[Mad Mr H]

Hi,

For those that know me I have mainly Kimber Kables in my 2ch and Cinema Audio systems.

I have been working my way through the video system.

I recently tested Kimber HDMI vs Chord Silver Plus 1.3 both 1m

I gotta tell you all that the Chord beats the Kimber without question, Slightly more vivid colours but the deal for me was the reduction in video noise when using the Chord HDMI.

Anyone test Chord vs anything and found better ???

The Kimber & Chord are similar prices

[davepuma]

I'm sorry I don't believe there is any notiecable difference between digital cables especially colours etc. but if you're happy......

Are you unhappy with the cable, that you feel you must change it? I'm sure your local dealer would be happy to let you borrow a few to try if you're spending serious coin.

Just not for me. HDMI is HDMI.

[andy1249]

Slightly more vivid colours

Thats impossible ....

reduction in video noise when using the Chord HDMI.

And the second part indicates that your other cable was faulty in some way.

Some more info , on HDMI in general not just monster , this is part 2 , the others a easy to find , it will explain why the first part is impossible , and why , if you are seeing video noise , that a faulty cable is most likely what you have.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cabl...t-2-268788.php

[missinglink]

Interesting link andy1249.

There is one curious detail in the displays that pass and fail though:

the display pattern showing the test pattern or whatever it is, is quite different in detail even for those cables which passed. For example sometimes the bands were thinner or the whole pattern looked more squashed.

So if it is a case of the signal just being on or off then why the big differences in the graphs that all passed?

It would therefore seem logical that one cable could end up displaying better colours or better contrast. So this test article seems to have shown that some very cheap cables may indeed pass on enough signal integrity but there still appears to be considerable variation in all the passed ones.

I would need to know enough about the test itself to make a more informed judgement but I would not say it answers the truth or myth about hdmi cabling.

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by davepuma

I'm sorry I don't believe there is any notiecable difference between digital ..........HDMI is HDMI.

Originally Posted by andy1249

Thats impossible ....

Oh Dear , Whats the point of posting the above replys?

Clearly Andy1249 has NOT read and understood the link he posts - That clearly tells you that some cables are NOT as good as others.


SO could people with REAL experience please post any findings they may have.

And if anyone is about to post "Thats impossible.........." then PLEASE dont waste your time posting or my time reading.

IF however you have done side by side tests and find no differance then feel free to post - I would also like to hear what equipment was used.

For my tests of Kimber vs Chord , PS3 60Gb UK, Denon NEW £5K pre amp, Runco projector.

I am currently SO convinced of this differance that I am changing my Kimber HDMI order to Chord or another brand if I hear from others.

I was not alone in this view, there were mainly two of us testing this at times three - We ALL agreed the results and they were obvious as well.

(On the Audio cable testing I found the £1200 chord interconnect to have a real value of about £300 and fell VERY short of similar Kimber Kables - But thats another thread)

[missinglink]

Well Mr H, I have invested in a number of products from Russ Andrews but not an HDMI.

I have a PS3 and Denon 1940 and I use the same Chord as you mention but a Wireworld 5^2 Starlight 1m HDMI which is my 'main' cable. I have not compared them too closely but this Wireworld one is very impressive.

Incidently, I also use an Isotek Mira for my LCD 40" Toshiba and PS3. This has made more difference than any cable. The effects are immediately noticeable and huge.

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by missinglink

I have a PS3 and Denon 1940 and I use the same Chord as you mention but a Wireworld 5^2 Starlight 1m HDMI which is my 'main' cable. I have not compared them too closely but this Wireworld one is very impressive.

I will look that cable up.

Incidentally, I also use an Isotek Mira for my LCD 40" Toshiba and PS3. This has made more difference than any cable. The effects are immediately noticeable and huge.

Slightly off topic but thanks for the "real world" info.

In my stereo system I have an Isotek IIxMM (2x2000) CH1 supplies Bryston Amp Directly, CH2 supplies an Isotek Sub Station - Sub Station runs Bryston SP25 analogue preamp, Mark Levinson DAC, Mark Levinson CD Transport. I then have an Isotek 2K Cube that feeds BTVision Box, Blu Ray, HD DVD, HDMI switcher & Plasma -thats all "Video" systems and currently I can power down the Cube and switch off all video items when I want Audio only. The Cube currently powers a multiway mains block I would like to add another substation/Cleanline for the video items in the future (need to find the cash)

I did NOT just put this together, I have actually tested the noise on the mains as I went along. This was done yesterday.

Like you the difference is very real .

[andy1249]

the display pattern showing the test pattern or whatever it is, is quite different in detail even for those cables which passed. For example sometimes the bands were thinner or the whole pattern looked more squashed.

So if it is a case of the signal just being on or off then why the big differences in the graphs that all passed?

The differences are down to attenuation and interference , however unlike analog , what the signal represents here is code , 1's and 0's , The interference you see on some of those signals plays absolutely no part in the final output, the code is all thats looked at.

All that matters is that the levels are distinct enough for the 1's and 0's to get recognised , once they do , the picture is reconstructed from the code , the system is designed so that the signal can take an enormous amount of interference and still produce the correct code at the end. Its called high interference immunity and is a feature of most digital connections.

Any corrupted code still gets shown on the Screen but positively does not manifest itself as more " vivid " colors , it manifests as drop outs , macro blocking and so on.

The only way a cable could cause more vivid colours would be for it to be able to alter the code in a positive and constructive way, and no passive component can do that , that , like I said , is impossible.

Likewise no cable can degrade the code in a constructive way, by that , I mean there is no way it could alter the code so that it still produces a clear picture , but with less vivid colours , that is a nonsensical impossibility !

For such a thing to happen the cable would have to be altering the live bitstream ( of literally millions of bits per second) so that the code was altered to produce an otherwise clear signal but with a slightly inferior colour quality, such an idea ( selective bit misinterpretation on a massive scale ) is about as far fetched as it gets.

In reality once the signal gets degraded to the point where bits are misinterpreted , garbage starts to appear on screen, starting with the likes of sparklies and degrading to massive picture and sound breakup. There is no analog like " lesser" picture quality.


And to mister Mad H , I had the not very pleasant job of testing over 100 different types of cables using the best equipment for the job about 4 months ago now. Pretty much identical to the job done in the link , with the added joy of analysing bit data on a Logic analyser to boot.

I am an Engineer working in the business , and I can say for a fact , with 100% certainty , that this BS about more " vivid " pictures over HDMI due to different cables is exactly that , complete BS of the highest order.

Under 5 meters all cables perform equally well or are faulty , over 10 meters attenuation is the issue and good cables do make a difference , but only in terms of attenuation , those that fail , fail miserably. And it has nothing to do with fine details , its a total breakup of signal.

Theres none of this fine detail enhancement that you get with different qualities of analog cable , thats a different world.

These are measurable irrefutable facts , whether you like it or not Mr mad H , I will not entertain the rubbish that gets posted in order to convince people to cough up extra money for what is essentially a con , and with HDMI , this so called " quality cable " BS is a con.

I do not like to see people being conned and will post accordingly any time I see this nonsense.

[jordandy512]

Hi

I have a Wireworld island 5-2 1m cable as well as a number of cheapo hdmi cables, my sources are shown in my sig at the bottom. I can honestly say that I have seen no difference between any of the cables. I also think there is no difference between my ps3 and my standalone player, I have also had a Pioneer Blu player on home demo and that to me was identical too. Afraid I have to go along with the masses, any well built cable will do an identical job to the high mark-up cables. Correct me if I am wrong but I read somewhere that 99% of the cables come from China, and that includes the likes of QED/Chord etc.

Andy

[nokmond]

Originally Posted by Mad Mr H

Hi,

For those that know me I have mainly Kimber Kables in my 2ch and Cinema Audio systems.

I have been working my way through the video system.

I recently tested Kimber HDMI vs Chord Silver Plus 1.3 both 1m

I gotta tell you all that the Chord beats the Kimber without question, Slightly more vivid colours but the deal for me was the reduction in video noise when using the Chord HDMI.

Anyone test Chord vs anything and found better ???

The Kimber & Chord are similar prices

I hope this thread is a joke! Otherwise - enjoy spending (wasting) your money! Vivid colours

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by davepuma

I'm sorry I don't believe there is any notiecable difference between digital cables especially colours etc. but if you're happy.......

If I looked up the specs of your system correctly

Your TV is 480p native (But I DO like CRT'S so that will be an excellent picture )

Your projector is native 720p

I am running 1080p and so this pushes the limits over longer lengths.

I am prepared to believe that over lower bandwidth the differances might not be as noticable.

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by jordandy512

Hi

I have a Wireworld island 5-2 1m cable as well as a number of cheapo hdmi cables, my sources are shown in my sig at the bottom.

Hi,

I looked up the Spec on your LCD TV - Its FULL 1080p as I understand so thats a good place to start with this discussion.

However (Sorry!) I also read the following - Which is an excellent set of features......

"This TV also has a feature called Movie Mode which eliminates grain and smoothes picture judder usually found when a film is converted to video. There is a Digital Natural Image Engine (DNIe) on board which improves black levels, sharpness and tone. Samsung’s Wide Colour Enhancer has also been included to generate richer, more vibrant colours."

It is therefore possible that the advantage I saw with different cables is being done by your TV's internal video enhancement system.

This is a good thing but might mask the benefit of different cables - Of course if that saves money on expensive cables then again a great feature.

[nokmond]

Your kidding yourself mate. Its just not possible that a hdmi cable can alter colours in anyway. It is simply passing data from A to B. It would be like spending £50 on a usb cable to make your photo's look 'more vivid'. Rubbish.

Have you upgraded your co-ax to make Sky a more vivid picture? I don't think so.

[Mad Mr H]

Hi Andy,

Originally Posted by andy1249

The differences are down to attenuation and interference..........
All that matters is that the levels are distinct enough for the 1's and 0's to get recognised , the picture is reconstructed from the code ,
Any corrupted code still gets shown on the Screen, it manifests as drop outs , macro blocking and so on.

Ok, you mention the extreme visual appearance of digital interferance.

What happens inbetween "perfect" info and "drop outs" ?

It may well all be 0 & 1 but the is a LOT of data, could a glitch appear as incorrect luma info? or chroma info? in the final picture?

The only way a cable could cause more vivid colours would be for it to be able to alter the code in a positive and constructive way, and no passive component can do that , that, Likewise no cable can degrade the code in a constructive way, by that , I mean there is no way it could alter the code so that it still produces a clear picture , but with less vivid colours , that is a nonsensical impossibility !

For such a thing to happen the cable would have to be altering the live bitstream ( of literally millions of bits per second) so that the code was altered to produce an otherwise clear signal but with a slightly inferior colour quality, such an idea ( selective bit misinterpretation on a massive scale ) is about as far fetched as it gets.

Well currently thats EXACTLY what I believe might be the reason for the differance - As "far fetched" as you believe this to be were ALL the results you saw with the 100+ tested cables 100% identical? The traces on the link shown above are clearly different - What that means I dont know as that is beyond my understanding.

I have always been happy to learn about new concepts (new to me that is).

In reality once the signal gets degraded to the point where bits are misinterpreted , garbage starts to appear on screen, starting with the likes of sparklies and degrading to massive picture and sound breakup. There is no analog like "
lesser" picture quality.

YES - I totally agree with this part, no question at all. BUT what I am specifically interested in is the middle ground between No degridation of signal and total breakup.

Currently I believe there is a gradient from perfect to total breakup.

You mention that is either works "perfect" or it does not "total breakup"

BUT can we just go over this bit again......

In reality once the signal gets degraded to the point where bits are misinterpreted , garbage starts to appear on screen, starting with the likes of sparklies and degrading to massive picture and sound breakup. There is no analog like "
lesser" picture quality.

That mentions "perfect", then signal degradation STARTING with "Sparklies", then DEGRADING to massive "picture and audio breakup"

I agree with this so we have already gone from "perfect" or "total brakup" to a third option "sparklies"

What I firmly believe is that there are more stages to this gradient of degradation - If they are visible is another question but I would like to discuss further the possibility that there are more stages in this signal degradation gradient.

IF I use the wrong technical terms then please correct me - When I say "slightly more vivid colours" it may well be that what I "say" I see is actually due to another factor (lower noise floor, less jitter etc.?)


PS - re "mister Mad H" & "Mr mad H" - is that a digital glitch? its Mad Mr H or Andy H or Andy will do please.

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by nokmond

Your kidding yourself mate. Its just not possible that a hdmi cable can alter colours in anyway. It is simply passing data from A to B. It would be like spending £50 on a usb cable to make your photo's look 'more vivid'. Rubbish.

Well I have been FORCED to buy fairly high quality USB cables when the "free" supplied cables frequently failed to send data over 2 meters in applications I work with - I am totally prepared to accept that these are FAILED cables due to low quality control over the "free" cables.

Have you upgraded your co-ax to make Sky a more vivid picture? I don't think so.

why do you think there is CT100 & CT125 & Fibre optic cables - Reduced loss over distance

I dont have SKY, But in the old days of sky there was more quality to be gained with different sky boxes - AND for terestrial TV the RF unit in the boxes differed greatly in quality.

PS - Did you just do the Woman thing , Answered your own question? "Have you upgraded your co-ax to make Sky a more vivid picture? I don't think so. ".

You are more than welcome to guess the things I have done in life - Kylie Minogue was just a rumour .

[jordandy512]

After reading numerous posts on this and other forums, I choose to run my display with both movie mode and dnie switched off so I would disagree that the tv is hiding the difference between the cables. I have to say that some of your comments seem to try to justify the extra expense of the 'branded' cables. I believe that copper is copper et'al and that if the cable is well constructed it will do the job. The Chord HDMI cable is I think around £80, please tell me what is added to the cable to jusify more than a ten fold increase in price over a £5 aldi cable, both made in China from copper cable to the HDMI spec, and most probably in the same factory. Don't get me wrong, if a higher priced cable would make a noticable difference I would spend the cash, but with digital cables I think it's money down the drain. Just my opinion though if you feel the expense is worth the outlay then great.

Andy

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by jordandy512

I choose to run my display with both movie mode and dnie switched off so I would disagree that the tv is hiding the difference between the cables.

Thank you, Thats the real world info I am looking for.
It might not fit in with what I think but I am looking for opinions from others.

I have to say that some of your comments seem to try to justify the extra expense of the 'branded' cables.

I agree , I am trying to justify the expense - I have also tested the FREE cables that come with my players VS the Kimber 1m HDMI I have - Some of the free cables failed 1080p.

I believe that copper is copper et'al and that if the cable is well constructed it will do the job. The Chord HDMI cable is I think around £80, please tell me what is added to the cable to justify more than a ten fold increase in price over a £5 aldi cable. Andy

Silver plated Copper - Is the answer to what is added, Also different quality in end connections, Wireworld Silver Starlight is an example of this (I'm sure there are others)

What else - Well when you buy Chord/Wireworld/Kimber your first impression comes PRIOR to even seeing the cable - The perception of quality. What do I mean?

The Kimber comes in its own Bag, the Chord/Wireworld come in a fancy box - Of course this does NOT mean the cable is better quality but it does Ive the feel of quality prior to opening the box. This does of course increase the price from the "free" cables - not much but it all counts when you are talking high numbers of cables. A large box could hold 100+ "free" plastic bag covered HDMI cables - 100 Kimber a much larger box - Chord/Wireworld you are starting to add serious volume of delivery and additional transport costs. (Which in our greener world will soon a thing of the past, and thats a good thing)

Free home testing of higher priced cables - this all costs money.

I think the question of does the increase in price "justify" the end result is more of a personal question - And one that I try to avoid as I feel each person will have a different answer. I would prefer to ask which is best, AND then if I can afford it buy it, If I cant then its save save save or accept that what I have is a compromise of quality/afordability (is that a word?)

Andy.

[platty2890]

Had a look thru some of the replys to the original post and have to say the quality of the cables do make a DIFFERENCE the only way i found is go to your local retailer borrow different cables within your price range and test them in your system see what difference they make in video/audio quality if any and buy the best one. Could be a fiver or £100 but its your money and decision. Thats what ive done and so have a lot of others including Mad MrH but thats what everybody should be doing. Its fun and at least you know your money is well spent.

[aniki]

Originally Posted by Mad Mr H

It might not fit in with what I think but I am looking for opinions from others.

I personally believe that some expensive HDMI cables offer significant improvements over cheaper offerings.
However, I dont talk about it on here for obvious reasons

[Alan Mac]

Originally Posted by Mad Mr H

Hi,


I gotta tell you all that the Chord beats the Kimber without question, Slightly more vivid colours...

“Slightly more vivid colours”, in the context of a television system, surely corresponds to physically measurable quantities? If this were not so, the concept of calibrating a television display (projector etc.) would not be valid.

An appropriate colour test signal used in conjunction with a Spectra-radiometer or similar should constitute suitable test equipment.

If you have reliable and repeatable results of such physical measurements showing the Chord HDMI cable to produce even slightly more vivid colours (than HDMI cables from other manufacturers), then I am sure the scientific and engineering communities would be very interested (not to say astounded!) by your discovery.


Alan

[Mad Mr H]

I own two colourimeters.

ONE belonged to Peter Finzel (Personally) and I bought from him.

One is a Sencore CP5000

At the time of testing I did not have these with me as the original idea was to run some side by side tests of Audio interconnects that I own vs some other brands and look into some mains related issues and possible options.

I believe the two days I spent were very worthwhile, I gave my time free to another forum member and I believe we both gained from this experience.

[andy1249]

What happens inbetween "perfect" info and "drop outs" ?

Nothing ... you dont get digital at all do you ? The signal has no analog equivalent or component , it either works or it doesnt !

You may go ahead and convince yourself that your spending your money well , but I know exactly how this interface works and I know for a fact what you are saying is rubbish.

Alan Mac has a great suggestion there , and there is a HD test card readily available from Sky , it would be trivial to set up a measurement test to really see if there is a colour difference between cables. If you really want to see if there is a difference I suggest you do that.

Personally Ive spent enough time testing these interfaces to know the result already. I wont be wasting my time on it.

[Mad Mr H]

Andy1249.

You say that digital is either "works" or "does not work"

Yet by your own admission there is a another state "sparklies"

So would you agree that there is at least 3 states of image or even just 3 states?

Perfect working / Sparklies / no picture - Those are after all your words?


You see I'm open minded about this (thats NOT saying you are not ) but to date you have not mentioned anything that convinces me about this lack of intermediate states.

I am keen to hear about why there are no intermediate states?

How many 0 and 1 make up one frame of an image? (or equivalent?

Do different configurations in each data packet produce a different image? If not there has to be a way the image is produced from the string of 0 & 1's?

If one or a few of those 0 & 1's got changed or how about missing? from the data then that would change the image ???

I'm sure there will be a checksum (or equivalent) but there must be an acceptable %error ?

This is real time streaming of data - So an error is acceptable there is no stopping the data stream ???

As I understand the device sending the data lets say PS3 is not able to check the final image shown on say projector - So it is possible that the data shown is not exactly as the data was meant to be (Do you agree?) .

A simple example is when my heating system room stat kicks in I get a glitch in the picture.

If I have a mark on a disc the image could distort

These are possible ways that the image on the original material can differ from those that we see - Do you agree with that?

Of course those are examples that don't include the cable.


Do you mind if I ask what system you have? And of course the cables you use?

With the 100 ish cables you tested did you try any in an actual system or only on the test bench?


Did you answer if ALL cables you tested had 100% identical results? i would like to establish the fact that the cables at least gave different results? Even if we don't agree what that might mean.

[HDMIHead]

Originally Posted by Mad Mr H

Andy1249.

You say that digital is either "works" or "does not work"

Yet by your own admission there is a another state "sparklies"

So would you agree that there is at least 3 states of image or even just 3 states?

Perfect working / Sparklies / no picture - Those are after all your words?


You see I'm open minded about this (thats NOT saying you are not ) but to date you have not mentioned anything that convinces me about this lack of intermediate states.

I am keen to hear about why there are no intermediate states?

How many 0 and 1 make up one frame of an image? (or equivalent?

Do different configurations in each data packet produce a different image? If not there has to be a way the image is produced from the string of 0 & 1's?

If one or a few of those 0 & 1's got changed or how about missing? from the data then that would change the image ???

I'm sure there will be a checksum (or equivalent) but there must be an acceptable %error ?

This is real time streaming of data - So an error is acceptable there is no stopping the data stream ???

As I understand the device sending the data lets say PS3 is not able to check the final image shown on say projector - So it is possible that the data shown is not exactly as the data was meant to be (Do you agree?) .

A simple example is when my heating system room stat kicks in I get a glitch in the picture.

If I have a mark on a disc the image could distort

These are possible ways that the image on the original material can differ from those that we see - Do you agree with that?

Of course those are examples that don't include the cable.


Do you mind if I ask what system you have? And of course the cables you use?

With the 100 ish cables you tested did you try any in an actual system or only on the test bench?


Did you answer if ALL cables you tested had 100% identical results? i would like to establish the fact that the cables at least gave different results? Even if we don't agree what that might mean.

I agree

We have all accepted three stages

1) Perfect working (No Data Loss/ Low Data loss but not detectable by the human eye(n)).
2) Sparklies ( Data Loss, Not detectable/ Detectable by the human Eye (n))
3) no picture ( Huge Data Loss, Detectable by the human Eye OR the guy is an idiot and has not pluged the Cable in*)

n= human that is viewing the output, some guys as slow some guys see what others dont hence questionable?

We have had a customer who returned the cable thrice to us. After the third time i asked if he had selected HDMI on his tele as input source.. just guess the answer).

lets think about things

[andy1249]

You say that digital is either "works" or "does not work"

Yet by your own admission there is a another state "sparklies"

So would you agree that there is at least 3 states of image or even just 3 states?

Perfect working / Sparklies / no picture - Those are after all your words?

Your clutching at straws here and misrepresenting my post , In the vast majority of cases the levels are in the perfect zone. And no I do not agree there is a third state.
I obviously havnt been clear enough in my posts.

Sparklies are where the levels have dropped to the point where they get misrepresented and display garbage , albeit on only a few pixels. any further and it totally breaks up.

They do not show as more " vivid" colours, anyone thats seen them will tell you so. They look more like dead pixels than anything else. Its a sign that cable is either faulty or too long.

Sparklies are not a third state , it is the edge of the cliff in digital terms , any cable under 5 meters will not show this , any cable longer than ten may show it , in that case its attenuation and a booster will restore the perfect image.
I say again , that any mechanically sound cable will not show this phenomenon. And by mechanically sound I mean well made with no loose joints etc.

Bit error analysis of over 100 cables I tested show that the bit error rate in HDMI is in the order of one in a million or better , with nearly all cables tested showing that the data coming from the source is absolutely identical to the data entering the destination , The only cables where the data was not identical to the source either didnt work at all ( 100% data loss , no bits at all ) or displayed massive noise. ( huge bit error rates in the order of 50% or more )

There is absolutely no getting away from that , with no Data change , there can be no picture change attributed to the cable , and with all cables at 5 meters or less there was no data change at all , thats all there is to it.

The cheapest cable tested came from argos , and the prices ranged up to 500 pounds ! That 500 pound cable was a staggeringly outrageous con with the results exactly the same as the perfect results from the Argos one.

For a HDMI cable to be responsible for less vivid colours , we would be talking about a bit error rate in the order of least 10 to 25% which still produces an otherwise perfect picture.

Thats laughable , there is more chance of Aliens landing on the Whitehouse lawn with a gift of a billion barrels of crude oil for George Bush! Seriously !

And Im using that metaphor as a demonstration of how impossible it is , before you counter with something like " but you admit its a chance ? "

With the 100 ish cables you tested did you try any in an actual system or only on the test bench?

Yes we did ... believe it or not , though for time constraints it was limited to trailers , We used my PS3 and a Panasonic Full HD plasma borrowed from a boardroom, Transformers was one of the trailers and 300 was the other. These were of course in addition to the bench tests and were not in the report , as its subjective and not scientific. But we were all personally interested at the time. Again , no difference , but then we had already seen the data was identical , so how could there be ?

[nokmond]

A fool and his money are easily parted.

No offence meant but i would love to see you do a blind test and choose the fancy rip off lead with 'the more vivid colours' over the £3 jobby.

I use a 10m hdmi that was about £12 and it gave the same result as a 1m one, then i extended it with a hdmi joiner/coupler to make it 15m and still the same.

Stop trying to justify wasting money and spend it on your kids or something instead!

[HDMIHead]

Originally Posted by nokmond

A fool and his money are easily parted.

No offence meant but i would love to see you do a blind test and choose the fancy rip off lead with 'the more vivid colours' over the £3 jobby.

I use a 10m hdmi that was about £12 and it gave the same result as a 1m one, then i extended it with a hdmi joiner/coupler to make it 15m and still the same.

Stop trying to justify wasting money and spend it on your kids or something instead!

Each to their own, as an importer we know the real cost of a quality 24AWG Cable and it’s almost impossible to make one for £12. HDMI org specifies that HDMI Adopters should use 24AWG over 10m. But its alright price matter, you don’t care if the manufacture is sticking to the right spec. the cable is RoHS complaint.. if it has any warranty..
All you care is the price

[Mad Mr H]

Hi Andy1249,

I have tried my best NOT to misrepresent or twist your words to suit my own belief - That would be of no use to me as this is a serious question, I am not often in this section of the forum - I did not realise just how divided people are over this topic, I would like to understand more - Just telling me to accept what you say is fact is I am sorry not enough - I would like to hear the reasons why and then I might be able to understand more.

I have to say that what you post about sparklies does not agree with my own findings.

Sparklies are where the levels have dropped to the point where they get misrepresented and display garbage , albeit on only a few pixels. any further and it totally breaks up.

I have highlighted the area I dont agree with.

I dont want to put words into your mouth so what exactly do you mean by " a few pixels"?

A 1920x1080 picture is made up of 2 million pixels (2,073,600), is the data in the cable directly related to the image? If so then you mention that at worst cables might have a 1 in 1 million bit error (lets ignore the failed cables) so in a 1080p image then 2 or 3 sparkle pixels might appear in the image with a poor cable (poorest of those you tested).

You say that beyond that the image will totally break up.

I have seen images with over 200 sparklies (approx 400 although these were counted in groups as they are not static so areas had to be counted could have been 350-450) - This is a VERY RARE case.

200 spaklies would be 0.0001% error

If you have a cable running at its bandwidth limit (in digital) it is possible to see the occasional sparklie in the image - this for me shows that there is an acceptable "error" .


Im dissapointed that you won't agree that sparklies in the picture is a third possible stage in the signal degradation path.

Is there any point asking about "blocking" in the image being another possible error?


Which Panasonic plasma was used in the test?



I saw the video noise added to the picture when "Monster Cables" did the demo at the Bristol show - the 1m cable vs the 20m cable - For me the 20m cable had obvious noise in the image - this was best seen in blocks of colour.


If two cables are used in an identical setup and one appears to have more noise in the image than the other what could that be ??? I have seen this several times now in side by side tests.

ALSO the sparklies you have seen are they always white ???

I have seen green on my HS SDI system, and RED with the poor free HDMI cable with one of my players - the image was still all there.

[Mad Mr H]

Originally Posted by nokmond

i would love to see you do a blind test

This is effectively what we did.

In this case we swapped back and forth between Kimber and Chord.

I'm gonna ask the guy who own the kit to test again chord vs a cheap free cable and see what the outcome is.

Maybe the Kimber I have is faulty - But I would have expected no picture or serious intermittent picture if that was the case.

[andy1249]

A 1920x1080 picture is made up of 2 million pixels (2,073,600), is the data in the cable directly related to the image? If so then you mention that at worst cables might have a 1 in 1 million bit error (lets ignore the failed cables) so in a 1080p image then 2 or 3 sparkle pixels might appear in the image with a poor cable (poorest of those you tested).

You say that beyond that the image will totally break up.

I have seen images with over 200 sparklies (approx 400 although these were counted in groups as they are not static so areas had to be counted could have been 350-450) - This is a VERY RARE case.

200 spaklies would be 0.0001% error

If you have a cable running at its bandwidth limit (in digital) it is possible to see the occasional sparklie in the image - this for me shows that there is an acceptable "error" .

Im going to try and not repeat too much so I'll just answer your questions ,

The Data in the cable is directly related to the image , but its not a 1 bit per pixel ratio , there are multiple 8 bit words associated with each pixel , for random sparklies ( they are always random as you correctly pointed out ) there must be a considerable error rate in the signal , meaning the logic levels are dangerously low and on the verge of collapse , as said , any properly working cable will not be in this zone at all.

A 1 in 1 million error rate in the bitstream is not enough to show even one sparklie , you would have to have a considerable error rate , note that with sparklies I estimate this coming in a 1% to 5% , that would be a fail in my book , again most cables do not show this , most have zero or extremely low error rates. Tiny fractions of 1% in fact.

For the last part , current bandwidths on all cables are more than enough for any content out there , this is another myth perpetuated by cable companies , the maximum theoretical bandwidth usage at the current time is 1080p content with deep color and hd audio , no such content exists , and even if it did it would still only use 2/3rd's of the available bandwidth on the lowliest HDMI cable.

Cables are currently tested as category 1 or category 2 with category 2 being the more strenuous test , just because it was only tested at category one and is labelled as such doesnt mean it wont pass category 2 , and most will ! Thats a fact.

Also, without bench test equipment , you cannot run any HDMI cable at its bandwidth limit at the moment , because no content exists that push any HDMI cable to its bandwidth limit. The only way to do that is with simulation software , the " future world " tests done in the link I posted earlier.

In this case we swapped back and forth between Kimber and Chord.

Incidentally thats not a blind test , a blind test is where you have a disinterested third party swap the cables around and you picking the best picture without knowing what cable is in at any particular time.

Ideally it should be done multiple times so that consistency can be shown , once doesnt cut it.

It rules out emotional judgements based on price paid , no disrespect intended , but that happens a lot.

Concerning this :

I saw the video noise added to the picture when "Monster Cables" did the demo at the Bristol show - the 1m cable vs the 20m cable - For me the 20m cable had obvious noise in the image - this was best seen in blocks of colour.

Monster are adept at using Engineering terminology and unfair tests to convince the non tech buying public to part with cash.

While the test is completely valid , it is totally unfair, with the results unfairly represented to show Monster in a good light , you cannot compare a 1m cable to a 20m cable , 20m cables are all prone to attenuation losses and ideally should have a repeater attached. Im not surprised there was noise , I saw that in my tests too ,( remember , visible noise equates to a huge bit error rate ! ) but like I said, its attenuation due to distance , or losses in logic level , its easily corrected with a signal booster.

As posted earlier , once you go over 10m , attenuation is a big problem with HDMI cables , there are two ways to combat this , one is with a booster or booster switch , the other is with different cables as some can reduce attenuation loss over distance , by far the best option is to stick with the cheap cable and get a booster as it usually works out the same price as getting an expensive cable and gives you more functionality , like for instance , running a TV and projector at the same time from a single source.