HDMI Cable comparisons

What I've read so far. HDMI is only affected by it's length. Smaller gauge runs beyond forty feet can begin to drop out. 22AWG is available for runs up to 100'. Many who suggest that other than a slight improvement in a cables construction there is no difference in the cables performance have suggested reasonably priced Monoprice or Blue Jean as their vendor of choice.
Both retailers offer varying levels of design. Varying AWG from 28-22AWG, silver coated copper conductors, ferrite filters, etc..

SDI (unbalanced coax) is the professional standard which is not affected by length, less prone to RF interference, and has a locking termination. HDMI is the consumer industry standard which is balanced, has nineteen conductors, and a complicated termination held by friction.

There are a number of consumers who have reported that they have experienced an increase in performance. While Home Theater magazine has the equipment and the knowledge to measure an HDMI cables performance they've measured none. As someone above suggested an understandable reasoning why they haven't.

I'm still unsure, more later.

Vic

Vic- follow the link in my response above. Audioholics has done the testing; an excellent review.

Russ

Johnnyb53

Actually, no, I wasn't really. I was pointing to the less than wide spread use of HDMI on likewise components from makers such as BAT... EMM... Cary... aero ... etc. or any such firm which makes devices that could use HDMI to some degree or entirely... yet do not... in favor of previous standards, AES, SPDIF, or TOS, as their digital interface choices.

The paranoid side of me says, "it's so cable makers can keep making more money, and by so doing the device makers don't rock the boat there" another more sane side says, "it's most likely due to the design requirements which are needed to implement the HDMI aspect in lieu of or in addition to, those curent standards."

Either case however supports a lengtheir span before widespread integration will take place in top flight components.

And yes, a couple grand for a disc player is in the game IMO, as I believe that entry fee puts it well outside the mass media buying market.

In all honesty, it may well be both aspects.

Personally, I dig the HDMI interface as a solution. I'm not too keen on the once in a while shutting down and restarting to get the "hand shake" thingy going on, but that's a rare issue... For me, anyhow. Let's face it, it sure would be a big benefit for the consumer too. Although the HDMI implementation was put inp place to be sujpportive of copyright infringements and not so much as a user friendly interface.... that's simply a by product. Let's not even mention the cleaner esthetic appeal.

hell, come to think of it, then everything would need a digital facet too .... pramps, amps, and speakers.

OK. Scratch that. Sorry. Both sides of my brain haven't been talking to each other lately.

Bob,

Some people argue that you are getting a better maintained signal when you use a better cable. Some people also argue that bits aren't bits and that signal degradation is going to affect the sound even if the bits are still recognizable as ones and zeros. My point is, it doesn't matter even if you believe those arguments. If the cable follows HDMI standards, which it doesn't have to be expensive to do, then it will get the signal there unless the cable is broken. The signal is regenerated by the processor chip cache and/or memory buffers, so the attenuation issue some people consider a problem is a non-issue as long as the cable is following the standards (sizing/gauge/etc).

If the bits aren't getting to the receiver, then the cable is broken or is not adhering to standards... Paying more for a cable isn't going to prevent the possibility of getting a malfunctioning cable. If you have a broken cable, return it.

Perhaps there isn't an implicit error correction for HDMI itself. I do know that the signal isn't processed when the cable is malfunctioning with certain media, but with other media some kind of error detection/correction must be occurring. I've had one malfunction and then break on me due to mishandling - I tried to snake it through the wall one too many times. Ironically enough, it was a relatively expensive cable (over ~$60). Signal passing worked on that cable with some material and not with other material.

I know with CDs there are multiple error checks when the disc is read. If you are sending data via bit stream to a preprocessor to have it decode certain compression algorithms, I believe the decoding process error checks the stream as well when converting it to PCM. Am I 100% certain of which algorithms perform error correction or not? Not off the top of my head. There are kinds of error correction that don't require a resending of information (redundancy checks), they are usually built into the stream in the form of some kind of checksum or the stream itself is framed a certain way to provide a checksum. These checks take place via decoding software.

CD ROMs have multiple redundancy checks, and so do Internet protocols (at more than one layer of the TCP-IP stack, as well as between larger ISP trunks using proprietary signaling frames).

I used bad terminology by referring loosely to the underlying digital signal and HDMI as one and the same...

If you are looking for more detail than that, you are going to have to research it yourself. I am taking four engineering classes ATM as prerequisites for an MS program in an engineering field I want to pursue (I had a test on Monday in Calculus 3, a test last night in Engineering Physics, and a test this morning in Statics...). This leaves me little time for leisure. I don't feel like wasting too much of that time researching topics in which I have only a passing interest. I would be interested in what you find out though. :D