1811 of 62457 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
are so retardedly expensive! Neutral Luckily I get discount at Bond n Bond.. Price of the 3m cable I got is $170, but with the discount it was $27! Pretty sick.

In other news, I connected my PC --> TV via HDMI but the audio doesn't seem to work. I was under the impression HDMI was all in one? Is it likely my gfx card only does the video for some reason?
[quote]
It depends on the version of HDMI. Earlier versions did not support audio. This can also be turned in certain TV's and probably on the computer.
[quote]
You can get generic brand $20 HDMI cables from reasonable computer stores.

Works fine for HDMI from my media PC to my tv. No ridiculously expensive cable needed.
[quote]
Expensive HDMI cables are a farce.

Yes HDMI is Audio and Video

I am guessing your pc does DVO Digitial VIDEO out. In which case there will be no audio output from the pc Razz
[quote]
Yaksha said:
Is it likely my gfx card only does the video for some reason?

Probably.

I got a motherboard with on-board video and audio. It has HDMI out which does video and sound. Razz
[quote]
Yaksha said:
are so retardedly expensive! Neutral Luckily I get discount at Bond n Bond.. Price of the 3m cable I got is $170, but with the discount it was $27! Pretty sick.


$170 SHIT!

http://jaycar.co.nz/productView.asp?ID=WQ7402
http://www.surplustronics.co.nz/shop/product-C-HDMI-3.html
[quote]
Yaksha said:
Price of the 3m cable I got is $170, but with the discount it was $27! Pretty sick.


did you mean it cost $27 or the discount is $27?

look on trademe there's some cheap ones there and brand new too Smile
[quote]
Oldboy said:
It depends on the version of HDMI. Earlier versions did not support audio. This can also be turned in certain TV's and probably on the computer.

Sorry what? HDMI has always supported audio. Thats what it was designed for. Video and audio in the same cable.
DVI only carries video.
[quote]
yes, total farce. a $20 cable is just as good as a $200 cable. IT'S ZEROES AND ONES AUDIOPHILE NUTJOBS.
[quote]
harvey said:
Yaksha said:
Is it likely my gfx card only does the video for some reason?

Probably.

I got a motherboard with on-board video and audio. It has HDMI out which does video and sound. Razz


that's still pretty new too.

depending on the video card, there may be an audio input on the card.
[quote]
I got my cable for bugger all scanning tardme. The big shops charge a such fuckload more, - it's a total scam.

What gfx card to you have yakky? You might be able to get the sound working as kris said. Like I did...
[quote]
kris_b said:
yes, total farce. a $20 cable is just as good as a $200 cable. IT'S ZEROES AND ONES AUDIOPHILE NUTJOBS.


So, why does error checking exist?

Do a digital copy of a cd.

Do it again.

Do it again.

But wait.. the sound is degrading?

What? But its only 0's and 1'?

Yes, cables do make a difference.

Do most people notice or actually care that much?

No.
[quote]
Proof: I agree.
Examples: Audio. I believe I can hear a difference (believe what you want) in crappy std cable vs some other high grade expensive cables.
Video: This is tougher. What is it your looking for? A blank spot on the screen to prove that the data didnt arrive? or is it a pixel staying one colour 1ms longer than it should be. Thats why i think its harder to identify lesser digital video cables.
I may be wrong.
[quote]
contrast, realism of colour, less overall haze, less ghosting or distortion around the edges of objects, the perceived 'depth' of the image, do images separate and pop into different levels of depth within the screen, or does it look simply 2d..

So yes. There is plenty to look for.
[quote]
Its pretty obvious however that Yaksha got his cable at say cost plus 10%.

Unless you would have us believe that Yaksha got his 'premium' cable below cost?
[quote]
get an HDMI cable.

be it a $20 cable or a $200 cable.

plug it in to a source like a bluray player and start playing the video.

grab a stanley knife and start hacking thru the cable.

when the signal stops, that's when the cable is shit.






i suppose next someone will tell me that a wooden volume knob makes a tune sound warmer and more vocal?




IT IS A FUCKING DIGITAL SIGNAL. IT IS ZEROES AND ONES. STOP DRINKING THE FUCKING KOOL AID.




111000101010100110010101010101010100001010101001111010100101011010101
[quote]
More expensive cables can do a better job on longer runs.

I've yet to find a cheap one that hasn't started to introduce some weird looking shit over lengths of 3.0metres or so.

However..... One of the biggest custom installers in Auckland who sells pretty much only into the highest end of the market uses a HDMI cable that they buy for $8.00. That is a 1.2 metre length and they work just as well as the more expensive stuff they used to use. But they don't do it for longer runs for that they use something a lot more expensive and a lot better.

They are strange cables HDMI. Most people in the AV industry hate them. All sorts of syncing problems, weird artifacts, sparkly digital effects.

I agree generally though that cheap cables should work just as well as the more expensive ones do. It's just that sometimes they don''t[/u]
[quote]
no problem spending a bit more on a longer run.


but a $400 full speed oxygen free super mega super happy lucky #1 HDMI cable? fuck off.
[quote]
The sad thing is that margin is so ratshit on panel these days that cable is where the stores make their profit.

Add on items such as surge protectors, cable and extended warranties is where the money is and thats what the guys on the floor like to push.
[quote]
quote:
The other problem with HDMI cable pricing is that it is largely unwarranted on a technical basis. The difference between cheap HDMI cables and expensive ones is negligible. There are undoubted differences between cheap and expensive analog cables. For instance, a decent set of component cables versus a bargain basement set results in a noticeably better and cleaner picture. But that's analog signals for you, which are far more susceptible to interference or ‘noise' than digital signals. Digital signals are made up of binary data which is not susceptible to the same kind of problems - unless the cable is damaged.

The simple fact is that few people could tell the difference between a £10 and £100 HDMI cable, except in their wallet. Not because they are blind as a dormouse but because the difference is harder to see. Near impossible, some would claim. Sure, better cable connectors are always good [silver/gold] and a better quality cable might help over longer distances [3-metres +] but for most folk, there's simply no reason to break the bank for a cable that should have come free in the first place.


It's a crock of shit.

Unless the cable comes with it's own vacuum. I would suggest you dont buy into bullshit.
[quote]
In case you need further backing up of my point, a broadcast engineer who shows why it doesnt matter with waveform diagrams.

http://www.theps3faq.com/?q=node/10

Ever noticed how every HD device doesn't come with an HDMI cable.

Ever wondered why this is ?

Do you know which companies own Monster ?
[quote]
or HDGuru and a Canadian broadcasting company:

http://hdguru.com/canadian-broadcasting-corp-confirms-hdmi-cable-scam/240/

Proof I suggest you do some reading on digital signal.

We studied HDMI as part of editing in my film and TV course, we got it drilled into our heads that there's no difference between the cables. The quality of manufacturing is different, but the quality of the signal will always be perfect unless the cable itself is damaged.
[quote]
Proof said:
So, why does error checking exist?

Do a digital copy of a cd.

Do it again.

Do it again.

But wait.. the sound is degrading?

What? But its only 0's and 1'?

Yes, cables do make a difference.

Do most people notice or actually care that much?

No.


That is such a TERRIBLE example Laughing

This is not the analogue world. You would not be able to tell the difference.
[quote]
resist said:
Proof I suggest you do some reading on digital signal.


Why? I have actually sat down and spent time going through ranges of cables, from different manufactures, and seen the difference.

Admittedly, it was on a fairly high end system, and the changes were extremely small, but there were differences.
[quote]
Andrew said:
Proof said:
So, why does error checking exist?

Do a digital copy of a cd.

Do it again.

Do it again.

But wait.. the sound is degrading?

What? But its only 0's and 1'?

Yes, cables do make a difference.

Do most people notice or actually care that much?

No.


That is such a TERRIBLE example Laughing

This is not the analogue world. You would not be able to tell the difference.


So then, why do digital copies degrade over generations?

Yes, it is all digital. But it being transported from one bit of equipment, to another bit of equipment.

So, your saying corruption of digital data cant happen? Ever?
[quote]
Do you have a preference for gold plated connectors?

So, is Spidif, TosLink, AESEBU all also not effected by cable?

Does jitter not actually exist?
[quote]
Much lol in this thread. Started to type a serious reply, but fuck it. Don't want the data boogeyman stealing my 1 and 0s.
[quote]
You still dont seem to realise/understand that HDMI doesnt have error checking... well, not entirely true - there is a form sent with the data packets, but there isnt a way of the receiver requesting a re-send - if there is an error, there is an error.

Also, HDMI, as a system, runs in parrallel, not serial - there are three color signals and a clock circuit. There isnt a whole lot stopping these getting out of time; inconsistancys in the cabling, generally in the form of impedence, is an issue due to the HDMI standard using a twisted pair instead of a co-axial design (its really just DVI with audio and a new plug).

Just because its 'digital' doesnt mean its the same as in a computer.

Again, like I have already said - its not going to make a huge amount of differnce. Most people are happy if it just works.
[quote]
Proof: for a 1.5m HDMI cable that you weren't going to plug/unplug often would you buy the $30 one or the $250 one?
[quote]
Proof said:
kris_b said:
yes, total farce. a $20 cable is just as good as a $200 cable. IT'S ZEROES AND ONES AUDIOPHILE NUTJOBS.


So, why does error checking exist?

Do a digital copy of a cd.

Do it again.

Do it again.

But wait.. the sound is degrading?

What? But its only 0's and 1'?

Yes, cables do make a difference.

Do most people notice or actually care that much?

No.


No, you're wrong.
[quote]
I would post a more detailed reply, but this webpage has been loaded too many times and now the colours have started to run, and it's all to faded.
[quote]
bob said:
Proof: for a 1.5m HDMI cable that you weren't going to plug/unplug often would you buy the $30 one or the $250 one?


Probablly the $30 one.

Wink

How many of you have actually been able to audition $1000 cables in a reference enviroment?
[quote]
neil_armstrong said:
I would post a more detailed reply, but this webpage has been loaded too many times and now the colours have started to run, and it's all to faded.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
[quote]
Proof said:

How many of you have actually been able to audition $1000 cables in a reference enviroment?


A $1000 HDMI cable? Laughing

If you're paying that much for a $5 cable then I guess yeah, you do want to believe there's a difference but in reality, there isn't. Smile
[quote]
I know you don't beleive in science, proof. But here if your opportunity to win a $1 000 000 if you're keen.

quote:
MORE CABLE NONSENSE

Several readers alerted us to yet another hilarious and preposterous situation in the “audiophile” business, which we have referred to frequently simply because if some of their claims were true, they would be paranormal. Here’s another such.

Monster Cable – a company that turns out a fine line of products, but not untinged with the woo-woo flavor, sells a set of $80 HDMI [High Definition Multimedia Interface] cables, designed to handle new signals brought about by the advent of High Definition TV. I thought that was a heavy price to be asking – no, I didn’t invest! – but now we see that the Pear Cable company is advertising a pair of 12-foot “Anjou” audio cables for $7,250; that’s $302 a foot! And, as expected, “experts” were approached for their opinions on the performance of these wonders. Excerpts:

…way better than anything I have heard…Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace – these cables smack that right on the nose big time.

…simply way better than anything I have heard prior to their audition.

Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these “no-compromise” cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about “capacitance,” “inductance,” “skin effect,” “mechanical integrity” and “radio frequency interface,” – all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases – we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation. That said, we offer the JREF million-dollar prize to – for example – Dave Clark, Editor of the audio review publication Positive Feedback Online, who provided the above rave review. If Mr. Clark should choose to apply for the prize, he would be unlike John Atkinson of Stereophile Magazine – see randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 – who made great noises about being ready to snap up the million, then got distracted by things such as gullible readers who accepted his claimed abilities, and backed out. But we’ll see…




http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4
[quote]
tristan said:
Proof said:

How many of you have actually been able to audition $1000 cables in a reference enviroment?


A $1000 HDMI cable? Laughing

If you're paying that much for a $5 cable then I guess yeah, you do want to believe there's a difference but in reality, there isn't. Smile


So, that's a no then?

Is/can anyone actually reply to what I have said, rather than linking to other pages?
[quote]
So, are you also all saying that it wouldn't make a difference on a 20m run?

Cause, you know, it all 0's and 1's or something?
[quote]
Yaksha said:
Price of the 3m cable I got


I've got an idea guys, when we've got no hope of convincing anyone of our side of the discussion, multiply the cable length by 7 and start talking about loss. EVERYONE runs 20m HDMI cables!
[quote]
Andrew said:
Yaksha said:
Price of the 3m cable I got


I've got an idea guys, when we've got no hope of convincing anyone of our side of the discussion, multiply the cable length by 7 and start talking about loss. EVERYONE runs 20m HDMI cables!

Well hang on - at what length does the properties of the cable suddenly change so that loss does occur? If it happens at 20m, the same thing will happen at 3m, just on a much lesser scale.

I'm with Proof - there is potential for difference, in HDMI it would be so infinitesimally small as to only be noticed on absolute reference gear, knowing what to look for, and trying very hard. So totally not worth it, hence my $25 cable from Rapallo Mr. Green
[quote]
garethw said:
If it happens at 20m, the same thing will happen at 3m, just on a much lesser scale.


Actually Proof will be able to tell you it's exponential.

I wish people would stop polarising arguments on here and sitting in a corner going "ACCEPT MY ARGUMENT! OR I'LL BE OVER HERE SULKING!"

I have stated you wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Not that it doesnt exist at all, but that the difference is so minimal it's a moot point.

Nobody bothers to answer Proof because we all know there is some loss, and we know it is infinitesimally small, so we're not going to bother.
[quote]
Andrew said:
infinitesimally small


Ah yes, as small as a baby!
[quote]



i addressed the length issue.

i'm also not insane enough to believe the hype.

people who buy $1000 (standard length) HDMI leads are the same kind of nutbars who will pay $1000 for a fucking IEC power cable.
[quote]
PFunk said:
Andrew said:
infinitesimally small


Ah yes, as small as a baby!


I dont know what you're talking about??? Froggy
[quote]
Laughing
[quote]
garethw said:
Well hang on - at what length does the properties of the cable suddenly change so that loss does occur? If it happens at 20m, the same thing will happen at 3m, just on a much lesser scale.


I hope i misunderstand you... but the whole idea of digital is that its complete loss (though maybe only for a pixel) or no loss. The longer the cable the more chance of loss but *in theory* as Kris pointed out the cable will work 100% right up to the point where it ceases to work. The perfect example is Freeview/Sky Digital with rain fade.

Typically when there is a digital fault it is *very* noticeable.

Do we all agree that HDMI (and other cable prices/hype) is generally over priced and just a way for sellers to make their margin by selling lies?

Proof?
[quote]
bob said:
Do we all agree that HDMI (and other cable prices/hype) is generally over priced and just a way for sellers to make their margin by selling lies?

I'll start with this, just to get it out of the way - hell yes Mr. Green

bob said:
I hope i misunderstand you... but the whole idea of digital is that its complete loss (though maybe only for a pixel) or no loss. The longer the cable the more chance of loss but *in theory* as Kris pointed out the cable will work 100% right up to the point where it ceases to work. The perfect example is Freeview/Sky Digital with rain fade.

But I disagree with this - you can lose 1bit in the data stream without complete loss, but a decrease in accuracy of reproduction (you lose SOMETHING somewhere). You can have interference that starts to swap the odd bit around etc so you don't get 100% accuracte reproduction at the other end. So it's not all-or-nothing.

But it's not noticeable Laughing
[quote]
I think you lot are all taking extreme positions when you probably all have quite similar opinions.

More expensive cables will be manufactured to higher standards and slightly more expensive to make.
They may have less packet loss.

Prices of anything that is higher quality, goes up exponentially.

Look at any electronics that you buy. You pay twice as much for something only slightly better. If you have money to throw at it, you do. If you get someone else to sort it out for you, they get the stuff with the high markup.

In summary, the $1000 cable will be better, but not 30 times better, just 30 times more expensive, like how a 52" screen is twice as much as a 42" screen, and man, what about how ridiculous audio equipment can get. Not to mention our fav punch bag, apple macs.

You guys sort of forced proof to take that position so you could beat him down.
[quote]
Generally, especially Monster or the 'gold plated' specials at Dick Smiths, are just marketing hype.

Monsters 'bigger straw' analogy is just wrong.

But yeah, what I am debating, is this whole 'its digital, it cant be corrupted' thing.

1. There isnt error checking as such on the digital stream.
2. It's actually three streams, with a clock trying to keep them in sync.
3. The system has inherent impedance issues.

What magically happens at longer lengths that doesn't at shorter lengths? There is still the potential for error there. That what I don't get.

"It's digital, its perfect, just 1 and 0's, oh, but not over lengths?"

Like I have already said (in my very first post), most people probably wont notice, nor care about the difference.

The is a massive law of diminishing return involved.

But then, those '$1000' cables are not for everyone anyhow.

They are for borderline obsessive system builders, who are trying to wring out every single last bit of performance out of their system, or, they are for wankers; who like to brag about how expensive their cables are. I have sold stuff to both.

Did you also know that wearing a hat causes comb filtering?
[quote]
No one forced proof to do anything.

If he chose his arguments/words more carefully then he wouldn't have got the response.

Packet loss... i am unconvinced. Digital means 1 or 0s (yes stating the obvious) so lets say a signal (a 1) degraded from 100% to 60% (1v - 0.6v) the receiver still interprets this as a 1 meaning no loss. So in this regard a cable that is made for $5 and sold for $30 is not going to make any sort of difference to anyone over the $10 cable sold for $250.

GW: if its not noticeable then its not worth paying lots of money for then, which means the original gist of the post is right - that its a con job.
[quote]
I'm sorrry, but the whole point of digital is that if the signal get through, doesn't matter how weak (as long as it's still detectable) then the picture/sound whatever will be perfect.

If you're so sure of yourself proof, then prove it and go collect your $1 000 000
[quote]
bob said:
GW: if its not noticeable then its not worth paying lots of money for then, which means the original gist of the post is right - that its a con job.

Totally.


But the digital loss stuff you guys are talking about - there are billions (?) of bytes of data being transmitted. It's not a "this picture is on or off", it's a this 1-of-3 colour information of this tiny little part of the picture over here says 1 instead of 0.
And the audio is dramatically more information than that - loss of a single sample at a single frequency is an absolutely tiny fraction of the overall sound at a given point. Any of those can get lost and the difference would be minutely small, but still exist.
[quote]
you would need to lose a hell of a lot of samples of audio for it too be noticeable

it's physically impossible for the human auditory system to detect the loss of 1 sample
[quote]
garethw said:
It's not a "this picture is on or off",


I don't think anybody was claiming that
[quote]
neil_armstrong said:
you would need to lose a hell of a lot of samples of audio for it too be noticeable

it's physically impossible for the human auditory system to detect the loss of 1 sample

Absolutely, like I said, not noticeable. But still existent.
The view that it's all 1's and 0's so it's all or nothing isn't a valid line on it is all I'm saying.

The valid line is the "physically impossible for the human auditory system to detect the loss of 1 sample" bit
[quote]
THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION! Laughing Froggy
[quote]
Andrew said:
THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION! Laughing Froggy

Laughing That's what I'm here for.
[quote]
Go into a wave editor and draw a big spike of one sample length and come back and tell me that you didn't notice it.
[quote]
garethw said:
But the digital loss stuff you guys are talking about - there are billions (?) of bytes of data being transmitted. It's not a "this picture is on or off", it's a this 1-of-3 colour information of this tiny little part of the picture over here says 1 instead of 0.

To just "lose" a bit, your signal is going to have to be degraded quite badly. Probably to the point where you are suffering major data loss. This has been explanined. I think Bob put it quite nicely. Signal loss of 49% could potentially still provide perfectly valid data.

Error correction is done in networking etc where you have data flying all over the place and have to deal with collisions. And in very long distances through multiple devices you can have signal loss. A few metres in one direction? I can see why no error correction was built into HDMI then. Laughing
[quote]
With reference to Andrew's post, could someone just post "garethw agrees with you in a long-winded and overly semantic manner" after every post from now on?
Great, cheers Mr. Green
[quote]
OK, serious question

What about digital radios?

I mean if it's all just ones and zeros, surely detonating a big old nuclear bomb nearby (no blast effect, just EMP) won't actually affect the signal, right?
[quote]
think for a bit about how that digital signal is carried.

this is the OSI model for how networking works in a computer sense.



layer 1, the physical layer is what we are talking about here. in a wired network, L1 is the cable itself. in a wireless network, the radio signal is L1, still technically called the physical layer.

in your example, that digital signal at L2, delivered a radio medium at L1. EMP would take out that radio signal. with no physical layer, there is no way data can get through.

(OSI model hugely simplified)
[quote]
Is that why when we shoot through foliage, we see a big drop off in data rates over digital radio?

"shoot through" in the radio not gun sense Razz
[quote]
Yes. Interestingly, 2.4ghz stuff is heavily affected by foliage as much by the water content of the plant matter as any physical blocking of the signal. 2.4ghz makes water molecules vibrate and therefore heat up. just like in a microwave :>

slowing of the data rate in these situations is different to the HDMI issue of course.

i'm guessing that in your gear, much of the technical details of the encryption and error checking etc is probably classified.
[quote]
kris_b said:

i'm guessing that in your gear, much of the technical details of the encryption and error checking etc is probably classified.


In this case, nope, standard Harris non-encrypted kit.
No idea about error checking.