or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › best buy offers hdtv calibration: how does it rate (details inside)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

best buy offers hdtv calibration: how does it rate (details inside) - Page 9

post #241 of 454
I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."

post #242 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribestros View Post

I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."


If the 0s and 1s make it through the cable to the other end you have a perfectly fine HDMI cable regardless of cost.

The fact you find this amusing is something I find frankly hysterical.

Tell me do you also sell premium ethernet cables that improve judder and sharpness for the internet? Maybe they speed up download times or make google quicker?
post #243 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

If the 0s and 1s make it through the cable to the other end you have a perfectly fine HDMI cable regardless of cost.

The fact you find this amusing is something I find frankly hysterical.

Tell me do you also sell premium ethernet cables that improve judder and sharpness for the internet? Maybe they speed up download times or make google quicker?

http://www.amazon.com/Monster-GameLi.../dp/B00008VF9A



Gotta love it.
post #244 of 454
The reason I find it hysterical is because all you smartasses can't show me any proof about the "0s and 1s" theory. Some things conduct better than others, dumbasses.
post #245 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribestros View Post

The reason I find it hysterical is because all you smartasses can't show me any proof about the "0s and 1s" theory. Some things conduct better than others, dumbasses.

That's right. That's why some HDMI cables are much better than others. However that doesn't lead to the conclusion that when functioning for the task at hand with the given equipment, that there will be any difference at all.

You understand the difference between these two statements I hope:
1) HDMI cables differ in performance
2) Due to #1, some HDMI cables will provide a better quality image than others

Point one is absolutely true.

Point two is absolutely false.

All that differences in cabling quality will change is the length and bandwidth at which the cable will fail. If the cable is functioning, however, there is no affect at all on the image. It is, basically, an all or nothing proposition.

You have claimed that point 2 is true, and you are not correct about that.
post #246 of 454
tribestros,

There is no need to resort to namecalling and vulgarity. The simple fact is that most HDMI cables perform identically and neither the theory nor extensive experience suggests differently at short distances. There certainly are differences in cables, but there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that Monster products have any value over others. At longer lengths the design of the cables, in terms of wire size, geometry, dielectric, and shielding can make the difference between working and not working, or working with sparkles or without.

The 1s & 0s arguments are simply naive, but closer to reality than suggesting improvements in image quality and judder due to HDMI cables. Judder is an artifact that has nothing to do with the type of transmission in HDMI, image "sharpness" similarly, is not affected by dropout in HDMI connections. You can get sparkles, hash, or other noisy looking artifacts, but sharpness is associated with contrast and frequency repsonse, and there is no relation between losing bits and either in the way HDMI signaling is accomplished. You simply need to learn a little about the terminology that you use and the technology involved or you will continue to be corrected.
post #247 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

That's right. That's why some HDMI cables are much better than others. However that doesn't lead to the conclusion that when functioning for the task at hand with the given equipment, that there will be any difference at all.

You understand the difference between these two statements I hope:
1) HDMI cables differ in performance
2) Due to #1, some HDMI cables will provide a better quality image than others

Point one is absolutely true.

Point two is absolutely false.

All that differences in cabling quality will change is the length and bandwidth at which the cable will fail. If the cable is functioning, however, there is no affect at all on the image. It is, basically, an all or nothing proposition.

You have claimed that point 2 is true, and you are not correct about that.

This, is an excellent explanation. Thank you.
post #248 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriswiggles View Post

a functioning hdmi cable will look totally identical to any other functioning hdmi cable. However this is not the same thing as saying that all hdmi cables are created equal. They most certainly are not. However, there is a very very small window where the failure of the cabling is not yet total, so in general it is fair to say that hdmi either works 100% or it doesn't.

But saying that since it's a binary digital signal that it either gets there or it doesn't is not totally accurate. Cabling does have an affect on jitter due to the capacitance of the cable.

The construction of an hdmi cable becomes very very crucial at long distances and at high bandwidths, just as it is for any data cabling. However, it might be interesting to note that in critical applications, i would never reach for one of the more popular and pricey name brand cables out there. I reach for a known cable, like belden. If you want the absolute best, you go to a professional cable manufacturer, not a clown-college like monster cable. You'll never see monster in a studio, and there is a good reason for that...

well if were talking manufacturing errors in cables then its just a defective cable. You cant count that as one being better than the other. Thats just one lemon cable vs. One good one. Im speaking from a technical standpoint on how the signal is transmitted. If the cable is faulty, thats a whole other category and im not debating that.
post #249 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by whityfrd View Post

well if were talking manufacturing errors in cables then its just a defective cable. You cant count that as one being better than the other. Thats just one lemon cable vs. One good one. Im speaking from a technical standpoint on how the signal is transmitted. If the cable is faulty, thats a whole other category and im not debating that.

No, again, the cable's performance absolutely will differ. However, because the signal is digital, as long as the cable is good enough for the task at hand, then there won't be any difference in terms of the transmission of the signal per se, so there will not be any difference in the data as it is recovered. It either is recovered or it is not. (ignoring cable jitter which is not really an issue with HDMI).

But just as with any twisted pair data cabling, the design of the cable has very big impacts on the performance of the cabling. The differences between cat 5, cat 5e, and cat 6 can be significant, and indeed different manufacturers of TP cabling can do different things in order to improve the stability of the cable which can be crucial for long distance runs. You can get bonded-pair cat from Belden for instance, and it is godawfully more expensive than other cat designs, but the impedance stability of the cable is like no other because the pairs are bonded together. Do you need that kind of cabling performance? Maybe. For short distances or low bandwidth, then no it gets you no benefits at all.

But if you're going very far, and trying to push gig ethernet far, then pulling cheesy cat 5 is a recipe for failure.

The same is true with HDMI cables. There absolutely are differences in cabling performance beyond just a faulty construction altogether. But in terms of it having any impact on the image, there won't be any unless it simply fails for the task at hand. In other words, while what is going down the cable will differ between cables, whether it makes a difference is not a matter of degree, it is simply all or nothing.
post #250 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribestros View Post

The reason I find it hysterical is because all you smartasses can't show me any proof about the "0s and 1s" theory. Some things conduct better than others, dumbasses.

Okay you've already had this explained to you.

The DATA either gets to the other end of the cable with sufficient margin for error to be decoded in a meaningful way or it doesn't. This is how digital video transmission works.

IF the data gets corrupted to a high enough degree then you get corruption on the picture , sparklies, missing blocks of image up until the point that nothing meaningful can be decoded and display at which point you no onger have a picture.

Loss of data does not manifest itself as softening or judder.

Jitter is NOT an issue with video over hdmi.

If you cannot get your faculties around these VERY SIMPLE easily understandable facts of digital transmission practicality I recommend you look for alternative employment in some other industy more suitable for your skillset , perhaps Burger King or McDonalds can take advantage of someone with your particular talents.
post #251 of 454
I was in BB yesterday to blow some time with a friend and was offered a job there after talking with the guy that happened to be the home theater supervisor at the store. He told me that I knew more then him. It was great!
post #252 of 454
Oh I just love the mutual interaction ending in name calling! It makes understanding how those "monsters" work so well! Ya gotta love passion for ones trade!
post #253 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffMHT View Post

On Calibration:

On random and unnecessary insults:

So, let's look at the reasoning, here.

Premise: One (presumably green) Magnolia Pro made a false assertion about front projection. That is, ∃x∃y(Fxy & Mx) (read, there exists some x (the salesman), who made false statement (F) about y (front projection technology); and that same x is a Magnolia employee.

Therefore: All Best Buy/Geek Squad employees are inept. Id est, ∀x(Bx → Ix) (read, for any x, if x is BB/GS employee, then x is inept).

This inference doesn't look like it is going to be accommodated by a consistent decision procedure, so if you don't mind, please either retract your rash and rude generalization or deliver a full proof for the rule of inference to which you've appealed.

If you'd like me to affix semantic values to each node of the omitted construction trees (assume MIT school syntactical analysis), I'd be happy to render a Montague-school currying of the predicate calculus expressions, with full recursive definitions in set theoretic terms.
__

The argument is constructed this way in an attempt to demonstrate that Best Buy employees are very often articulate, well-informed, and capable of offering logically/scientifically up-to-par advice and analysis.

I am a Magnolia Pro, and I am not going to be shy about this: in most respects, I am damned clever. Calling me and all of the other sharp BB employees "fools" is stupid.

Ouch! JeefMHT of MIT is nailing it deluxe! Ya' gotta love the words and the way they be a git used! Goshie Golly Molly!

On a serious note: Job well done Jeff - job well done.

I love reading these "oldies but goodies". Time to read and re-read and actually gain knowledge. It does not hurt - and it is free!
post #254 of 454
I just wanted to put in my two cents and thank those of you who actually give some of us Magnolia Pros some credit. I'm not going to generalize about the company because there are many employees who have no clue what they're talking about , but through the past 3 years, I have found many genuine employees who have a passion for home theater products.

Me personally, I sell what I believe in, our calibration, plasmas, panamax over monster surge, non-bose speakers. I sell our rocketfish cables over monster hdmi. As for the dynex, it's a hit or miss. I've bought a few for testing purposes and have found some issues in store and at home as far is audio delays, random flickering etc although these tests aren't 100% accurate. Just me switching hdmi cables from a blu ray straight to a tv.

The problem with our calibration service is the fact that many of the calibrators will take shortcuts. There are a few who will go through the entire process which are the ones I schedule for my customers. Done properly, our calibrators do a pretty darn good job.

You may have a different opinion, and I apologize if Best Buy has screwed you over in the past. If there is something I can do for you please PM me.

Side note: if you guys want to check out my buddy's home theater. He has done most of this install himself. He's a BB employee and is one of our ht advisors.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1144946
post #255 of 454
I sell what I believe in, too. I believe in Monster, so, eh, oh well. But maybe the Dynex are poorly built. There's a difference.
post #256 of 454
Best Buy Magnolia may be disappearing in many markets. I saw this music store had replaced a Magnolia in one market. It looked much busier than a Magnolia and had better priced products for the average Best Buy customer.
LL
post #257 of 454
greetings

The Magnolias are starting to vanish in many places. (Down to less than 10 stores now) A failed experiment ... and/or a total misunderstanding of how the original Magnolia model works.

regards
post #258 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV View Post

greetings

The Magnolias are starting to vanish in many places. (Down to less than 10 stores now) A failed experiment ... and/or a total misunderstanding of how the original Magnolia model works.

regards

From what I saw with those stores they were not worse than others, but they were no better. The product pricing in the Magnolias did not fit the average BB customer either in my opinion. I also heard that they altered the policy keeping the Magnolia employees seperate from the rest of the store. This probably accelerated it's failure.
post #259 of 454
I suspect that the Magnolia acquisition was intended to give BB an association with a higher end business and differentiate them from the rest of the box movers. To some degree that may have happened, but I doubt that it made much difference in the bottom line. The ability of an operation like BB to actually implement any serious improvement in service level is limited. There is only so much you can do to make a horse into a zebra. You can paint on stripes but the true nature of the beast will come through.

That said, BB has done a great service to the industry by promoting calibration and by providing at least some level of installation service. Mediocrity promoted to the masses makes for a great opportunity for specialists who provide a much higher level of service.
post #260 of 454
Yea, I think that there is 8 or 9 standalone Magnolia AV stores. There's about 155 Magnolia HT stores in Best Buy though. Everyone is still a Best Buy employee whether he/she was certified to sell Magnolia products or not. Now everyone is listed as a Magnolia status if you work in home theater. Things have really changed for us in the past few years, but I still feel that the ex-Mag employees will still stand out from a regular blue shirt. Most people even in my dept. won't sell out of Magnolia.
post #261 of 454
What I saw, was the Magnolia stores had separate sales staff and higher end products. The problem was the knowledge level of the staff was not any better than the normal BB staff. It just didn't give the impression of being in a "high end" environment. This was both the Magnolia and the BB/Magnolia.......
post #262 of 454
Yea, we intended to try and separate ourselves from the core ht guys by dressing up in a shirt and tie and working within the Magnolia room. We are still employed by BB though, but had a different pay scale. Now everyone is considered a Mag pro and my domain is from one side of ht to the Mag side. I don't like to assume knowledge about other stores because I have gone to many different BB that employees knew nothing. I just like to give credit to those employees that genuinely work hard because they love home theater, not ones who are there just because it's a job. I love/hate working there at the same time. There are times when you have irate customers and there are times when you meet that customer that loves high end products and you can have a long conversation with them. I mean I'm only 20 and would have had the top magnolia spot in our store. I'm not saying I'm the best at what I do, but I work hard to learn about our products/technologies because I love this stuff, not much because my job requires me to. There is a reason why the speakers I have are by Vienna, DefTech, and MartinLogan and the same reason why I sell them.
post #263 of 454
Magnolia isn't going away, there's just been a lot of issues since it rolled out. First, Best Buy screwed up by putting all these ******, super-small TVs in "core" HT and essentially anything 54"+ up in Magnolia. They didn't realize that everyone wanted to buy them. Now, Best Buy has fixed that, and Magnolia's product assortment has been dwindled a lot.

They screwed up Mag from what it should have been. Magnolia should have been a "store-inside-a-store" thing, but dumbass managers couldn't keep themselves from bringing the Mag employees into core and vice-versa when either department got busy. They shouldn't allow the MHT Pros to venture out of Mag to sell, and HT core employees to venture into Mag to keep it proper. Because, essentially, we did what the HT employees did, but we had more knowledge. When Best Buy re-organized the operating model, Mag Pros were eliminated, and HT/Mag now has to cover Appliances. But we still "specialize" in a department, like in Mag for me.

At my store, we're supposed to, now, zone Home Theater, Magnolia, and Appliances. WTF. But we still focus on Mag, so I don't necessarily know, it will make our employees dumber though.
post #264 of 454
I know that I am coming late to the party here but haven't any of you posting about digital communications read Shannon's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication"?

Larry

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribestros View Post

I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."

post #265 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryInRI View Post



I know that I am coming late to the party here but haven't any of you posting about digital communications read Shannon's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication"?

Larry

In a perfect world, yes. However, as anyone who has kept up with digital ever since Sony once told the world the same thing - its all 1s and 0s and we cannot make it sound any better than the CD sounded in 1983 - knows that theoritical and real world are worlds apart.

I find it comical that no one has referenced any of the cable tests that show all aspects of HDMI 1.3 do not work with all HDMI 1.3 cables, but instead relies on a war of 1s and 0s in a perfect world.

But then again, in a perfect world, cars could travel on the Highways .000001 millimeters apart if they were all driving at the exact precise speed. However, if one slight variation in speed occurs, you have the biggest junk yard in the world. The same thing can happen with digital - its called digitial jitter and its a well accepted measurement these days - just one of MANY things that can go wrong.
post #266 of 454
I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachComber View Post

In a perfect world, yes. However, as anyone who has kept up with digital ever since Sony once told the world the same thing - its all 1s and 0s and we cannot make it sound any better than the CD sounded in 1983 - knows that theoritical and real world are worlds apart.

I find it comical that no one has referenced any of the cable tests that show all aspects of HDMI 1.3 do not work with all HDMI 1.3 cables, but instead relies on a war of 1s and 0s in a perfect world.

But then again, in a perfect world, cars could travel on the Highways .000001 millimeters apart if they were all driving at the exact precise speed. However, if one slight variation in speed occurs, you have the biggest junk yard in the world. The same thing can happen with digital - its called digitial jitter and its a well accepted measurement these days - just one of MANY things that can go wrong.
post #267 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryInRI View Post

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

I think that what he was trying to convey is that Shannon's theory has nothing to do with whether the information gets from one place to another or not in a real world implementation. It is also misleading to say that "if eAven a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced." This depends greatly on what you started with and what you have left, as well as the transmission scheme.
post #268 of 454
Okay, so I guess back in the 1960s when we designed the digital communication system for the Voyager spacecraft using Shannon's theory as a basis, it was not a real world implementation. Okay, you must know something that I don't.


Oh, yes. We also used the theory of gravitaion so, all in all, I guess that also was not a real world implementation.

Larry

Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

I think that what he was trying to convey is that Shannon's theory has nothing to do with whether the information gets from one place to another or not in a real world implementation. It is also misleading to say that "if eAven a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced." This depends greatly on what you started with and what you have left, as well as the transmission scheme.
post #269 of 454
What it comes down to is there is much more to it than the concept of "all or nothing." While you get most of the "data" there is no guarantee that you are getting all of the data, 100% as sent. Yes, there have been good results with cheap HDMI cables and there have been bad results with very expensive cables. A decent picture with any cable doesn't mean the picture can't be better with a different/better performing cable for the application.
post #270 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryInRI View Post

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

Looking at the HDMI 1.3 spec, it appears there is no error correct on the video data, just on the audio and control data. The quality of the information, then, depends on the cable meeting the specs. In particular, as the signals are transmitted using differential signalling on three separate channels, I can imagine that out-of-spec slew between the differential signals or slew between the channels on a long low-quality/non-compliant cable could introduce quality problems on the video signal.

As to how such data corruption might manifest itself visually, I cannot speculate. I have only very short cable lengths, so I've not observed any such problems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › best buy offers hdtv calibration: how does it rate (details inside)