Don't waste your money on high-priced HDMI cable

[prankey]

dogs have sharper hearing than men. i remember a comment in a guitar magazine that paul reed smith (of prs guitars) had sharper ears than dogs! there are musicians with an acute hearing sense (absolute pitch, relative pitch etc) that normal people don't have. hearing ability can also be developed/cultivated as anybody training in music can experience over a period of time. i myself have only regular ears -) but at times i can hear difference in quality between different audio equipment. but i would not dispute another view (ability to hear superior sound etc) just because i can't hear the difference.

Its not about disputing what CAN HAPPEN... Its more to dispute on people commenting VAGUELY on the UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY... DIGITAL MEDIA is used primarily to ensure MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT results... If someone starts disputing that my "1" looks and sounds "better" than yours... its very silly to note..

EXPENSIVE or NOT, all MEDIA is SUPPOSED to pass digital signals with 100% MATHEMATICAL INTEGRITY so 1s remain 1 and 0s remain 0. If they not, its a DEFECT of that media... This does not necessarily relate to lower cost media. Errors can occur in any media or technology and are easily detected and can be corrected as well... Higher cost media do not guarantee elimination of such errors.. Hence if we do not come across any errors, even a Rs.10 cable will give you 100% MATHEMATICALLY SAME result as a Rs.10L cable!

Till integrity is maintain, there is NO WAY that a media will look and sound "BETTER"!!! Some people here come from Analog world and are OBSESSED with analog characteristics of these media and hence TRY TO DERIVE that HIGHER QUALITY MEDIA will result in "better quality" sound and video which is an ABSURD INTERPRETATION of technology at its best!!!

 

[reignofchaos]

There are digital transmission media such as spdif that get affected by the medium of transmission. It is trivial to distinguish between cables when using spdif. Spendng on expensive coaxial digital cables is not a sin. The coax cable in my 2 channel setup costs over 500$ new.

However over HDMI, I have not noticed *any* difference whatsoever. Hence I buy the cheapest hdmi cable I can get with decent connectors.

 

[murali]

I started with the stock HDMI cable provided, then moved to a Monster one, hardly noticed any difference, and then settled for a Wireworld silver starlight, one of the best in terms of performance and value for money, for around $200. There is a significant difference in picture quality, no doubt (I don't use the HDMI for audio).
Of course, it all depends on the quality of the player and TV, and in my case, a Pioneer DV-LX50 / Oppo BDP-93 and Pioneer Kuro 50" screen, one can see the difference in picture quality.
I completely agree with the observation that digital audio cable also makes a big difference and I have been using a Stereovox cable with remarkable improvement in audio quality.
Just sharing some experiences, no theories, please.

cheers.
murali

 

[reignofchaos]

Could you tell us what were the major differences Murali? I don't mind getting one to check if there is a difference.

 

[baijuxavior]

May be his digital cable is capable of adding extra bits.

 

[murali]

Could you tell us what were the major differences Murali? I don't mind getting one to check if there is a difference.

On the video front, with a Wireworld HDMI cable, the picture clarity shows noticeable improvement in terms of color shades and black level. The Kuro TV is already exceptional in black levels but with a better cable, I could reduce the contrast at least by another 3-5 points. It is the contrast setting which really determines the life of the plasma and the Kuro's setting of around 30 could be reduced to around 25. The color shades also smoothen out and look more natural. But as I said earlier, if the cable can help reduce the contrast and still give you the same or better black level, it is worth it.

On the audio front, I use the Stereovox digital cable between the Pioneer DVD player and a Rotel surround processor so that the latter decodes all formats (I don't use the digital cable with Oppo as it decodes all Blu-ray sound formats itself and hence use analogue outputs). The better cable has a pronounced effect on the sound separation among front, center and surround speakers, plenty of space inside the soundstage, more realistic sounds vs actions, increase in clarity (especially dialogues from center speaker) and a wider soundstage. I don't use digital cable for stereo listening and rely on analogue outputs from my CDP to preamp.

There is something called "jitter" in digital outputs and I would suggest some of our learned friends to understand its theory before commenting. Both the clock signals and how the conductor transmits the 0s and 1s without inaccuracies, missing and overlapping determine what the DAC receives and converts to analogue.

cheers.
murali

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

murali, it is all very well to say, "no theories" --- but, if what you (and many others) suggest is physically impossible, then what?

I'm interested to know more about jitter, but, as I understand it, it is to do with timing differences in the recorded source and the DAC. It is not to do with the progression of 1s and 0s along your cable because, within reason, any digital system is capable of coping with 1011..err,.011. Outside of "within reason," there is going to be a blank.

digital transmission should have freed us from the predatory "monsters" of the cable industry. Instead, it has done wonders for their turnover. It seems that the best the rest of us can do is buy shares!

 

[Hiten]

Not a technical person and have no personal experience so referring to a link...
Do HDMI Cables Matter? — Reviews and News from Audioholics
According to the link all one needs is a HDMI 1.3 Category 2 Cable and it costs as little as 7 $. So sticking to the original topic of this thread it is better not to waste money on highly priced cable. Besides high end equipment do have an anti-jitter or jitter buffer circuits.

 

[reignofchaos]

murali, it is all very well to say, "no theories" --- but, if what you (and many others) suggest is physically impossible, then what?

I'm interested to know more about jitter, but, as I understand it, it is to do with timing differences in the recorded source and the DAC. It is not to do with the progression of 1s and 0s along your cable because, within reason, any digital system is capable of coping with 1011..err,.011. Outside of "within reason," there is going to be a blank.

digital transmission should have freed us from the predatory "monsters" of the cable industry. Instead, it has done wonders for their turnover. It seems that the best the rest of us can do is buy shares!

With respect to coax digital, it has got more to do with 75 ohm compliance than anything else. Most coaxial cables are not 75 ohm. Even among those that are, different coaxial digital cables unfortunately do impart a tone to the sound. Why it happens, I do not know! Whether its loss of bits or not, I'm not sure either. However I'm pretty certain I'd be able to identify my current digital cable over a generic 50 rupee coaxial cable 9 times out of 10 in an A/B/X.

 

[digitalv]

With respect to coax digital, it has got more to do with 75 ohm compliance than anything else. Most coaxial cables are not 75 ohm. Even among those that are, different coaxial digital cables unfortunately do impart a tone to the sound. Why it happens, I do not know! Whether its loss of bits or not, I'm not sure either. However I'm pretty certain I'd be able to identify my current digital cable over a generic 50 rupee coaxial cable 9 times out of 10 in an A/B/X.

You've correctly pointed out the issue with digital Coax where the impedance mismatch plays an important role. The difference in impedance (75 vs 50) cause signal reflections which can result in degraded audio performance. This is a fact and backed by theory.

However HDMI video performance change with quality of the cable is way beyond my understanding.

 

[murali]

murali, it is all very well to say, "no theories" --- but, if what you (and many others) suggest is physically impossible, then what?

I'm interested to know more about jitter, but, as I understand it, it is to do with timing differences in the recorded source and the DAC. It is not to do with the progression of 1s and 0s along your cable because, within reason, any digital system is capable of coping with 1011..err,.011. Outside of "within reason," there is going to be a blank.

digital transmission should have freed us from the predatory "monsters" of the cable industry. Instead, it has done wonders for their turnover. It seems that the best the rest of us can do is buy shares!

This is what Charles Hansen of Ayre has explained in another forum:

HDMI is an abortion of an interface that was crammed down our throats by Sony and Hollywood. Silicon Image was the party that made it all possible.

The idea by Sony was to have the audio and the video both on the same cable, to avoid confusing the schmucks who buy their Sony TV sets at Best Buy and can't figure out how to connect it. Hollywood demanded "content protection", and it was decided that HDCP as developed by Intel would suffice. Silicon Image was determined to develop the silicon chips so that they could cash in on the cash cow.

Of the many problems associated with HDMI, the audio quality is totally handicapped for lack of -- a pin! They designed the connector before they finished designing the system. They didn't have enough pins to also have a master audio clock.

So with HDMI, the audio clock is derived from the video clock. For high-def TV, the video clock runs at either 74.25 MHz or 74.25 * (1000/1001) [thank you NTSC!!!]. The audio clock runs at multiples of 48 kHz. Of course, these are not related. So the receiver has a PLL to regenerate an audio clock based on instructions from the transmitter (source) telling it what to do.

The result is the worst jitter of any system yet invented. It truly sucks.

Much later, they added a thing called Audio Rate Control in HDMI 1.3a. This puts a buffer and the master audio clock in the receiver. Then commands are sent upstream on the CEC line telling the player to speed up and slow down as necessary to keep the buffer full.

The only people to use this are Sony (HATS) and Pioneer (PQLS), but both use proprietary implementations that prevent use with other equipment.

And the fee for using this pile of steaming dog dung? $30,000 per year in licensing fees. It's a beautiful world, no?

cheers.
murali

 

[Bluu]

Murali - Can you point us to any data pertaining to this jitter? Has there been any testing for it?

Also, how does your expensive cable overcome this problem?

 

[digitalv]

HDMI audio is known to have more jitter (more than...say SPDIF) but we are still talking in the realms of nano second and pico second jitter. There are jitter recovery circuits employed which compensates this to a large extend to even discuss it as a problem.

I have only respect to those people who are blessed with extra-human ability to detect audible differences caused due to the nanosecond and picoseconds jitter.

 

[trittya]

I am sure, the one with Rs100 tag would work the same way. Only differece you would find is packaging and craftsmanship.

Get a MX cable for 300 bucks and forget every other cable.(based on my personal experience. I am not a seller:lol: )

Though I am not a seller either but I do second your opinion esp wrt MX cables & connectors. The perfect via media between 'hoi-polloi' hi-end & 'Cheap Chinese' stuff. Their HDMI ver 1.4 has swivel plugs that enhance durability against otherwise unavoidable cable twist. Moreover, its available in 2 lengths 1.5m & 3m. An absolute no-brainer, ALL these MX cables (incl ofc/non-ofc spkr/hdmi cables)Best of all, they make great stuff to suit all kinds of pockets. Would recommend all but the most finnicky audiophiles to stop looking elsewhere at all for all their cable& connector needs.
Regards

 

[trittya]

Post inadvertently duplicated, hence deleted. However, my personal take on HDMI is that I'd never ever use it for stereo audio(lousy as a stereo interconnect) and not even for 5ch or 7ch audio. I prefer 5.1 or 7.1 analog outs into the avr. The sub out goes directly into the power amp of my sub. DVDP makers these days cut costs by scrimping on analog and sometimes even on RGB/component video out, while on the contrary, they have many of us believe that hdmi is the best bet for HT.
To each his own,
Its your money being thrown.
I have a very simple way of looking at this-
If expensive hdmi(or any other) cables rock your boat, let them . . .
To quote Robert Nesta Marley:
O please don't
Rock my boat
Cause I don't want
My boat to be rocking. Unquote.
I, for one would never use HDMI for audio unless forced to by the likes of sony ps3. The only good, IMHO, that HDMI does even to video is reduce cable clutter.
Cheerio

 

[murali]

HDMI audio is known to have more jitter (more than...say SPDIF) but we are still talking in the realms of nano second and pico second jitter. There are jitter recovery circuits employed which compensates this to a large extend to even discuss it as a problem.

I have only respect to those people who are blessed with extra-human ability to detect audible differences caused due to the nanosecond and picoseconds jitter.

Before I leave,...

The best explanations I had read from experts on this are given below (you don't have to agree):

The biggest difference between audio streaming and other data transfers is that digital audio streaming is a "real-time" process where the actual timing of the transfer of each 0 and 1 from the source to the DAC must be as precise as possible. This is unlike data transfers to a disk or printer because there is no urgency there for the data to arrive to prevent errors from happening. The data arrives whenever it does and then the device does its job with the data. Streaming audio data on the other hand must arrive at precise time intervals to create an accurate representation of the original recording. If it does not keep up the pace, the DAC falls out of synchronisation. To summarise, audio data transfer must include both accurate data and accurate timing whereas non-real-time transfers require only accurate data.

Playback jitter is contrbuted by master clock jitter, pits on the CD, S/PDIF conversion, logic buffering etc etc. Digital cables don't add actively jitter to the signal but they can slow down the signal transitions or "edges". When it happens, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter. I hope you are aware that though optical cables are considered inferior to coaxial, they are less prone to jitter.

You are right about nanoseconds and picoseconds. However, it depends. You must have listened to modern-day mimicry artists who can imitate the sounds of others in dito. As long as you have a playback system where you are happy in believing that the imitation artist sounds exactly like a Jesudas or Rafi or others, and don't worry about delving into the microscopical world, it is fine. After all, sound is a combination of a fundamental frequency plus overtones and how hard one may try, one cannot reproduce a sound of a piano on a violin though the note is the same. We all listen to this mimicry and the closer your system sounds to the original, the more listenable it will be. There, everything matters, including jitter, cables etc.

Happy listening and bye.
murali

 

[digitalv]

Streaming audio data on the other hand must arrive at precise time intervals to create an accurate representation of the original recording. If it does not keep up the pace, the DAC falls out of synchronisation.

If the DAC indeed drops out of synchronization, we'll completely lose the audio output for even seconds until the recovery happens. This is nothing but sync-loss. This is known and is not the point of debate. The point of debate is whether any medium induced jitter (if at all) will affect the final tonal quality when the DAC is still in synchronization. Until proven otherwise with supporting theory (not placebo), I'd like to believe the answer is NO.

 

[Bluu]

I, for one would never use HDMI for audio unless forced to by the likes of sony ps3.

Why is the PS3 forcing you to use HDMI for audio?

 

[shershah]

Why is the PS3 forcing you to use HDMI for audio?

because ps3 has only HDMI for output? - and no analogue out?

 

[Bluu]

For audio, the PS3 has analog via the SCART connector (also called multi-out) and optical as well.

I have used both since my ancient AVR does not support HDMI. I have an optical cable I use for games and the SCART for CD playback.