|
||||||||
Watchdog BBC1 Tonight (20140604) HDMI leads |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Latterly they did do component - but at an increase in the phono count.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cornwall (at last!)
Posts: 5,641
|
Agreed. The point being the additional phonos involved
Which probably explains the enormous height of some latter surround processors / amplifiers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: south yorkshire
Posts: 1,263
|
Worth a read
http://www.techradar.com/news/video/...-cable-1071343 Especially the quote below. "Will using a £5,000 USB cable make your printer better?" asks Chris Pinder, Managing Director at HDcable.co.uk, rhetorically. "I've been selling HDMI cables for years and I can say 100% that the technology, and specifically the price of an HDMI cable will not affect the picture quality by one pixel." I have never paid more than a fiver and my kit is worth a few grand. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Watchdog really needs to go to Russ Andrews for some premium bulls**t. From a listing for a £162 HDMI lead: Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Andrews
And the result of this precise manufacture? Stunning images and crystal-clear sound. We've seen clear improvements in image quality, with less noise and finer colour detail; sound was also more detailed and has better three-dimensional resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
Component isn't RGB, it's an inferior system,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,901
|
Quote:
Watchdog really needs to go to Russ Andrews for some premium bulls**t. From a listing for a £162 HDMI lead:
These clowns should either back-up their claims with credible evidence or be forced to carry a legal disclaimer saying that claims made during their sales pitches are made "for entertainment purposes only". Just like Psychics, Astrologers and other blatant charlatans. I mean what person with half a functioning brain cell is going to be stupid enough to part with three grand for a bloody mains lead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Quote:
I do have to wonder reading some of the batshit crazy descriptions of stuff on that site whether Russ Andrews is taking the pi55 out of the lunatic fringe of the AV fraternity or really believes the crap written on the site.
I mean what person with half a functioning brain cell is going to be stupid enough to part with three grand for a bloody mains lead! ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cornwall (at last!)
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
Well, a three grand kettle lead may not make a scrap of difference to picture and sound quality on your AV equipment, but stick it on your kettle and you'll soon be enjoying greatly enhanced tea with a deep brown hue and a rich, vibrant taste.
I have pieces of foil stuck to the kettle, and a piece of paper under one foot and it certain;y sounds more lifelike when boiling (Thanks to Peter Belt) Haven't found an alternate use for the hi-fi brick yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cornwall (at last!)
Posts: 5,641
|
Quote:
unlesss of course the cable was not constructed to ARC spec. ARC uses two connections that were unspecified in the original cable spec. So possible they were not wired properly in a cable not specifically designed to the ARC spec.
However I now think darker forces are at play. I only had a couple of older cables to have and one HDMI 1.4. Dolby Digital (DD) was passing from the Sky Box via HDMI (I plugged it direct to the processor - but obviously at that point wasn't connected to the TV so couldn't play with the on screen settings). However on reconnecting it to the TV, then using the ARC from TV to processor no DD just stereo. I did swap the cables around but the same effect happened, which proves nothing if one of the older cables can't pass the DD signal via the ARC chain. I have a (cheap) HDMI 1.4 cable on order, which will be here for the weekend so I can see if it is a cable problem. Though - hence the darker forces comment - I am becoming mindful that it may be a variance of the whole HDMI spec as applied to the equipment by various manufacturers. I have read reports that Panasonic do not allow pass through of DD information via ARC, whereas Samsung (for example) do on SOME of their TVs. This is worrying, only in that surely a connection like HDMI should be universal. If not and it is applied in different ways by different manufacturers plays into the hands of the snake oil merchants. Though I will put my hand up to having some pretty exotic analogue cables. (but I suspect we have to agree to differ here) |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Devon
Posts: 1,568
|
Yes, Panasonics only send dolby digital down the hdmi ARC from internal sources (the tuner, USB media function if available). Anything plugged in via the hdmi leads will be converted to stereo only. Why they don't just send back what it recieves is beyond me. Like you say, some Samsungs aren't restricted in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 27,901
|
Quote:
On a more serious note I SUSPECT this to be the case (in which case I stand by my original comment that not all HDMI cables are created equally - an age thing, rather than quality)
However I now think darker forces are at play. I only had a couple of older cables to have and one HDMI 1.4. Dolby Digital (DD) was passing from the Sky Box via HDMI (I plugged it direct to the processor - but obviously at that point wasn't connected to the TV so couldn't play with the on screen settings). However on reconnecting it to the TV, then using the ARC from TV to processor no DD just stereo. I did swap the cables around but the same effect happened, which proves nothing if one of the older cables can't pass the DD signal via the ARC chain. I have a (cheap) HDMI 1.4 cable on order, which will be here for the weekend so I can see if it is a cable problem. Though - hence the darker forces comment - I am becoming mindful that it may be a variance of the whole HDMI spec as applied to the equipment by various manufacturers. I have read reports that Panasonic do not allow pass through of DD information via ARC, whereas Samsung (for example) do on SOME of their TVs. This is worrying, only in that surely a connection like HDMI should be universal. If not and it is applied in different ways by different manufacturers plays into the hands of the snake oil merchants. Though I will put my hand up to having some pretty exotic analogue cables. (but I suspect we have to agree to differ here) There is also the possibility that the TV is telling the Sky box that it cannot accept Dolby Digital in the first place so the Sky box is auto switching to Stereo. That sort of negotiation of capabilities is part of the HDMI spec. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Yes, Panasonics only send dolby digital down the hdmi ARC from internal sources (the tuner, USB media function if available). Anything plugged in via the hdmi leads will be converted to stereo only. Why they don't just send back what it recieves is beyond me. Like you say, some Samsungs aren't restricted in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Quote:
that's the one.
i'm a scientist. i subscribe to this model. i understand that saying an expensive HDMI lead gives a better picture is like saying an expensive USB lead will give me better print quality. that was until i saw what happened when my mate hooked up his three grand 50 inch panasonic to his onkyo receiver with a few hdmi leads and blind test you could tell the difference. presumably it was some rf interference picked up in the lead making it to the screen. If the fabled "deeper blacks, richer reds, truer skin tones and almost three-dimensional sharpness" really could be achieved using more expensive HDMI cables, why aren't cable manufacturers proving themselves time and again in double-blind trials and then quoting these conclusive results on packaging and promotional materials? Obvious answer: Because no such results exist or are ever likely to exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
|
Quote:
What exactly were the differences you saw? Were some of the leads faulty?
If the fabled "deeper blacks, richer reds, truer skin tones and almost three-dimensional sharpness" really could be achieved using more expensive HDMI cables, why aren't cable manufacturers proving themselves time and again in double-blind trials and then quoting these conclusive results on packaging and promotional materials? Obvious answer: Because no such results exist or are ever likely to exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
no it wasn't any of that shit. it was like noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
|
Quote:
In which case the lead was faulty - any lead which meets the required HDMI spec will give exactly the same picture as any other.
As I have said I believe it was rf noise, not affecting the signal itself, but being let in to the system via the HDMI. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
You're not listening to me Nigel. I saw it with my own eyes, with several leads.
As I have said I believe it was rf noise, not affecting the signal itself, but being let in to the system via the HDMI. The cable and system is designed to deliver a simple stream of zeros and ones. The inbuilt error checking would reject any deviation. The problem is far more likely to be related to lack of screening on the hdmi cable affecting the TV, possibly due to poorly screened coax interconnects affecting the TV (did the test disconnect all other inputs to the TV rf or scart ?). A problem that strangely affects more expensive hdmi connections, or more likely cheap coax rf leads. Basically the issue is more than likely TV and rf coax cable related. Can you replicate with just a single hdmi link box to TV ? Not exactly a very scientific test, the results could be affected by simply the routing of cables. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
|
Quote:
A bit confused, why would RF affect a digital signal ?. It would either be within the inbuilt error correction that will ignore analogue interference, or be instantly obvious.
The cable and system is designed to deliver a simple stream of zeros and ones. The inbuilt error checking would reject any deviation. The problem is far more likely to be related to lack of screening on the hdmi cable affecting the TV, possibly due to poorly screened coax interconnects affecting the TV (did the test disconnect all other inputs to the TV rf or scart ?). A problem that strangely affects more expensive hdmi connections, or more likely cheap coax rf leads. Basically the issue is more than likely TV and rf coax cable related. Can you replicate with just a single hdmi link box to TV ? Not exactly a very scientific test, the results could be affected by simply the routing of cables. I'm not suggesting it does. But at some point at the display that digital signal becomes an analogue voltage. I think maybe it's noise that is causing a kind of dither. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4,710
|
Quote:
You don't. I use a 99p shop one for 3D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,046
|
Quote:
Rf noise would not affect the digital signal.
I'm not suggesting it does. But at some point at the display that digital signal becomes an analogue voltage. I think maybe it's noise that is causing a kind of dither. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Quote:
You're not listening to me Nigel. I saw it with my own eyes, with several leads.
As I have said I believe it was rf noise, not affecting the signal itself, but being let in to the system via the HDMI. One part of your post that really sets alarm bells ringing is the use of this device: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/05/at-f...re-wise-to-it/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
You're not listening to me Nigel. I saw it with my own eyes, with several leads.
As I have said I believe it was rf noise, not affecting the signal itself, but being let in to the system via the HDMI. If you were truly getting RF noise in that way, perhaps you should move as you're obviously slowly getting cooked at such levels of RF ![]() No manufacturer, or laboratory, has been able to show any such effect - and you appear to be the only person to claim it exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
|
Quote:
Like I said, faulty leads - or quite possible a scam of some kind.
If you were truly getting RF noise in that way, perhaps you should move as you're obviously slowly getting cooked at such levels of RF ![]() No manufacturer, or laboratory, has been able to show any such effect - and you appear to be the only person to claim it exists. Any unsubstantiated claim becomes more credible when it's preceded by the words "I'm a scientist" and an avowal of prior scepticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
You don't. I use a 99p shop one for 3D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fylde Coast
Posts: 8,103
|
I find that most cables of the appropriate type, e.g 1.4, work much the same.
It is only when you get long runs of cable that problems arise. I bought a couple of ten metre HDMI leads and one didn't work and the other would only transmit lower quality resolutions. Hi-speed cables work fine at ten metres though. Any longer and you need an amp or use converters and cat 5 wiring.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:12.




