The HDMI cable that comes with V+, is this sufficient?

[Mr_Moo]

Or is it worth buying a better quality one, would I expect to see any improvement?

[jellybaby]

You'll see no improvement. The cable supplied is sufficent

[jamiefrost]

Lots of test have shown that the more expensive cables are a complete waste of money.

IRC there is some benfit if you need a really long cable (25m or more)

Stick with the one supplied and save your money

JJ

[Peter_]

Not worth the cost for hte slight improvement you may or might not notice.

More info redgards V+ here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/10...855-v-faq.html

[TheDon]

As HDMI is a digital connection and the signal is either 1 or 0 there's very little benefit to using using a more expensive cable until you're into the 20m+ cable lengths. For a typical 1.8m cable between the v+ and tv there will be ZERO difference between a £50 monster cable, and a £5 budget one, regardless of what the guy in currys says. With analogue connections going for expensive lower resistance cables does have some benefit, but with digital the signal can't degrade enough over short runs to effect the picture (you'd have to introduce enough noise so as a 0 became a 1 or vice versa).

The reason we get stupidly expensive cables thrown at us is because the markup on cables is ridiculously high, you're talking 150% markup for some brands, so it's where stores can make a lot of money. In most cases they'll have very little margin on a TV, and their entire profit comes from extended warranties and cables.

[bw41101]

This is what tickles me when I see outfits like monster cable who claim the earth with their products. If you look at the HDMI connector ends they are microscopic so (in reality) there's very little that could be done to improve performance. Anyway as the signals are digital - it really doesn't matter.

However, it is true that with very long lengths performance can suffer due to the electrical resistance of the cable. Reduction of this loss can be achieved by increasing the cross sectional area of the actual cores within same, basically more copper less resistance, but even then you're constrained with the size of the HDMI connectors themselves.

If one uses the analogy of trying to connect a hosepipe to a medial syringe - no matter how much liquid there is in the pipe or how much pressure is applied you won't get it out any quicker that the needle on the syringe will allow.

So unless you enjoy paying for a brand name (not the product) stick with what you've got there owd cocker.

Si thee

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by bw41101

However, it is true that with very long lengths performance can suffer due to the electrical resistance of the cable. Reduction of this loss can be achieved by increasing the cross sectional area of the actual cores within same, basically more copper less resistance, but even then you're constrained with the size of the HDMI connectors themselves.

If one uses the analogy of trying to connect a hosepipe to a medial syringe - no matter how much liquid there is in the pipe or how much pressure is applied you won't get it out any quicker that the needle on the syringe will allow.

You're not constrained by the size of the connectors at all though. Your analogy falls apart when you realise that data flow in a cable is nothing like water flow in a pipe, the diameter of the cable does not effect the data capacity, you're not using thicker cables to get more data down there, so it doesn't matter that the connector has to downsize to a smaller core, it won't create a bottleneck like a pipe would. If the majority of the cable is lower resistance thicker core cable then the 1cm of thinner core cable into the connectors won't have much of an effect. The overall resistance of the cable will still be far lower than if the entire cable was made of the same thin core cable.

Low resistance cabling in general isn't snake oil, however using it for digital connections over short runs is.

[bw41101]

Originally Posted by TheDon

You're not constrained by the size of the connectors at all though. Your analogy falls apart when you realise that data flow in a cable is nothing like water flow in a pipe, the diameter of the cable does not effect the data capacity, you're not using thicker cables to get more data down there, so it doesn't matter that the connector has to downsize to a smaller core, it won't create a bottleneck like a pipe would. If the majority of the cable is lower resistance thicker core cable then the 1cm of thinner core cable into the connectors won't have much of an effect. The overall resistance of the cable will still be far lower than if the entire cable was made of the same thin core cable.

Low resistance cabling in general isn't snake oil, however using it for digital connections over short runs is.

Granted you are correct when you are referring to data flow and I wouldn't argue that fact. However current flow is what I was reffering to - Ohms law, I.e. the thinner the core the more resistance it has, etc - guess I should have made this clear.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by bw41101

Granted you are correct when you are referring to data flow and I wouldn't argue that fact. However current flow is what I was reffering to - Ohms law, I.e. the thinner the core the more resistance it has, etc - guess I should have made this clear.

Yes, which still says that you can have a thicker core for the majority of the run to get a massive benefit on the overall resistance, and you only have to downsize to a thinner core at the actual connector. You seem to be implying that because the size of the pins in the connectors is thin the entire run of cable has to be the same size, it doesn't because you don't get bottlenecks when downsizing cable diameter like you do with pipe. You'll only encounter higher resistances for the final bit of cable in the actual connector, the length of the actual cable can have any size core you want.

[bw41101]

Originally Posted by TheDon

You seem to be implying that because the size of the pins in the connectors is thin the entire run of cable has to be the same size,

Did I - where?

Anyway in laymans terms to clarify:

EFFECT OF CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA. - Cross-sectional area greatly affects the magnitude of resistance. If the cross-sectional area of a conductor is increased, a greater quantity of electrons are available for movement through the conductor. Therefore, a larger current will flow for a given amount of applied voltage. An increase in current indicates that when the cross-sectional area of a conductor is increased, the resistance must have decreased. If the cross-sectional area of a conductor is decreased, the number of available electrons decreases and, for a given applied voltage, the current through the conductor decreases. A decrease in current flow indicates that when the cross-sectional area of a conductor is decreased, the resistance must have increased. Thus, the RESISTANCE OF A CONDUCTOR IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO ITS CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA.

EFFECT OF CONDUCTOR LENGTH. - The length of a conductor is also a factor which determines the resistance of a conductor. If the length of a conductor is increased, the amount of energy given up increases. As free electrons move from atom to atom some energy is given off as heat. The longer a conductor is, the more energy is lost to heat. The additional energy loss subtracts from the energy being transferred through the conductor, resulting in a decrease in current flow for a given applied voltage. A decrease in current flow indicates an increase in resistance, since voltage was held constant. Therefore, if the length of a conductor is increased, the resistance increases. THE RESISTANCE OF A CONDUCTOR IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO ITS LENGTH.

Also a characteristic of copper is that when it's temperature increases so does it's electrical resistance resulting in an increase in current - though (in this case) one would not imply that an excessive length of cable would get hot.

Anyway to save getting into a pi**ing contest - we'll agree to disagree and I'll stick to what I originally recommended (to Mr Moo) in the first place "stick with what you've got there owd cocker"

Fin and Si thee

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by bw41101

Did I - where?

This entire post:

Originally Posted by bw41101

This is what tickles me when I see outfits like monster cable who claim the earth with their products. If you look at the HDMI connector ends they are microscopic so (in reality) there's very little that could be done to improve performance. Anyway as the signals are digital - it really doesn't matter.

However, it is true that with very long lengths performance can suffer due to the electrical resistance of the cable. Reduction of this loss can be achieved by increasing the cross sectional area of the actual cores within same, basically more copper less resistance, but even then you're constrained with the size of the HDMI connectors themselves.

If one uses the analogy of trying to connect a hosepipe to a medial syringe - no matter how much liquid there is in the pipe or how much pressure is applied you won't get it out any quicker that the needle on the syringe will allow.

The bolded bit, and the final paragraph both imply that the size of the connectors somehow limits the cables core size. Especially your little bit about the needle which completely misses the point that this is NOTHING like liquid flow so there will be no bottleneck effecting the total flow, the resistance in the connector has a negligible effect on the overall resistance of any cable as it's only relevant for the extremely small distance it's used. Whereas in a pipe the entire pipe can only flow as fast as the smallest cross section in a cable the resistance isn't based on the highest resistance, each resistance only matters for however long that section of the cable is.

Monster cables are FAR lower resistance than your usual off the shelf no name component, and over long distances, or with analogue signals, they will have a huge effect on how much the signal degrades. To write them all off is foolish.

As I said to start with, your typical 1.8m HDMI from V+ to TV (or any other short run digital connection) it really doesn't matter what the cable is, as over that distance the resistance of the cable won't have enough of an effect on the signal to alter it. Over long distances and for analogue connections you want as low resistance as possible, and that's what the high end cables provide.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as no one is disagreeing with how resistance works, the point is you pointed to the size of the connector is a "they can't do anything about that" way, when the size of the connector is ultimately irrelevant to the total resistance of the cable as the cable will be FAR thicker than the pins in the connector, and those tiny little pins will ultimately provide a fraction of the overall resistance.

Originally Posted by Mr_Moo

Or is it worth buying a better quality one, would I expect to see any improvement?

You'll *see* no improvement

HDMI uses digital transfer

It a bit like suggesting the quality of USB cable will be reflected in the quality of a file being transfered

Or cheaper mobile phone will receive a poorer text message

In case of digital transfer it either works or it dont - and you'll know if it dont

Only benefits a better quality hdmi cable could possibly have would be in the fitting - say a cheap one might no fit so snug, or wear faster and might just fall out

Of course large cable companies who made a mint on the diminishing 'analogue' cable market are *desperate* for you to beleive otherwise
.

[higgsfield]

This is not strictly true. At very fast data rates, the digital waveforms are not "perfect" and complex clock and data recovery (and error correction) circuitry is used to reconstruct the original bits.

If the digital signal is sufficiently noisy then errors can be introduced. This "noise" can take many forms (jitter, cross-talk, attenuation).

It is however interesting that none of the expensive cable manufacturers use quantative data to specify their products. i.e. what is the bit-error rate of a bog-standard 1m 1.3a HDMI cable Vs. their super-dooper variety.

It's also important to understand how any bit-errors might manifest themselves. With analog signals, degradation is apparent as ghosting, snow, etc... With digital you are more likely to see the picture "freeze" or break up. Much more catastrophic failures!

[EBD3000]

Originally Posted by TheDon

For a typical 1.8m cable between the v+ and tv there will be ZERO difference between a £50 monster cable, and a £5 budget one, regardless of what the guy in currys says.

The woman in Curry's when I bought my Blu-ray player (S350) tried to pull this on on me. She ended up getting really confused though.

First she asked me if I already had an HDMI cable to which I said I did. She then tried to convince me that HDMI was better than composite. ????? well durr but I've already stated I had an HDMI cable so whats the point in telling me that.

Then she tried to convince me that the £60 Monster cable would transmit more of a picture than my existing cable i.e. my existing cable wouldn't include all of the picture. ???? to this I replied bullocks!

However its sad that they've got to lie so much to try and swindle people out of more money than they need to. If I'd have known nothing about this she'd have got another £60 out of me, shameful.

Originally Posted by higgsfield

.. important to understand how any bit-errors might manifest themselves. ... picture "freeze" or break up. Much more catastrophic failures!

More or less what i meant when i said:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

...In case of digital transfer it either works or it dont - and you'll know if it dont .