What is the difference between a $17 and a $150 HDMI cable? (1 Viewer)

[essstjames]

For an answer, try logging on to CBC t.v. webpage, go to Marketplace for previous downloaded videos. About 2 years ago, they did laboratory demonstrations of exact data transmissions between varous (100$+ to lower moderate cost cables). All "certified" HDMI cables tested, before the l.4 upgrades, were equivalent. Pricing with "gold", zinc, whatever, were preferable based on customer wishes to have the "best, most elite" systems--they all worked the same. Is your setup in a San Fran fog/moisture ridden basement--go with gold if you fee salt water corosiion is a concern.

Flea market ripoffs made by illegal copiers are at your risk. Salesmanship matters to the salesman, not necessarily to us, unless we trust the brands emotionally--like Johnston and Johnston (buy any contaminated bandages from them ever again lately), Mattell (buying lead based toys from them ever again), Starkist tuna (buying magets in tuna from them ever again), Sony Playstation games? If you trust the company you buy from, go with it until that they rip you off, and feel confident--whatever price you pay--great or small--Its a good deal for you alone. Go elsewhere when they don't deliver, regardless of their hype.

Secondly, Best Buy/Futureshop/Source--whatever your seller--If they sell me a machine (TV/Amplifier/Computer)--they had best GIVE me the cables--plugs, etc. that make it work out of the box they way it works in the store OR FORGETABOUTIT--SALE WISE. They make a profit and make more by selling your things that make overpriced product work. What next-- buying a plug to connect your tv., bluray, amplifiers or speakers to an electric outlet--except when your travel to "foreign" countries--Canada excluded. Do you buy extended warranties with your HDMI cables as an added cost to ensure our trust in the manufacture's company?

 

[Phoenix2000]

While I don't claim to be at all an expert in this area, what I have found is more important than anything is placement of cables. I have just upgraded to a 1.4a receiver but am still pushing lower end content and thus not taxing the system fully. Just the same I experienced dropouts after the upgrade. Purchased a set of 1.4a HDMI cables off the Internet for $5 each. Seemed to work well until I was monkeying around behind my receiver and I could never get them to work right again. Then I purchased replacements at $18 each. These have been flawless with the exception of one time, once again I was monkeying around behind my receiver and I guess in the process moved a wire. As soon as I repositioned all HDMI cables being mindful of interference from power wires, back of the receiver and magnetics from speakers, all was well again. Personally I think, for the most part, the more money you pay for cables, the less mindful you have to be of cable placement and this is where Monster gets it's better than anything reputation.

 

[Andy_Capone]

I can attest to the claims that a more expensive HDMI cable is not worth the extra money. I thought the same thing that more expensive would be better. I had to get a 25' cable and came across a silver wire HDMI cable retailed for $600 I got it on clearance for much less. Recently that cable quit working so I did not have many choices where I lived so I just bought a HDMI cable from Wal-Mart to get me by and I did not notice any difference in performance. This cheaper HDMI cable will probably last longer too after reading in an earlier post that silver degrades quicker. Glad I came here before buying my next cable for my new theater room, I think I will need a 50' run so definately checking out the sites mentioned by everyone.

 

[Its-stI]

I bought two 19.99 HDMI cables off NEWEGG which claimed to do 1080p.
THey worked fine for 1080i, but when I got an HDMI reciever and a PS3, the 19.99 cables were incapable of sending 1080p from the ps3 to the reciever.
After going insane trying to figure out wtf was the problem, thinking I had a bad reciever, I tried another, Yes monster cable, and it worked.
Am I saying that Monster is the only way to go? No.
Do cheaper HDMI cables work? Yeah, but not all of them.
Are all HDMI cables the same? Well, not from what I have seen, thats for sure.

 

[Cees Alons]

There may be various reasons why your 1080p didn't go to that receiver, but the cables surely are not one of those.

Also note that 1080i is exactly the same as 1080p as far as transmission is concerned. No difference at all. None.


Cees

 

[Its-stI]

So when I say that I tried 2 identical cables, both that were 19.99, and neither of them worked, and then tried a different cable, which happened to be a monster, and then it did work, you are telling me, that the cable was not the point of failure?
Am I understanding this correctly?
I suppose I should have said that the 19.99 calbes work fine for 1080i on my directv, but did not work from ps3 to reciever.

 

[bigshot]

I had a similar problem. My Pioneer player didn't like the longish run of cable and refused to do 1080p. I replaced the player with a Sony and it worked fine. Although the monster cable (which I bet was shorter) fixed the problem, your player is the one messing up, not the cable.

 

[Its-stI]

I had a similar problem. My Pioneer player didn't like the longish run of cable and refused to do 1080p. I replaced the player with a Sony and it worked fine. Although the monster cable (which I bet was shorter) fixed the problem, your player is the one messing up, not the cable.

Actually no.
The 19.99 cable was 5-6 feet long.
The monster was 12 feet long.
Yamaha Reciever.
So nope.

 

[Cees Alons]

So you say your 19.99 cables worked fine on your direct TV, but didn't between your PS3 and receiver.
Apparently it's not the cables then, isn't it?

Also, the way you tell it now, your problem seems unrelated to the difference between 1080i and 1080p. At least: there's no (solid) evidence for the assumption that the problem would be caused by that. The cables work on one connection (on which you happen to have one specific video stream - 1080i), but not on another connection (on which, as it happens, you want to use another stream - 1080p). Both applications differ in more than one aspect.


Cees

 

[Its-stI]

I must be missing something here........
The 19.99 cables did not work for a 1080p stream, when they are advertised to.
Tried last night from XBOX to Reciever and they didnt work on that 1080p stream either.
But they do work on 1080i.
I assume I am not compeltely stupid when I think that 1080i is using less bandwidth than 1080p, and I really have to wonder how its not a cable problem when replacing the cable makes everything work.
What am I missing here?

 

[Its-stI]

See, this is the impression I am getting from what you are saying.
If i take 50 cables, and try the connection from my PS3 to my reciever, and 40 of them work and 10 dont, that those 10 cables that do not work, that there is no problem with those, that there is a problem with my ps3 or my reciever even though the 40 other cables work.
If a cable is advertised to work for 1080p, and it doesnt, but it does work for 1080i, why can't I assume that the cable is OK, it just is not GOOD ENOUGH for 1080p?
Is this an invalid assumption? The cable has to have enough bandwidth for 1080p right? And if its not constructed well enough, its not going to work, right?
AM I not understanding what you are trying to say?

 

[DaveF]

/forum/thread/236092/what-is-the-difference-between-a-17-and-a-150-hdmi-cable/60#post_3835240
I assume I am not compeltely stupid when I think that 1080i is using less bandwidth than 1080p,

Cees claims didn't sound quite right to me, so a bit of googling reveals it depends on what we mean by "1080p". 1080i60 is the same as 1080p30. But 1080p60 will use double the bandwidth as 1080i60.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

What I'm not easily finding is which output(s) the PS3 supports.

 

[Cees Alons]

Both 1080i and 1080p transmit 30 frames per second (and those frames have the same size). If the frame is transmitted interleaved, it is thought to consist of 2 fields, so 60 of those fields are transmitted per second.
However: those fields are half the size of a full frame, of course. So the bandwidth used by by a 1080i transport is exactly the same as for a 1080p transport.

Of course we're now talking about "movies" with exactly the same amount of frames per second. If you send another kind of video, having more or less frames per second, the necessary bandwidth may be higher or lower, but that will be the case for both: 1080i and 1080p of course.

So, indeed, 1080i is NOT less bandwidth than 1080p (all other things being equal). Nor is the resolution on your screen different.


Cees

 

[Its-stI]

Ok.....then so after all this, why would a cable NOT WORK on a PS3 to Reciever at 1080p, but does work at 1080i from directv to reciever?
Am I so wrong to think that the cables are different?
One does not have the capability of the other?

 

[Cees Alons]

The PS3 doing something different? Slightly different specs. Lots of possible reasons.
I'm glad for you that you solved your problem.


Cees

 

[Its-stI]

Is HDMI not HDMI on another platform?
They do not have differnt protocols I would assume.
If a cable is rated for 1080p, which makes me really believe there is a differnce from 1080i to 1080p since back in they day they advertised that their cable would work for 1080p, why would they do that if there wasnt a difference in transmission?

 

[Cees Alons]

Yes they would.
Without hesitation.


Cees

 

[Jason Charlton]

Sine the inception of the HDMI format, the cables have had the "bandwidth" to support full 1080p video transmission (read the first part of the answer to this FAQ). As the spec has matured and the version numbers have grown, support for additional features is what has been added. Nothing has changed regarding the cable's capacity for transmitting video. The addition of ethernet, audio return channel, etc. are what has been "evolving" on the HDMI front for the past couple of years.

The marketplace for "cables" is so inundated with false claims, exaggerations, made up BS, and dowright LIES that you really can't trust much at all of what is written on packaging. "Optimized for 120Hz" - complete nonsense. "Fast", "Faster", "Faster than Faster" - hogwash.

When it comes to video signal transmission, if it says HDMI that's all you need to know about the cable.

With the Playstation as the source, ancillary features like deep color, or other expanded color space are more likely to be the culprit - as these are the kinds of things that pre-HDMI 1.3 cables are more likely to have issues with.

 

[bigshot]

The implementation of hdmi in the source makes more of a difference than the cable. That was the case with my Pioneer bluray player. It didn't like to resolve the 1080p in certain situations. With the same cable, a Sony bluray player handled it just fine.

 

[Its-stI]

So its hit or miss if a cable is going to work?
ANd HDMI outputs are not Standardized?