SONY 4320P HDMI cable RRP£52 *ONLY £14.99*

DuWolf

tonysat wrote: »

DuWolf
Bad analogy

Talldave wrote: »

A good analogy is to consider how much better colour photos look from your printer when you upgrade your 99p USB cable to one costing £50+... oh, hang on, there is no difference ;-)!!

It was better than that ....

alreadytaken wrote: »

I'm hanging on for a wire to connected my movie player to a full 3d holographic projection system though... after I get my hoverboard obviously.

LG’s 84-inch TV will be called 84LM9600 in the US and 84LM960V in Europe. It will be available around June-September 2012.

LG 84LM9600 features:
84-inch LED-based LCD
3,840 x 2,160 (4K) native resolution
passive 3D
Smart TV with Magic Motion remote
The TV will have a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels, a.k.a 4K, since it's four times the number of pixels employed by garden-variety 1080p TVs (1,920 x 1,080).

The price is still unconfirmed.
Better give Doc a ring for one of those boards !!!

camaj

DuWolf wrote: »

Please explain to me how if all hdmi cables are the same a cable that outputs @ 1080i will output @ 4k without affecting the quality. It simply cannot, it would have to be upscaled a bit like a scart on a large LED.

I don't think you understand this at all. I think you think you understand and you've convinced yourself that there's a difference and you're able to spot it but your arguments are so muddled that it appears you don't understand.

Cables don't "output" anything. They output what they're given, they're carriers. If a cable carries a 1080i signal what makes you think it's limited to that? My gigabit ethernet cable can carry 1Gb/s but it only carries 10mb/s. Using your logic how can it carry 1Gb/s without loss in quality when it only carries 10mb/s now?

A HDMI cable is a digital cable, unlike analogue it only has to send numbers to the other end. If there are any differences they'll be very noticeable since lost data will result in noticeable artifacts on screen if not total picture breakup. The only difference in cables are those in category 1 and category 2. The latter supports HDMI1.3+ but, according to wikipedia at least, category 1 cables that are shorter than 5m will usually work with HDMI 1.3+

I only mention this because this is the sort of thing that MSE is for. MSE members shouldn't be paying more for a cable that's no better than a cheap one. It doesn't matter how nice your system is, it won't be degraded by a cheap cable.

£52 was a rip off but £15 is a rip-off. I bought my first HDMI cable for £3 off of ebay and it was absolutely fine. If you want a flat cable you may be willing to pay more but it won't give you a better picture.

DuWolf

ok .... I was simplifying things.

Standard-speed HDMI cables are rated up to 1080i. They might do more than this, but they're just rated for 1080i.
Sure your 1.3 outputs to your 1080p fine, but a 1.3 output capacity is @ max 2560×1600 over 24-bit not 4096×2160 which a 1.4 does.
So yes you are correct just because it doesn't use its full bandwidth @ 1080P it doesn't mean it cannot exceed more, but it also means that the max rated is 2560×1600 so how can that produce a pure 4096×2160 when it rated below? It cannot.

DuWolf wrote: »

Personally the only reason I wanted one was the dedicated Ethernet channel for DLNA, IPTV, LiquidHD, and UPnP to save me usin several other cables.

If I go to pound land and pickup a HDMI cable ... can I stream using the ethernet channel? Not all HDMI are the same.

Do all HDMI have 3D support? nope
Do all HDMI have ARC support? nope
Do all HDMI have Ethernet support? nope

That is the point I was making, its not a case of labelling "All HDMI cables are the same" so buying the cheapest will produce a picture but if that wasn't all you were wanting you may be left short.

prowla

DuWolf wrote: »

Please explain to me how if all hdmi cables are the same a cable that outputs @ 1080i will output @ 4k without affecting the quality. It simply cannot, it would have to be upscaled a bit like a scart on a large LED.

1920 x 1080
4096 × 3112

Correct in thinking you will get a picture ....but incorrect in thinking a 1920 x 1080 cable will have the same resolution as 4096 × 3112 rated cable. A simple analogy would be is my Graphic card can output @ 1920 x 1080 but my monitor max output is 4096 × 3112, will it output yes, ill it be as clear as a GPU that outputs @ 4096 × 3112, then no it cannot as it will only stretch the 1920 over 4096.

Audio: Increase in quality = Increase in clarity

If I plug a standard /AllHDMICablesAreTheSame into my TV from my Laptop/PC/Media player can I stream from the internet using only the HDMI cable .... No I cannot, with this cable

... yes you can as it has a dedicated ethernet channel.

i)Yes all HDMI will output digital signals, not all HDMI cables are not rated to output @ 4096 × 3112
ii) The quality of Audio is affected by the quality of cable
iii) Only HDMI with a dedicated Ethernet Channel can stream @ 100MB/s

I gave the proviso "that meets specification", and the Sony cable in the OP is rated to 1080p.

If you use a cable outside of its specifications then it may not work, and there is no guarantee that that particular one would work at a higher resolution.

What I did say was that a digital cable will not give subtle differences in picture quality, less well defined edges, crispness, etc.; a bad one will cause picture break-up or stuttering.

I also said that analogue signals are affected by cable quality; I have seen this in S-Video cables and I have a rather expensive audio cable from my CD player.

Of course you can only run Ethernet over a cable that has the Ethernet connections.

resseh

that usb printer cable analogy is brilliant :T

Although i bought a new mac mini this week. When outputting via the HDMI cable to my new monitor, text appeared a bit fuzzy. Yet when i used the hdmi->DVI adapter + dvi adapter it looked fine.

DuWolf

I am so ashamed of my doubt.....



USB>HDMI