I actually agree in principle with what bootycall is saying. Poorly made SCART cables can lead to soft looking pictures and muffled sound.

What I don't agree with is the argument that you have to spend £XX amount of money on a brand name manufacturer to get quality. The fact is, it depends. The cable I linked to at the top of this thread is a quality cable despite its low cost. I have done an AB comparison with other cables, some cheaper and some more expensive branded ones, and it produces visibly sharper pictures and clearer sound. Whether it is as good as QED I can't say without doing an AB comparison, but I would be surprised if I saw any improvement.

As for HDMI, while it's true that there is no error correction, there is a fundamental difference between analogue and digital signals that should influence how much you spend on interconnects. In an analogue signal the information is contained in the amplitude or amount of signal. A weak signal from a poorly made cable leads directly to a deterioration in perceived quality. Digital transmission varies in that it carries discrete bits of information (samples) in numerical steps. A weak signal from an HDMI cable may produce sparklies (interference) on the display, but the picture and sound quality will not be affected directly (in terms of picture sharpness etc). If your current HDMI cable works, you're not going to see any improvement in a more expensive one, whatever the cable manufacturers may claim.
Last edited by meltcity : 07-10-2006 at 17:48

I 100% agree. Its like saying going from a silver USB cord to a one with gold USB plugs will make your photo's print out sharper. It simply doesnt work like that with digital technology.

The only time you need concern yourself with the quality of a digital interconnect, is if you need to run the wire over some distance. The signal strength may fall too low and fail to be decoded at the other end. Having a cord with less resistance (usually a thicker core, etc) will keep the signal stronger over long distances. By the way, I have no idea how long the distance has to be before the "average" HDMI cord fails to transport the data code (I am thinking about 1/4 of a mile).

Dave

Tests would seem to indicate it is more like less than 10 metres

See this review

I still stand by my above quote and most who have a very good basic understanding would fully agree..

The best option to solve your problems is by using a good cable that will do the job you require.

The truth is the more expensive cables (and i mean) that are not £5 or £10 but £30 should work well.

Life in any product you buy tends to reflect this and the price tends to be a little bit more.

Such is life..

What about this "more expensive" cable?

http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...VCBTSTIJZCGFVN

These are pretty good for a twentieth of the price:

http://www.kenable.co.uk/product_inf...6a914aad6bdecc
Last edited by Captain Cod : 10-10-2006 at 23:04

I think that it was this one:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...4&page=1&pp=25

MY best tip to buying your cables is to spend no more than 10% of the cost of the hardware it is intended for. Sound and picture quality are not easily noticeable from a cheap cable to a very expensive cable. However the cable must be able to prevent interference and allow the cable to work as original intended.

1st: You should place a budget to how much you would like to spend and look for cables in that range.

2nd: You should also try to read up on facts to the good points and bad points of the cables you are looking at buying.

3rd: Then you should buy your cable.
Last edited by bootycall : 05-11-2006 at 13:08