HDMI cable - £5 vs £55 (discussion)

aliEnRIK

I completely agree Anewhope

But I could prove to anyone that cables DO make a difference when applied correctly to the correct devices

People assume that a more 'expensive' cable is better. Thats simply not true (But it should be). Ive tried cables that I was convinced would be better before buying them (The placebo effect), but ended up removing them as they were in fact a downgrade.

My tv in particulat looks WAY better than the setup I had inits 1st year of use simply due to some mains conditioners and a 16 core braided mains lead. You can fool my eyes for a moment, but my tv is CLEARLY better after running in all my cables and equipment (Sharper, more detailed, more colourful etc)

If people dont believe me I couldnt care less, but people who'e been to my house are sometimes in absolute awe how my system sounds and looks.

[Deleted User]

It's possibly been mentioned already, but a better starter place than buying expensive cables and assuming they will automatically improve a set up would be to run some kind of calibration, even a simple THX or DVE is going to get the picture and colours towards where they should be.

thescouselander

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Scouse ~
The 'braided' mains lead of which im talking about reduce RFI in even an amp with military grade components in (Of which my dad has)
Id guess that wherever you tested had a pretty damn good mains supply anyways (Unlike my home)

Russ Andrews has MEASURED (And probably using better equipment than yours from the amount hes spent looking into this) the effect it has on an 800 quid stereo hifi amp.

Hes also pulsed through 'surges' which the braided cables lessened

I completely agree that equipment can be designed to all but eliminate RFI and EMI, but at GREAT cost (Isoteks ultmate conditioners cost 1800 quid each)

Not at all, the equipment was to go onboard ships which have some of the dirtiest powersupplies I've ever seen. The amps we built were made from commercially available (although military grade) components. Its all a matter of careful design but I can tell you it does not take a lot of money to manufacture an extreamly good conditioning circuit (the expense is in the delevlpment of the design) - If you spend a lot of money on equipment I would expect the manufacturer to have taken care of any dodgy effects on the mains supply.

Also, I seriously doubt that Russ Andrews can afford better equipment than we had - we had a seriously large budget.

aliEnRIK

anewhope wrote: »

It's possibly been mentioned already, but a better starter place than buying expensive cables and assuming they will automatically improve a set up would be to run some kind of calibration, even a simple THX or DVE is going to get the picture and colours towards where they should be.

Completely agree. Calibration is the VERY first place to start

aliEnRIK

thescouselander wrote: »

Not at all, the equipment was to go onboard ships which have some of the dirtiest powersupplies I've ever seen. The amps we built were made from commercially available (although military grade) components. Its all a matter of careful design but I can tell you it does not take a lot of money to manufacture an extreamly good conditioning circuit (the expense is in the delevlpment of the design) - If you spend a lot of money on equipment I would expect the manufacture to have taken care of and dodgy effects on the mains supply.

Also, I seriously doubt that Russ Andrews can afford better equipment than we had - we had a seriously large budget.

No worries scouse, im pretty sure you did have a very large budget (I work on military aircraft myself )

And in no way am I questioning the results you had with your tests/experiments. Simply that braided mains cables do make a difference over time (If the cables brand new). Even plugging my tv into mains conditioners took a day or 2 before there was any proper discernable difference

Leopard

aliEnRIK wrote: »

For the record, im getting a little hacked off with people claiming im 'just imagining' things. My eyes and ears (And perception) are very good thank you very much.

aliEnRIK,

What's perfectly possible - and indeed quite likely - is that your own eyesight and hearing are BETTER than most people's and that you have the ability to perceive things that elude others.

When I moved house, once, my former neighbour - who was a specialist engineer at the BBC - very kindly offered to set up my kit in its new location.

His own eyesight and hearing were exceptional. They had been tested by the BBC as part of his application for the job and he had then been further trained extensively in how to apply these faculties professionally.

He brought some of his own kit to the house and spent quite a long time tweaking things, generating signals, testing broadcast signals, looking at test cards on screen, repositioning speakers and doing all manner of other things that I didn't understand but which to him were quite routine.

Most fascinating to me was all the things that can be seen in the BBC test card when one is taught what to look for.

The thing that stuck me most, though, was that although he could detect the differences in some of the adjustments that he made, I could not - because neither my eyesight nor my hearing were as acute as his.

As I grow older (like everyone else) my eyesight and my hearing gradually but relentlessly deteriorate and I realise that it would be increasingly pointless for me to invest in, above all, a hugely sophisticated and expensive audio system. Because although others, such as you and my former neighbour, would be able to appreciate the difference and improvement in sound quality that it delivered, I would simply not be able to detect it.

I think that's why it's important for those who are purchasing new equipment, to test out with their own eyes and ears, along with their domestic companions, the different products and options available and identify just what level of sophistication it is worth their while investing in - irrespective of how much it costs.

To do this properly one has to start with the very best professionally-rated gear and then descend through specifications until one reaches a point at which the difference becomes detectable to oneself and to those with whom one lives.

There's no point in spending more money on buying kit that does things one can't appreciate (unless one is the sort of fool who tries to impress other people instead of enjoying things oneself). Ferraris are magnificent machines but there is little point in buying one to pop out for the groceries (and indeed it's now becoming increasingly pointless to keep one in the garage for blasts across Europe, such is the degree to which one can safely unleash it without incurring punitive sanction, these days).

With HDMI leads - to revert to the topic of the thread - what's important to establish is the degree of sophistication needed for each individual cable run between each individual piece of kit in one's own set-up, such that the result will be the optimum that one is capable of appreciating and that money will not be wasted on additional capability that is not needed.

That is why the very kind input that you, aliEnRIK, and others with heightened ability to perceive sound and vision, post on here from your own research and experience is so valuable to the rest of us. It gives us a reference point from which to work down and find the level that is optimum for our own needs.

I'm very grateful to all, here, who have assisted me in my personal quest to discover what's best for my particular kit, cable runs and sensory perception. :A


trets77,

May I be so bold as to ask whether you are running Mac OS 10.4.x "Tiger" as your operating system?

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

And in no way am I questioning the results you had with your tests/experiments. Simply that braided mains cables do make a difference over time (If the cables brand new). Even plugging my tv into mains conditioners took a day or 2 before there was any proper discernable difference

Surely there would be an immediate improvement?

Electricity travels pretty fast!

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

Surely there would be an immediate improvement?

Electricity travels pretty fast!

There was, but minor

We're now running into the other hifi 'does it or doesnt it'

Ive found through my extensive testing that when fitting any cables (PARTICULARLY new cables), they take time to 'bed in'
I have no reasonable scientific explanation for this other than I assume the equipment acclimitises to the conditioners/cables and it takes a 'running in' period before theyre at their best (Ive found this wether its a mains cable, conditioner, interconnect or speaker cable)
Silver cables in particular take an AGE to bed in (Around 6 months in my 'general' use). Silver in particular sounds worse to start with (Very tinny and bass light), and gradually changes for the better

I fitted an isotek MIRA to my tv around 6-8 months ago. It took several days for a definite change for the better was discernable. I now plug the mira through my isotek SIGMAS whch has taken several weeks to look its best.

Its why I dont believe in ABX tests. Noone can tell a reasonable difference as I believe all equipment acclimitises to the changes of cables over 'time' (Though some changes are instantanious)

Leopard

anewhope wrote: »

The problem with relying on senses is that they become accustomed to change in a very short space of time. For example, if you find yourself behind a sound desk for live music then you don't spend time tweaking the levels in minute detail, you do swift changes from extremes until you settle on the appropriate settings, otherwise you end up not being able to be able to identify where you started and subsequently have no reference to base any improvements on.

Not saying you're wrong, because perception is something that is personal, but it's not an accurate guideline. Well, not in my ears anyway.

anewhope,

Do you really mean, "The problem with relying on senses is that they become accustomed to change in a very short space of time." ?

Or do you actually mean "The problem with relying on senses is that they become accustomed in a very short space of time to change." ?

(Because there is a fundamental and very important difference between the two.)

And whilst perception is indeed something that is personal, sensory perception is measurable (which is why people are tested for it).

aliEnRIK

Leopard wrote: »

aliEnRIK,

What's perfectly possible - and indeed quite likely - is that your own eyesight and hearing are BETTER than most people's and that you have the ability to perceive things that elude others.

When I moved house, once, my former neighbour - who was a specialist engineer at the BBC - very kindly offered to set up my kit in its new location.

His own eyesight and hearing were exceptional. They had been tested by the BBC as part of his application for the job and he had then been further trained extensively in how to apply these faculties professionally.

He brought some of his own kit to the house and spent quite a long time tweaking things, generating signals, testing broadcast signals, looking at test cards on screen, repositioning speakers and doing all manner of other things that I didn't understand but which to him were quite routine.

Most fascinating to me was all the things that can be seen in the BBC test card when one is taught what to look for.

The thing that stuck me most, though, was that although he could detect the differences in some of the adjustments that he made, I could not - because neither my eyesight nor my hearing were as acute as his.

As I grow older (like everyone else) my eyesight and my hearing gradually but relentlessly deteriorate and I realise that it would be increasingly pointless for me to invest in, above all, a hugely sophisticated and expensive audio system. Because although others, such as you and my former neighbour, would be able to appreciate the difference and improvement in sound quality that it delivered, I would simply not be able to detect it.

I think that's why it's important for those who are purchasing new equipment, to test out with their own eyes and ears, along with their domestic companions, the different products and options available and identify just what level of sophistication it is worth their while investing in - irrespective of how much it costs.

To do this properly one has to start with the very best professionally-rated gear and then descend through specifications until one reaches a point at which the difference becomes detectable to oneself and to those with whom one lives.

There's no point in spending more money on buying kit that does things one can't appreciate (unless one is the sort of fool who tries to impress other people instead of enjoying things oneself). Ferraris are magnificent machines but there is little point in buying one to pop out for the groceries (and indeed it's now becoming increasingly pointless to keep one in the garage for blasts across Europe, such is the degree to which one can safely unleash it without incurring punitive sanction, these days).

With HDMI leads - to revert to the topic of the thread - what's important to establish is the degree of sophistication needed for each individual cable run between each individual piece of kit in one's own set-up, such that the result will be the optimum that one is capable of appreciating and that money will not be wasted on additional capability that is not needed.

That is why the very kind input that you, aliEnRIK, and others with heightened ability to perceive sound and vision, post on here from your own research and experience is so valuable to the rest of us. It gives us a reference point from which to work down and find the level that is optimum for our own needs.

I'm very grateful to all, here, who have assisted me in my personal quest to discover what's best for my particular kit, cable runs and sensory perception. :A

I REALLY appreciate what youve put there Leopard