HDMI leads...what is the difference?

renegadefm

I have seen hdmi cables cost over £100. I cant see what difference they would make? 

Lumstorm

I replaced the HDMI cable on my PS4 Pro with a monoprice certified premium high speed cable as I was having problems. The old cable was fine with 1080p but when I output 4K HDR the picture kept randomly blacking out, but it works perfectly with the new cable. So I think there can be a difference in cables though the premium certified cable was actually about half the price of the cable I was using before the previous cable. I have never believed in having to pay a high price for good cables but similarly  I don't subscribe to the idea that people say buy the cheapest from the pound shop as the all work the same. I would pay at most £10 for a HDMI cable my premium cable only cost £4. I have bought more expensive cables for other things I recently paid £55 for a SCART cable to connect the Analogue DAC to my CRT monitor but I don't mind paying more for such specialist small run handmade cables. 

prowla

Digital signals either work or they don't and the cables either meet the standard or they don't.

Poorly made cables may be cheaply made and may fail at some point.

Expensive ones look nicer.

If they meet the standard then they work.

Lumstorm

prowla said:

Digital signals either work or they don't 

The same could be said of analogue signals. This statement is similar to what I used to hear about digital TV you either get a perfect picture or nothing at all no snow and interference like analogue signals. This isn't true while you you don't get the snow in a digital picture you can get blocking, freezing and such problems, a digital signal can be good enough to get a picture but not enough to show it correctly just like an analogue signal.

stator

prowla said:

Digital signals either work or they don't and the cables either meet the standard or they don't.

Poorly made cables may be cheaply made and may fail at some point.

Expensive ones look nicer.

If they meet the standard then they work.

There is no standard for HDMI cables. The type of conductor and insulation isn't specified, only the connectors.

So when you buy cheap cables, you'll often find they don't work at high resolutions. Or they won't work the minute you try to use an adapter. Because they are built on the cheap they will have the bare minimum to get away with.

When HDMI fails you will usually get the picture drop out completely, but I have had odd effects, like white flecks on the screen, or the colours going all squiffy when the cable is very marginal

Lumstorm

Yes you mention adapters when it comes to HDMI splitters and switches it can be a lottery to find something that works with your equipment you get some that won't work with 4K others will but won't pass HDR. The HDMI standard was supposed to make things simple to connect but it really has failed badly in that respect. Though I think the real reason for HDMI is the HDCP to stop people from getting copies from their sources.

Rosa_Damascena

Yet lightning leads are not all the same. Mine works on my iPhone but not my iPad - strange that this should vary yet HDMIs are consistent between devices?

Petriix

neilmcl said:

Petriix said:

a said:

Gold on a connector is prefered for the fact that it does not oxidise, and makes the product sound expensive, Both silver and copper are better conductors compared to gold and strongly doubt is was the gold that made your cable work.

I never mentioned 'gold' in relation to my cable; I was making reference to the special breed of people who claim that a gold power lead can make an audible improvement to their HiFi equipment.

I imagine that there was some kind of interference or voltage drop on the cheaper cable that led to either the TV or the receiver to drop and reset the connection - the world of HDMI signals is a mystery to me. The new cable works because of the fibre optic bit, not because of the colour of the connector.

It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone. It's a cable with ability to carry a digital signal, it either works or it doesn't. Your first cable wasn't up to the job, the second cable was, and I doubt it was because of anything to do with the fact it was because of the "fibre optic bit".

What I mean is that I don't know what interaction goes on between the AV receiver and the TV in terms of the circumstances required to cause one of the devices to drop and reestablish the connection; nor do I really need to know.

I'm certain that the fibre optic HDMI cable actually works where the other one didn't. From the research I did (of the actual experiences of people connecting equipment over distances greater than 10 metres) a standard HDMI cable would be unreliable at that length. I can only speculate as to why but I suspect it has something to do with the copy protection baked in to the HDMI signal; though that is just a guess.

John_

Lumstorm said:

prowla said:

Digital signals either work or they don't 

The same could be said of analogue signals. This statement is similar to what I used to hear about digital TV you either get a perfect picture or nothing at all no snow and interference like analogue signals. This isn't true while you you don't get the snow in a digital picture you can get blocking, freezing and such problems, a digital signal can be good enough to get a picture but not enough to show it correctly just like an analogue signal.

No, analogue signals are totally different. They rely on the amplitude of the signal to carry the information, so any degradation or interference reduces the quality. They give worse and worse signals the poorer they are, it’s not a step-change as with digital.