HDMI cables. Am I wrong to see a difference.
Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 09 April 2010
For ages I was happy to believe what I was told: that all HDMI cables either work or don't, and there's no difference in image quality between different cables, no matter what the price.
Even the gadget show said there was no difference when comparing some.
However, a few weeks ago I thought I'd try a new cable on my modest system at home because my wife kept telling me that the picture quality using the TV's own freeview tuner was better (clearer, richer colours) than the Humax freeview tuner's picture. I agreed, so when the new cable arrived I did a test.
I did some quick comparisons flicking between the two tuners (built in, and Humax with £20 HDMI cable, no name) to confirm that the TV tuner was better for PQ, then installed the new cable between Humax and TV, and did the comparisons again. Now the Humax PQ was far better than the TV's tuner PQ. My wife agreed and insisted I did a quick test with the cable on the BD player. There was no way of doing this in a quick A/B test way, but again the new cable was a definite improvement. I've since bought another of these cables and am quite happy.
By the way, the new cable is QED Classic Qunex HDMI-P, £30 incl del.
Tony
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Bananahead
Three years ago I bought an Arcam DVD player (DV139 for about £2000)and decided to get the QED HDMI-P to connect it to my Pioneer Plasma because I couldn't see much point in saving a few pounds on a cheap one (Ok the QED is purple and looks nice). Then about a year ago I bought a cheap Panasonic Blu-Ray and bought a QED Reference (probably by mistake because QED changed the names and I didn't check properly). This meant that I could compare the two QED cables against each other. The more expensive one is clearly better on both DVD and BD. The picture just seems more solid and natural somehow.
Last weekend I got an Arcam AVR600 because I din't have HD sound. I needed at least one more HDMI cable but decided to get two for neatness. So I got the QED Reference. Because the Arcam has two HDMI out and the Pioneer has two HDMI in I decided to connect up both the Performance (HDMI-P) and the Reference. This means that I can switch between cables with just a one button push.
I don't care if anyone else agrees. To my eyes the more expensive one is better.
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Tony Lockhart
Phew. Thanks.
Tony
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Prouddaddy
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Sorry - but there is no difference.
Looks like most of us on this forum are blind, deaf and (probably) dumb. Seems we can see differences, hear differences and (probably) think for our selves, when in reality there are no differences the see, hear or think about.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by BigH47
"I see" said the blind man, scratching his bald head with a comb!
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
The WHO did a song about it a couple of years ago
was that "Tommy" ?
I see you are organising another Summer get together......the one last August was top rate!! - pity you didn't get to see the fruits of your labour.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 April 2010 by Prouddaddy
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
Sorry - but there is no difference.
Looks like most of us on this forum are blind, deaf and (probably) dumb. Seems we can see differences, hear differences and (probably) think for our selves, when in reality there are no differences the see, hear or think about.
Cheers
Don
I present valid testing which illustrates that the signal is perfectly passed and processed by both cheap and expensive HDMI cables and you feel entitled to insult? Nice. Believe what you will - it is your money and you are free to spend it as you like.
Posted on: 11 April 2010 by Bananahead
quote:
Sorry - but there is no difference.
quote:
I don't care if anyone else agrees. To my eyes the more expensive one is better.
Posted on: 11 April 2010 by Tony Lockhart
Just to satisfy my curiosity, I repeated the test tonight. Same result. To me, £30 isn't exactly a major outlay, so it was worth the risk. The differences are so obvious that I think there could well be something else at play here.
I wanted the cheaper cable to win when I first bought the QED, and if there had been a marginal difference I'd have shrugged my shoulders and not bought another QED HDMI cable. But, the difference was as obvious as adding a Hi-cap to my 102.
And please, no insults, it's only a telly and a bit of wire!
Tony
Posted on: 11 April 2010 by IWC Doppel
I use a Chord HDMI lead, I brought it with the agreement to return if not satisfied. I compared to a good quality Oppo cable using only for picture and it was marginally better.
I had an interesting time, when new A-B it looked the same or close enough to make no difference. I rang Chord and they said give it a few weeks in situ then A-B again. I did it out of politeness and just left it in place.
Then thought time to tidy up, get the cable back and obtain a refund. I did and A-B and it was better, I expected and wanted it to be worse......
Should be be surprised ? We don't have a problem with accepting audio cables make a difference do we ?
Posted on: 11 April 2010 by PJT
Tony, cables do make a difference for both HDMI and toslink.
Luckily these cables are relatively cheap.
I am running chord co. cables and not only are they are better than the bog standard pudney cables supplied, they also beat the "high quality" monster cables one retailer markets...
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by tonym
Although the difference in quality of the cables themselves might be marginal (I've never noticed much difference myself) nevertheless, as I discovered the hard way, the quality of the terminations is very variable and can cause all sorts of obscure little problems with HDMI. So it's worth getting a good quality lead IMO.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by SC
I don't really see much need for extended discussion here....Why should it (video) be any different to all the nuances discussed and practiced over in the HiFi room...If anything, there is more scope due to the masses of data involved......
Perhaps it's a reflection of the state of AV on this particular forum, but it does make me laugh when I read dismissive comments on AV related subjects like the above - 'It's only a TV' was one I remember a while back - seems slightly ironic when I remember this is the Naim forum where much debate and serious (including official) advice goes into issues such as free hanging interconnects and foam supported speaker cables....!
Want a simple way to justify the premium of some HDMI cables, putting issues of PQ to one side for a moment...? - Try running a long length (10m upwards) with a 1080P signal...I know of some cases with low cost cables where the signal doesn't even reach its destination, yet plugging in a Chord Active (or similar) rectified the situation.....That's kinda worth 90 quid to me !
Steve.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by abbydog
quote:
I present valid testing which illustrates that the signal is perfectly passed and processed by both cheap and expensive HDMI cables and you feel entitled to insult? Nice.
No surprise here.
There is an extremely profitable analogue 'cable' industry out there - the profits have been compared to those in illegal drug dealing.
That business, which is lucrative for manufacturers, retailers, advertising agencies, magazines etc, is threatened by digital.
If its just ones and noughts which are identical at each end of a bit of wire, the gravy train is over.
As a result, there are an awful lot of people out there desperate to convince potential buyers that better wires are necessary for digital, too. They only need create that little bit of doubt to get £30, or £50, or £1,000 etc out of you.
When people's livelihoods are at stake, science and rationality go out the window.
You can choose science or superstition - just remember that if you choose the latter, you'd better be prepared to pay for your beliefs.
Just ask any professional video or audio engineer for an opinion...
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Tony Lockhart
All I'd want is for him to explain it!! I'll repeat: the difference is immediate and obvious.
Tony
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Believe what you will - it is your money and you are free to spend it as you like.
I don't think the posters on here are telling us what they "believe". They are telling us what they can "see" and "hear".
If things happen, and science can't explain what is happening, then its science that is revealing its limitation. Carefully implemented comparative testing etc etc being a requirement, and absolute honesty in reporting observed results.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 April 2010 by Prouddaddy
quote:
Originally posted by munch:
You did not present valid testing.
You posted a link to something that you thought was valid testing.
Did you do the testing with your ears and eye's?
No you did not,You chose to belive.
Go and drive off a 200ft cliff.
Its ok i know some one that did it in a car and walked away.Fact.
Stu
How was it not valid testing? Every bit and spectrum was passed equally between the two cables. I agree that hearing is subjective, but visual is not. Otherwise, how would anyone get a prescription for glasses? How would displays ever be properly calibrated? The notion of colour accuracy and grayscale would be pointless if it is all as subjective as you state.
Someone did mention that the connector may make the difference and with this I agree. If a connection is not secure and 100% made, then it can explain why there are differences in what people are seeing as not all information is being passed.
Either way - this is my last comment on this thread. As I said - it is your money, spend and believe as you will. At least I won't hurl insults....
Posted on: 13 April 2010 by abbydog
quote:
science can't explain what is happening, then its science that is revealing its limitation.
Fine. Unfortunately, science gave us HDMI, DVD, Blu Ray, Naim kit etc etc. Seems perfectly adequate for these things.
But suddenly, presented with a meter of cable, science falls apart, does it?
Look, do a little experiment. Show ten people a two minute film and then ask them what they have seen. You will not get ten answers alike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQPosted on: 13 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
I think you accept that science has its limitations? i certainly rely on it in a very practical way every day, but accept that from time to time, we discover its limitations.
The little experiment would also deliver ten different answers if the ten people watched a two minute live "stunt". Its nothing to do with accuracy of reproduction.
My PowerLine is about 1m long and likewise my HiLine. A meter of wire and its terminations (for whatever reason) does seem to be able to affect what we see and what we hear - perhaps we need to introduce "double-blind" testing into the visual part of audio-visual systems.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
perhaps we need to introduce "double-blind" testing into the visual part of audio-visual systems.
....for the avoidance of doubt.....that was a little attempt to bring a touch of humour back to this forum....
sincere apologies to anybody who thought otherwise!!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 April 2010 by abbydog
quote:
perhaps we need to introduce "double-blind" testing into the visual part of audio-visual systems.
Brilliant!
Posted on: 13 April 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Brilliant!
glad you liked it.....a bit of light relief...
cheers
Don
ok, i'll get me coat...
Posted on: 14 April 2010 by David Scott
quote:
I agree that hearing is subjective, but visual is not.
What do you base this on?
Posted on: 19 May 2010 by Acred
I must admit I was a bit sceptical about the difference HDMI cables could make until a few weekends ago when I put a Chord Active 1.3b (don't know what the 'b' is for) from my Pioneer BDP - 51FD to the Pioneer LX81 AV. The connection from the AV to the Pioneer 436XDE is a Van Den flat and there was a marked improvement in the sound most notably and picture. To my mind well worth the cost.
