HDMI cables, expensive vs cheap
Ok, a bit of a report this.... sorry! But I've been frustrated by the lack of science behind Stuff magazine's preaching on the topic of HDMI cables. They recently did offer up some welcome science, hence this report.
Summary
Stuff magazine's view on HDMI leads is to buy expensive leads for your home entertainment system (see p251, January 2009). I disagree with this. After testing various cables 2 metres in length on a standard living room set-up, I noted that the differential in image quality offered by the cables is either unnoticable or non-existant. I conclude from this symptom that the limited electromagnetic conditions and the minimal length required for HDMI cabling in our homes causes the majority of us no reason to purchase expensive HDMI cabling.
Testing
To prove to myself that I wasn't just adopting a cynical attitude towards professional gadgeteers telling us that cabling is far more important that we might think for digital signals, I took the opportunity of playing two Blu-ray versions of The Dark Night on two separate PS3's plugged into two HDMI inputs on the same HDTV (Samsung LE40A756). I was able to do this by chance really; I took my PS3 to my brother's house for christmas where we had duplicates of the key components.
There was one difference in the twin set-up: the HDMI cable. My brother got talked into paying £70 for the cable, the salesman iterating time and again that its silly to spend £800 on a TV but not get a high quality cable (but he could not explain the science as to why the expensive cable should perform better in a living room scenario). I actually brought two cables with me: a £4.99 cable purchased online and a £9.99 cable bought at gamestation. All 3 cables were 2 metres.
We played the movies simultaneously with exactly the same picture settings for both HDMI channels on the TV and with both PS3s set-up identically.
After testing the £9.99 cable against the £70 cable, I repeated for the £4.99 cable against the £70 cable.
Test results were observational in form. My two brothers and our girlfriends were witness to this geek-ridden event. We compared the cables by switching HDMI channels on the TV with an obsessive desire to spot any differences. Comparisons and up-close inspections were made of freeze-framed images, slow motion playback, playback in film and TV native frame-rates, picture extremities (image reproduction in low/high contrast and in low/high brightness etc.) and we also fiddled with the TV and PS3 picture processing software.
Results
Nothing. Everytime we flicked from cheap to expensive cabling the picture was no different (both were fantastic, I couldn't see how the picture could be better). Not one of us in the room could see a single, not a single difference. For what its worth, the sound was no different either (but of course this would need to be tested on a proper surround sound set-up).
Conclusion
Signal degradation (digital data-packet loss) in a HDMI cable of two metres or less does not occur to the extent necessary to warrant high-end materials and their associated cost. Perhaps for a 10 metre a cable the extra shielding and build quality is necessary. But for your standard home set-up? No, definitely not. It's also worth mentioning that the TV used for this test would be considered awesome just 12 months ago, and Stuff has been proclaiming the virtues of expensive HDMI cables for longer than this - hence to say that a higher-end TV would spot any differences would be erroneous. Furthermore, with TV's coming down in price, expensive HDMI cables are becoming a larger percentage of cash spent on a decent set-up, so my view is this: please please don't tell people to spend more money than they need to for results they will not get. I felt my brother got conned by a salesman who probably didn't even mean to con him!
Stuff, remember that science is beautiful but the magnitude of forces and the context in which they're exerting has to be rigourously verified: think Coriolis effect and the water-swirl myth.
I'm spent!
Hell yeah, there with you both 
I did a simluar test with the van den Hul FLAT (one in the reciever, one conected to the TV) and with my cheap Limit flat cable from Play (Same setup), and then a cable straight from the player to the TV
surprise suprise no difference, took them straight back to richersounds
Now there were only three of us testing the difference in quality, but we all have 20/20 vision, and have a big love for home cinema
I really thought there would be a big difference in PQ and SQ......cnet say the same thing also
A rather comprehensive test on HDMI cables - great job. Out of curiousity, was the £70.00 HDMI cable either a VDH or Chord?
Superb post and refreshingly good replies - so far !
Great link as well big boss 
well worth a read.
.
A very interesting and comprehensive post thanks. I have to admit, I bought an expensive HDMI cable and although I couldnt do the exact same test as you, I found myself plugging and unplugging my BluRay between the two cables. Couldnt really tell any difference either. For certain, if there was a difference I wasnt happy to spend £50 on it.
Very good post Lee,
What about speaker cables then? Would you still spend a bit on them or would you just buy cheaper types instead?
My brother works for a tv installation company and reckons that the more you spend the less the quality increase. Eg. A £20 cable might be 10% better than a £5 cable and a £70 cable might only be 2% better that the £20 cable. Basically its a get up for salesmen to increase sales with the ignorant or to appeal to the person that likes to have the best of everything.
As a rule of thumb he reckons you should go for the fattest cable you can get for around the £15 mark. He reckons even the standard sky HD cables offer a very good picture although he wouldn't trust them to shield against external interference.
toebash:Very good post Lee,
What about speaker cables then? Would you still spend a bit on them or would you just buy cheaper types instead?
Speaker cables are different ie they're not digital so a higher quality cable should help produce a better sound.
For those understanding French
LINK REMOVED BY MODS - House Rules
No difference between cheap ones and expensive ones .
i cant say i know much about hdmi cables , or how they work , but if it is true , that with digital data , you either get 100% or nothing , then it appears logical that there would be no difference between cables , they work , or they dont ...
Your right. There is a lot of rubbish talked about cables. With digital if the cable will transmit the 0's and 1's without interference then you will get a perfect picture.
Mains cables are an even bigger confidence trick. The power comes to your house over many miles and the idea that a 1 metre cable for £70 will improve the sound from you amp is ludicrous. A cable fitted with a choke (filter) will get rid of any mains pops but that is all.
Analogue audio leads are a bit different. Double screening and gold plated plugs are essential, but again it is not necessary to pay a fortune. I have my audio cables made up by a local shop. They are professional double screened heavy duty leads made to the exact length required. That way I cut out excess cabling in my system and of course the shorter the cable the less electrical resistance it has
chudleighpaul:With digital if the cable will transmit the 0's and 1's without interference then you will get a perfect picture.
That's a big if. For a start, digital cables don't transmit 0s and 1s. It's a heck of a lot more complex than that.
(blue touch paper lit, now to retire 
)
CNET seem to think that expensive cables are a waste of time : http://reviews.cnet.com/hdmi-cable/
Maybe you'll notice the difference with an even better TV (like a Kuro) and a better Blu-ray player (the PS3 is can't beat standalone players). However, HDMI cables also have error-correction in the specification, which makes expensive cables seem even more useless (digital signals are far easier to correct than analogue signals).
This thread is a refreshing read from a lot of the usual gibberish posted and written about digital cables. Lee789, thanks for doing the objective test and sharing your findings. The above is also in stark contrast to WHF which posts all sorts of subjective nonsense in its HDMI cable reviews. I went into the reviews section on the web site and picked one at random, how about
"Edges are sharper, colours appear more rich, black areas of the screen are denser and more consistent - even motion seems more convincing. Sound is better too, with clearer definition in the surrounds and more punch."
(Cambridge Audio 500 HDMI)
Perhaps we could get a comment from WHF as to how they carry out their cable analysis and what the reference point is against subjective comments like the above?
- Login to post comments
That's a very good post
HDMI cable quality is one of the most controversial topics. I'm a firm believer in "expensive cables are no better than cheap ones".......I've tested them myself here as well with same results as yours.
Check this report from a senior member of IEEE
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router