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.