or simply "error correction" or if you would like to get more technical, "Hamming code" or "Hamming distances". Here's another "lazy" link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code

Oh, and here's one more link on AudioQuest cables,

http://forum.blu-ray.com/home-theate...s-bestbuy.html
post #78 of 170
Just as an addendum...

This thread reminds me of what it was like back in the Compuserve days. G

That being said, there might just be one cable company out there that actually will go to explain what cables do. Check out Analysis Plus. They are at least driven by science long before ever getting into the audio cable business. (can't blame them for jumping on after the fact) To HDPERSON; If you like them I'm sure there is a dealer willing to sell um' to ya'. (I used to before I retired)

To Andy; as always, your patience and thought provoking discussion is always appreciated. Better yet, deepest thanks for your years with the Shuttle Program that cannot be adaquately be described within these constraints.

Tony
post #79 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyPAV View Post

..back in the Compuserve days.

You ARE an old f*rt!

FWIW Blue Jeans Cable also has an excellent series of articles on HDMI for anyone interested in learning something.
post #80 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

You ARE an old f*rt!

That I are!

Actually started on Prodigy with the old text bbs interface. Migrated to both, then of course to CIS in the end where I was a "sysop" in the "audio" & "video and home theater" forums. Those were the days indeed.
post #81 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyPAV View Post

...

To Andy; as always, your patience and thought provoking discussion is always appreciated. Better yet, deepest thanks for your years with the Shuttle Program that cannot be adaquately be described within these constraints.

Tony

Thank you for the very kind words. I will pass those along to my collegues who spent even more time than I did on Shuttle. Some were 35+ year veterans of Shuttle when the program ended.

I started on Compuserve, too (in high school). Probably not surprisingly I spent a lot of time on the spaceforum ("go spaceforum" at the ! prompt).
post #82 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

Thank you for the very kind words. I will pass those along to my collegues who spent even more time than I did on Shuttle. Some were 35+ year veterans of Shuttle when the program ended.

I started on Compuserve, too (in high school). Probably not surprisingly I spent a lot of time on the spaceforum ("go spaceforum" at the ! prompt).

Ah the ol' prompt! And then you might just recall when CIS finally offered 4800 baud at the price of $3.95 per MINUTE over and above our monthly fees? Made it much easier (and quicker) to do a quick log-on, dl all the forums to the off-line readers then spend hours on end composing and replying to messages.

On the 35+ year thing... that is exactly how long my wife and I have been together. She was heading off to Ga Tech to try to get a job with NASA, but alas the love of youth changes things. Fast forward 12 years and presto! out pop the first kid.
post #83 of 170
Chord HDMI Active High Speed with Ethernet
Not find in any store?
why ?

http://www.chord.co.uk/products.php?pg=148
post #84 of 170
i look for the Best hdmi type a to type c
( mini hdmi )

with deep coloer 48 bit
xv coloer
hd Sound

50 to 200$

post #85 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepdeep1 View Post

i look for the Best hdmi type a to type c
( mini hdmi )

with deep coloer 48 bit
xv coloer
hd Sound

50 to 200$


Wow - where to begin? First and foremost, the word is "color". If you're using "proper English", the word is "colour". It is never coloer although there is a slang nail polish reference to that spelling. I assume we're not talking about nail polish. You used the same spelling in other threads, so I know this isn't a one-time typo.

Second what is wrong with cables below $50? Your price range starts at $50. Why?

Thirdly, why deep color? What is so special about 48-bits? 16-bit deep color is not used on any disc I'm familiar with so why do you care about this particular feature?

Fourth, why do you think the cable has anything to do with HD Sound? It's just a cable. It sends 1s and 0s. It doesn't have any conscious thoughts about what the bits mean. Really.

Fifth, what size? You left out the most important spec for a cable.

Finally, I'll answer your question. All you need is a high speed HDMI cable that is mini HDMI to HDMI. Remember it must say "High Speed". Try here,
http://www.monoprice.com/products/su...02&cp_id=10242

If you have more questions, Monoprice has very good customer service. Use the "Contact Us" page and then the "LiveChat" button.
post #86 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepdeep1 View Post

Chord HDMI Active High Speed with Ethernet
Not find in any store?
why ?

http://www.chord.co.uk/products.php?pg=148

Ask Chord. http://www.chord.co.uk/help.php
post #87 of 170
@alk3997

I think you've done a fine job on educating (or at least attempting to) some of the posters here, but you seem to be getting a little irritated with some of the questions I can't blame you though so maybe you ought to take a day or so off, relax a tad, and then get back to us. Crap sticks so I'm sure there'll be more than enough for you to wade thru when you get back
post #88 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

@alk3997

I think you've done a fine job on educating (or at least attempting to) some of the posters here, but you seem to be getting a little irritated with some of the questions I can't blame you though so maybe you ought to take a day or so off, relax a tad, and then get back to us. Crap sticks so I'm sure there'll be more than enough for you to wade thru when you get back

I think you need to check more about the people who I seem "annoyed" about. A little background check never hurts.

For instance, deepdeep1 has been "ignored" in two forums and consistently asks the same questions in multiple posts. He's basically a troll.

(Edit - and sure enough, he just did the same thing here by appending the same question twice. Also keep in mind that WhatHiFi sponsors Chord. The funny thing is that he always has the exact same misspelling like he is copying an original message and then modifying it.)

Sometimes (not always) there is a method to my madness...

It's not hard to check users - just left click on the blue UserID. Then select "Find More Posts by..."

To be fair, I'll leave all future posts by deepdeep1 for you to answer. Good luck...
post #89 of 170
Quote:


why deep color? What is so special about 48-bits?

Because I have tv with 48 bit
Your cable is not worth anything

Thank you for the comments, but where to buy high quality cable
hdmi type c to type a
with deep coloer 48 bit
xv coloer
hd Sound
post #90 of 170
This is definitely what you're looking for deepdeep1. I would recommend buying 2 or 3 so you'll have extras. You'll need an adapter for a type C connector but I'm sure you can find one of those easily enough in the $400-500 range. Enjoy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Industry Area › HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World › Best hdmi cable?