Van Den Hul Flat HDMI problem - The Grand Rip-Off!

Wireless

Standard Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
27
Location
UK
Hello everybody,

I am an owner of a midrange Home-Cinema separates (Denon DBP-4010UD player + Denon AVR-3808A receiver + set of 5.1 custom made horn-speakers).
A few years ago, when I built my system, I believed I shoud use a bunch of good quality interconnects, so for the HDMI section I chose the super-duper and award-winning Van Den Hul Flat HDMI cable, worth no less than 70 GBP for a 1.5m length. I bought a total of 4 interconnects.

hdmi%20flat%20S.jpg


I believe it is proper to mention that all VDH Flat cables were bought from an official reseller, they came sealed in their original packaging, so there was no doubt of their genuine nature and origin. Well, the first 'red light' came out when I began installing those cables - I noticed that they were extremely stiff and rigid, abnormal for a home system interconnect - infact there was no felixibility at all, so making all those connections was not an easy job. Finally, everything was laid correctly and securely and seemed to work OK.

Unfortunately, sometime ago I noticed that there is a problem with the HDMI connection between the player and the receiver - signal drop-outs and breaking, audio and video suddenly disappearing, HDMI input icon missing on the receiver, etc. It happened with all types of media played - BR, CD, DVD, Super Audio CD, DVD Audio, etc.

So, I started examining the situation. I looked carefully over the HDMI sockets on the player and the receiver - they seemed fine, VDH cable plugs fit in there securely, nothing appeared loose or damaged. Then I connected the player directly to my TV, using the same VDH Flat cable - the problem persisted, poor HDMI connection with drop-outs.

Well, it all appeared then that my Denon DBP-4010UD player has a problematic or burnt-out HDMI section. By this time i NEVER EVER suspected something could be wrong with the renowned Van Den Hul Flat HDMI cable.

Before taking my player out for servicing, I decided, just in case, to test it with another HDMI cable. I disconnected the VDH Flat and put in some cheap and noname cable-operator supplied HDMI lead.

And... everything worked just great! I tried all types of audio and video - Stereo PCM, Blu-Ray stream, DD and DTS 5.1 - everything was absolutely flawless - picture, colors, contrast, music and voice - everything! No drop-outs, no signal breaking, no flashing HDMI icon.

I have to admit, it was a kind of a shock for me - the almighty Van Den Hul Flat was proven wrong and defective!

Leaving the emotions aside, I decided to reveal and denounce this multiple-award-winner piece of junk, using a simple knife, a pair of clippers and a camera, forgetting about my badly-spent 70 quid.

The results were no less than HORRIFIC!

1. Cable disassembled. Note the yellowish latex-like outer shell and the whitish plastic core, that is very stiff and not flexible at all. Cheap, ugly and plain-looking materials, seem absolutely not in place, nothing in common with Home Cinema/Hi-Fi:
vdh3.jpg


vdh2.jpg



2. The so-called 'insulation' and 'screening' - deficient and skimpy. As you can see, there is only a thin foil arount the 5 groups of conductors, no mesh or copper braid present, no individual or overall screening either. Simply unbelievable:
vdh6.jpg


vdh7.jpg


vdh1.jpg


3. The heart of the cable - the conductors themselves. The biggest disappointment ever.
You can easily notice that these poor-looking stranded wires have nothing to do with copper or silver, they are infact made of some cheap metal. Moreover - on one of the photos the multi-strand conductor is found corroded and blackened, which is not acceptable at all for such an awarded equpment. I don't know what Van Den Hul think of OXYGEN FREE COPPER SOLID CORE (OK, no silver added if its too expensive), but using a 50p cheap multistrand noname material conductor for making a 70 GBP interconnect, is no less than a clear insult to all their customers and a big rip-off at the same time.
vdh4.jpg


vdh5.jpg


4. And finally - the HDMI plug and soldering. They looked so-so, with a lot to be desired about casing and solder points. Cheap nylon housing, not so proper welding, only the copper foil around the inside made a good impression. Due to technical reasons I did not make photos of these, but believe me, it was not 'land of milk and honey' at all.

Well, that's my story. I hope someone will find it helpful and enlightening. No need to say I am deeply disappointed. I've heard and read about 'paid reviews' of selected merchants and/or manufacturers, but I did never believe such a piece of junk could earn that many wins and 5-star ratings. As you did see above, there is nothing so special inside, just the opposite - cheap materials, bad insulation, poor screening, horrible low-level conductors, mediocre assembly. Even 7 GBP is shamefully much for this glitch, not to speak of the real retail price of 70 GBP.

I feel obliged to declare that I am not a Home-Cinema/Hi-Fi professional, I do not work in a competitive company, I am a private customer and this thread is only my initiative.

I am open to questions, suggestions or comments, there is nothing to hide or keep.
 
Last edited:
Tbf I don't think expensive cables make the difference I've got QED hdmi cable that I picked up for a tenner don't think I'd spend any more money good thread tho!
 
'A few years ago' HDMI cables were pretty new tech and there was a lot of daft ideas coming out of the factories who were all seeking that 'killer' feature to sell to the big brands, stiff flat cables being one stupid idea!

That said your 'autopsy' does raise some questions!

Have you contacted the supplier?

Joe
 
'A few years ago' HDMI cables were pretty new tech and there was a lot of daft ideas coming out of the factories who were all seeking that 'killer' feature to sell to the big brands, stiff flat cables being one stupid idea!

That said your 'autopsy' does raise some questions!

Have you contacted the supplier?

Joe

Well, I tend to agree, but 'new tech' doesn't have to mean 'crap in parts & labour', doesn't have to earn 5-star fake pre-paid reviews and doesn't have to cost a fortune, does it? All in all - did we all become completed morons, victims of globalization and marketing tricks, to spend easily so much on a cheap garbage like this above?
And no, I didn't contact the supplier. I just forgot about those 70 GBP and threw the cable in the bin after the dissection. Now I plan to replace all other VDH interconnects, but this time I will seek for the acclaimed 'lifetime' warranty. I suspect they will offer me as a replacement a newer model of Van Den Hul and I will reject that for a sure, so supposedly all other HDMI Flats are going to the bin as well.
I am not interested in being compensated from Van Den Hul in any way. I am just disappointed.
 
Last edited:
A lot of 'analogue' accessory Brands struggled with how to get onboard with HDMI and were more guilty than most of over stating supposedly magical properties of well marketed cables which were in truth either ODM (with fancy branding) or OEM (with limited quality control).

Blue Jeans Cables in the US have some good insight into the world of HDMI cable 'supply' on their website.

Joe
 
In answer to the OP, while expensive cables are generally more marketing that substance, the construction of the cable you have cut is typical of high data rate cables.

HDMI uses a 'differential twisted pair' technique, similar(ish) to Ethernet. Screening the separate twisted pairs with foil gives 100% screen, using a mesh screen does not. The uninsulated drain wire running along the foil is to allow the screen to be connected easily into the plug and provides low resistance continuity for the screen if it is compromised or split. It is difficult to tell from your pictures, but tinned copper wire is commonly used in interconnects, and is easier to make a good joint at the plug, so without scraping the individual strands it is impossible to tell if the underlying conductor is copper or not.
An overall screen might have been nice, but that is more about interference with other cables nearby, not specifically about the performance of the cable you have.

If you were to cut open a FTP Cat6 cable, it would look very similar to the cable you have.

So you may have a point about the quality of the materials used, but the overall design of the cable itself seems fine.
 
In answer to the OP, while expensive cables are generally more marketing that substance, the construction of the cable you have cut is typical of high data rate cables.

HDMI uses a 'differential twisted pair' technique, similar(ish) to Ethernet. Screening the separate twisted pairs with foil gives 100% screen, using a mesh screen does not. The uninsulated drain wire running along the foil is to allow the screen to be connected easily into the plug and provides low resistance continuity for the screen if it is compromised or split. It is difficult to tell from your pictures, but tinned copper wire is commonly used in interconnects, and is easier to make a good joint at the plug, so without scraping the individual strands it is impossible to tell if the underlying conductor is copper or not.
An overall screen might have been nice, but that is more about interference with other cables nearby, not specifically about the performance of the cable you have.

If you were to cut open a FTP Cat6 cable, it would look very similar to the cable you have.

So you may have a point about the quality of the materials used, but the overall design of the cable itself seems fine.

Thank you for your comment, Andy.

First, regarding the core conductors - they are NOT tinned copper, I scratched 2 of them deep - the string didn't turn reddish, no sign of copper. I am sorry it is not seen on photos, but with good macro lens it would be clearly visible. These wires look weirdly dark, worn-out, non-glossy, like oxidated. So I suspect it is a kind of cheap metal alloy VDH put in there.

Here is what the description on Van Den Hul site says about it:
...High-density-coated Oxygen Free Copper conductors warrant minimum signal attenuation...

I didn't see any copper in there and that mysterious 'high-density-coat' sounds strange to me - which coats what?, it is infact extremely hard to get what the manufacturer meant.

About the screening and shielding - to my opinion, it is an absurd to leave such a high-class HDMI cable with only 1 layer of foil shielding - no overall wrap, no nothing. Even cheap Chinese HDMI leads are made with 2 or 3 plies of shielding, there are now classy cables with 4X, even 5X screening. I wonder - would it be so hard and expensive for VDH instead of using that ridiculous hard plastic, to put in a simple, but effective shielding like this below (cable costs less than a tenner):
51Qsj%2Bq5TQL.jpg


And finally - that horrible, unexplainable cable stiffness. It is a real pain for me to understand why was necessary for VDH to put these thin, soft and flexible wires into a very hard plastic shell (the whitish thing seen on photos above), which makes the lead almost impossible to bend and even there is a danger of damaging the HDMI sockets on your player/receiver/TV, if cable is moved accidentally. Well, in case the conductors were solid, I could agree - it appears resonable to protect them at max, but they ARE NOT in fact - they are flexible twisted multistrand wires and they do not need such protection, so this extreme overall stiffness is no less than inappropriate and unwise.

Hmm... the more I think of it, the more I find it a really weird and ridiculous engineering, I believe even a child could have done better.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like CCA ( copper clad aluminium ) , do the flame test to check...

 
After a flame test, wires didn't brittle or break, so they are not reacting like Copper-Clad Aluminium. The strings hold their shape above the flame (like copper), but they discolor to soot black extremely fast (unlike copper, where discoloration is to be minimal).
It appears to be a strange VDH alloy, probably covered with copper once, which has oxidated and darkened.
 
Thank you for your comment, Andy.

First, regarding the core conductors - they are NOT tinned copper, I scratched 2 of them deep - the string didn't turn reddish, no sign of copper. I am sorry it is not seen on photos, but with good macro lens it would be clearly visible. These wires look weirdly dark, worn-out, non-glossy, like oxidated. So I suspect it is a kind of cheap metal alloy VDH put in there.

Here is what the description on Van Den Hul site says about it:
...High-density-coated Oxygen Free Copper conductors warrant minimum signal attenuation...

I didn't see any copper in there and that mysterious 'high-density-coat' sounds strange to me - which coats what?, it is infact extremely hard to get what the manufacturer meant.

About the screening and shielding - to my opinion, it is an absurd to leave such a high-class HDMI cable with only 1 layer of foil shielding - no overall wrap, no nothing. Even cheap Chinese HDMI leads are made with 2 or 3 plies of shielding, there are now classy cables with 4X, even 5X screening. I wonder - would it be so hard and expensive for VDH instead of using that ridiculous hard plastic, to put in a simple, but effective shielding like this below (cable costs less than a tenner):
51Qsj%2Bq5TQL.jpg


And finally - that horrible, unexplainable cable stiffness. It is a real pain for me to understand why was necessary for VDH to put these thin, soft and flexible wires into a very hard plastic shell (the whitish thing seen on photos above), which makes the lead almost impossible to bend and even there is a danger of damaging the HDMI sockets on your player/receiver/TV, if cable is moved accidentally. Well, in case the conductors were solid, I could agree - it appears resonable to protect them at max, but they ARE NOT in fact - they are flexible twisted multistrand wires and they do not need such protection, so this extreme overall stiffness is no less than inappropriate and unwise.

Hmm... the more I think of it, the more I find it a really weird and ridiculous engineering, I believe even a child could have done better.

Not wishing to stand up for the manufacturer, but the lack of an overall screen is unlikely to impact the performance of the cable unless it is run in close proximity to other HDMI cables with a similar lack of external screening.

I would agree that it is better practice to screen overall (I don't know if leakage is part of the HDMI cable spec), and clearly if you have multiple HDMI cables run together then this isn't a good design.
 
Not wishing to stand up for the manufacturer, but the lack of an overall screen is unlikely to impact the performance of the cable unless it is run in close proximity to other HDMI cables with a similar lack of external screening.

I would agree that it is better practice to screen overall (I don't know if leakage is part of the HDMI cable spec), and clearly if you have multiple HDMI cables run together then this isn't a good design.


I understand your point, Andy, but as a matter of fact I do have multiple HDMI cables run together, so lack of proper overall screening is a problem.

Generally speaking - I suppose someone with a receiver could barely have just a single HDMI cable in his system environment, that's what AV receivers do infact - they receive and send signals and cables from many and to many directions.

For example, I have one HDMI lead from PC to receiver, one HDMI lead from BD player to receiver and one HDMI lead from receiver to TV.

These 3 HDMI cables are laid together, moreover - they are in a very close proximity to other receiver cables - analog RCA, speaker cables, power cords, etc. Without a sufficient shielding, it would appear a really weird engineering from HDMI lead manufacturer!
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom