Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
All HDMI cables carry is data. You wouldn't pay £200 for a VGA cable yould you.
with analog, you would probably notice the difference over greater lengths, especially if you're going to run it near power cables - so yes i probably would spend 100-200 on a cable if i was running it 30-40m (roughly the max length for VGA without a repeater).
Otherwise, no i wouldn't spend that amount especially not on a something less that a metre and a digital connection.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
This is a 1.2m cable 
|
ash_corsa
Member
Registered: 15th Apr 04
Location: Shrewsbury
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
It's not utter bollocks, the 1.99 ebay lead is just as good as the 200 quid one.
What exactly is better on the 200 quid one?
And tell me how exactly you'll notice any minute difference they may have using a sky+ box and a normal tv.
All the hdmi cab;es I have from ebay are also very high quality.
depends what your running, sky+ isnt HD anyway mate so you'd have a job plugging in a HDMI lead into it!
You probably wouldnt notice the difference on a cheap tv and hd upscaling dvd player over a 1m distance, but if you were running a £2k plasma tv and a bluray disc player you would see the difference i guarantee it.
Im not saying go out and buy a £200 lead, thats just stupid.
The £1.99 ebay lead IS NOT just as good quality as a much more expensive one - common sense tells you that
Its personal preference at the end of the day, if you arnt big on films and getting the most out of your equipment then settle for second best 
|
Graham88
Member
Registered: 16th Apr 07
Location: South East Kent Drives: E46 M3
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ash_corsa
The £1.99 ebay lead IS NOT just as good quality as a much more expensive one - common sense tells you that
And do you not think that's why companies get away with charging more for something that does the same job as a cheap job? You're just paying for brand.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
All HDMI cables carry is data. You wouldn't pay £200 for a VGA cable yould you.
VGA is analogue - you would actually benefit from using better quality cable but the distances would have to be very long indeed.
I'm running extensions through a wall and up in to my loft to a projector and I didn't notice any drop in quality between the normal set up and the extended one - ie. even with analogue the cables are up to the job for a good few metres.
With digital signals the issue is not signal degradation due to pick-up but data loss due to decreased bandwidth on an attenuated cable.
ie. you can't get as much data in.
The symptoms of this are momentary loss of frame - ie. aberrations, pixelation, jerks or flicker.
Not blur/ghosting/sharpness/whatever else you associated with ANALOGUE loss.
Even if you were running a £2k TV and Bluray disc player - the interface is not designed to negotiate cable clock speed and the decompression techniques are not designed to degrade gracefully - there's no point them doing that when the data loss can be mitigated against using the right amount of bandwidth - therefore it would either be perfect or jumpy, and if it's the former then that's the best you'll get.
There *is* agreement out there that certain, generally cheaper cables, do have problems in particular environments with Deep Color and TrueHD and DTS-HD audio features of HDMI 1.3 but these problems, when apparent, are also not a subtle loss of saturation or audible range - if the bandwidth is not there you are going to see big problems straight away.
Common sense tells you that? Or reading the specs and knowing the issues 
|
Graham88
Member
Registered: 16th Apr 07
Location: South East Kent Drives: E46 M3
User status: Offline
|
Just what I was trying to say 
|
