HDMI Cables? Best place to get them?

[The Ironist]

Im looking to buy a few HDMI cables as we only have on in the house. Being shared between DVD recorder and PS3 so i have to keep swaping it round. And we got a Home Theatre system to set up soon that will need one.

Looking to spend £25 max each, well as cheap as possible without compromising quality and just wondering where the best place is to get them?

 

[Daz]

I always like this place for cables: http://www.audiovisualonline.co.uk/dynamic/home.html

 

[Revels]

Apparently with HDMI the price doesnt matter the will all be the same as its digital.

Not sure how true that is, someone on here said it.

 

[Daz]

Apparently with HDMI the price doesnt matter the will all be the same as its digital.

Not sure how true that is, someone on here said it.

It's one of those things where people say it makes a difference, but lots of people say it doesn't.

It's digital at the end of the day.. so if you get no break up, no artifacts on one cable, spending £1000 more on another will probably make no difference.

I think the people who say it definetly does, just spent £100 on a 0.5m cable with "gold ends" or something

Someone will probably something totally different to me..

 

[Omid]

Apparently with HDMI the price doesnt matter the will all be the same as its digital.

Not sure how true that is, someone on here said it.

Not true at all as the quality increases the megabyte persecond transfer rate and the packet loss, i have one for sale gold plated oxygen free brand new sealed with thick insulation cost about 80 will do it for 25

 

[Daz]

Apparently with HDMI the price doesnt matter the will all be the same as its digital.

Not sure how true that is, someone on here said it.

Not true at all as the quality increases the megabyte persecond transfer rate and the packet loss, i have one for sale gold plated oxygen free brand new sealed with thick insulation cost about 80 will do it for 25

But if there's no packet loss?
If there's packet loss, surely the picture would be breaking up, stuttering etc?

Have a read here:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477281

 

[Daz]

I think the people who say it definetly does, just spent £100 on a 0.5m cable with "gold ends" or something

Not true at all as the quality increases the megabyte persecond transfer rate and the packet loss, i have one for sale gold plated oxygen free brand new sealed with thick insulation cost about 80 will do it for 25

Ouch.

 

[Omid]

Its like with anything, gold has less resistance, is a better conductor therefore mb/s is higher, if packet is lost, it is queried slowing down the transfer rate. Packet loss is minimal but is definitely more than possible

 

[Omid]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

 

[Daz]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

Because they're long runs.. many many meters.. thats where higher quality cables come into play due to their better interference resistance.

And, more often than not (in BT's case), analogue signals are going down them.

 

[Omid]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

Because they're long runs.. many many meters.. thats where higher quality cables come into play due to their better interference resistance.

And, more often than not (in BT's case), analogue signals are going down them.

I disagree, firstly all new wiring is mainly optical fibre which ISNT analogue, hence most new estates couldnt get BB till recently, secondly no matter how long transfer rate is still affected

 

[Daz]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

I disagree, firstly all new wiring is mainly optical fibre

Oxygen Free is only related to copper cable though.

Either way, my take on it is the same.. if you're doing monster distances, then yes, better cables matter.. as they'll be more resistant to interference.

 

[7MAT]

http://markgrantcables.co.uk/shop/i...ath=26&zenid=3b9279f595464042dbfc236e92786439

 

[MarkCup]

www.kenable.co.uk

This place is recommended by one of the mods on avforums - ridiculous prices.

 

[wozzaa]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

If you have an LCD monitor at home did you upgrade the DVI cable that came with it?

As DVI is identical to HDMI without the audio. The quality of the cable is just something manufacturers can make money from it makes little to no difference to 99% of people using it for their home entertainment. It is just a way to make money. Digital signals do not degrade the same way.

Long cables yes it may make a difference short cables...you would get the same results from a £5 cable as you would from a £100 cable.

 

[Omid]

Why do people with servers spend thousands on oxygen free cables e.g. BT or other service companies?

If you have an LCD monitor at home did you upgrade the DVI cable that came with it?

As DVI is identical to HDMI without the audio. The quality of the cable is just something manufacturers can make money from it makes little to no difference to 99% of people using it for their home entertainment. It is just a way to make money. Digital signals do not degrade the same way.

Long cables yes it may make a difference short cables...you would get the same results from a £5 cable as you would from a £100 cable.

No I didnt because I am not using it on a TV it is only 19 inches lol but over 32 inch the mb/s rate can make and will make a difference as more data needs to be sent

 

[wozzaa]

Well mine is a 24" screen with a 1920x1200 res. Which is obviously higher than 1080P screen size makes no difference...the cable makes absolutely no difference what so ever. I have my PS3 hooked up to it with a cheap HDMI cable and it is also perfectly fine.

With older analogue cables yes spending money made a big difference on them. With digital its pointless all it is doing is sending 0's and 1's if they aren't getting sent properly you will get picture breakup which is easily noticeable. As I don't see any my response is...the cable price makes no frigging difference. Not to mention just about every AV enthusiast site on the net seems to say the same thing buying a £100 HDMI cable is money wasted.

 

[Tom]

If you have an LCD monitor at home did you upgrade the DVI cable that came with it?

As DVI is identical to HDMI without the audio. The quality of the cable is just something manufacturers can make money from it makes little to no difference to 99% of people using it for their home entertainment. It is just a way to make money. Digital signals do not degrade the same way.

Long cables yes it may make a difference short cables...you would get the same results from a £5 cable as you would from a £100 cable.

No I didnt because I am not using it on a TV it is only 19 inches lol but over 32 inch the mb/s rate can make and will make a difference as more data needs to be sent

Why does the size of the TV make a difference? the output is the same.

 

[thecremeegg]

Buying an expensive cable is a waste of money - a £5 one will be perfect unless you have to run it 20 metres or something

 

[dk]

lol, this is one of those debates like the old cup vs. 182 and ps3 vs. 360.

Never going to have a common answer.

I'm of the same opinion as Omid.

 

[dk]

No I didnt because I am not using it on a TV it is only 19 inches lol but over 32 inch the mb/s rate can make and will make a difference as more data needs to be sent

Why does the size of the TV make a difference? the output is the same.

Tom, you ever watched a CRT TV, say a 14" and then gone to a 32" and thought the picture wasn't as good?

Having the same resolution on a screen thats smaller is always going to look better, hence why 1080p isn't noticeable over 32".

 

[Daz]

Why does the size of the TV make a difference? the output is the same.

Tom, you ever watched a CRT TV, say a 14" and then gone to a 32" and thought the picture wasn't as good?

Having the same resolution on a screen thats smaller is always going to look better, hence why 1080p isn't noticeable over 32".

What Tom's saying is, a 42" screen, a 10000" screen, and a 15" screen all displaying the same resolution, is displaying the same information.. screen size is irrelevant.

And, like I've been saying, if a £5 cable works perfectly, a £100,000 cable will display the same. If a £5 is getting dropouts, artifacts etc.. then yes, look at a better cable, but I can guarantee the distances we are talking here, it would take some SERIOUS interference or even a damaged cable to not work.

 

[Daz]

lol, this is one of those debates like the old cup vs. 182 and ps3 vs. 360.

Never going to have a common answer.

I'm of the same opinion as Omid.

Not quite.. because Old Cup Vs 182 is dependant on lots of factors (driver perception, handling, performance etc.).. a HDMI cable is dependant on whether or not the 1's and 0's can get to the other end of the cable without being lost/corrupt.. nothing more, nothing less.

It either works, or it doesn't.

 

[Lagerlout]

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and digital signals, and those who spend £80 on a HDMI cable....

 

[Phill1978]

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and digital signals, and those who spend £80 on a HDMI cable....

lol true.


the problem is though its a bitstream signal not a file on a computer thats the core difference with the timing information within the square wave, all that means is that it just needs to be PLL on the recieving end so no data is lost via jitter.

hdmi stuff IS suceptable but will NOT lose any information unless the cable is seriously poor and there is a large ammount of electrical interference near by, the most you will get is 'sparkleys' on the image.

i would spend no more than £10 on a decent 2.0m HDMI lead.

v1.3 of course