Nintendo WII and HDMI cable

gjchester

UncleJaysus wrote: »

When talking about short distances (in this case 2 metres or under) any cable will safely deliver the digital 'ones and zeros' to the TV without any dropped information (I have cheap £10 cables that perform flawlessly at this distance).

So, looking at this logically, it doesn't matter how expensive the cable, they're all delivering the same raw code to the TV. So, the TV can't help but display the same quality picture every time, because it's getting exactly the same information from each.

Logically yes there should be no difference, however you assuming perfect conduction in the cables, and no poor handiwork on the soldering connectors. Reality isn't like that, cheap cables (and were talking the sub £5 bracket here) are unlikely to be correctly specified, you wouldn't use bell wire to carry mains, you use something with the right specification. If the wires up to the job it will be fine, but many cheap cables just use whatever wire they have to hand, not what is appropriate. As I said a few posts earlier the bigger TV's get the more noticable difference get. Even CD players which use "perfect" laser light have error correction built in. The worse quality the cable the more error correction that gets applied. What may be almost invisible on a 19'' screen may be glaringly obvious on a 42'' screen.

Again as I also said earlier, if you equipment (both eyes, ears and electronic) can see the difference is another matter.

I should add I'm not advocating the silly priced cables, just something up to the job.

aliEnRIK

UncleJaysus wrote: »

When talking about HDMI (or DVI-D, or anything purely digital) it is one hundred per cent impossible for the actual quality of the picture to be affected by the quality of the cable.

The only reason that exists to purchase high quality HDMI cables, is when you want to safeguard against dropped information, which results in missing blocks of image, not lower image quality.

Dropped digital info only really happens over long distances (when you start approaching 10 metres) and when you're dealing with 1080p imagery, where the signal becomes weaker and degraded in transit and the 'ones and zeros' become unreadable to the receiving device (TV).

When talking about short distances (in this case 2 metres or under) any cable will safely deliver the digital 'ones and zeros' to the TV without any dropped information (I have cheap £10 cables that perform flawlessly at this distance).

So, looking at this logically, it doesn't matter how expensive the cable, they're all delivering the same raw code to the TV. So, the TV can't help but display the same quality picture every time, because it's getting exactly the same information from each.

(yawns)

Mate, im really REALLY bored of these conversations now...............

gjim

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Massive split down the middle this one. Ive tried expensive ones and they DO mkake a difference (to MY setup)
Im trying to get a hold of some abx blind tests to at least show there is something in this

I think you'll find that there's not a massive split down the middle . As you call it . For anybody that understands what's going on.

I.E. Knowing the difference between Analogue and Digital.
Simple really!

If you thought that digital cables of higher quality have made a difference to your setup . Your doing something wrong. OR you've got shi't in your eyes. OR you've got a highly developed imagination. (improbable this one)

superscaper

gjim wrote: »

I think you'll find that there's not a massive split down the middle . As you call it . For anybody that understands what's going on.

I.E. Knowing the difference between Analogue and Digital.
Simple really!

If you thought that digital cables of higher quality have made a difference to your setup . Your doing something wrong. OR you've got shi't in your eyes. OR you've got a highly developed imagination. (improbable this one)

I've disagreed with Rik myself in the strongest terms over this, but really what are you trying to achieve by dragging up an old thread over it? I can't agree with Rik on this subject but he's mostly spot in in my opinion on lots of other stuff and knows more than me in other areas. I don't see the point in spoiling for a fight for the sake of it though.

aliEnRIK

gjim wrote: »

I think you'll find that there's not a massive split down the middle . As you call it . For anybody that understands what's going on.

I.E. Knowing the difference between Analogue and Digital.
Simple really!

If you thought that digital cables of higher quality have made a difference to your setup . Your doing something wrong. OR you've got shi't in your eyes. OR you've got a highly developed imagination. (improbable this one)

Im really not sure why youve dragged this up either but as its your 1st post I have a very good idea

As ive seen with my own eyes differences in hdmi cables I thought id go hunting for any evidence as to how this could be
Ive since found this~
http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index3.html


The author of the article is a very well respected audiophile and goes to great lengths to find 'why' things work how they do
His test has shown that jitter is influenced by all the following ~

1) the transport's jitter;
2) S/PDIF or AES/EBU interface-induced jitter (the digital interconnect);
3) how well the digital processor's input receiver rejects transport and interface jitter;
4) the input receiver's intrinsic jitter; and
5) how well the clock is recovered and handled inside the digital processor.

"My preconception was that any measurable differences between different coaxial digital interconnects would be marginal at best."
"What caused this reduction in measured jitter?
Changing the direction of the digital interconnect between the transport and the jitter analyzer."

"This phenomenon was easily repeatable: put the cable in one direction and read the RMS jitter voltage, then reverse the cable direction and watch the RMS jitter voltage drop. Although I'd heard differences in digital-cable directionality, I was surprised the difference in jitter was so easily measurable—and that the jitter difference was nearly double."
"To confirm this phenomenon, I repeated the test five times each on three different digital interconnects. One was a generic audio cable, the other two were Mod Squad Wonder Link and Aural Symphonics Digital Standard, both highly regarded cables specifically designed for digital transmission. The generic cable wasn't directional: it produced the same high jitter in either direction. But both the Wonder Link and the Aural Symphonics had lower jitter levels overall, but different jitter levels depending on their direction. Moreover, the generic cable had higher jitter than either of the two premium cables—even in the latters' "high-jitter" direction."


So to sum up this experiment ~
Cables DO induce jitter 'measureably'
Cables 'can' be directional
Digital cables are NOT the same
The DAC is effected by jitter (Meaning we CAN see and or hear a difference)

aliEnRIK

Heres some other links and quotes ~
http://www.networkboy.net/hdjitter.shtml
"lets look at a form of jitter that rarely plagues the
I/O's of PCB mounted components, but that your cheapie cable is almost certain
to introduce: aJit. Amplitude jitter "

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
"the optical interface adds more jitter than a simple logic
buffer. For that reason, it has higher jitter/lower performance than a
well-designed S/PDIF coax interface."

The BBC have known about and tried to work around 'jitter' for a long time.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf

http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html
"Less jitter" sounds better, much better!
Auditioners testified:

• improved ease of listening
• increased clarity
• improved high frequency response
• better instrument separation
• more information
• better timing
• better soundstage
• improved overall audio performance

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

IThe author of the article is a very well respected audiophile and goes to great lengths to find 'why' things work how they do

He doesn't though. He starts off with a premise, which he then sets out to prove true.

That's not really how science works.

There's still $1,000,000 waiting.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

He doesn't though. He starts off with a premise, which he then sets out to prove true.

That's not really how science works.

There's still $1,000,000 waiting.

Have you read the 'small print' on that 1 million?
Its because of that small print that no one has even bothered attempting it

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Have you read the 'small print' on that 1 million?
Its because of that small print that no one has even bothered attempting it

What small print would that be?

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Have you read the 'small print' on that 1 million?
Its because of that small print that no one has even bothered attempting it

Sigh. Hundreds of people have tried for it for all sorts.