What HDMI cable???

aliEnRIK

Leopard wrote: »

aliEnRIK,



Yeah; that's what I've always figured. Seems bizarre to me, though, that Sony would put a better tuner in a £190 DVD recorder than it did in a £1,900 television of the same generation.

Thanks, as always, for your advice. :money:


(PS. I'd leave the others to stew, if I were you. You've put the information out there. If you know something that they don't, and they don't want to listen, who's the loser? You've got better things to do, matey. )

Thinking a little further on that. If youve used the dvds tuner and sent it via SD to the tv to let the tv upscale and it was WORSE than the dvd upscaling, that would mean your tvs upscaler isnt as good either

aliEnRIK

nitr02007 wrote: »

What? I can laugh at you if you want or continue to rubbish your unscientific opinions until the cows come home - up to you.

I thought we were graciously going to agree to disagree - but it seems you wish to continue...

Unscientific opinions? Theyre measured differences?

Seems to me ive got your back up because what you THOUGHT you knew now doesnt look too hot does it :rolleyes:

aliEnRIK

nitr02007 wrote: »

Nah sorry - the sound is also carried digitally. Either it will get to your TV and you will hear it perfectly - or it wont get there at all and you have a faulty cable.

What youve said there ive just PROVEN to be incorrect

aliEnRIK

nitr02007 wrote: »

Exactly. Surely everyone's seen Freeview. Either its working properly and you're getting EXACTLY what the broadcaster has sent - or you've got very noticable problems, stuttering, freezing, pixellation, etc.

Digital signal corruption doesn't give these tiny subjective differences people on this thread have described.

This quote is also completely wrong

aliEnRIK

nitr02007 wrote: »

The relevant part of the video to this discussion is 03:22 - 04:10 for those disinclined to watch the whole thing.

He says 'Once you have a substantial video level', 'being able to produce a data pattern in an eye pattern format' that is well away from the mask'
I cant disagree with that at all. Its once the bandwidth HITS those limits that errors begin (im not a massive fan of the 'eye' test personally though)

nitr02007

LOL - well, the evidence against your arguments is out there for all to see.

If you want to live in a world where theoretical, inconsequential or unnoticable things actually compromise your viewing pleasure, when other people see no difference, then its your choice. If you want to pay extra money to be rid of these unnoticeable differences then that's also your choice.

Anyway I'm not going to waste my time repeating the facts, over and over again.
:beer:

Leopard

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Thinking a little further on that. If youve used the dvds tuner and sent it via SD to the tv to let the tv upscale and it was WORSE than the dvd upscaling, that would mean your tvs upscaler isnt as good either

aliEnRIK,

That would also be so. Shall experiment with it.

By and large we leave the DVD recorder putting out at 1080p, generated by itself and shoving it through a 5 metre purple QED Qunex HDMI lead. Result is excellent – both from HDD and DVD.

We tend to watch DVDs on our Blu-ray player (Sony BDP-350S) at 1080p, with similar lead, though.

Your advice to me last year was unerring and invaluable. We're really grateful to you. :money:




PS. Looks like somebody was so ashamed of his own postings in this thread that he deleted them all and took his bat home. :rotfl:

Livingthedream

Leopard wrote: »

PS. Looks like somebody was so ashamed of his own postings in this thread that he deleted them all and took his bat home. :rotfl:

Been following this thread with great interest, not only for the soap opera style postings, but the actual debate regarding HDMI cables and which are the best for value of money and why.

But I can't work out which poster that you refer to has deleted his postings?

spaceboy

Leopard wrote: »

spaceboy,



Some cables do, some cables don't. It depends (especially at 1080p) upon the quality of the cable, not the price at which it's sold – and the answer to your question depends also upon the point (which you haven't defined) at which, for any given length, you consider that the cable becomes (or ceases to be) cheap.

Rather like a compatible cartridge for an inkjet printer, it isn't cheap if it has to be binned and replaced with something better.

Well, what you've said there doesnt really help anybody. People want to know which cheap HDMI cables are known to be good quality.

Bikertov

I think this thread is getting a bit silly, and a bit personal. Unless you all want to close the thread, lets try and get back on topic.

alieEnRIK - I know I questioned some of your points, especially about mains leads and RFI. But you are putting some valid, if not theoretical points across, that ought to be looked into if anyone is going to dispute them. It should not get into a slanging match.

Certainly, it is not so simple about digital being either right or wrong, because the reality is that some digital bits can get lost and corrupted, especially if you are at the limit of a signal level, and error correction does not rectify.

If one bit of a digital word was incorrect, it could lead to a different colour pixel being displayed, for instance.

However, there is more of an 'all or nothing' to it than analogue, and unless you have top quality source and display equipment, it is all a bit academic anyway.

Maybe it is time to agree to disagree, and leave this thread to go to the great backup device in the sky gracefully ?