Not that big an issue with you then?
Marantz M-CR603 + AirPlay • Rega R3 loudspeakers • iPhone 5 • iMac • Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n • Apple iPad Mini • Panasonic TX-L32D25B • Sony BDP-S390 • Ruark Audio R1 Deluxe • Humax HDR-Fox T2
Some people hear and see a difference. Some do not. The evidence strongly suggests that any difference is not inherent in the cable and is all down to the listener/viewers perceptions based on expectation bias.
So try one out and if it improves your own audio/visual experience then good. But be rest assured a cheap working HDMI cables works as well as a more expensive audiophile one.
Internet - laptop - DAC - amp - lots of headphones.
"A music lover will stop what he's doing and stay glued to a favorite piece of music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker or a public-address system..." - Ken Rockwell
I am currently using the HDMI cables for my desktop PC, They are digital ones and I am using these cables since last year. No problem existed from then to now and the quality is also fine. The Cable that we are choosing should be able to provide us the better quality picture with total clarity and with fine volume. I used to download movies and games frequently and works more than eight hours daily. There is no problem and data loss existed. Could you please provide some more attachments about the best cables?
It's fad to dismiss upgraded HDMI cables, as it seems like it was for analogue cables not so long ago. People just love to 'debunk'.
Error correction re jitter is far from perfect. Misinformation can be fed into the system. If not, then why would hi-fi companies such as Naim and Cyrus invest so much in error correction for a DAC, or develop software to reduce jitter via a transport? Marketing spin? So there's no difference between CD transports?
"Snake oil... the Emperor has no clothes.... you're a sucker"...
It's fad to dismiss upgraded HDMI cables, like it was for analogue interconnects/speaker cables not so long ago. People just love to 'debunk'.
Error correction re jitter is far from perfect, otherwise why would Naim invest so much in error correction for a DAC, or Cyrus develop software to reduce jitter via their transports? Marketing spin? So there's no difference between CD transports?
It's not a fad, it's just that people need to be aware that a more expensive HDMI cable will not give you a "better" picture or sound
Plus, (and apologies, I can't find the link at the moment) one of the guys who's job it is to come up with the HDMI cable standards says the same.
Apologies, just realised Proffski posted that link earlier on in the thread God, I'm such an eejit sometimes
To repeat - WHF new issue - re USB cables !
Mordaunt Short Mezzo System C - 8,5,1,9.Yamaha V2065. SonyS570. Panasonic 42in., Sky HD 1TB. Garrard 86SB. PF30. Wii. WDTV Live. Harmony One. STAX300. QED cabling. Galaxy Tab 10.1
System Photos - http://s1051.photobucket.com/user/robinkidderminster/library/?sort=3&page=1
Base trap Project - http://www.whathifi.com/forum/home-cinema/corner-base-trap-completed-project?page=1
sorry, don't understand, can you elaborate please?
Not wishing to open again the 'old cable debate' I posted earlier ..
All issues addressed on p85 of November WHF. Detailed. Relaxed. Not as clean as some. The SupraUSB. Russ Andrews struggles a little with bass & CA less texture. Mmmmm.
That's usb cables though, and this was a test designed for HDMI cables, but am sure it could be used for USB cables. However I doubt we will ever see such a test in WHF magazine as how could they say that the data being recieved was the same and then on the other hand say it sounds different.
I have had to do large amounts of copying from device a to b using usb and check the md5 hashes and they were the same using different cables. So from a data point of view, there's no difference that I have found between usb cables.
Kind of a shame really as now there is a greater move in to the digital arena, once respected views from people who were respected for their knowledge are now being called in to question.
That test I linked to reviewed the following cables
as an example. In the test they proved that there is no difference, scientifically - especially the part about the colours being the same, yet the reviews on whf appear to say that there are differences.
So that leaves us with the age old argument about expectation bias, placebo effect etc as there really is nothing to differentiate otherwise.
tongue in cheek this, but it also goes to show manufacturers will put any old rubbish on cable boxes in the hope that people with think they are buying something "better"
I wonder how many reviewers agree with the subtle differences observed with different cables before the review goes to press? Food critics have opinions but reviews are presented as 'facts'. Why does this topic keep kicking me in my kidneys? Need my tablets again.Double dose me thinks.
I am guessing it annoys you because of what you have just said. Reviews being presented as fact, yet there is proof that what is being said is just an opinion and not fact. I tend to think that if somebody can have the conviction to say that cable b at 1 grand gives much deeper and richer colours than cable b then they would want to prove it any way possible, not shy away when somebody offers a scientific method of measuring.
Nicely said. The article on stands in latest issue was imo a much fairer test of another area where opinion is paramount. The article was honest in making no conclusions. I fear tho that whf evaluate stands elsewhere assigning similar characteristics to those attributed to cables. Rant over. Now if we wanna talk base traps ........
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing