Buyers beware - but not in the usual way...

[Nytmare]

Then I changed the cables out - and wow, it made a noticeable difference (to me). Enough I won't be taking it back and exchanging it. Now, I won't say it's worth it overall - you've got to be on a really big screen (remember, mine's 46") and fairly close to notice the difference (our couch is positioned about 3' away from the screen), but if you're a detail nut it's worth investigating. For most folks - or for just regular HD TV, I'd go with the cheapo HDMI.

You're convincing yourself that HDMI cables work like old video cables.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-11276_7-226-3.html

 

[Fast Learner]

It's a digital signal that's either getting through or it's not. It can't get through any better with better cables, unlike the old analog days.

 

[Umbran]

The colors looked a bit wrong and I could see some garbage pixelation on the screen. Thought at first it was because they weren't the Blu-ray versions.

Then I changed the cables out - and wow, it made a noticeable difference (to me).

It is possible that your original cables were outright defective.

It is also possible (and I don't intend to be mean), but you are aware that people can be convinced that they see a quality difference, when none actually exists, yes? A person who has spent a lot on a cable (or any other good, actually) can, subconsciously, convince themselves that the expensive cable *must* give better performance, especially since it not giving better performance means you were taken in by a sales pitch.

This is one of the greatest benefits of digital signals - the signal is far more robust than an analog signal. Your receiver isn't looking for fine distinctions - just 0s and 1s. It takes a *huge* amount of noise to disrupt the signal.

Enough I won't be taking it back and exchanging it. Now, I won't say it's worth it overall - you've got to be on a really big screen (remember, mine's 46") and fairly close to notice the difference (our couch is positioned about 3' away from the screen)

3 feet away? Three FEET?

The general recommendation is to have the viewing distance from 3 to 6 times the screen size. For a 46" screen, you'd want a minimum viewing distance of 11 feet. Closer than that, and your typical person cannot see the entire screen at once. The region in which the human eye can actually register fine detail is smaller than you might think - if you put that screen too close, you're basically throwing away most of the money you spend on having a large area, because most of it is only seen in your low-definition peripheral vision.

 

[Stormonu]

It is possible that your original cables were outright defective.

It is also possible (and I don't intend to be mean), but you are aware that people can be convinced that they see a quality difference, when none actually exists, yes? A person who has spent a lot on a cable (or any other good, actually) can, subconsciously, convince themselves that the expensive cable *must* give better performance, especially since it not giving better performance means you were taken in by a sales pitch.

No, there was a definate difference, I ran through the same exact scenes. Same DVD, same player.

3 feet away? Three FEET?

The general recommendation is to have the viewing distance from 3 to 6 times the screen size. For a 46" screen, you'd want a minimum viewing distance of 11 feet.

I work with the space I have, my front room is configured wierd. At 11' distance (pretty much in my kitchen) I would not have seen any difference, but because of my situation, 3 feet is where I'm stuck sitting at, and I enjoy it.

 

[billd91]

This is one of the greatest benefits of digital signals - the signal is far more robust than an analog signal. Your receiver isn't looking for fine distinctions - just 0s and 1s. It takes a *huge* amount of noise to disrupt the signal.

The downside of digital signals is that when it is disrupted or weak (a big issue with our local digital broadcast television stations and reception at our house), it's really disrupted. A little fuzz doesn't bother analog viewers as much as the digital signal breaking up.

 

[billd91]

In the middle of buying the pricey TV and home theater setup, I didn't notice how horribly overpriced the HDMI cables were. Really, guys, you can slip that past me in the middle of a big-ticket sale, but not upon examination.

Cables have always been overpriced at the big box electronics and appliance stores. I used to work for a Macintosh software and accessories shop. Our cables were 1/3 the price of the big box shops and still had a 70% markup.

 

[billd91]

The funny thing being, I almost could. It probably weighs all of 40 or 50 pounds, right? I could carry it home (the store is only a few miles away), if it were somewhat more compact.

For situations like this - run over to a general department store like Target and get a kid's little red wagon. Plus it makes for an awesome visual.

 

[the Jester]

This, my friends, is what we call a "First World Problem".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3w1_E1V46M[/ame]

 

[Umbran]

No, there was a definate difference, I ran through the same exact scenes. Same DVD, same player.

I work with the space I have, my front room is configured wierd. At 11' distance (pretty much in my kitchen) I would not have seen any difference, but because of my situation, 3 feet is where I'm stuck sitting at, and I enjoy it.

Ah. Well, given this, I think I see the issue. And it rests in "correlation does not imply causation."

Modern high-def screens are expected to have some artifacts, especially with really high-speed scenes. As you yourself noted, though, if you were sitting at the proper distance, you'd not have noticed them. They may have been within the usual expected tolerance for the hardware.

The artifacts aren't individually reproducible, though. Watch the same scene again, the artifacts may be different, or non-existent. So, you see some with the first set of cables, and then you change cables, and don't see them. That doesn't mean the artifacts are *caused* by the cable. It just may be that they didn't happen (or didn't happen where you were looking) the second time around. Just one or two viewings of the same scene with each set of cables would not be enough to clearly prove it was the fault of the cables.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It could be as simple as the newer cables having a much better fit- saw that myself when Verizon came out to work on the DVR cable box in my Mom's bedroom. She had had one die on her, then the replacement and 2 subsequent ones were defective.

The tech did replace the box, which was actually defective (I guess they had a bad lot or some such), but then he was having issues with the cables- the connection was looser than he liked. When they were replaced with better ones there were noticeably fewer visible artifacts.