# The HDMI Cable Discussion



## Totally Dubbed

So, HDMI cables, worth the extra buck? Or another way of advertising for money?
   
  I personally would never pay over £20-30 for one.
   
  What are your thoughts?


----------



## dorino

_>thoughts_
   
  off to a bad start


----------



## LizardKing1

GODAMNYOU I was going to start this thread! I wanted the Thread Starter self-estime booster ='( seriously now, thanks.
   
  I still can't believe I'm in a place where cables are on-topic... I get tingles just thinking about it.


----------



## ac500

I'll try to explain nontechnically.
   
  Digital is 1s and 0s -- in concept. But digital exists in analog medium. Cables can suffer interference, changing 0s to 1s and 1s to 0s. Uh oh! That's bad! Fortunately, this problem has been solved for *decades* and dealing with this is pretty ordinary. The answer in short? Error detection and correction.
   
  First lets start with a little "error detection 101". Let's say we want to send someone a series of numbers over a noisy channel, and we want to be 100% sure they get there intact, or not at all. Here's an idea: In addition to sending the numbers, add them all up and send the sum too at the end, so the receiver can verify. Example:
   
  Send: 5 2 9 3 8 2 4 (34) <-- sum 
   
  Receive: 5 2 9 4 8 2 4 (34)
   
  Uh oh. I received something that doesn't add up! But that's good... we've successfully detected an error! There's no uncertainty here at all* because we know when errors occur! Hmm... but really, no uncertainty at _all_? 
   
  *What is the probability that a random distortion changes the numbers and the error goes undetected? Well, you'd have to change one number upwards and another number downwards just the right amount so the sum still adds up. Or you'd have to change one number and change the sum too. In this case, the odds of that happening depends on the range of numbers, the type of distortion possible, etc... but it's extremely unlikely. But it's still not unlikely enough. One in a billion still can happen. So what next?
   
  Would you believe it if I told you... this is a stupidly simplified example? In reality, error detection codes are much more complex than this (not usually just a simple sum) and incredibly robust to the point where it's probably _more likely that the sun spontaneously explodes than an error gets through undetected_ (that is, if we're actually trying to detect them -- and we almost always do -- certainly in HDMI we do).
   
  Now my point in saying all this is simple. We can build a machine (HDMI TV) that can literally count the number of errors where the signal deviates from bit-perfect 100% perfect signal (and know exactly which pixels are effected). We can identify how many and what incorrect pixels were received with astounding certainty - I'm talking about certainty so high, that it would be more likely to win the lottery a million times in a row than for an error to be miss-identified.
   
  Now, here's an exercise to the reader: For regular HDMI cable lengths, can you guess how often such errors occur? Exercise #2: When they do occur, is it possible for such errors to effect contrast/sharpness? (Hint: Not a chance.)


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





dorino said:


> _>thoughts_
> 
> off to a bad start


 

  
  why lol 


  Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> GODAMNYOU I was going to start this thread! I wanted the Thread Starter self-estime booster ='( seriously now, thanks.
> 
> I still can't believe I'm in a place where cables are on-topic... I get tingles just thinking about it.


 

 haha!


----------



## FallenAngel

Meet spec = good to go.


----------



## CC Lemon

I think it's just silly that this argument is still going on. One side has tons of theory behind it that supports the idea that there is no difference, while the other is a bunch of individual perceptions that suggest there is a difference that science is currently unable to explain. If that is the case, the burden of proving that there is a difference that can be consistently perceived. It would only take a few people to prove the point. If a few people can consistently identify which cords are "high quality" and "low quality" in a blind test, then there might be reason to believe there is a difference.
   
  Most professional reviewers have suggested there is no difference and actually encourage purchasing from some of the quality, but cheap, cable manufacturers. I'm definitely more inclined to believe there is not a difference when you have a bunch of people that do this for a living and plenty of scientific reasons why there should not be a difference. That said, I'm more than open to the idea that there is a difference, pending some sort of reliable evidence.
   
  Also, just to correct shotor (from the other thread), that was absolutely your perception. You said that the difference you saw was not your perception. Even if there was a difference, it was still something you perceived. Everything in the world is perceived. We sense things, then our brain interprets the signal from our senses. That interpretation is perception. Just because it's perceived doesn't mean it's not real. It also doesn't mean it was real or accurate.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





fallenangel said:


> Meet spec = good to go.


 

  
  by specs...you mean?
   
  Monster Cable esk...as I would disagree.


----------



## ac500

_> One side has tons of theory behind it that supports the idea that there is no difference, while the other is a bunch of individual perceptions that suggest there is a difference that science is currently unable to explain._
   
Actually science can explain the other side too -- it's called the placebo effect and/or confirmation bias. Placebo works even if you're aware of it, too.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Now my point in saying all this is simple. We can build a machine (HDMI TV) that can literally count the number of errors where the signal deviates from bit-perfect 100% perfect signal (and know exactly which pixels are effected). We can identify how many and what incorrect pixels were received with astounding certainty - I'm talking about certainty so high, that it would be more likely to win the lottery a million times in a row than for an error to be miss-identified.


 

 But this still doesn't mean an identified error won't be corrected? I mean I believe HDMI uses asynchronous transmition, so any error detected has that data part re-sent, so even if there is an error, and it gets identified, it's really hard for it _not_ to be corrected and have an image problem.


----------



## dorino

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> by specs...you mean?
> 
> Monster Cable esk...as I would disagree.


 

 I think he means it meets the specifications for _being an HDMI cable_.




totally dubbed said:


> why lol


 
  Thoughts were what made this actually a debate. People who _think_ they hear something different versus people who _know_ there isn't.


----------



## ac500

I don't think HDMI has any protocol to re-send missing pixels, simply because it's a pointless waste of time to do so. If a pixel is missing (very rare event) it can fill it in based on a blend of its neighbors. Blu-ray 1080p uses MPEG2 or MPEG4-AVC, both of which do not even approach quality sufficient to the point where a single blurred pixel would be detectable, even if that blurred pixel remained blurred for a long time (it doesn't). This is fairly easily proven mathematically via entropic or mean-squared error or any other psychovisual error metric. 
   
  As for the frequency of such errors, HDMI requires a bit error rate BETTER than 10^-9 at bare minimum requirements.
   
  http://www.comlsi.com/Cat5_BER_EQ2.pdf
   
  In other words, an HDMI-spec-compliant cable will lose no more than 1 bit of data per billion bits on average. As that article states, this amounts to one incorrect pixel for 1/60th of a second occurring at MOST every ~8 seconds (again keep in mind this is the absolute worst case of the cheapest poorest quality standards-compliant cable you could buy).
   
  Now keep in mind that when a pixel is detected as missing, the surrounding pixels are used to predict what that pixel would have been. It would be like choosing a random pixel on an image, erasing it, then filling it in again based on a blend of the color of its neighboring pixels. It is impossible that a human could detect such an error even by staring at a 1080p still-frame image for hours, let alone be able to perceive the error during a 1/60th of a second window. It is impossible to detect because the compression codec itself introduces a level of noise and information loss which is FAR worse than a single interpolated pixel.
   
  Most claims about HDMI is that it improves clarity, contrast, etc. etc. There is no way HDMI errors could result in loss of contrast or clarity, even if a missing pixel for 1/60th of a second was perceptible (it's not -- once again this can be mathematically proven via information theory). If you can detect a single missing interpolated pixel from a still-frame from even an H.264 compressed source, then please by all means contact your local university because you have just transcended informational entropy.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





dorino said:


> I think he means it meets the specifications for _being an HDMI cable_.
> Thoughts were what made this actually a debate. People who _think_ they hear something different versus people who _know_ there isn't.


 
   
  well that's the beauty of debates 
   


  Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Most claims about HDMI is that it improves clarity, contrast, etc. etc. There is no way HDMI errors could result in loss of contrast or clarity, even if a missing pixel for 1/60th of a second was perceptible (it's not -- once again this can be mathematically proven via information theory). If you can detect a single missing interpolated pixel from a still-frame from even an H.264 compressed source, then please by all means contact your local university because you have just transcended informational entropy.


 
   
  I love reading your posts, very knowledgeable indeed!


----------



## bowei006

I just read ac500's posts too...loved them. i already knew most of it. but putting it into simpler terms so i can also relay it to others has been found. you should see how i used to try to explain it! thanks AC500! inception..complete


----------



## AltairDusk

That's one of the great things about HDMI: digital signal with error correction (as ac500 explains far more eloquently) means that ridiculously expensive cable Best Buy tries to sell you won't work any better than the $3 cable from Monoprice.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

I find that the main differences in price ate:

Gold plating
Type, ie 1.2/3/4
Length 
Shielding

The difference without should be £3-5. With all those things, £20


----------



## CC Lemon

This thread is kind of a little boring without someone trying to argue the other side a bit more...Maybe this discussion really needs to stick to driving other threads off topic


----------



## Totally Dubbed

hahaha!


----------



## LizardKing1

Well I was wrong, I thought HDMI used a buffer like in USB, I didn't know about that kind of error correction. I guess in theory you could say a cheaper, not shielded cable would have more interference, which would ruin the digital signal more, making the TV have to correct it. That still wouldn't explain accounts of it actually giving you a better display.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Indeed - although, that shouldn't cost £200 more, only £10 more


----------



## Shotor102

So I've been sitting here all this time (well not all this time...but sitting yes) 
   
  And there is a question I would like some clarification on. 
   
   
  So, if you're setup requires a longer HDMI cable, let's say 20 feet or longer (let's say you're running them through the wall and such). 
  Clearly, you'll need to get the higher density and heavier shielded cables, better insulation, vacuum sealed and all that nice techmo-jargon the industry proclaims. Putting the scientific terminology aside here, in laments terms, my understanding is that this is required for longer cables, as the longer the distance the signal has to travel from the Sender (Media Player, BD or whatever) to the receiver (TV or Home theater Receiver), the more it is prone to signal interference and degradation. And as one poster briefly elaborated to me, to adhere to the HDMI standard of so and so (1) allowed bit errors per so many bits (1 billion) .. or such..   Now, all this is fine and great.
   
  But of course, researchers naturally tested different HDMI cables (specifically the longer lengths ones) and have discovered that with poor construction and shielding, distortion was noted, such as snow, artifacting, stepping, lag and sync issues.
   
  So, can someone actually explain this to me properly to fill in the gaps. It seems that there is a some grey area here that is not addressed, or that I am not seeing.


----------



## mymalathy

I agree with dornio....


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> So I've been sitting here all this time (well not all this time...but sitting yes)
> 
> And there is a question I would like some clarification on.


 

 My understanding is that the longer it is, the signal, as you said might take longer to get there - but shielding, wire quality etc won't really help it - by that i mean the signal not the durability.
  I think, and this is my understanding of it, is that the shielding will help it from interference, the cable thickness will help the cable's life, the gold terminations will help it last longer and not corrode.
   
  Of course a 50m hdmi will be much more expensive, but shouldn't cost more than around £50 or so.
  Still cheaper than your 2m monster cable one.


----------



## CC Lemon

I'm probably wrong, but I'll take a shot at this from my limited knowledge...
   
  I believe part of the issue is confusing signal quality and signal strength. I don't know that signal quality can really be applied to HDMI cables and so that's not really what can be described as the problem. Over a length of cable, you lose signal strength. Longer distance will result in more signal loss. Eventually, you'll start to have some of the issues described. You'll basically only be receiving part of the signal. Eventually, there wont be a strong enough signal to produce any image.
   
  I may be wrong, but I believe a better constructed cable will be capable of carrying the signal for longer distances. I honestly don't know how much of a range we're talking about, but I don't believe it's massive, unless you're talking about a really poorly constructed cable. You eventually need an extender. For a typical length of cable, you shouldn't see any difference because there wont be enough distance for the signal to lose strength with the high or low quality cable.
   
  I know that's an overly simplistic way of describing it and I most likely worded it poorly, but I believe it's a somewhat accurate way of describing what can be a problem with an HDMI cable and why it becomes more pronounced with length.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Lemon, that's a good way to describe it, and the way i see it too.
   
  That said anything under 20m i think you're fine.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> Lemon, that's a good way to describe it, and the way i see it too.
> 
> That said anything under 20m i think you're fine.


 


  Exactly. There may be some signal loss, but it's not going to be something that will change the entire quality of the image or anything close to that. After corrections, it shouldn't even be noticeable.
   
  I admit, I know very little and have been doing research just so that I'm a little bit more well versed on how HDMI actually works. From some of the reading I've done, it seems like the signals are constantly being sent twice and that is how the error correction is accomplished. One is the main signal and the other is an inverted signal. The receiving device then compares the received data to detect inconsistencies and corrects for differences. Is this correct?


----------



## dorino

Whose "dornio"?


----------



## ac500

_ > Whose "dornio"?_
Apparently he's someone who critiques others for misspelling, while ironically misspelling "who's" ​   
_> But of course, researchers naturally tested different HDMI cables (specifically the longer lengths ones) and have discovered that with poor construction and shielding, distortion was noted, such as snow, artifacting, stepping, lag and sync issues._
  
 A poorly constructed HDMI cable is, by definition, not to HDMI spec. If the HDMI cable is bad, the TV's decoder software is very much "aware" of the faulty connection, thanks to error detection and correction codes. How exactly it responds to this may depend on the TV, but it *should* shut off and display "not properly connected" or something of that sort before any visible distortion is possible. That said, I do know that a lot of software/firmware for some devices is known to be quite 'crappy' so some TVs may do a bad job and not display any message in the event of a faulty HDMI connection.
  
 In any case, if a company sells you an HDMI cable that allows more than one bit error per billion, that company is not selling a HDMI-compliant cable, and by definition it is a faulty cable. Go get your money back, as the product is faulty.
  
 I think some people are exaggerating though, I have had no such issues with super cheap HDMI cables.
  
 *Why do long cables need more protection from interference?*
  
 This is more of a general education question I guess but I'll answer it anyway.
  
 It's not really so much about signal strength as it is due to electromagnetic interference. All around us are radio waves and electromagnetic field fluctuations of all kinds on pretty much every frequency you can imagine. Electromagnetic "induction" is a basic principle of physics, and it has the effect that these EM fields induce a current on wires within the field. This is how antennas work -- they're big "wires" exposed in such a way that they induce current from the EM field. Which frequencies are inducted and how strongly depends on the size, shape, and other physical properties of the wire. This is all very well understood, and this is how we design antennas -- they are constructed in such a way that they are "tuned" to induct current from the desired frequency bands very strongly. 
  
 The problem here for signal wires is that generally, the larger and bigger the antenna, the more current it inducts. So with all these radio waves all over the place, the longer the wire is, the more current is added to the signal from external EM fields. This isn't good, because the result is that your signal is corrupted by other interfering signals. Wires are _supposed_ to be self-contained channels of an electrical signal from source to destination, but as the length of the wire gets longer and longer, it becomes a better and better antenna. As it becomes a better and better antenna (sort of), it becomes a worse and worse for the signal it's supposed to be carrying because it gets polluted by the radio signal being inducted on the wire.
  
 Anyway, it would seem that this is such a terrible problem that we couldn't use wires for any long distance practically, but like most anything else, scientists and engineers have long since found many very nice solutions.
  
 There are many techniques to reduce this interference, and shielding a very naive one (but it always good to have). One of the most powerful techniques is twisting the pair of wires. In other words, you have two terminals that you're sending the current through. One carries the positive current of the signal, the other a negative current. The wires are twisted in a sort of "double helix". What happens is, whatever current is inducted by the EM field on one wire, the opposite current is inducted on the other -- the end result canceling out the interference! It's not very easy to explain exactly why this canceling effect occurs without getting into EM mathematics, but it works. Another method is coaxial cables where the two terminals share the same axis of rotation. Tricks and techniques like these, in combination with shielding and other things like error correction codes result in very minimal actual distortion -- in the case of HDMI it's one bit error per billion.


----------



## dorino

****. You got me. It was early, okay?


----------



## Shotor102

So ac500,
   
  I've read your explanation..
  Interesting read, and certainly pretty much confirms what I was suspecting here, but of course with more technical aspect about it.
   
  So, before I offer my take on you post and explanation.  Indulge me with answering the following.
  As you stated, those poorly constructed HDMI cables, that by definition are not to spec, which run through components... you said with a well constructed TV set, some message will display and no picture or signal will be shown. Correct? But with a not well constructed interface, the TV won't filter it as-well...
  The question is, since this obviously has happened many many MANY times since the evolution of HD and HDMI, and all HDTV's that are sold as HDTVs are also built within as certain standard to decode and reproduce HD media, some (in fact many) still react this way. 
   
  So how is it that built-to-spec HDTV + a claimed built to spec HDMI cable resulted in the mentioned signal troubles, where a media form was obviously shown and heard, just with distortion, artifacting, syncing issues... and to the least, but still evident, quality control over the image itself, not to mention audio.
   
  This has happened as opposed to the claimed 'either there's a signal or there's not'.
   
  Please elaborate on this


----------



## dorino

The cable was either not-to-spec or the TV was the culprit (likely not, since it worked with other cables)
   
  Lots of budget (<$20) cables have poor quality control, admittedly. Not enough to justify $80/ft., though, not at all.


----------



## LizardKing1

Yeah, what you described really seems like a TV issue. I mean, for it to be that noticeable (I understood from your description it was really obvious that it was distorting), even if HDMI EMI could result in a serious reproduction problem, you would have to be running it completely unshielded for a big length. Most people with desktop computer use VGA cables with no issue, so I think the problem is with the TV.


----------



## ac500

If you have a to-spec HDMI cable and a to-spec TV, you are all good to go, no issues.
   
  The only concern I understand you're saying (Shotor) is worrying that your cable is bad while simultaneously having a bad TV that does not complain about said faulty cable. Keep in mind that for artifacts like snow to appear, you'd have to have TWO conditions: 1) You have a stupid TV. 2) You have a faulty cable.
   
  Also keep in mind it is literally impossible for contrast or sharpness to be affected even by a catastrophically faulty cable. At worst, a catastrophically stupidly implemented TV in combination with a catastrophically faulty cable (i.e. not just not to spec, but orders of magnitude worse than spec) could show snow artifacts or skipping, rather than displaying a "faulty connection" message. Even a dumb TV however should work just fine with a to-spec cable.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

ac500 - excellent explanations and read there


----------



## Magick Man

Expensive digital cables are a waste, well made inexpensive cables are just as good.

So, we pretty much all agree on that. Now, the real fly in the ointment.  Analog cables... people claim to be able to tell a difference, will swear they can hear changes with different interconnects, speaker wires, and headphone cables. Placebo or real?


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Actually that's one I have to ask about as well.
   
  I bought some interconnects only due to durability and looks, but how do they really increase SQ if anything?


----------



## LizardKing1

Most people say no. I recabled a pair of Creative Aurvana Lives with Mogami w2893, heard no difference. If you go from a stock copper cable to a silver cable I'd expect you to hear a difference. In the case of analog, I find it fun to make your own cables, it's a cool hobby and it gives you usually a better cable in terms of durability and looks. But I wouldn't do it for improvements, and I would never buy a >100$ cable.


----------



## Magick Man

So, recabling headphones to silver makes a difference? I've tried it with interconnects and it didn't change my sound at all, but the silver was relatively cheap and, IMO, it looks bad ass in clear PTFE. 

Well, I have some 22AWG silver left, maybe I'll give it a shot and see.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Most people say no. I recabled a pair of Creative Aurvana Lives with Mogami w2893, heard no difference. If you go from a stock copper cable to a silver cable I'd expect you to hear a difference. In the case of analog, I find it fun to make your own cables, it's a cool hobby and it gives you usually a better cable in terms of durability and looks. But I wouldn't do it for improvements, and I would never buy a >100$ cable.


 
   
  Quote: 





magick man said:


> So, recabling headphones to silver makes a difference? I've tried it with interconnects and it didn't change my sound at all, but the silver was relatively cheap and, IMO, it looks bad ass in clear PTFE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  That's what I thought, there is a lot of hype, especially on head-fi about cables...people selling cable for £200-500 just shocks me.


----------



## LizardKing1

That's nothing. Audioquest sells a 21,000$ speaker cable. It apparently has some geometry unknown to mankind or something that makes it thousands of time better than your average 20$ cable. Moon Audio and Cardas also have some ridiculously expensive cables.
   
  Silver should actually make a difference, since we're not adding millesimal percentages of copper purity, but you're actually switching the material. Many people report having an overall better sound with silver cables, with better highs. To what extent this is true I don't know, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be. In interconnects just use those small 2-inch ones, any interference will be happening in a very small space (in ac500's metaphor, think of a very small antenna). Like I said, if you can get decent silver at a decent price, and you're into DIY, I see no reason why not to use it. Just don't be surprised if the difference isn't "night and day".


----------



## ac500

When it comes to analog cables, there are a few factors: The distortion from outside interference, and the physical properties of the wire resembling some kind of capacitance and inductance. I don't know all that much about the finer points of analog design, but I don't think the outside interference would make a difference. If it would, then you would hear a static or "hiss" (or maybe even AM radio talk show hosts ) on your headphone even with your amp playing nothingness. Technically it is possible that current is inducted, yes, but I'm quite doubtful that the amount of energy is sufficient to actually move even the best headphone's voice coil at all. I'd have to do the energy calculation to be sure, but you could show with some certainty the degree to which interference can mess up the signal, and if it's something worth worrying about or not.
   
  In any case -- and this is just a guess because analog design is not my territory -- I would imagine that the physical capacitance and inductance of the wire would have more of an effect. What this means is, for longer wires carrying larger currents, there's more of the problem of actually propagating the signal across the medium. Electromagnetic fields interact in complicated ways sometimes, and depending on resistance and magnetic properties of the medium (wire), various "backflows" and "currents" (like a strange twisted river flowing blobby goo) can have effects over time to a signal changing over time. That was probably a very bad analogy, but generally these effects -- capacitance and inductance -- once again are fairly well understood and have been for quite a long time. Just know that cables can indeed have a signal distortion effect (not random, but a certain mathematical kind of distortion physics / simulations can characterize) to currents.
   
  What I am skeptical of however is the significance of this distortion. Over a few dozen feet or so even with the most naive copper or whatever cable construction, the actual inductance and capacitance measurements would, to my intuition, be completely insignificant. In particular, a bad cable could roll off treble if it has a capacitance/inductance for example, but I can't imagine it would start before even the megahertz range, let alone the limit of human hearing or the headphone.
   
  Once again though I am completely undecided on cables from the _theoretical _point of view because I have only peripheral education in this area of analog design. I DO know, however, that multiple ABX tests have been done, and I do not recall speaker cables ever being noted as better in such a blind test than coathanger wire, but this is just a perceptual/statistical assertion and doesn't actually _prove_ anything.


----------



## Magick Man

I _believe_, that's probably the correct word, I've heard differences in speaker cables on high-end gear. We're talking Wilson and Krell level setups, but the variances didn't blow my hair back (if I had hair), they were very subtle. Transparent, Bettercables, and 12AWG zip all sounded similar. I'm looking over my test notes and I made mention of the Tranparents being a shade brighter, perhaps having better resolution. However, I'd had a little wine at that event...


----------



## LizardKing1

What's really dumb is buying cables to try to alter the sound. I've seen a user buying a few-hundred-dollar Moon Audio cable to get a "warmer sound". I mean, +3dB on a parametric equalizer is free... A cable, like an amp or a DAC, should be just a transparent medium, it shouldn't alter the original signal at all in terms of amplitude. I would never buy a warmer cable, especially an expensive one, because that means that cable isn't as good as it could be, since I know transparent cables that cost 10$.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> What's really dumb is buying cables to try to alter the sound. I've seen a user buying a few-hundred-dollar Moon Audio cable to get a "warmer sound". I mean, +3dB on a parametric equalizer is free... A cable, like an amp or a DAC, should be just a transparent medium, it shouldn't alter the original signal at all in terms of amplitude. I would never buy a warmer cable, especially an expensive one, because that means that cable isn't as good as it could be, since I know transparent cables that cost 10$.


 

 indeed what I feel.
   
  Out of interest too, why haven't they or haven't I seen headphones solely on OPTICAL connections?
   
  I know optical (at least for my xbox) sounds MUCH better than via 3.5mm or RCA
  It's an interesting idea no?


----------



## ac500

Because headphone voice coils are powered by analog electricity . At some point the audio data needs to be converted to electrical power relevant to power whatever headphone technology is used. Digital as well as optical is quite useful for everything in computers but at some point the data needs to be delivered to the actual physical device. If you provided a digital signal to a headphone, that would just mean it has to have a DAC and amp inside the headphone itself, which needless to say probably isn't going to sound that good.
   
  In other words, the amount of quality lost over a cable from your amp to your headphone is negligible and as far as I know insignificant (although I'm not decided on that entirely); however the quality of your dac and amp is quite significant, so it's much better to have a big desktop dac/amp + long cable, than to have a tiny wimp of an amp built into your headphone and short internal wires from the tiny amp to the drivers.


----------



## mark2410

digital either works or does not.  can see no reason why cheap ones would work any differently from expensive snake oiled ones.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Because headphone voice coils are powered by analog electricity . At some point the audio data needs to be converted to electrical power relevant to power whatever headphone technology is used. Digital as well as optical is quite useful for everything in computers but at some point the data needs to be delivered to the actual physical device. If you provided a digital signal to a headphone, that would just mean it has to have a DAC and amp inside the headphone itself, which needless to say probably isn't going to sound that good.
> 
> In other words, the amount of quality lost over a cable from your amp to your headphone is negligible and as far as I know insignificant (although I'm not decided on that entirely); however the quality of your dac and amp is quite significant, so it's much better to have a big desktop dac/amp + long cable, than to have a tiny wimp of an amp built into your headphone and short internal wires from the tiny amp to the drivers.


 


  interesting!
 Although there are those eltro something rather headphones which also require power...so it wouldn't be the strangest thing in the world - would it?
 I mean my question is:
 Is it possible to have headphones on optical only?


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





mark2410 said:


> digital either works or does not.  can see no reason why cheap ones would work any differently from expensive snake oiled ones.


 
   
  in that respect only thing would be shielding as in the optical cable might crack on cheaper models.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> interesting!
> Although there are those eltro something rather headphones which also require power...so it wouldn't be the strangest thing in the world - would it?
> I mean my question is:
> Is it possible to have headphones on optical only?


 

 You must mean electrostatic headphones. Those use a different kind of driver. Instead of a voice coil making a membrane vibrate, they use also a membrane - although a much thinner one - with magnets inside a frame. When music plays, the signal goes through that frame and creates a magnetic field, making the membrane move. However these headphones work just the same as dynamic ones, it's also a membrane being moved and creating sound. They simply have a different driver and require a different kind of amplifier.
   
  All headphones require power. The reason why headphones can't use an optical cable is because they can't use that signal. When you play a file on your computer, a program, like iTunes or hopefully something better, makes that buch of digital data get decoded. Since it's a computer, it's still a digital signal, i.e. just 1's and 0's. Then it reaches a DAC where by ways mysterious and magical to me, that digital signal made up of 1's and 0's gets turned into an analog signal. Then it goes into an amp, which basically increases the amplitude of that signal, and then into your headphones. If you plugged an optical cable straight into the headphones, it wouldn't work because they're expected to work only with analog signals. You would need a DAC inside, and if that wasn't enough a gain stage to amplify that signal. It's like if you try to throw gasoline at car wheels and expect them to move: it's impossible because you need a way to 'decode' the chemical energy in the fuel into mechanical energy, which is the car.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> You must mean electrostatic headphones. Those use a different kind of driver. Instead of a voice coil making a membrane vibrate, they use also a membrane - although a much thinner one - with magnets inside a frame. When music plays, the signal goes through that frame and creates a magnetic field, making the membrane move. However these headphones work just the same as dynamic ones, it's also a membrane being moved and creating sound. They simply have a different driver and require a different kind of amplifier.
> 
> All headphones require power. The reason why headphones can't use an optical cable is because they can't use that signal. When you play a file on your computer, a program, like iTunes or hopefully something better, makes that buch of digital data get decoded. Since it's a computer, it's still a digital signal, i.e. just 1's and 0's. Then it reaches a DAC where by ways mysterious and magical to me, that digital signal made up of 1's and 0's gets turned into an analog signal. Then it goes into an amp, which basically increases the amplitude of that signal, and then into your headphones. If you plugged an optical cable straight into the headphones, it wouldn't work because they're expected to work only with analog signals. You would need a DAC inside, and if that wasn't enough a gain stage to amplify that signal. It's like if you try to throw gasoline at car wheels and expect them to move: it's impossible because you need a way to 'decode' the chemical energy in the fuel into mechanical energy, which is the car.


 

 that was a brilliant explanation - cheers mate


----------



## agisthos

I hesitated to write this post, but it is the truth.
   
  I have a Sony HX900 (The best LCD TV from 2010, full LED backlit) and CA751 blu-ray player (Oppo 93 equivalent). I had an ISF calibration done (made a huge difference, whites are now white instead of yellow). So you can see from my equipment I am a bit of a videophile, and I now refuse to watch anything but blu-ray.
   
  I have purchased quite a few specialty HDMI cables and compared them, QED Signature, QED Reference, Chord Silver Active and Kordz EVX. (for those in the USA, QED and Chord are very big UK based high end cable companies).
   
  I found either no difference or perhaps a slight imagined difference between the cables. One cable, the Chord Active HDMI, even seemed to make the picture worse, creating a subtle shifting to edges. This chord HDMI ran each signal line through some sort of filter to improve audio but did something to the video which created more noise.
   
  So anyway, I presumed like so many others that HDMI is not a performance limiter. I was wrong. Recently I purchased a Mapleshade Vivlink HDMI with Plus Upgrade. This cable is 2m long (all the others were 1m), and it has the most ridiculous hairshirt construction you have ever seen. But it improved blu-ray output in every way. More everything, more detail. Where before detail in backround and pan shots were obscured, now you can see more clearly into the image.
   
  To be sure, the improvment is still subtle, but it is blatantly noticeable. So noticable that a good video camera recording of the screen will show up the differences, such as edge pixelation of an image that just disappeared with the Vivlink HDMI.
   
  Im not interested in debating those who read theoretical white papers and presume to understand how the real world works. Im just telling you my actual experience. I can understand the skepticism, as the more expensive cables I tried turned out to be no better than a $20 lead.
   
  FWIW, the Mapleshade Vivlink HDMI was designed by Pierre Sprey, he does have some engineering backround, known as the father of the F-16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt warplanes.
   
http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/Mapleshade-Vivlink-HDMI-Cable-with-PLUS-Upgrade/productinfo/VIVILINK2MP/


----------



## CC Lemon

No. Just no.
   
  None of the reasons listed really connect to how digital signals work and all of the comparisons to audio cables are irrelevant as they are most likely talking about analogue cables.
   
  Even with your previous skepticism and experience, it doesn't rule out that you're simply perceiving differences that aren't there.
   
  Their viewing panel is hardly legitimate support of their argument without an understanding of the methods used. They don't even explain why they weren't able to find video of sufficient quality without shooting their own. And I have to question what device they used that was able to outperform every existing movie with multi-million dollar budgets shot in resolutions far beyond any consumer displays. Sure, they have to scale it down to consumer formats, but I'd be extremely surprised if these guys were actually able to shoot video that was higher quality than ANYTHING available, and do it at a cheaper price.
   
  If there truly is a difference, it would not be that hard to test. You make a source that outputs data at a desired rate. You create a receiver that calculates the rate and accuracy of the data. There's no need to do all of these perceived differences tests if we know how the technology works and can test it so easily.
   
  The data gets sent as a set of 0's and 1's. You can't make those 0's or 1's any better. The data is either received or it's not. It's either correct or it's not. It's either transmitted at the proper rate, or it's not. You can take 2 cables test them like I described above and you'll know if there will be any differences in the image.
   
  I immediately doubt them when they offer no explanation of what was changed between their 2 available models. Even a vague description. They don't offer any information about the specifications. Which HDMI standard is it designed for? It can't be future proof. No resolutions mentioned. No 3d capabilities mentioned. Absolutely nothing but perceived differences. If they did as much extensive testing as they describe, they should at least offer the most basic specifications or capabilities.
   
  Edit: I just wanted to add something. I am absolutely open to the idea that cables make a difference. I'm just waiting to see blind testing with consistent results. Even if it comes down to a limited number of people being able to see a difference, I'll believe there might be a difference if they can correctly judge the difference with reasonably high accuracy. And I'm not just talking about slightly above chance. This wouldn't be that difficult to do, yet no one has done it.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





agisthos said:


> To be sure, the improvment is still subtle, but it is blatantly noticeable. So noticable that a good video camera recording of the screen will show up the differences, such as edge pixelation of an image that just disappeared with the Vivlink HDMI.


 





   
  Well as long as YOU noticed the difference that's fine...but hey that's a hefty price to pay for "just a HDMI"
  
   


  Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> I immediately doubt them when they offer no explanation of what was changed between their 2 available models. Even a vague description. They don't offer any information about the specifications. Which HDMI standard is it designed for? It can't be future proof. No resolutions mentioned. No 3d capabilities mentioned. Absolutely nothing but perceived differences. If they did as much extensive testing as they describe, they should at least offer the most basic specifications or capabilities.
> 
> Edit: I just wanted to add something. I am absolutely open to the idea that cables make a difference. I'm just waiting to see blind testing with consistent results. Even if it comes down to a limited number of people being able to see a difference, I'll believe there might be a difference if they can correctly judge the difference with reasonably high accuracy. And I'm not just talking about slightly above chance. This wouldn't be that difficult to do, yet no one has done it.


 
   
  Agreed with your edit, and yes it annoys me when they don't mention it, especially if they are expensive HDMI's! Its a schoolboy error.


----------



## agisthos

I guess it is kind of like digital coaxial cables. Many audiophiles accept that analog cables alter the sound, but because digital cables are supposed to be 1 & 0's it does not fit in with their engineering knowledge and they will deny such a difference can be possible.
   
  The only way I can think of that will convince some is to do a HD video camera test, and show the obvious difference by switching the cables in and out, before and after. It is the only thing that has made be consider ever buying a video camera.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

I also have another question, probably more head-fi related too:

 What about your take son OPTICAL cables.
  As there are some stupidly expensive ones too...


----------



## Shotor102

I must say,
  I'm a little dissapointed with this thread and what it has become.
   
  If I am correct with assuming that this thread was specifically designed to DEBATE the controversial issue of whether 'Claimed' higher quality HDMI cables actually make a difference from the lower quality HDMI cables (noting that it would be of the same grade, i.e. v1.3, 1.4 etc..)
   
  I was going reply to some of the comments made in regards to my previous posts about my own experience with HDMi and the difference I noted.
  However, now I'm doubtful it it's even worth it at all.
   
  You guys aren't debating anything. Debate involves a give and take. This clearly isn't happening here.  It's a comment along the lines of 'all HDMI cables will produce the exact same picture quality, period. No ifs ands or butts'.   Then comes along another poster who clearly done his research in terms of VD quality, and personally telling you that there is a difference.. But, instead of trying to discuss and dissect why this is despite contradicting scientific calims, it's 'NONONONONONONO... Science says this... You must be percieving it this way, but in actuality, it's this way.. It's a Placebo...' 
   
  Seriously, if consumer bias and 'Placebo' is your only defense against obvious testimony to the fact, then it doesn't matter how times you'll recite scientific doctorines in regards. Bottom line is, people see differences, both visually and audibly. It happens, and there are far too many reporting this to be a placebo. Notwithstanding that quite a few will be under Placebo, but definitely and certainly not all of them.
   
  Here's one example where your scientific argument falls short. 
  Previously there was a statement made that HDMI will either produce as signal which will result in a full HDMI quality picture and sound, or it simply won't; as per the Digital encoding of the signal .. 1,0 1,0... and such.. 
  Then, when the challenge of longer cables needing extra shielding and denser build, construction and design... it is explained that it is done to protect that signal from getting weak ... and thus, prevent distortion and other mentioned artifacts.. such as stepping/Shadowing/gittering/sync issues, pixalation, incorrect or laggy picture and motion, and down right to incorrectly displayed or random cropping of the picture itself (aspect ratio, yes, that was reported as-well)..
   
  But wait, what happened to either there's a signal with full HDMI quality, or there isn't anything at all?  Clearly the above contradicts that quite clearly.
   
  Now, before someone actually starts yelling 'this is different because the HDMI cable is either faulty or not to-spec'.
  However, know this, that argument is question begging, plain and simple. Why, because part of the debate's core is that many of these HDMI no-name companies that produce cheaper cables, and calim that they're to-spec, are actually not to spec, yet are still sold as HDMI cables. And of course, since the evidence of seeing different quality and difference with different cables is inconsistent, scientific approach holds this as anecdotal evidence, and of course, try to explain it as placebo or some other pyschobable reasoning.
   
   
  Keep that in mind.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





agisthos said:


> I guess it is kind of like digital coaxial cables. Many audiophiles accept that analog cables alter the sound, but because digital cables are supposed to be 1 & 0's it does not fit in with their engineering knowledge and they will deny such a difference can be possible.


 

  
  I had a long explanation of things typed out, but I kept making changes and adding information and now I've been up for way too long and just got frustrated with how it looked. I'm way too tired to think straight and explain everything I was trying to get across, so I'm going to try and keep it short. Please excuse any errors or anything that comes across as insulting.
   
  It seems like you need to read up on what exactly it means to be digital and how that information is transferred and processed. It is inherently a series of bits (0's or 1's) and it really is that simple. Yes, there are errors. This thread has already covered how HDMI accounts for these errors and any proper cable should not be producing any detrimental issues if it is able to display the image. Basically, the only reason you should see an improvement is if you're using a cable that was below the required specifications.
   
  The way you specifically mentioned the background and pan shots seeming to be better makes me question how much you understand about how the images on the screen are processed. Any differences should be consistent across the image, regardless of focus or content. Saying the HDMI cable specifically improved background images would be like saying it has specifically improved displaying lions. That's just not how it works.
   
  Also, as I said earlier, it would be very easy to take a set of data transferred through one cable and a set of data transferred through another to see if there's a difference. If you don't think that's a sufficient way to compare cables, then you're basically implying that we don't actually have an understanding of how this technology works. If that's the case, we must be extremely lucky to have managed to create most digital devices. Literally the only important thing behind an HDMI cable is the rate of transfer and accuracy of the transferred data. It's either right, or wrong. And there's correction for the instances that it's wrong. At a point, the cable is no longer in the required specifications so it's not reasonable to compare that cable. You wont see a huge difference between 2 proper cables.
   
  I'm actually more willing to believe brands like audioquest because they can at least provide some of the basic technical specifications. I would expect a small company that's supposed to be providing the best technology that has been extensively researched and tested to provide the very basic information as to how it is better. Even some statistical analysis/breakdown of the "panel" comparing the cables. I seriously doubt they did blind testing, so that's probably useless anyway. If they can't provide that information, then I'd like them to at least admit that they have no idea how or why it performs better.
   
  So yeah... I'm done. Time for sleep. I'll let you guys discuss more and figure out if I want to say more when I wake up.


----------



## Somnambulist

ac500 killing it.
   
  Also, for long runs, I would be using HDMI over cat5/6 rather than just a long HDMI cable - very long cables tend to be specialised and expensive.


----------



## ac500

_> Also, as I said earlier, it would be very easy to take a set of data transferred through one cable and a set of data transferred through another to see if there's a difference. If you don't think that's a sufficient way to compare cables, then you're basically implying that we don't actually have an understanding of how this technology works. If that's the case, we must be extremely lucky to have managed to create most digital devices._
   
Exactly. This whole notion that cable X will magically improve the quality versus cable Y is seriously ignorant -- and that "the white papers are just theory, and ignores the real world" is double ignorant. Do people seriously still think that errors and distortions make it through without being noticed by the receiving end? This is true for analog, but as I explained earlier, digital errors cannot with any probability make it through without being detected. Or, do you really think that some cables are better due to reasons beyond the well-understood bit error rate -- some magical thing nobody knows about that can only be noticed "in practice"? 
   
The claim that "theory is not useful in the real world" proves to me conclusively that you are not an engineer, and you have literally no idea how engineering is done. You have clearly never designed any software, hardware, or any other high-tech device or product, because if you did you'd know that it's the theory that makes all of this possible in the first place.
   
It reminds me or arguing with people who think the theory of relativity is "false". They say "I don't believe Einstein was right" as though it's something you can just "disagree" with. This is like disagreeing with gravity -- it doesn't work, sorry to say. Without such "theory" being correct and all the related implications, your cell phones simply would not work. As CC Lemon said, do you think it's some massive "accident" that engineers were able to design all the technology you use today? Do you think it's all "magic" and that real-world experiences were used in some fluffy hand-wavy way to refine some circuit with trial-and-error until a TV was invented? As someone else said, "no no no no no"... because this is extremely ignorant. Once again such arguments are arguments of pure ignorance, and helping such people understand reality is like helping someone who "disagrees the moon orbits the earth" understand that it's not a matter of opinion.
   
_Now to address the main non-via-ignorance counter-argument, which seems to be that "$10 cables are under-spec":_
   
It would be extremely easy to test the claims of ANY cable manufacturer by simply using a device to measure the error rates of each respective cable. If it is discovered that all the $10 cables are vastly under-spec (as in something like a *million* times worse, which would be required before snow would appear), then why don't we see studies showing this? A simple review from a reliable unbiased party making said measurements of various cables would be a MASSIVELY effective marketing "trick", because it would confirm scientifically that all cheap cables are vastly under-spec (and for some unimaginable reason, all TVs in the world do not detect this despite being _fully_ capable of displaying a "CABLE FAULTY" warning). And by the way, keep in mind I said "reliable unbiased party", not the cable company itself.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I must say,
> I'm a little dissapointed with this thread and what it has become.
> 
> If I am correct with assuming that this thread was specifically designed to DEBATE the controversial issue of whether 'Claimed' higher quality HDMI cables actually make a difference from the lower quality HDMI cables (noting that it would be of the same grade, i.e. v1.3, 1.4 etc..)


 

 its a debate, but we can all be one-sided if we choose to be.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> its a debate, but we can all be one-sided if we choose to be.


 

 I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.
  By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.


----------



## mark2410

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> in that respect only thing would be shielding as in the optical cable might crack on cheaper models.


 


  well yeah but then it would just break and not work.  it will be obvious its not working.
   
  its like the crazy optical cables which as shielded and have gold plated connections, its all bull poop


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.
> By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.


 
   
  And i suggest looking up trolling...lol
  
  Quote: 





mark2410 said:


> well yeah but then it would just break and not work.  it will be obvious its not working.
> 
> its like the crazy optical cables which as shielded and have gold plated connections, its all bull poop


 

 haha


----------



## Shotor102

ac500,
   
  Though I don't like your approach and overall tone in discussion, admittedly you seem to possess the actual technical knowledge to properly back up what you're explaining, as opposed to a few others that appear to be basically reciting scientific documentation without fully understanding the full technical elements of it.  Granted, as you stated, you are a scientist/engineer.  Be that as it may, I'm going to make a few statements here, some are factual, and some, for the sake of conducting this debate in a civil and a fair manner, need to be taken for granted.
   
  1. When I previously (a while ago) described the scenario with my HD media player, a $12 HDMI cable and my HDTV (50' Hitachi Plasma), the scenario was very simple. But for those who rewrote or commented on it as if it was a different scenario, please take note.  I had the $12 HDMI cable for more than a year at that time. Suddenly I began experiencing signal fluctuations with it, it either comes and goes, or simply does not catch between the sender and receiver (HDplayer to HDTV). In Frustration I went to the local London Drugs and bought a new HDMI cable, which WAS the cheapest one for $60 (Rocketfish). Came home replaced the cable, and BAM, everything works like a charm.  And ontop of that, certain black levels of the image appeared more prominently, and slightly, ever so slightly, less flush of brightness across the screen. But again, you're talking like 1% of the whole thing. This is what I noticed right away.   Now, in regards to this, here are the following points:
   
  2. The experience is not a Placebo effect. For two reasons, 1. I'm very much aware of Placebo, done the research and was skeptical about HDMI cables to begin with. And 2. Since I didn't expect a damn thing from replacing the cable, other than seeing if the old one was the problem, so me seeing a difference by definition could not be a placebo or consumer preference of any of the kind.  Negating this aspect is basically begging the question of this entire debate. This IS the debate. And if you can't concede with this point, then it's not a debate, rather you're talking over me and basically stating 'my way or no way'.  So if that's how you're going to play the game, then feel free to play by yourself, just say the word and I'm out.    So I repeat, a Placebo here is out of the question, period.
   
  3. I have two HDmedia players currently. At the time when this occurred, I had only one. I've also tested that cable with the HD player with another TV LCD, Toshiba Regza. Worked fine like a charm. Tested it at my father's house, 2 different TV's, worked like a charm.  Tested that media player with a new HDMI cable on the Plasma, worked like a charm.   So, clearly, there is some discrepancy between the Plasma and that player via the HDMI. However, the common factor is the HDMI, this is obvious logical deduction.  I've also contacted the manufacturer (Sarotech, Abigs in Korea), had a friend who was going to Korea bring it to the After Service department for inspection. Diagnostics ran, all systems checked, firmware checked. All in order.  So that factor is not the issue. 
   
  4. The TV is not the issue, nor is 'dumb' as you claim. I've contacted Hitachi as-well, and they had no explanation to this, and further, did not even see this as an issue. Clearly, a new media player worked fine with both HDMI cables. XBOX works great, XBOX360, works great, Home Surround via HDMI, works great. No component with any HDMI or non-HDMI connection had any issues with this TV. The TV is fine. It's going into its 4th year, and it kicks butt all over the place.  So again, TV is not the issue. 
   
  Now, before you run off to try and explain how it's a component issue or something else.  This is my statement in regards to HDMI cables, always has and always will be:
   
  There is the scientific 'IDEAL' definition of the 'to-spec' or up to standard of HDMI compliance. Clearly it has to be, otherwise, the technology will flop. This is a given. With digital signal, similarly to SPDIF/Toslink and Coax, the signal is encoded digitally and is processed as you stated via 0,1 1,0 and such.  However, with all the technology, with all the fail safes of error detection and correction, the double back-forth signal between sender and receiver, that standard still has a room for marginal error. And as you mentioned before, 1 bit per million bits or so.  Clearly, this 'SHOULD BE' the ideal all HDMI cables should be held to. But, as already established, construction, density and materials used play a factor in how well the signal is passed through. It's not a mere simple issue of it's either showing a picture or not. We're already established that poorly shielded and constructed cables with be prone to distortion and other factors which will affect the overall quality of the picture and sound. To which extent and consistency, that, no one can really tell for sure. And this is because, again, since it's a digital signal, and since even the cheapest and lowest quality cables still go by that standard, those errors or quality issues or differential in overall quality (slightly grainier quality, more flush of whites and less separation of black levels.. perhaps color as-well..) are very very small and minute.. almost to the point of insignificance. The point is, it's not that all HDMIs display, or 'ideally' should display the same quality the same way regardless of the quality or price, but rather, the difference that could be seen, is so small, so meager that paying $50 over $10 is simply not worth it, and any sales person pitching you about major quality improvement, well, is basically giving you a pitch.
   
  Further, I never said that the issue with HDMI is isolated to the cable itself solely, rather with a combination of various factors. Similarly to my scenario, any expert or technician that will come to investigate won't know what to say. I mean, come one, TV works with the cable and all other components fine, with exception to one media player. Switch the cable, and it works like a charm. Do the same on a different TV, and everything works fine without any issues what's or ever.   So how do you explain that?  Anomaly... simply put.  Could be as easily explained as the way that this HDMI cable, which is clearly not defective and is up to spec (as it previously worked and still to this day works on the LCD tv with any component) and it's cheaper and lower quality construction, shielding and materials cause some kind of a miscommunication between that particular player and the TV.   But only that cable, that TV and that Media player. Take away the cable, and it's fine.  So, clearly it's a combination between a sender and a receiver, that even with an obviously 'to-spec' cable that is sold as 'to spec' cable, the error detection and correction is simply isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.. or doing it periodically.  
   
  Please don't forget that despite the fact that the signal itself is digitally encoded, it is still transmitted via electrical signal. And you (ac500) stated before, all HDMI cables are shielded and constructed in a certain way to prevent and protect from signal disruption and degradation from such factors as radio waves, electromagnetic fields and such and electrical current spikes.  Is this correct so far? 
   
  So, please explain to me that anomaly.
  And mind you, no Placebo mumbo jambo or personal bias. As I must reiterate that by definition Placebo does not take effect on someone who is aware that it is a Placebo.  You've brought that study previously, and I effectively proved that it was heavily flawed and proves nothing.
   
  Oh, and just to prove a point here, I never kept that $60 cable. The difference it made simply wasn't worth the price.
  Also, if you effectively find and prove to have bought a quality cable for let's $5.00 that is up to the quality par of a more expensive quality claimed cable from a known brand name, then I won't be one to suggest buying the expensive one.  That would be plain idiotic.
  But the trick is effectively proving it beyond discussing scientific statistics of HDMI standards. Clearly many uphold it, but many don't but fly under the radar since their 'performance' is very much acceptable by majority of people.  Trust me, get a cheaply made $1.99 HDMI cable from a dollar store, and a $40 Belkin one from Best buy, take them both to a lab with ideal and controlled settings. Plug them into a 32' - 42' HDTV and play some content for a few hours... and I can guarantee you it'll be very hard to see any difference.. if at all..  But, take those same two cables, plug them in a normal house, to a 50' or larger screen HDTV, a BD, A digital HD, box, an XBOX360 or PS3, all wired into a Premium Home surround receiver HDMI ports... 
   
  Then run some content for about 10 hours ... and watch what happens.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> And i suggest looking up trolling...lol
> 
> 
> haha


 


  A. No need to look it up. I know exactly what trolling is.
   
  B. You seem to be conducting a tirade and trolling all too well, that much I am aware of.
   
  C. You wrote lol... and followed with haha...???   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  So... you laughed out loud... and then... um.... chuckled.....???


----------



## agisthos

I have seen this debate go round on the forums for over 10 years and it is like a religion.
   
  Where as audio performance is subjective and can never be tested apart from THD/IHD (and some actually prefer higher THD as more pleasing to the ear), what is good about video is a visual change like this is easy to see. I will do a controlled recording at some point and post the results on AVS forums for more entertainment.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> A. No need to look it up. I know exactly what trolling is.
> 
> B. You seem to be conducting a tirade and trolling all too well, that much I am aware of.
> 
> ...


 

 Oh dear...
  Kill me.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> Oh dear...
> Kill me.


 


  How about if I get Chris Tucker to come down there and slap you...
   
  Cause he'll do that.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> How about if I get Chris Tucker to come down there and slap you...
> 
> Cause he'll do that.


 

 mate - I'll absolutely love that!

 Then we can do some Michael Jackson moves together.
  I'm not chinese though...but I am in Paris...
   
  So can we have a like rush hour 4?
  Except without attacking them with some bad-ass Jakie Chan moves, I blast them with my D2K's and my HDMI CABLES !?
   
  I think that's a perfect plot.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





agisthos said:


> Im not interested in debating those who read theoretical white papers and presume to understand how the real world works.


 

 I lol'ed hard at this. Your cables are made in Bosnia or something?
   

  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I strongly (what was that word ac500?) urge you to look up 'debate' either in the dictionary or wikipedia.
> By definition cannot be one sided.  That would not be a debate, rather a tirade or a rant.


 
   
  You are right, this isn't a debate in the sense of something mainly subjective. If we were discussing food, I could say I prefer cow and you say you prefer pork. None of us is right because taste is determined by our palatine glands and how our brain interprets that information, which has so many variables it's just pointless. However this isn't subjective. This is more like one group explaining they studied a vehicle which operates on gas (here I go with the car analogies again) through a controled combustion occuring inside an engine, and another group insisting this vehicle is propelled forwards through some magical inexplicable event.
   
  As for the situations where people swear they hear/see a difference, I understand this is a common occurrence. However that's like someone coming in saying they swear the sun didn't rise on the East but in the West. No matter how many people say so you won't believe it because that would mean fundamental changes had happened, like the Earth switching its polar orientation overnight, without anyone else noticing. Are you going to have a polite debate with as much regard for their opinion as you have for yours?


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Shotor102* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 1. When I previously (a while ago) described the scenario with my HD media player, a $12 HDMI cable and my HDTV (50' Hitachi Plasma), the scenario was very simple. But for those who rewrote or commented on it as if it was a different scenario, please take note.  I had the $12 HDMI cable for more than a year at that time. Suddenly I began experiencing signal fluctuations with it, it either comes and goes, or simply does not catch between the sender and receiver (HDplayer to HDTV). In Frustration I went to the local London Drugs and bought a new HDMI cable, which WAS the cheapest one for $60 (Rocketfish). Came home replaced the cable, and BAM, everything works like a charm.  And ontop of that, certain black levels of the image appeared more prominently, and slightly, ever so slightly, less flush of brightness across the screen. But again, you're talking like 1% of the whole thing. This is what I noticed right away.   Now, in regards to this, here are the following points:


 


  That was a great read - OK,  I have some things to add to this, and I might be wrong:
   
  If I went from bestbuy or wherever it is, and bought that $12 cable, i would be expecting to get $2 quality from ebay
  If I went and bought a $60 cable I would expect to get $30 quality.
   
  Now by quality I mean, shielding, cable quality, reliability, plating etc.
  Where it because senseless is when you are buying a $100 or 200 hdmi cable, and try comparing it to something worth only $30 from ebay.
   
  Now this is my issue mainly - its due to marketing I guess.
   
  I went into FNAC, which in france is like your bestbuy, or for the UK crowd, like currys, to buy a DVI to HDMI cable.
  To my surprise and shock the cable was being sold at 40€.
  Quite literally a wire that is worth, and I kid you not, like-for-like look, *feel etc on amazon £5*, thus around 8€.
   
  This is what shocks me the most.
  Its retailers like bestbuy, flipping the HDMI cables for such a HUGE profit.
   
  Now this principle however doesn't apply, if you're buying it straight from monster for example, or a private cable company. But can you see what I'm getting at here?
  To me the "expensive cable you find online" such as null audio etc, are just like buying it from fnac, except they make the cables look nice, and by all means have little better specs (with shielding, materials used) but by no means are they worth $200.
   
  For the differences in HDMI, I actually have a prime example:
  Now you'll have to explain to me all that jargon, as I don't understand the conversions etc, but when I plug my xbox 360 via *HDMI 1.3b TO DVI wire *into my *ASUS monitor, being a 1080i one*, the image is nice and smooth, and the edges are nice to look at.
  When i plug a *HDMI 1.3b to HDMI 1.3b* (flat cable style) into another screen, this time being a SAMSUNG TV, which is 1080p, i see a lot of sharp lines and unbearable visuals.
   
  Now I have a theory that the wire I'm using is faulty, (the hdmi to hdmi one) as when I plug a *HDMI TO DVI ADAPTER* to the wire, my ASUS monitor doesn't pick up the signal, and when it does, its temperamental. 
   
*(The wires/adapters/monitor linked above, are the exact ones I have)*
   
  Finally, I would never consider buying this *sort of HDMI cable*, even though it might perform the *same as this cable for example.*
  (please ignore the 1.3 and 1.4, i know they are different and one carries up to a certain resolution or signal -> im saying if they were the same spec...i would never be drawn to the first one, ever)
   
   
  Also, out of interest, would *this affect the quality*?


----------



## CC Lemon

This is primarily addressed to shotor, but also anyone else who is doubting and questioning the "scientific view" that many of us are using:
   
  1) If you're suggesting that the cheap cables merely meet spec while higher quality cables surpass it, that would be easy to test and report. You don't see companies claiming their cables will have significantly higher transfer speeds than required or that they have significantly reduced errors. They'll go on and on and on about materials used, shielding applied and all sorts of other things they did to improve the signal. Yet, you still don't see a simple report of improved data transmission which, at the very least, meets our current understanding of how the technology functions.
   
  2) Questioning the scientific viewpoint is a bit silly with the evidence you suggest might disagree. We understand how the technology works and understand what kind of changes in image are possible, yet you suggest that maybe it's more complicated than our present understanding. Fortunately, these cable companies know all this magical stuff that helps but can't explain why or prove anything beyond perceived differences. Obviously, it makes sense to just assume that people are honestly seeing a difference.
   
  3) It wouldn't be that hard to see if there is a difference as perceived by the viewer that doesn't fit into the 0's and 1's idea. Show me a group of people that can accurately identify better cables in blind testing with a rather high success rate and then we'll have a reason to investigate the possibility that something is different. It really isn't that hard, yet none of these companies have even bothered trying to create such an experiment. If no one can consistently identify the cables used under blind testing, then clearly it's a more complex issue of psychological perception than a more complex issue of data transmission. If the human factor is a much more likely explanation, it's not that unreasonable to look to that first. By comparison, we understand human thought a lot less than we understand HDMI technology.
   
  4) Your story is still not a reliable test. To suggest that you were skeptical therefore impervious to perceptual errors is SERIOUSLY underestimating the human mind. You said you didn't expect there to be a difference. So you plug in the cable and suddenly it works! It did make a difference! Now let me focus on the image to see if I notice anything.... is the image better now?! That's just one (admittedly stupid) way that your perception could be affected. The mere fact that the cable worked and that your attention was focused on looking for differences and identifying changes could have led you to believe or expect a difference. Even if you were skeptical before, that is enough to give your mind the idea to look for or expect differences. Your particular mood (excitement and joy that your expensive equipment is working again) could have resulted in a more favorable opinion of the image displayed. Again, that's just one of many ways that your perception could have been altered.
   
  Seriously... show me a repeated blind test with people perceiving differences and identifying the cables with reasonably high accuracy (hell... I'd consider above 75% a start) and maybe there's reason to investigate it. If it's not blind, it's useless. If it's not repeatable, it's useless. If it's not consistent, it's useless. If the accuracy is close to chance, it's useless. If there is so certainly a difference at the perceived level and the cables are directly responsible, it would be AMAZINGLY easy to test and no one has done it successfully. This is why I'm more likely to stick to the 0's and 1's. That has been tested and has strong evidence behind it. It's well understood and can be explained. The lack of reliable perceived evidence leaves no reason to question the concept of how digital signals work. I'm open to the idea that there's a difference, but I need some reasonable evidence. I'm really not asking for that much.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> As I must reiterate that by definition Placebo does not take effect on someone who is aware that it is a Placebo.




That is incorrect. Evidence suggests that the placebos can be effective even when the subject is aware that they are receiving a placebo. See Placebos without deception.

You cannot legitimately rule out the placebo effect simply because you were aware of the possibility of the placebo effect.


----------



## ac500

Just to let you know, I will answer Shotors and others technical etc. questions about cables in a while, but I'll be away for a little bit due to a fever. In a few days I'm sure I'll be back and capable of giving a coherent reply that doesn't reflect my current fever-induced delirium 
   
  What the... is that a pony in my living room!?


----------



## CC Lemon

And it's not like the placebo effect is the only perceptual error or influence over perception that we have.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> That is incorrect. Evidence suggests that the placebos can be effective even when the subject is aware that they are receiving a placebo. See Placebos without deception.
> You cannot legitimately rule out the placebo effect simply because you were aware of the possibility of the placebo effect.


 

 Since I have to go and do a 12 hour graveyard shift, I'll make a quick point on this now and comment on the rest later.
   
  This study presented in the link is the same study ac500 previously provided me on a pm, just in a different presentation (ac500, please confirm this).
   
  Now, for the purpose of my statement with Placebo, I realize that the definition or criteria needs to be refined.  But before I do so, a few comments on the study.
   
  A. It's extremely flawed. IBS being the main protagonist of symptoms. Why are the subjects comprised of 70% women and the rest men. Why isn't their other mental conditions, if at all, are not presented or discussed. Was there a blind test, a double blind and mix test conducted? No, there was not.  But, as many as these flaws exist, which clearly factor into results and make them unreliable.  The grossest and I MEAN GROSSED error and misleading statement in this study, is that it's a Placebo without deception or as such. There is a deception at play in this study, a while it's a minor one, it's is a deception. Note that for ANY placebo to work, may that be an artifact or a sugar pill, a suggestion that 'this will help you', or 'improve your condition', or 'shown to have improved same conditions previuosly' has to be either made or somehow expressed or communicated to the subject. That's the bottom line of Placebo, this is how it works.  In this case, while the subjects were told that they will be given Placebos, they were also informed that those Placebos HAVE PREVIOUSLY "_*been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes"*_   <----  This right there, is classic Placebo at it's best. Not only it's a deception, it's one in the worst kind. They're pulling this stunt literally over the subjects eyes.  This is not a Placebo without deception, rather either some twisted reverse psychology or mind games.  And the proof for this is that while those subjects shown improvement while using this 'Placebos', they only did so because they were told and suggested that those Placebos have clinically proven to improve IBS symptoms.  But guess what, if those patients would have been told that these placebos have no effects whats or ever, or worse, been clinically proven to worsen the IBS conditions, what do you suppose the study results would have shown and proven?  
   
  The above is not more and no less analogous to superstition in its mildest form. Think of sports athletes, and I mean the Pros. Ever heard of a Rabbit's foot? A lucky charm, a necklace, a specific sock or shirt or pants or underwear players wear for major games ??  Is that real? Is that Placebo? Is that Superstition?  Clearly, those players are aware that this is in their minds... yet, having those artifacts on gives them peace of mind and allows them to perform better...   Is that Placebo or superstition?  And for that matter, where does religion factor into this? Faith, belief, superstition.. Placebo?    
   
  Trust me, you don't want to head there, it's endless. 
   
  So let me just refine the definition of Placebo here so there are no mistakes.  If a person is already subjected to an ongoing Placebo, and is showing positive correlation and reaction to hypothesized results... without him being aware of it FIRSTLY (although somehow suggested, either flat out or covertly that 'this will improve something'), then any subsequent administering of the drug or the placebo artifact would still work or be active along those parameters. Even if you inform the subject that he was under placebo, unless this person has an iron will power, which is rare, he will still exhibit positive reaction to the Placebo effect. Simply because his mind has already converted to believe that this works.  But it's still by deception initially.   However, this won't work the other way around.


----------



## tim3320070

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> I'll try to explain nontechnically.
> 
> Digital is 1s and 0s -- in concept. But digital exists in analog medium. Cables can suffer interference, changing 0s to 1s and 1s to 0s. Uh oh! That's bad! Fortunately, this problem has been solved for *decades* and dealing with this is pretty ordinary. The answer in short? Error detection and correction.
> 
> ...


 
  So you're saying there's a chance........


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> The grossest and I MEAN GROSSED error and misleading statement in this study, is that it's a Placebo without deception or as such. There is a deception at play in this study, a while it's a minor one, it's is a deception. Note that for ANY placebo to work, may that be an artifact or a sugar pill, a suggestion that 'this will help you', or 'improve your condition', or 'shown to have improved same conditions previuosly' has to be either made or somehow expressed or communicated to the subject. That's the bottom line of Placebo, this is how it works.  In this case, while the subjects were told that they will be given Placebos, they were also informed that those Placebos HAVE PREVIOUSLY "been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes"   <----  This right there, is classic Placebo at it's best. Not only it's a deception, it's one in the worst kind. They're pulling this stunt literally over the subjects eyes.  This is not a Placebo without deception, rather either some twisted reverse psychology or mind games.




No, there is no deception there. It was an example of the researchers being straight forward with the subjects of the experiment. They were informed that the treatments they were to receive were inert, without any medicinal value. Further, it was explained to them that “placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body _self-healing_ (_emphasis mine -Jaywalk3r_) processes." Yet, the placebos were still effective.

That is no different than you being aware of the placebo effect of upgrading HDMI cables, and yet still experiencing that placebo effect. You said you were skeptical of the possibility of improvement via upgrading an HDMI cable. The patients were told that they were receiving a placebo. You were aware that people could perceive an improvement due to the placebo effect. The patients were told that placebo pills had been shown to produce self-healing. You perceived improvements due to the placebo effect. A significant portion of the patients perceived improvements due to the placebo effect. It's the same thing.


----------



## CC Lemon

^ I lol'd.
  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Since I have to go and do a 12 hour graveyard shift, I'll make a quick point on this now and comment on the rest later.
> 
> This study presented in the link is the same study ac500 previously provided me on a pm, just in a different presentation (ac500, please confirm this).


 


  I have to agree with shotor (I hate to admit it!) about some of the problems with the study. Before I get to that, I want to criticize the criticism. It's not an issue that they only used one medical condition (IBS) for the study. In fact, that was a proper choice. The purpose of the study was not to compare how this effect might work among different medical conditions. They were testing to see if the effect would be found. If they had other medical conditions present, it could have raised questions about how to properly interpret results. Each medical condition would have a different set of scales to measure symptoms and the improvements as a result of the "treatment" could vary in different ways so it would be questionable to compare that data. The distribution of women to men shouldn't have been an issue either. Sometimes you have to go with the samples that are available and I'd imagine that's what they did. That difference in numbers should not be of concern. An in depth look at the data would easily reveal if there had been a significant difference based on gender. I'd need to see the full publication but, from what I can gather, there was either the placebo pill with the description or no treatment. In that regard, it could not be a double blind test. You can't blind the participant on which condition they're in when one of them is no actual treatment. I think they'd be aware that they aren't receiving a pill lol. Since they weren't comparing 2 treatments, there isn't really a reason to implement "blind" procedures here. I wouldn't call it deception... but I can see why it could be considered that. I'll touch more on that now that I'm starting the portion where I agree with you.
   
  The study didn't exactly prove anything useful. It is still a placebo effect with the use of an inert substance given to patients under the belief that it will yield improvements in their symptoms. They shouldn't have suggested that the pill has resulted in improved symptoms or at least they should have provided a more in depth explanation of placebos. In fact, I don't think it's a problem that they say that people have improved while taking a placebo. They just needed to clearly explain that those improvements were the result of the placebo effect. Explain that the placebo effect works because people believe they are taking an actual medication. Then go on to explain that the patients in the study will only receive a placebo and explain that means they are receiving an inert pill that should not improve their symptoms. If it had been more clear on the idea that there shouldn't be an improvement, then I think this study would have been more along the lines of what it's trying to suggest.
   
  I actually did a research paper on the psychology of superstition so I can safely say that it's a little bit different than what you're describing. Superstition may improve performance out of expectations, but the root of superstition is more connected to learning theories. A superstition, in an over-simplified explanation, is basically a learned connection between a positive or negative event in relation to another environmental factor. For example: You go to a casino and gamble for 2 days without changing clothes or anything. No luck. You notice your shirt is smelling pretty foul so you go change, then head back to the casino floor. You place a bet and suddenly you've won. Even though we all know that was a statistical probability, that shirt was the noted change and has suddenly become the "lucky shirt". In a way, superstition works in reverse. A superstition is formed when a difference is noticed and is then attributed to something like an item. A placebo works on the idea that the item will cause a difference, therefore you realize a difference.
   
  I know I didn't word a lot of that as well as I could have and I definitely didn't elaborate on all of the ideas. If you'd like more clarification on what I'm trying to say on any particular topic above, let me know and I'll give it another attempt.
   
  Shotor: I still doubt your perceived differences between cables and it's impossible to rule out a flaw in your expectations/perceptions/whatever you want to describe it as. You were skeptical that the cable would make a difference. The second that cable fixed the issue, your expectations were proven to be different than the reality of the situation and that could easily be enough to open you to the idea that the image produced was somehow different. Even the slightest thought that it might be different could be enough. Your memory of the situation may also be slightly erroneous. Mind you, I'm not trying to specifically question your memory. Human memory is inherently flawed and can suffer from many different influences to change how we remember things at any given time. This is why anecdotal evidence is basically useless. Until there's a properly designed, blind study conducted, it's kind of useless to argue about perceived differences.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> No, there is no deception there. It was an example of the researchers being straight forward with the subjects of the experiment. They were informed that the treatments they were to receive were inert, without any medicinal value. Further, it was explained to them that “placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body _self-healing_ (_emphasis mine -Jaywalk3r_) processes." Yet, the placebos were still effective.
> That is no different than you being aware of the placebo effect of upgrading HDMI cables, and yet still experiencing that placebo effect. You said you were skeptical of the possibility of improvement via upgrading an HDMI cable. The patients were told that they were receiving a placebo. You were aware that people could perceive an improvement due to the placebo effect. The patients were told that placebo pills had been shown to produce self-healing. You perceived improvements due to the placebo effect. A significant portion of the patients perceived improvements due to the placebo effect. It's the same thing.


 


  Like I mentioned in my longer post, I have to agree with shotor. Unless the actual description given to the participants was longer and more detailed, the information shown in the abstract would definitely give the implication that the pills have resulted in improvements. If the participants held a full understanding of placebo, then maybe that description was sufficient, but that's a rather large assumption to make. The information given to the participants in regards to the pill was definitely much more in favor of the pill having some sort of actual effect and it doesn't clearly specify that there should not be an effect as a result of the pill.


----------



## Astrozombie

You guys made a thread for this? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Also if you are using inferior LCD technology you should look into upgrading that first before nitpicking over cables.
   
  CC Lemon just reminded me of a piece in my book about randomness. Fighter pilot instructors use negative reinforcement and claim that it works.....when in reality if a guy did bad on his previous run, chances are he will do better in his next run, screaming profanities at him doesn't help. 
  If somebody has an exceptional run the instructor praises them and when they do worse the next time, he says "see being positive hurts their performance" when in reality they were likely to, as we say in baseball, "regress to the mean".  Everyone should read this book "The  DRunkard's walk"
   
  I would bet my pair of Ultrasone's and HARX700 (which are my only 2 pairs not up for sale) if you took 100 people and put them in front of 720/1080i/1080p and component/HDMI setups with the same displays and same source, none of them could tell the difference between any of them at any decent clip, not to even mention a cheap cable over an expensive one.


----------



## dorino

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> So you're saying there's a chance........


 

 Not quite. There's a chance of errors that are _equally likely to happen on expensive cables._


----------



## CC Lemon

dorino, I think you missed the sarcasm/joke he was going for...


----------



## dorino

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> dorino, I think you missed the sarcasm/joke he was going for...


 

 Yeah, I think I did.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

CC]."They just needed to clearly explain that those improvements were the result of the placebo effect. Explain that the placebo effect works because people believe they are taking an actual medication. Then go on to explain that the patients in the study will only receive a placebo and explain that means they are receiving an inert pill that should not improve their symptoms.[/quote]

[quote="cc lemon said:


> Like I mentioned in my longer post, I have to agree with shotor. Unless the actual description given to the participants was longer and more detailed, the information shown in the abstract would definitely give the implication that the pills have resulted in improvements. If the participants held a full understanding of placebo, then maybe that description was sufficient, but that's a rather large assumption to make. The information given to the participants in regards to the pill was definitely much more in favor of the pill having some sort of actual effect and it doesn't clearly specify that there should not be an effect as a result of the pill.






I think the researchers did that pretty well, according to the protocol document available for download from the NIH page with the published study. The exception seems to be that they did not imply that the pill should not improve their symptoms (doing so would have defeated the purpose of the study). Instead, in addition to informing the patients about existing evidence regarding placebos, they pointed out possible mechanisms by which the placebo effect can occur. The researchers, if they stuck to their protocol, were very honest and straightforward with the subjects.

From the document (emphasis mine):
_The intervention will be geared to maximizing the contributions of positive expectation, conditioning, adherence and a supportive and confident patient practitioner relationship to the placebo response of IBS patients taking an open-label placebo pill. The first phase of the discussion will be designed to enhance expectation. Patients will be asked whether they have heard of the placebo effect and what they think of it. After a brief exchange geared 
to supporting any positive feelings the patient may have about placebo effects, the practitioner will then talk about the evidence supporting the idea that just 
taking placebo pills with a positive expectation initiates still poorly understood effects that can have a profound impact of illness. It will be clearly explained that placebo are made of "inert" substances like sugar pills but have been show in clinical trials to improve patient symptoms. The practitioner will discuss our published meta-analysis that showed on average 42% of patients on placebo treatment improve in IBS RCTs (Patel et al 2005). Furthermore, the patients will be informed about our recent IBS study showing that placebo acupuncture was as effective as current medications for IBS but without the side effects. Also during this discussion, to support expectation and to insure that patients are not conflicted about placebo improvement somehow being a sign that the IBS is “in their heads,” the physician or nurse practitioner will also explain that placebo effects change human physiology and can improve immune, endocrine, and pain mechanisms and that response to placebo is a demonstration of “self-healing capacities.” During the discussion the treating physician or nurse practitioner will naturally and clearly repeat the words that are stated in the informed consent that informs the patient that he/she will receive “an inert substance (the placebo), something like a sugar pill, that has been shown in rigorous clinical tests to somehow produce significant self-healing processes in IBS patients.” The treatment will also seek to maximize the contributions of adherence and conditioning to the placebo effect of IBS. Patients will be told that it is critical to take the pill two times daily with meals and that scientific evidence suggests that the positive effects of the pill taking will only happen if one is meticulous about taking the pill. Patients will be asked to describe situations in their life where taking pills had positive effects in their lives. When such a situation is remembered, patients will be encouraged to remember this context when they’re taking their inert medications. To again take any negative connotation about “the symptoms are in their head” patients will be informed about how conditioning with pills can “automatic trigger” a conditioning response like Pavlov’s dog who salivate to a bell. … Confidence will be fostered as the practitioner explains the evidence concerning placebo effects. _​
My biggest concern with the study is the relatively high p-value (p = .08) for quality of life after 21 days of treatment. That concern, however, is pretty minor, since the p-value is still pretty low. Since the related research is sparse, it may have been somewhat difficult to accurately predict the sample size necessary to demonstrate the effect. While the study does not conclusively prove its hypothesis, it certainly shows that the hypothesis it, at the very minimum, quite reasonable and worthy of further study. At any rate, the study is sufficient to show that one cannot assume that "Placebo does not take effect on someone who is aware that it is a Placebo," as Shotor102 claimed (and was previously thought by researchers).


----------



## CC Lemon

Exactly what I was going for. That seems like a more reasonable approach that would better suit their goals for the research. If the short line quoted in the abstract was all that was said, then I would have issues with the methods.
  
  I will still question the link to this and the views held by users that describe themselves as skeptics until they witnessed a difference in HDMI cables. While it does offer some evidence that the placebo effect can be seen on people aware of it, it also highly prompted the participants with the idea that they can still expect improvement. If someone truly approached a high quality HDMI cable with the thought that it has no chance of making a difference, then that's a completely different situation than taking a pill that has been highly suggested to have the potential to make a difference by experimenters. You're comparing doubt + awareness of placebo vs suggested improvements + awareness of placebo. Plus, taking a placebo pill (under the belief that it is treatment) can result in actual physical improvements for people, not just perceived differences. Believing that an HDMI cable will or will not affect the image quality has no effect on whether or not the HDMI cable will actually have an affect. It will only affect your perception.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

cc lemon said:


> Exactly what I was going for. That seems like a more reasonable approach that would better suit their goals for the research. If the short line quoted in the abstract was all that was said, then I would have issues with the methods.
> 
> 
> I will still question the link to this and the views held by users that describe themselves as skeptics until they witnessed a difference in HDMI cables. While it does offer some evidence that the placebo effect can be seen on people aware of it, it also highly prompted the participants with the idea that they can still expect improvement. If someone truly approached a high quality HDMI cable with the thought that it has no chance of making a difference, then that's a completely different situation than taking a pill that has been highly suggested to have the potential to make a difference by experimenters. You're comparing doubt + awareness of placebo vs suggested improvements + awareness of placebo. Plus, taking a placebo pill (under the belief that it is treatment) can result in actual physical improvements for people, not just perceived differences. Believing that an HDMI cable will or will not affect the image quality has no effect on whether or not the HDMI cable will actually have an affect. It will only affect your perception.




That's a fair point.

I do question how skeptical someone really is about potential performance improvements if they are spending over $50 on an HDMI cable, though. I suspect most people who spend that much are at least hopeful that it will be better than the $5 shipped worldwide cable they could get from ebay.


----------



## Shotor102

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/placebo-effects-without-deception-well-not-exactly/
   
  This sums it up pretty neatly.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> That's a fair point.
> I do question how skeptical someone really is about potential performance improvements if they are spending over $50 on an HDMI cable, though. I suspect most people who spend that much are at least hopeful that it will be better than the $5 shipped worldwide cable they could get from ebay.


 


  Well, in shotor's story he was in a tight situation trying to figure out why his system wasn't working. I don't recall the cost of the cable he bought, but it was more expensive than the cheaper (but recommended) options without being ridiculous. He had no intent of keeping the cable and simply wanted a quick fix to test a possible solution to the problem he was having.
   
  I definitely agree with your point though. On page 4, I was really curious why agisthos decided to spend nearly $200 on an HDMI cable after stating that he has tested many other high end cables and did not notice a difference. If you've done tests before and didn't think there was a difference, what was the point of spending even more money on the hope that another cable might be different somehow? Unless you do it to provide reviews or just have so much money that it doesn't matter, I don't really understand why someone would bother with it. Otherwise, I'd assume there must be some expectations of a difference.
   
  Shotor's link above definitely covers what I was trying to get across, though it has the full publication to reference instead of just the abstract. They basically had to convince the participants that the placebo effect would be activated and would make them feel better if they took the pills, which is not vastly different than telling them that they are receiving a real treatment. The way things are worded, it basically makes the point of explaining that it is inert but quickly explains that the pills will help anyway. I'd like to have seen a comparison between a real placebo test (tell them that the placebo is an actual drug/treatment), the open placebo (as done in the experiment) and the no treatment control group. I'm guessing a placebo in a real study drug trial has a greater effect. So they probably provided evidence for a weaker placebo effect based on the suggestion of the placebo effect resulting from inert substances, though I'm not exactly sure why that's useful other than a good-to-know sort of way.
   
  But, I still don't support shotor's story. Maybe it's true and maybe there is a difference that is from the HDMI cables, but it's anecdotal and does not control for A LOT of variables so I have to question it. This is why I keep saying a blind test is needed. I would expect that there is not a difference which is why you don't see companies like monster, audioquest, etc., posting results of any tests like that. It would be very easy marketing if the difference was noticeable. I expect they don't want to do a test like that because it would likely result in someone trying the experiment independently and providing conflicting evidence. For every anecdotal claim of perceived improvement, there's a published article or paper related to the technology that aids in explaining why those differences shouldn't be there. The lack of even 1 reasonably sound study suggesting a difference in cable quality is why I have to seriously doubt any anecdotal claim.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

I have to disagree with the main criticisms from the linked article. The blogger seems to have either missed the purpose of the study or forgotten that experiments tend to be most effective when they test only one variable.

Placebos, when administered, are portrayed as useful and effective. However, hiding the identity of the placebo, representing it as something with medicinal value, is thought to be unethical. The researchers wanted to find out if placebos could still be effective if subjects knew that that was what they were receiving. Had the researchers not made the subjects aware that placebos had been shown to be effective in clinical studies, the subjects would have no expectation for the placebo to work. That would have been a second variable and could have raised an unnecessary question that would cloud the conclusion. If there was no difference between the two groups, would it have been because there were no expectations or because the subjects were aware that the treatment was placebo? As performed, the experiment avoided the results being clouded by such a question. They eliminated the unethical deceit without eliminating the expectation, which is exactly what they set out to do.

Those circumstances admittedly may not match up exactly to Shotor102's situation, but in general are analogous to many HDMI cable upgrades. A small amount of research will reveal to consumers that there is no known reason that a high dollar HDMI cable should perform noticeably better than an inexpensive one. That is, the extra money goes to purchase inert substance, a placebo, and that fact isn't kept secret from informed consumers. Of course, the salesperson may sing the praises of the high end cables despite the science. And, despite the science, many consumers who purchase the expensive cable claim being able to perceive an improvement.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> I have to disagree with the main criticisms from the linked article. The blogger seems to have either missed the purpose of the study or forgotten that experiments tend to be most effective when they test only one variable.
> Placebos, when administered, are portrayed as useful and effective. However, hiding the identity of the placebo, representing it as something with medicinal value, is thought to be unethical. The researchers wanted to find out if placebos could still be effective if subjects knew that that was what they were receiving. Had the researchers not made the subjects aware that placebos had been shown to be effective in clinical studies, the subjects would have no expectation for the placebo to work. That would have been a second variable and could have raised an unnecessary question that would cloud the conclusion. If there was no difference between the two groups, would it have been because there were no expectations or because the subjects were aware that the treatment was placebo? As performed, the experiment avoided the results being clouded by such a question. They eliminated the unethical deceit without eliminating the expectation, which is exactly what they set out to do.


 

 I ABSOLUTELY disagree with your conclusions. This is in no way a good study to suggest replacing the "deceit" used for placebos with the  methods used in this study. There is no comparison of the effectiveness of the "open placebo" to a blind placebo. Without a test of significance comparing those 2, there is no reason to conclude that this is a sufficient replacement for a typical placebo. If it turns out that the "open placebo" is only half as effective as the typical placebo method, then the standard for drug effectiveness is also affected.  It would also need to be tested in multiple instances with differing conditions to safely conclude that it can be applied to other circumstances as well.
   
  Also, the first comment in his link is worth reading. At best, I'd say it's a start for researching the area and maybe enough to warrant a couple of follow up studies. The way things are worded still makes it sound like they have to convince the participants that taking the pills is somehow directly responsible for improvements, which isn't exactly accurate. Even after mentioning that they are inert, it kind of makes it sound like this is some recognized treatment and they even go as far as to mention that it has been shown to make improvements for IBS specifically.
   
  Some other problems to consider:
   
  - Will there be differences in conditions in which participants are aware of an actual drug treatment being available?
  - Will participants drop out of a study upon being informed of being in a non-treatment group?
  - Will you have more issues with participants keeping up with the schedule?
  - Will you have more issues with attrition?
  - Are the expectations of the placebo participants still the same? Or does it result in other effects?
   
  And I still really have issues with describing this study as showing that there is a placebo effect without deception. I'd like to have seen a follow up question asking about their understanding of the placebo they were taking. I still get the feeling that they had to distort the understanding of a placebo in order to have the participants form enough of an expectation to get the results found in the study.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> I went into FNAC, which in france is like your bestbuy, or for the UK crowd, like currys, to buy a DVI to HDMI cable.
> To my surprise and shock the cable was being sold at 40€.
> Quite literally a wire that is worth, and I kid you not, like-for-like look, *feel etc on amazon £5*, thus around 8€.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Do not even bother with FNAC. They're our big culture retailer here in Portugal, but the reason I don't think they're like BB is because from what I've read BB is more of a bargain place, you'll usually get good deals on a product. I only go to FNAC to test headphones, and I don't even do that anymore because nowadays they only have some low-end Panasonics, AKG and Sennheisers which I've tried all, a K702 (praise the Universe!) and of course the Beats. They sell the AKG K518 LE (the colorful limited edition) which is a pretty good headphone for its internet price. On Amazon it sells for 45.98$. In FNAC, once you convert the price, it's 92.11$. This is beyond acceptable, it's quite literally the double.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Do not even bother with FNAC. They're our big culture retailer here in Portugal, but the reason I don't think they're like BB is because from what I've read BB is more of a bargain place, you'll usually get good deals on a product. I only go to FNAC to test headphones, and I don't even do that anymore because nowadays they only have some low-end Panasonics, AKG and Sennheisers which I've tried all, a K702 (praise the Universe!) and of course the Beats. They sell the AKG K518 LE (the colorful limited edition) which is a pretty good headphone for its internet price. On Amazon it sells for 45.98$. In FNAC, once you convert the price, it's 92.11$. This is beyond acceptable, it's quite literally the double.


 


  Oh don't get me wrong - I never buy cables...in fact anything any more from stores, they are all too over-priced.
  I was in there for work. I told my employer, look I can buy one from ebay, get you the invoice and all, and its 10x less expensive + better quality...although it will take 5 additional days to get here.
   
  At the end I ended up not buying it, as I found a solution for our PC -> TV via VGA, however what still was a rip off, was a 3m 3.5mm to 3.5mm wire for 13€...
  Absolute rip off. (but I don't care that much, i told my employer and they wanted it there and then so i got it for them)


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> I actually did a research paper on the psychology of superstition so I can safely say that it's a little bit different than what you're describing. Superstition may improve performance out of expectations, but the root of superstition is more connected to learning theories. A superstition, in an over-simplified explanation, is basically a learned connection between a positive or negative event in relation to another environmental factor. For example: You go to a casino and gamble for 2 days without changing clothes or anything. No luck. You notice your shirt is smelling pretty foul so you go change, then head back to the casino floor. You place a bet and suddenly you've won. Even though we all know that was a statistical probability, that shirt was the noted change and has suddenly become the "lucky shirt". In a way, superstition works in reverse. A superstition is formed when a difference is noticed and is then attributed to something like an item. A placebo works on the idea that the item will cause a difference, therefore you realize a difference.


 

 I enjoyed this paragraph quite much!
  Very good example!
   
  BTW:
 Wouldn't the BEST test be this:
  -Show 2 cables to your average customer.
  -Say the £1 wire is worth £100, and is braided with certain wires, and has been heavily modified
  -Say the Monster cable one for example, is worth around £30 from online retailers.
   
  Then see how this goes down.
  After doing that, say you were lying, and see if their opinions change.
   
  This study would show the way we listen to people whoa re in "higher knowledge" than ourselves.
  And I know for sure that a study of the sort has been done - but not with HDMI cables for example.
   
  Now the only problem with such study, is that you would need to be a trained engineer. In order to say: These cables are both the same.
  Or else, people would count your study, invalid.
   
  So in this case, this would be 2 birds in 1 stone.
  First proving that HDMI cables are quite similar, if anything identical
  Then your second being that people listen or are susceptible to marketing.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





astrozombie said:


> I would bet my pair of Ultrasone's and HARX700 (which are my only 2 pairs not up for sale) if you took 100 people and put them in front of 720/1080i/1080p and component/HDMI setups with the same displays and same source, none of them could tell the difference between any of them at any decent clip, not to even mention a cheap cable over an expensive one.


 

 You might as well give me those headphones RIGHT now.
   
  I worked for LG, selling TV's - in a store, mine was currys.
  So i was selling LG tv's working for LG in currys - ie. like bestbuy etc
   
  In store there currys had some panasonics.
  Literally all next to each other.
  Now I know this is a little different but:
   
  One was plasma, one was LCD, the other LED
  People straight away from far, without even looking at the price or anything, preferred:
 LED > LCD > Plasma
   
  They were all put on the same source (via HDMI) and were all running the same image + all had the same display settings
   
  The plasma was more vivid but much less sharper than the LCD
  The LCD was more washed out than the plasma, but had much greater definition
  The LED was brighter, and MUCH more defined than the LCD
   
  And these were people who had absolutely no clue what a LED/LCD/plasma was - they could tell, so could I.
  FYI:
 LED was £850
  LCD was £700
  Plasma was £650
   
  (around those lines)
   
   
  Now for the 720, & 1080 - 1080i & 1080p are too similar, even for our human eyes to see. You would need to be gaming at high speeds, or watching something at high speeds to see the difference.
   
  But for 720 and 1080 - people could tell the difference on a 32" TV -> and for some stupid reason LG had the 720p and 1080p one at the same price, people never ever bought the 720p one.
  Sold SO MANY of those 1080p 32" ones.
  32LD450 from memory
   
  (both were LCD's)
  And yes, i sold more than 100 TV's thus talked to much more than 100 people 
  So...where are my headphones !


----------



## LizardKing1

Question, since we're off-topic (total shocker): do you think it's worth investing in a LED tv now? I just feel like it's a recent technology in TVs, and even in other applications it's pretty new, so maybe in a few years for the same price I might get something really good. I'm asking because these are all assumptions.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Well, the OLED's are starting to make their way very slowly, and due to the "rush" over the 3D TV's all prices have dropped quite significantly.
   
  LED's are very much better TV's in all aspects.
  Before someone comes and flames me about refresh rate, we have LED's that do 800hz refresh rates, better than any 600hz plasma can do.
   
  Plasma's will either become the cheap man's TV - if not already, or be a niche for panasonic, who's 3D plasmas are jaw droopingly beautiful. 
   
  What TV do you have atm lizard?
  -> send me a link to specs
  And what TV is on your horizon?
  -_ again send me a link to what you see yourself spending/budget/TV
   
  FYI:
  Here is what I would go for:
  -For 3D, LG TV's without a shadow of a doubt (and samsung, if you can afford it, or want active 3D)
  -For LED, Samsung
  -For LCD, LG as they are cheaper than samsung's with the same quality
  -For Plasma, Panasonic
   
  I would not buy another brand, apart from those mentioned above, for their categories.


----------



## Somnambulist

OLED TVs are coming out this year, but it will be no different to when Plasmas appeared on the market - they'll be priced prohibitively high for most people - and it'll take several years for them to become affordable for the average joe. As an enthusiast, I'd probably stick with plasma for the time being  - Panasonic since they are the next best thing to the Kuro's, RIP - and my next TV down the road would be an OLED (or Crystal LED if Sony are right, which they probably won't be), at 4K res (only a matter of time, there are already 4K-ready AV processors/receivers). Picture quality takes priority over everything else on TVs for me.
   
  EDIT - the above being said, I'll probably be a sucker and buy the Apple TV.


----------



## Shotor102

Wow.. so much discussion and so many tangents; placebos, 720p/1080i vs 1080p..
  Research and such..
   
  Man, I would like to address all, and hopefully my mind is still with me after a 12 hour shift.
   
  Here goes:
   
  The challenge with the 720p/1080i and 1080p. Easy challenge. Fork over the headphones this minute. If you have a BD or some HD media player transmitting a full 1080p signal of a movie/clip or whatever, people will most certainly notice a difference right away. 32' and up, most definitely. The problem comes when you compare 1080i and 720p. Which basically is the same thing in a  different pile.  I used to remember when sales people in Visions Electronica and Best-buy were pushing the '1080i' more expensive display models over the 720p. This was a few years back.. but then of course, anyone who's done a little read about the display technology will know that by definition any 720p TV will be able to display 1080i resolution, the difference is in frame-rate of display, either 1280x720 lines (i believe every 1/30 of a second) while 1080 displays 490 of 1280x1080 every (1/60th of a second), which at the end of the day makes no difference when it comes to motion.  Still photos might be a different story.  As for 1080p vs 720 on smaller panels.. well, it's hard but noticeable. However, the current standard sits somewhere at 50' - 55' at 8-10 feet of distance for full benefits of the 1080p.  Basically this, if you have a 1080p panel with a BD player, and you're sitting at that relative distance, then you'll benefit the most from it. Of course you could sit closer, but it will be simply harder to watch.  Further, if you have 720p vs 1080p of let's say a 50' while sitting about 12 - 16 feet away, you most likely won't see the different. There is a difference, but human eyes won't be able to distinguish.   One way to to test if the signal is full 1080p or not is to actually get close to the panel and observe the image from a close up. If the image gets better then it's 1080p. If it starts to get unfocused, then it's anything below.
   
   
  As for the Placebo discussion.  I'm 100% with CClemon here.
  Sorry Jaywalker, but your assessment and conclusions are simply incorrect here. 
  While the study shows potential and the fact that Placebo in itself could be harnessed for better medical treatment, or alternative treatment, is exhibited. A. This is nothing new. and B. That was NOT the purpose of the study. The purpose in the abstract clearly defines that the intent is to find out whether people will still have positive response to using Placebo even though they are told that they are using Placebos.  Now, clearly the platform and model of the study could be utilized in the future, however, the method was flawed. As stated by the blogger, the people/subjects were still deceived. Even though were told that they are taking Placebos, they were also told that those Placebos were proven to be successful in previous studies via healthy mind and body clause or such.  As CC stated, the mere fact that they were suggested that these Placebos were shown to be beneficial, that is already contradicting the very thing they were trying to prove. 
  Perhaps in the future they might be able to show that this is possible, but until then, there is no proof that Placebo works with the full awareness of the subject of it being a Placebo (Key factor: to begin with).  
   
  Now, CC as for you doubting what I saw, well, there really isn't much more to be said. You either believe me and try to look up for other reasons why I saw and heard what I did, or you don't. And to me that would read as you basically calling me a liar.  Your theories and speculation on the idea that just because I bought a more expensive cable, an inherit suggestion was playing in the back of my head that a quality may be improved may automatically accompany it... Well, this may be true in theory. But, this differs from an individual to an individual.  As per Placebo criteria, if I am and was in the state of mind that a more expensive cable will produce better quality is basically a marketing sham, then trust me that I was very critical of myself not to be susceptible to such or any placebo effects, or the likes of it.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> OLED TVs are coming out this year, but it will be no different to when Plasmas appeared on the market - they'll be priced prohibitively high for most people - and it'll take several years for them to become affordable for the average joe. As an enthusiast, I'd probably stick with plasma for the time being  - Panasonic since they are the next best thing to the Kuro's, RIP - and my next TV down the road would be an OLED (or Crystal LED if Sony are right, which they probably won't be), at 4K res (only a matter of time, there are already 4K-ready AV processors/receivers). Picture quality takes priority over everything else on TVs for me.
> 
> EDIT - the above being said, I'll probably be a sucker and buy the Apple TV.


 


  apple TV *face palm*
   
   
  oh, and almost forgot the obvious 720v1080:
  Put that on an xbox, and you can see quite a difference.
  Anyone will be able to see the difference.
   
  Also, component v hdmi is also another thing that's very easy to tell the difference between.


----------



## tim3320070

Quote: 





dorino said:


> Yeah, I think I did.


 

 From the movie "Dumb and Dumber" which was infinity more entertaining than this thread.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> From the movie "Dumb and Dumber" which was infinity more entertaining than this thread.


 

 Well I'm finding this thread quite informative might I say


----------



## Jaywalk3r

cc lemon said:


> I ABSOLUTELY disagree with your conclusions. This is in no way a good study to suggest replacing the "deceit" used for placebos with the  methods used in this study. There is no comparison of the effectiveness of the "open placebo" to a blind placebo. Without a test of significance comparing those 2, there is no reason to conclude that this is a sufficient replacement for a typical placebo. If it turns out that the "open placebo" is only half as effective as the typical placebo method, then the standard for drug effectiveness is also affected.  It would also need to be tested in multiple instances with differing conditions to safely conclude that it can be applied to other circumstances as well.




I agree that the study is not perfect. It could be improved. However, eliminating the expectation of placebo being effective is absolutely not an improvement. It weakens the study significantly. I do agree that a third treatment of placebo with deception would make the study stronger, but it is not necessary for such a preliminary study.



> At best, I'd say it's a start for researching the area and maybe enough to warrant a couple of follow up studies.




Agreed. As far as I can tell, that is how it was intended by its authors.



> And I still really have issues with describing this study as showing that there is a placebo effect without deception.




I have to respectfully disagree. The fact that the pills were inert, without any medicinal value at all was emphasized. There _is_ documented evidence that placebos can be an effective treatment, even if they are rarely the most effective treatment. There was no deception, at least in the since of a doctor unethically administering a placebo as an effective medicine. The improvements were minor, but that is to be expected with placebos.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

totally dubbed said:


> Wouldn't the BEST test be this:
> -Show 2 cables to your average customer.
> -Say the £1 wire is worth £100, and is braided with certain wires, and has been heavily modified
> -Say the Monster cable one for example, is worth around £30 from online retailers.
> ...




Since we're comparing digital cables, the best way would be to take objective measurements and bypass subjective opinion completely.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> Since we're comparing digital cables, the best way would be to take objective measurements and bypass subjective opinion completely.


 

 true - but you are talking about technical specs - which is a separate thing.
  I'm talking about psychology instead. 
   
  Thus why, you would need to be trained of have done the tests to prove both are the same, before moving unto "people's opinions"


----------



## Jaywalk3r

totally dubbed said:


> I'm talking about psychology instead.
> 
> Thus why, you would need to be trained of have done the tests to prove both are the same, before moving unto "people's opinions"




I have no doubt that many people would "see" a difference. The placebo effect can sometimes be pretty strong. Also, evidence suggests that more expensive placebos are more effective than less expensive placebos.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> I have no doubt that many people would "see" a difference. The placebo effect can sometimes be pretty strong. Also, evidence suggests that more expensive placebos are more effective than less expensive placebos.


 

 if only i was doing something with engineering i would carry it out + would be very interesting for my final year dissertation at uni...
   
  I could get away with the study of placebo that said - as I, myself have experienced it.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Now, CC as for you doubting what I saw, well, there really isn't much more to be said. You either believe me and try to look up for other reasons why I saw and heard what I did, or you don't. And to me that would read as you basically calling me a liar.  Your theories and speculation on the idea that just because I bought a more expensive cable, an inherit suggestion was playing in the back of my head that a quality may be improved may automatically accompany it... Well, this may be true in theory. But, this differs from an individual to an individual.  As per Placebo criteria, if I am and was in the state of mind that a more expensive cable will produce better quality is basically a marketing sham, then trust me that I was very critical of myself not to be susceptible to such or any placebo effects, or the likes of it.


 

  
  I think you misinterpreted what I meant with these comments. First off, I'm not calling you a liar. I will admit that I don't think there is a difference, so I think your reported perceptions may have been flawed, but that's not the same as lying. I am willing to consider the idea that your reports were accurate, pending stronger evidence that we may be able to see a difference. Anecdotal evidence is simply not a good source of evidence. This is especially true when we could easily find some experimental evidence. Without a sufficient amount of control over variables, it's VERY unclear why a difference is reported. That's why I keep (endlessly) repeating that there needs to be a blind study conducted that shows repeatable, consistent and accurate identification of high and low quality cables. I don't care who is telling the story about seeing a difference, until you eliminate as many variables as possible there is a lot more (well founded) evidence to suggest that there shouldn't be a difference.
   
  Also, I'm not suggesting that you might have perceived a difference because you spent more on the cable. I'm suggesting this:
  1) You needed a cable to test if the old cable was the cause of the problem
  2) You could only find a more expensive cable to test with
  3) You plugged it in having no expectations of it fixing the problem (or improving quality)
  4) To your surprise, that fixed the problem. 
  5) You are now elated that the TV is working. You may be focusing more on the quality/condition of the display to make sure everything is working. That may be causing you to notice more details than before. Maybe your memory of the image quality from before is slightly inaccurate. Your sudden good mood may have altered your judgement of the quality. Maybe the lighting was different. The room temperature being more comfortable may have done something.
   
  Basically, I'm suggesting that you may have become more open to the idea that the cables make a difference for a moment and in that moment, for whatever reason, you perceived a difference. We can't be certain why you perceived a difference and it's entirely possible that the difference was inaccurately attributed to the cable as that was the change in the system that you were aware of.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> I think you misinterpreted what I meant with these comments. First off, I'm not calling you a liar. I will admit that I don't think there is a difference, so I think your reported perceptions may have been flawed, but that's not the same as lying. I am willing to consider the idea that your reports were accurate, pending stronger evidence that we may be able to see a difference. Anecdotal evidence is simply not a good source of evidence. This is especially true when we could easily find some experimental evidence. Without a sufficient amount of control over variables, it's VERY unclear why a difference is reported. That's why I keep (endlessly) repeating that there needs to be a blind study conducted that shows repeatable, consistent and accurate identification of high and low quality cables. I don't care who is telling the story about seeing a difference, until you eliminate as many variables as possible there is a lot more (well founded) evidence to suggest that there shouldn't be a difference.
> 
> Also, I'm not suggesting that you might have perceived a difference because you spent more on the cable. I'm suggesting this:
> 1) You needed a cable to test if the old cable was the cause of the problem
> ...


 

 Fair enough for not calling me a liar. Mind you, I am not saying that you ARE, what I said was that you doubting what I claim to be true in my eyes to be inaccurate according to your views and standards, feels to me like being called a liar (but that's a personal bias). But again, I'm aware that you're not trying to claim that I am lying since you DO believe that I perceived a difference. The thing left for me now is to make YOU believe that what I perceived wasn't Placebo, different perception or inaccuracy of expectation or memory. 
   
  Here are the reasons:
   
  1. I did blind tests. I had my father switch cables on me without telling me which is which. On his 32' and 42' LCD's (Toshiba and Samsung) and My own 50' Plasma (Hitachi) and 32' LCD (Toshiba Regza).  Not only it was with the two different cables, but also between two of the cheaper cables (which he bought as-well and didn't care at all about any of this).  He could not tell any difference at all from any kind. Although he did prefer the Plasma Display over all the LCD's. Not for the size matter, but for the inherit nature of Plasma Panels to display the picture in a more natural way.   As for me, on 32's and 42' LCD's and the Plasma . I noticed a slight difference in brightness or gamma or I'm not sure which in particular. Just that one display appeared to have slightly more emphasized dark levels.  I also couldn't tell which cable was which. That difference was really really small. My father couldn't tell and thought I was messing with him. Now I say again, I didn't really prefer one over the other, since slight brightness does very little to me.   I am a videophile, but that difference didn't justify $30 - $40 extra, especially since I bought a new HD media player which had no issues with either HDMI cable. 
   
  2. The issue between the Old HDmedia player and the Plasma via cheaper cable is still unresolved. And the only factor that appears to be in common is that HDMI cable. So clearly, regardless of its to spec capabilities, its construction, shielding and materials used, some communication error between the components has occurred in order for this signal fluctuation to happen.
   
  3. I don't agree with your Point #5. And this is why:
  A. If have no expectation, either to quality or display itself. Anything that I see, I see it at once since I am watching the screen. The was no timely buffer for me to process this elaborate pseudo - psychosomatic mind job you discuss.  As I said, I was far too critical of myself not to be influenced by any of it.  And again, as per placebo effect (thus far), as long as you're aware, you're not prone to its effects. Plain an simple. 
   
  4. I did blind and double blind tests.  Same lighting, same temp, same day, and same hour. 
  The next tests were a different day, all at the same time as-well.  No lighting or shadow factors. And if they were, then they would have affected my perception either way.
   
  5. To reiterate, I saw a difference, but didn't favor any in particular. Therefore, returned the cable. Thus, I have no bias and no reason to promote what you call a  baseless and anecdotal claim against a world of science.
   
  6. The evidence is anecdotal by definition, but it doesn't mean it is not real or true.  Remember, science can't accept this because the reported differences seen are inconsistent. And as I already elaborated previously, the reasons why there would be errors or signal interference or such are inconsistent and pretty much random.   So how could any blind tests be inclusive to the global phenomenon?
  It's impossible to reproduce the same results the same way, even with the same cable.  It's a digital signal carrying so much information over an electrical signal..  
   
  That is the reality of it.


----------



## Magick Man

I'll believe it when someone shows me hard data as evidence that the digital transmission is different. I want to see the checksum before it enters the cables and again when it arrives at the destination. If it *is* different, consider me convinced.

Sorry, but until then I have no choice but to say that all anecdotal views and opinions are based on placebo. Not trying to insult anyone, that's just how I feel.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> And again, as per placebo effect (thus far), as long as you're aware, you're not prone to its effects. Plain an simple.




And again, evidence suggests this isn't the case. At a minimum, what you are asserting cannot simply be assumed to be true. So, yes, the placebo effect remains a plausible explanation.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I'll believe it when someone shows me hard data as evidence that the digital transmission is different. I want to see the checksum before it enters the cables and again when it arrives at the destination. If it *is* different, consider me convinced.
> Sorry, but until then I have no choice but to say that all anecdotal views and opinions are based on placebo. Not trying to insult anyone, that's just how I feel.


 


  You do realize that no matter how good the cable is, the signal, its strength, or even how good the quality of the components is.
   
  You can have a $400 setup of 32' 720p in your bedroom hooked up to a Coby BD player, or a $10,000.00 setup up in your living room consisting of the state of the art Samsung or Sony LED's with the highest Refresh rate possible smart TVs, top of the line 7.2 receiver with quadruple inputs for HDMI's Toslinks and Coaxes, full on Compatibility for any device, 3D, Master audios. Your speaker setup could be stellar and sound like a million bucks.  But... at the end of the day, no signal that is being transmitted from any device is the same signal that is being received. It's never a 100% of the signal.  It's very close in margin, but never EVER the same signal.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> And again, evidence suggests this isn't the case. At a minimum, what you are asserting cannot simply be assumed to be true. So, yes, the placebo effect remains a plausible explanation.


 


  Which evidence? Did we read the same article?
   
  This is directly from the discussion YOU provided:
   
   
  Quote: 





> _The first phase of the discussion will be designed to enhance expectation. Patients will be asked whether they have heard of the placebo effect and what they think of it. After a brief exchange geared
> to supporting any positive feelings the patient may have about placebo effects, the practitioner will then talk about the evidence supporting the idea that just
> taking placebo pills with a positive expectation initiates still poorly understood effects that can have a profound impact of illness. It will be clearly explained that placebo are made of "inert" substances like sugar pills but have been show in clinical trials to improve patient symptoms._


 
   
  The only evidence shown here CLEARLY is that the subjects were well informed of what Placebo entails, but at the same time, informed that while the pills that they will be taking are in fact inert, have been shown in clinical trials to improve symptoms.   
   
  You need to re-read this again and understand that this is a mind game played on the subject in favor of the study and to manipulate its results (which it obviously did). They were still deceived since they were TOLD that those inert pills have been proven to show improvement in clinical studies and experiments.  It's basically the same as me telling someone who knows very little about HDMI technology, explain to him the scientific approach. Then show him two different cables that are going to be used, one from Monoprice and one from Monster.  Then explain to him that empirical studies show and prove that there will be no difference in display and sound.. However, in previous quality tests, the Monster cables were proven to be a favorable choice of used cable.
  Then I will expose him to viewing a clip using the monoprice cable, tell him it is a monoprice cable. Then, switch the cables, tell him that now it is a Monster cable being used. 
   
  Result - I doubt that this person will state that he sees no difference. Unless he is aware that he being manipulated in such a way, he will most likely favor the Monster cable and will claim to see a better quality image.    Do you think that is still informed positive Placebo effect?   The answer is no. He was deceived. He was basically told 'this scientifically should not work at all', but 'has shown to work'...    So.. which is it? Does it work or doesn't it?   And a person who inherently wants to see or get better (IBS symptoms or HDMI display), will  most likely be prone and susceptible to such manipulation. 
   
  As CClemon stated, this is just skimming off the top on this study. 
   
  Much like anything, in this world, there aren't that many things that aren't plausible in THEORY, but effectively proving them to be true is a different story.
  This study proved nothing to support the claim that Placebo works without the deception.


----------



## CC Lemon

I'm not sure if he meant EXACTLY the same. Doing the same test with the same cable will yield different results as there will always be some sort of errors and it's unlikely that they would be at the exact same point in the data stream. To make that statement more reasonable:
   
  Do the same test as he described with the exception of comparing the number of errors between cables. I'd say it should be done with multiple trials just to show consistency. That would be a very simple way to identify any significant differences between the cables. It would also be useful to see the kinds of errors that occurred with explanations of exactly how that would have translated on the screen. That would help with understanding whether or not the errors would be something considered reasonably visible.
   
  Not all evidence is anecdotal. If something is recorded from an experiment, it's not anecdotal. It's not anecdotal to take measurements of errors in data transmission. There's not the error of human recollection in a report like that. It would be anecdotal to take measurements of errors, not record them, but report them at a later date from memory. I've conducted a few experiments that uses self-reported measures on various scales. The data is all original from the participants and I can access the actual forms  used in the experiment to confirm that information. All of the sessions were also recorded on video which would mean it's not anecdotal. 
   
  The list of things that I suggested could have affected your perception was just a bunch of examples of small things that have shown to have effects in the past. I was simply trying to make a point of how little it takes to alter our perception. One of the studies I conducted involved the manipulation of mood and the affects it has on analyzing a given set of information. It's kind of silly how amazingly easy it is to change perceptions. My point was that it's unlikely that everything was considered in the design of your test and the methods used would not pass as scientific. The fact that it wasn't documented in a scientific manner from an unbiased party (participant not also an experimenter) makes it unreliable information.
   
  To be more specific, I'm not necessarily doubting your perception. I'm actually focusing on the idea that presenting that experience as any sort of evidence is not reasonable. The test you performed would not meet any reasonable expectations for a published scientific paper. There is a lot of evidence, founded in theory that is backed by a lot of data, that suggests there should not be a significant difference in the data successfully transferred through different cables (of the same HDMI version), not to mention differences on a level able to be perceived by humans. My criticism towards the side that suggests that differences can be seen is an overwhelming lack of reasonably scientific data to support it. A test of the data transferred through 2 different cables would be amazingly easy to see and test for significant differences, yet there's a lack of that evidence. For those that suggest there is more to it than just 0's and 1's and that there is a difference that can be perceived (yet, not shown through a test of data transmission), there's a lack of any reasonably scientific test with proper documentation, methods, and control over variables. The results should also be repeatable.
   
  Keep in mind, I'm coming from an extremely scientific view. Any time a publication is release, the author should try to point out any flaws they see with their own methods and should be open to criticism. That is partially covered in the peer review process that comes before publication, but also extends to any time after a study is published. In the pursuit of progress, I hope anyone looking to further our understanding of topics like this is open to criticism, ready to criticize and ready to investigate further to eliminate potential issues.
   
  I am open to the idea that there is a difference that can be perceived. Having looked at existing evidence on the topic, I believe there is a lot more support for the idea that there will not be a difference detectable by humans. There are plenty of claims that I would say warrant a proper study, but I don't believe there is any existing evidence that is sound enough to reasonably conclude that there may be a difference. So... enough to investigate but not enough to draw conclusions.


----------



## LizardKing1

So now we're just debating placebo effect. You don't need to be oblivious to have it work, you can know something is a placebo and it still has effects on you. The idea that some human being, because he is aware of placebo, is imune to it, is ridiculous. When I'm drunk I can be aware of the 4 beers I've had and that does't make me sober.


----------



## Shotor102

Clearly, when I bought that HDMI cable, it was never intended to be a documented experiment or any sort of work with a mind-set to be used as an empirical study to be published.
  Mind you that at that time I wasn't even considering a change in video quality, rather picture, yes/no, and that's it. To me, at that time was basically this. New HDMI cable works with the HDmedia player and the TV, i.e. I see the image on the screen=good enough for me.  Nothing else and nothing more.
   
  So trust me that I clearly understand and am very much aware that what I describe could not be used as any empirical evidence, or to that effect in any published study. It meets very little criteria of a credible study or a research (trust me that I know this all too well.) 
   
  As for the argument that specific cable testing to show specific error codes and how they would be translated onto screen, visually and audibly... That, I am actually skeptical of.
  As I discussed already, I actually am convinced that there many production lines from different manufacturers that produce and sell HDMI cables that meet the very minimum of the standard. And regardless of their proprietary testing methods which would show that their cables meet the HDMI standard spec compliance. Or even objective testing to be conducted on these cables. The errors or fluctuations in signal that will be reported with the test, will hold the claim that the onscreen translation will be exceedingly meaningless. Not only because of the claim that humans could not possibly tell, but also because the fluctuations are too random and inconsistent.  In one test it might show this margin of distortion or signal interference or degradation, while the same cable will show something slightly different on the next test.    Further to that, remember that these tests are conducted in controlled environments (labs and such) where conditions are ideal and possible outside interference is limited.  So I say again, those tests can show quite a bit, but clearly can't predict every single parameter of a household potential interference, which in addition, to be taken in consideration to the components that HDMI cable will be used with. TV to BD? XBOX to TV? HD player to receiver? BD to receiver and than another HDMI cable from the receiver to the TV.. 
   
  That last scenario alone can throw an entire hypothesis of a single HDMI lab cable testing into a frenzy of a whole new set of possible variables to account for quality issues (if they occur at all).
   
  As for the 0,1,0,1 argument.
   
  Although my experience is anecdotal here in terms of empirical evidence, I, and only I alone know best on this matter. And in light of that, I firmly stand on the side that claims that while 0,1,0,1 holds the claim that the signal would be the same irregardless of the pricing of the cable, there is more to it than that.  Whether it can or could be proven...?
   
  Well clearly at this point, no. 
  However, in light of so much of it being reported...
   
  Should it be ignored and dismissed, and for that matter, should not be suggested to consumers as plausible options? *Most definitely NOT!*
   
  Remember what my initial statement was (back in the beats thread).  If you're going to have an entry to mid level set up at home, then I won't suggest spending much on HDMI cables. Monoprice is fairly known for selling fairly solid performing cables in decent price ranges. 
   
  But, if you're going to go all out on this Hi End High profile set-up, and I'm talking multiple components, multiple HDMI cables going into one receiver, and then one going into a TV. High possibility of at least one HDMI cable going through a wall and out.. 5.1 or 7.2 Master Audio decoding.. 3D, LED, 240hz refresh rate, 55' or larger panel...  
   
  Clearly the above setup will easily go over $5000, providing that you are buying a High End TV and Home Theater components.  Do you really want to get by with a $15 - $20 HDMI cables for this?
  Even if the scientific approach holds that there should be no issues ....  
   
  I know I won't. For the amount I spend on that theater system, I might as-well go for the HDMI cables from outlets claim to be the best in the business, and of course, those who offer lifetime warranty.  (There are others that do this beside Monster)  
   
  For $5000 and over .... I would definitely choose a brand name $50 - $100 cable over a No-name brand that claims to be of the same quality. 
   
  As for recommendations, I will definitely suggest experimenting, and most definitely WILL NOT disway them from the brand name cables; especially if the cable needed is longer and needs to go through a wall.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> So now we're just debating placebo effect. You don't need to be oblivious to have it work, you can know something is a placebo and it still has effects on you. The idea that some human being, because he is aware of placebo, is imune to it, is ridiculous. When I'm drunk I can be aware of the 4 beers I've had and that does't make me sober.


 


  1. No we are not.   However, the Placebo discussion here is very much relevant to the HDMI discussion.. and so appears to be (despite me thinking otherwise) heavily correlated to reported claims of improved quality via more expensive and claimed HDMI cables.
   
   
  2. You don't have to be oblivious.  Also, I never said that anyone who is aware is automatically immune to such, specifically if he was already exposed to the placebo ahead of time. 
  Remember, for Placebo to be effective, 2 things need to happen, Deception, and Suggestive wording, imagery or other forms to plant the idea in the subject's head.  Also, I didn't say that every one is susceptible to Placebo either. Some, in fact, many, are simply un-affected by some placebos.
   
  3. It's impossible to attribute a definite yes/no to a person with one placebo scenario. In one study one person might react positively while in another, no effect at all. Much of it depends on state of mind, personality itself and personal bias towards the subject being tested.
   
  4. Are you actually serious with the Beer example?   The mere fact that you suggest that your body is already affected by something else (in your case drinking Alcohol, which is basically _*POISON*_)
  negates the criteria of Placebo effect. 
   
  Also, how exactly does drinking beer equals to giving yourself a placebo.  Also, state of mind altering agents... vs Placebo discussion...???


----------



## AltairDusk

This whole debate could be settled with a good tester (or if one does not exist a series of tests with the proper equipment).  When you're running CAT5/CAT6 cable for networking there are testers which you can plug in at each end and will thouroughly test whether the run meets spec (Interference, kinks in the wire, and other factors can cause a run to fail and need to be re-pulled).  Since all data transmitted is digital this is easily possible and should also be quite possible with HDMI.  I lack the proper equipment to do any testing but if anyone thinks they have it the HDMI 1.3 spec is available for public download (1.4 spec is only available to HDMI Adopters).
   
  While I personally stand on the side that states the cable either meets spec or it doesn't and a cable that meets spec is all you ever need I would like to see how many cheaper cables actually *do* meet spec for their length.  I currently remain skeptical that what Shotor experienced is in fact due to the cable but I cannot discount it, just as he lacks conclusive evidence to prove it I lack the conclusive evidence that would disprove it.  (I do however suspect that the problematic cable did not meet spec)  Without thorough testing I don't ever see an end to this debate.
   
_(Edited for clarity after re-reading)_


----------



## Magick Man

shotor102 said:


> You do realize that no matter how good the cable is, the signal, its strength, or even how good the quality of the components is.
> 
> You can have a $400 setup of 32' 720p in your bedroom hooked up to a Coby BD player, or a $10,000.00 setup up in your living room consisting of the state of the art Samsung or Sony LED's with the highest Refresh rate possible smart TVs, top of the line 7.2 receiver with quadruple inputs for HDMI's Toslinks and Coaxes, full on Compatibility for any device, 3D, Master audios. Your speaker setup could be stellar and sound like a million bucks.  But... at the end of the day, no signal that is being transmitted from any device is the same signal that is being received. It's never a 100% of the signal.  It's very close in margin, but never EVER the same signal.




 If $5 Monoprice, $100 Monster, and $500 Audioquest cables are all within spec, in terms of functionality, they are the same cable. Unless you're going for bling factor, it's a waste. Unless someone can show scientific evidence, my mind won't change.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Bling factor -> ebay
  FAW SHAW
   
  Only cost £8 -> 2m
   
  Here is my optical cable:


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> The only evidence shown here CLEARLY is that the subjects were well informed of what Placebo entails, but at the same time, informed that while the pills that they will be taking are in fact inert, have been shown in clinical trials to improve symptoms.




That's not unlike HDMI cable upgrades. There's no scientific reason that there should be a perceivable improvement, yet many people, like yourself, still perceive a subjective improvement. The most plausible explanation is the placebo effect.

As soon as you started doing subjective comparisons without any objective data showing that there would be a perceptible difference in the respective data streams, you set yourself up for the placebo effect. How, exactly, did you design your blind testing to ensure that your results were statistically significant?

Incidentally, there have been other, smaller studies that suggest the placebo effect is not limited to instances where the recipient is not aware that they are receiving a placebo.


----------



## LizardKing1

Of course it's placebo. Wether he knows it or not is irrelevant. If both cables work fine, and if scientifically it's impossible to perceive a difference between 2 to-spec HDMI cables, what else could it be? It can't be anything else, unless you imply the TV is trolling us.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> That's not unlike HDMI cable upgrades. There's no scientific reason that there should be a perceivable improvement, yet many people, like yourself, still perceive a subjective improvement. The most plausible explanation is the placebo effect.
> As soon as you started doing subjective comparisons without any objective data showing that there would be a perceptible difference in the respective data streams, you set yourself up for the placebo effect. How, exactly, did you design your blind testing to ensure that your results were statistically significant?
> Incidentally, there have been other, smaller studies that suggest the placebo effect is not limited to instances where the recipient is not aware that they are receiving a placebo.


 
  I've already discussed how I did the blind tests.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Of course it's placebo. Wether he knows it or not is irrelevant. If both cables work fine, and if scientifically it's impossible to perceive a difference between 2 to-spec HDMI cables, what else could it be? It can't be anything else, unless you imply the TV is trolling us.


 

 Your argument here either consists of Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent. And unfortunately acts as a stone-wall or question begging the entire core of the debate.  Remember what the debate here is.
   
  Also, in your previous Beer example, I fail to see what you were measuring by stating that it was analogous to Placebo without deception.
  What were you exactly measuring by drinking beer and being aware of it? That you'll in fact get drunk? Well, if so, I must congratulate you, mission succeeded. You got drunk.  However, if it was to see if you won't get drunk while still being aware of drinking alcohol, then I must challenge you line of logic or understanding what Placebo entails to.  Remember that Placebo (when it comes to drugs or other measures) itself must be an INERT variable, thus non effective whats or ever physically.  
   
  I highly doubt that alcohol is inert.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> I've already discussed how I did the blind tests.




Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result _was_ statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





jaywalk3r said:


> Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result _was_ statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.


 


  I already stated that my experience is not to be taken as empirical evidence.
  That said, what I saw and heard is sufficient and true in my books.  And as discussed, far too many report the same things, or in variance of these things.
   
  And science should go beyond simply stating that it is placebo effect. And it should definitely not be ignored or rejected.
   
  As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.


----------



## stevenswall

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Shotor102* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> "As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'."


 
   
  Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> jaywalk3r said:
> 
> 
> > Your previous description was inadequate to indicate that the test could have potentially resulted in a statistically significant result. It certainly doesn't indicate that your result _was_ statistically significant. Without a statistically significant result, the null hypothesis of no difference cannot be rejected.
> ...




The placebo effect _is the most plausible explanation_. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.



> As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.




I don't think you realize how few transmission errors can occur with an in-spec HDMI cable. Further, the differences you perceived and described are not what would be expected from a degraded digital signal.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





stevenswall said:


> Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.


 

 1. Remember that I said that electric differences alone aren't enough to cause difference. However, a combination of different things might.
   
  2. Circuits alone cannot impact the information they are sending, but how they implemented in the chip of a board + construction and materials used to build the damn thing could very well impact the outcome.   It sounds like the argument you're making is like saying that a Bad portable hard-drive cannot affect its content no more than a high quality hard drive will (not that either will).  But, use that hard-drive to stream media, and construction, design and overall engineering could very well impact how the content is being sent over. Is this not correct?
   
  What I am suggesting is not as outrageous as saying that a full hard drive will weight more than an empty one -  That could be easily proved and disproved scientifically and physically.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





> The placebo effect _is the most plausible explanation_. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.


 
   
  Plausible, possibly yes, with other people (possibly).  In my case, no.  And being THE MOST plausible? Not really either.
  And I did present enough data, it just wasn't recorded. Read that post again.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I don't think you realize how few transmission errors can occur with an in-spec HDMI cable. Further, the differences you perceived and described are not what would be expected from a degraded digital signal.


 
   
  Not all manufacturers build their HDMIs to spec. And there two different issues going on here:
   
  1. Manufacturers that sell not to spec HDMIs and say that they do, and of course fly under the radar since the difference is almost un-detectable. 
   
  2. To spec HDMI cables that are made with with different materials and construction. Even though up to spec, are prone and will display the image and audio slightly differently than cables with better construction and materials used.
   
  Again, tested in a lab with ideal settings (even for error code and correction) won't show much if at all.  Do various blind and double blind tests at home with multiple components as I previously described, by yourself and then come back and let me know what you saw and heard.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> > The placebo effect _is the most plausible explanation_. You haven't presented any data that would suggest the difference you perceived was caused by anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, even in your case it's the most plausible explanation. Nothing about your experience suggests otherwise. And, no, you haven't presented any data, nor have you described your testing procedures in any useful manner. All you've done is given a poor description of an anecdotal experience.




> Not all manufacturers build their HDMIs to spec.




While I readily admit that one could find cables that plug into HDMI ports that might not meet HDMI specs, that would mean that they are not, by definition, HDMI cables. However, even using cables that aren't in spec but are close enough to work won't result in the kinds of differences that you have previously described. Instead, you'd be seeing dropped/sparkly pixels (snow), dropped lines, screen flashes, etc.

So, a not-to-spec cable is a less plausible explanation of your experience than the placebo effect.



> To spec HDMI cables that are made with with different materials and construction. Even though up to spec, are prone and will display the image and audio slightly differently than cables with better construction and materials used.




No. That's not how it works.



> Again, tested in a lab with ideal settings (even for error code and correction) won't show much if at all.




Agreed. And the lab is where any differences would be easiest to detect.



> Do various blind and double blind tests at home with multiple components as I previously described, by yourself and then come back and let me know what you saw and heard.




Are you referring to the tests you refuse to adequately describe, making them (at best) non-repeatable?

If there are no lab detectable differences, such tests are pointless. Differences seen in the lab may not be detectable in real world conditions, but if the differences are detectable in the real world, they will be detectable in the lab.


----------



## Shotor102

What's not repeatable?
   
  Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p. 
  Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.  
   
  Buy a few HDMI cables to compare. Go home, connect, test numerous times and record your data.
  Do it objectively and then have someone switch the cables on you at least 10 times each, with a possibility of running the same quality cables to propose or eliminate placebo.
   
   
  That's about it.
   
  As for anything else, I'm not interested in reading, it's a repetition...


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> That said, what I saw and heard is sufficient and true in my books.  And as discussed, far too many report the same things, or in variance of these things.
> 
> As long as we know that the initial signal is never transmitted in 100% to the receiver, and providing that the transmitting medium, the cable, is always prone to some margin of over despite the error correction, reports of seeing such differences cannot be simply ignored or attributed to 'it's only your perception'.


 


   
  Did you see movement in that image? I saw it as well. And I'm guessing many others will agree. Do you believe there was truly movement? The movement is perceived by you, with many agreeing, but I'm guessing you dismiss the idea that it actually moved. Don't try to explain it based on our existing knowledge of this effect. While we do have the capabilities to analyze the file and data related to it, the fact that many people perceive a difference means we can't simply accept the fact that our current knowledge of the image is accurate.

 While I'm being a bit ridiculous (and an *******), this isn't very far from what you're saying.
   
  Also, I wouldn't recommend citing other claims. While you may have accounted for some variables, I can only assume that an overwhelming majority of the other reports were exposed to many other potential variables.
   
  A lot of people claim to have seen bigfoot and have similar reports. There's not a whole lot of scientific evidence against the existence of big foot, but I'm not about to believe it exists and I don't think you believe it does either. It might be worth investigating (to some people), but I think the reasonable hypothesis would be that bigfoot does not exist.
   

  
  Quote: 





stevenswall said:


> Assuming you are talking about HDMI, or any digital cables, small differences in the electric signal would make no difference. If it reaches the receiver, the picture will be displayed. Arguing that there was a difference would be like arguing that the circuits in a processor could have an impact on the information they are processing, making it different than another processor. There is no difference in these digital domains because a circuit or signal is either complete and sent, or broken and not sent. Although there could be minuscule differences in voltage this would not have an effect. If it's high enough, it goes through or switches the IC on, if the voltage is low enough it doesn't work, and the IC is left in the off position. It would be like giving an F for 0-50%, and an A for any amount over 50%. No matter what number you have or how close it is to the line, it's always one or the other.


 


  Are you trying to make the point that there are absolutely no errors for HDMI signals?


  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Plausible, possibly yes, with other people (possibly).  In my case, no.  And being THE MOST plausible? Not really either.
> And I did present enough data, it just wasn't recorded. Read that post again.
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  First... let's drop the placebo thing. Perceptual error is a much broader term that still covers the basic idea of what is being discussed. The important point isn't necessarily what the specific effect is that is responsible for the perceptual error, but whether or not the perceived difference is the result of some form of perceptual error.
   
  On that note, it's ridiculous to propose that you are, or were, immune to any form of perceptual error. At this point, I don't believe your story has nearly enough credibility to eliminate that as a possibility or even eliminate it as a good possibility. A basic understanding of human perception is moe than enough to understand why your story should be questioned, even by you. In response to your suggestion of doing a test myself: If I do the test and don't perceive a difference, does that mean there isn't a difference? Or would you suggest that your perception is better than mine, rendering my experience invalid? No matter what, I would seriously doubt my results unless I could show extremely high accuracy and could do it with consistent and repeatable results. I would prefer if the results of all of the trials were unknown to me until the end of the entire test. Even with a thorough design and reasonable amount of data, I would definitely report all of the exact methods used, the results found and statistical analysis of the data and welcome criticisms to possibly account for anything missed in the experiment.
   
  In regards to your point #2, proof? How can you say that with absolutely no reasonable evidence in support of that idea. I'll admit that it might be worth investigating, but there is no reason to even suggest that view as the better hypothesis for an experiment. 
   
   


shotor102 said:


> As for the argument that specific cable testing to show specific error codes and how they would be translated onto screen, visually and audibly... That, I am actually skeptical of.
> As I discussed already, I actually am convinced that there many production lines from different manufacturers that produce and sell HDMI cables that meet the very minimum of the standard. And regardless of their proprietary testing methods which would show that their cables meet the HDMI standard spec compliance. Or even objective testing to be conducted on these cables. The errors or fluctuations in signal that will be reported with the test, will hold the claim that the onscreen translation will be exceedingly meaningless. Not only because of the claim that humans could not possibly tell, but also because the fluctuations are too random and inconsistent.  In one test it might show this margin of distortion or signal interference or degradation, while the same cable will show something slightly different on the next test.    Further to that, remember that these tests are conducted in controlled environments (labs and such) where conditions are ideal and possible outside interference is limited.  So I say again, those tests can show quite a bit, but clearly can't predict every single parameter of a household potential interference, which in addition, to be taken in consideration to the components that HDMI cable will be used with. TV to BD? XBOX to TV? HD player to receiver? BD to receiver and than another HDMI cable from the receiver to the TV..


 
   
  Why are you skeptical? We have more than enough reason to believe we understand how data is processed by the TV. We could easily tell at what point there was an error and determine what kind of error it would have been. I'm not sure you understand even the most basic concepts about HDMI if you're suggesting we can't figure these things out.
   
  Yes, there is variability from one test to another. I never said that taking 1 low quality cable and 1 high quality cable and conducting one data transmission would be evidence. I would expect at least 4 different cables designs to be tested (2 high quality, 2 low quality) and multiple of each design to be tested multiple times. I also welcome the idea of testing this in a realistic setting, as I would still predict there would be no significant difference.
   
   
   


shotor102 said:


> What's not repeatable?
> 
> Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p.
> Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.
> ...


 
   
  What were your results? 100% accuracy? 75% accuracy? What did you record? Details of what you noticed? Which cable you believed was in use? Which cable, by comparison, seemed better? What do you mean by doing it objectively? Self report is inherently a subjective measurement.
   
  Did you have any interactions between trials? Was the time for switching cables controlled? You conducted around 120 trials? What were all of the statistically significant variables in the quality?


----------



## Jaywalk3r

shotor102 said:


> What's not repeatable?
> 
> Go find yourself at least 3 HD media players of any kind that are capable of displaying 1080p.
> Then go find 4 different HDTV panels from 32' - 55', Plasma and LCDs or LEDS if you choose.
> ...




If you want your test to mean anything, you'd better set it up more carefully and precisely than how you've described it here.


----------



## scottie584




----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





scottie584 said:


>


 


  hahahaha absolutely brilliant


----------



## CC Lemon

Oh, I forgot to make one last comment.
   
  Until I see evidence that realistically suggests that there is a difference in quality, why would I spend (potentially waste) money on "high quality" hdmi cables? I'd have to be at the point where I don't care about money enough to just buy cables on the (terribly supported) chance there is a difference. Even at a $5000, I'd probably still go with monoprice. It would have to be close to the $10,000+ range before I'd really consider buying it just to be safe. At that point, I'm clearly not too concerned about how much it's going to cost me and willing to do it just for the hell of it.


----------



## Shotor102

Ahh....
   
  And this is where you shot yourself in the foot.
   
   
  Quote: 





> It would have to be close to the $10,000+ range before I'd really consider buying it just to be safe.


 
   
  1. Safe from what exactly?
   
  2. Is the ability to afford more expensive products suddely increases the risk or chance factors of HDMI cables not displaying image and sound quality the same way?  As you and others have stated, $5 cable or a $100 is all the same, then surely  a $1500 home theater set up or a $15,000 set up will absolutley have zero effects on any given HDMI cables. Sounds like a contradicting statement if you ask me.  So I ask again, just to be safe from what, exactly?
   
  3. Optical illusion, specifically designed to fool your eyes and brain to perceive as if something is moving in that picture yet it is factually not...?  As an analogous reference to difference in HDMI cable?  Not the same at all. Even if you're trying to make a point there, think of what an optical illusion gag like that is specifically designed for, and then tell me if HD display is meant  to be the same thing.  It's quite far...


----------



## LizardKing1

He used the image as an analogy for illusion, not for HDMI in particular. I agree with not using placebo and a more broad term, and that image explains it very well: we all look at it and see it moving, yet we know it scientifically can't display movement because it's a .jpg file and is thus incapable of such. Now our knowledge is telling us one thing and our eyes another. So what does that say about our perception when faced with conclusive science?
   
  Another example of thousands of people seeing something is in my own country: the sightings of the Virgin Mary. Thousands of people in Fatima swear they all saw the virgin appear in the sun at a certain time. Funny how she wasn't busy healing those with cancer or feeding the hugry, but whatever. They know they saw her and who are we to say no? I believe their brains made them 'see' something, but since it's impossible for an antropomorphic figure to appear in a star for a few seconds and only be seen in a specific part of the Earth by believers, I know this didn't actually happen. This isn't supposed to be a perfect relation to HDMI so calm down, I'm not going for perfect metaphors. It's just an example of thousands of people - way more than people who 'see' differences in HDMI cables - watching something impossible.
   
  My beer analogy wasn't perfect because I didn't care enough, you don't have to keep bringing it up.


----------



## Shotor102

Actually, I've only brought up the beer thing twice, once in a direct reply and a second time because there was a point I meant to discuss in the first reply post, but lost my train of thought... Then somehow it came back to me.
   
  I don't have a problem with metaphores, and I understand why you and CC would relate to those abstracts as relevant  allusions.  But it's only on a superficial level mind you.
   
  Trust me that I am far from being upset by any of this, although I am a bit bemused as to how you people will have such regard to scientific detail, which is susposed to be an empirical field with high attention to precision and details. Yet, can't seem to realize a fundamental flaw in a given analogy or a metaphore.
   
  I'm sorry to bring up the beer thing again, but just as an example here.  Yes, I get why you would go that way, but at the same time, we both know that you should have known better than that. This isn't me picking on grammar errors or typos (after all, I am pretty notorious for such)... 
   
  Do you see where I'm going with this?


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Ahh....
> 
> And this is where you shot yourself in the foot.
> 
> ...


 

  
  1 & 2) My point was that I'm probably in the "more money than sense" territory if I'm throwing $10,000 at a home theater set up. That's just not my thing, so I must have so much money that I don't even think twice about how much I'm spending. You seem excited at the thought of having tripped me up, but you missed my point. If I don't care how much I'm spending, I don't care if I'm wasting money either. I was focusing on the price of the set up as a reflection of the amount of money I have, not suggesting that the more expensive set up would be more revealing. If I'm being completely honest: I don't believe there is any chance there's a difference. I understand how digital signals work and those very simple principles are more than enough to explain why there shouldn't be a difference. The ONLY instance I'd be willing to actually accept there would be a difference is if a well designed experiment showed some rather significant results indicating that there might be some differences that are visible to humans. At that point, I'd weigh the percentage of people that were able to consistently identify the better cable and do a blind test of my own to determine if it would be worth it to me.
   
  3) You completely missed my point. You readily accept that it is absolutely an optical illusion and not actually movement. Why?
   
  -There's plenty of evidence that indicates that HDMI cables that are within specifications will not have a significant difference in terms of the data transferred and especially not at the level that could be perceived by humans. The way the data is transferred and processed is well understood and there's not really a reason to believe differently. In spite of this, you say you have seen a difference (your perception) and use the logic that many others have reported similar experiences so there must be something to it.
   
  -It's well understood that the image I posted is an optical illusion and is, in fact, a still image. This effect can be explained rather easily and there's not really a reason to believe differently. This is where your logic is different. In spite of you perceiving motion, you refuse to believe it because of the overwhelming amount of information that explains why it isn't moving. Many others perceive the motion too and report a similar experience.
   
  For some reason, you accept your perception of improved quality from HDMI cables as fact or real in spite of the evidence suggesting otherwise. In fact, there is no known reason why it should have an effect. But when it comes to seeing motion in an image, you immediately refuse the idea that there was actually movement. Why? What makes these so inherently different?
   
  Philosophy: In a way, the motion in that picture is more real than the differences of image/signal quality from HDMI cables. I can pretty much guarantee that the percentage of people that would report seeing motion in that image would be higher than the percentage of people that would report a difference between HDMI cables. If you consider that reality is essentially the collection of our perceptions, then the motion is a reality to more people than the HDMI quality difference. Therefore, the motion in that picture is more real than the difference in quality between HDMI cables.


----------



## Shotor102

To be honest here, I have grown really tired of this discussion.
   
  I posted my views in regards to this debate.
   
  Those who found something insightful or helpful in them, great. Those who didn't, oh well. No harm done..  It is what it is.
   
  I think beyond this point, continuing this debate will be repetition and rehashing points that have already been made, just in different forms.
  Would I like it if my views got across better, sure I would, but that desperate I AM NOT.
   
   
  Cheers to everyone taking part,
  Good discussion.
   
   
  Gazebo anyone?


----------



## CC Lemon

Hmm... well that effectively kills the discussion lol.
   
  Out of curiosity, do they have to disclose to participants that a placebo might be used for a proper informed consent? Or are they allowed to omit that information or even say that all participants will receive actual treatment, even if some will receive a placebo?
   
  If it's part of the informed consent process, I don't see a huge issue with the ethics of using a placebo with deception.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

cc lemon said:


> Out of curiosity, do they have to disclose to participants that a placebo might be used for a proper informed consent? Or are they allowed to omit that information or even say that all participants will receive actual treatment, even if some will receive a placebo?
> 
> If it's part of the informed consent process, I don't see a huge issue with the ethics of using a placebo with deception.




I think the ethical concern is with using placebos outside of studies. I don't think it's considered acceptable for a doctor to prescribe an inert substance leading the patient to believe that it is of medicinal value.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> Hmm... well that effectively kills the discussion lol.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do they have to disclose to participants that a placebo might be used for a proper informed consent? Or are they allowed to omit that information or even say that all participants will receive actual treatment, even if some will receive a placebo?
> 
> If it's part of the informed consent process, I don't see a huge issue with the ethics of using a placebo with deception.


 

 Well at least we're not discussing HDMI's..
   
  We should change the thread to HDMI+Placebo..
   
  If I understand your question, are you asking if in studies, the researchers have to disclose to the participants that Placebos would be used? 
   
  As far as I know, it the answer is no.  Then of course, you have to judge the study itself and what it's trying to measure.  Remember that thus far using Placebos must fulfill two conditions: Deception and Suggestion of some sort.  Without it, it's hard to measure any effect of a given Placebo pill. 
   
  Outside of studies, yes, Doctors, shrinks and Psychiatrists try to avoid using Placebos as much as possible. Obviously, the first and foremost reason would be the ethics involved. You're deceiving your patient. Well.. and that's just plain bad.
   
  The other issue is that you are essentially giving a patient a pill that has zero physical properties in terms of any effect (other than psychological).  And again, I haven't read too many studies about prolonged usage of Placebo, and I don't mean a month or 6, but years.. Let's face it, people are treated with prolonged uses of medication, years, and clearly lifetime as-well.
  With that said, a person's mental state could sustain placebos for a while, while with another person, for a longer time, and the next person, it could work for 3 months and then somehow lose its effect for no particular reason. It really does depend on the person him or herself as-well.  There are some people that may have great positive feedback from using Placebos, but when are told that it was a Placebo, it no longer works.  While others, simply keep taking them.. if it worked before, it'll keep on working.


----------



## CC Lemon

I wasn't thinking outside of experimental/trail conditions for some reason. I can see why it would be an issue to give placebos as a treatment to a patient without them being informed.
   
  I don't see why it would be an issue with studies to keep it a secret from participants, but I would expect they have to be made aware of the chance to be in the placebo/control group prior to participating. It could be an issue if participants only participated on the idea that the treatment might positively benefit their health and they discover they never even received the treatment.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> I wasn't thinking outside of experimental/trail conditions for some reason. I can see why it would be an issue to give placebos as a treatment to a patient without them being informed.
> 
> I don't see why it would be an issue with studies to keep it a secret from participants, but I would expect they have to be made aware of the chance to be in the placebo/control group prior to participating. It could be an issue if participants only participated on the idea that the treatment might positively benefit their health and they discover they never even received the treatment.


 

 Well, again, you're discussing two different issues here.
   
  1. The first one is the ethics of the Study. This really depends on the study itself. Some studies like the one on this thread requires the researchers to inform the participants of usage of Placebo. Clearly, the researchers are studying just that.  However, other researchers or studies that let's say wish to debunk certain beliefs or what they presume myths (for example only), might do multiple tests and blind tests and double blind tests on the participants. And of course, in favor of the study, they might inform them that they will be exposed to certain things, maybe audio, visuals or taking drugs/pills, without stating anything about placebo. That is if the research is measuring if a placebo effect is directly responsible for claims that have been made; which are being studied of course.
   
  2. The Second issue, while might benefit the participant to know of being given Placebos, but this could actually lead to internal validity issues of the study. If you have a biased participant who is aware of the research and core details, that person might either co-operate on purpose in favor of the research or him/herself. Which yields results that aren't very reliable.


----------



## ac500

I haven't read the whole thread since I was gone, but are you guys *seriously* still debating about the placebo study? O.o
   
  It doesn't matter. Let's put away the study and instead talk about HDMI, which you can use to prove that HDMI cable perceptions are placebo. Here's how that works:
   
  1. HDMI cables cannot physically effect contrast, sharpness, etc. -- it's impossible due to how digital electronics and information works
   
  2. Therefore, if you think you see HDMI cables effecting contrast, etc., then what you perceive is an effect of the mind -- placebo or confirmation bias, however you'd like to call it.
   
  Tada. No need to use the placebo study.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread since I was gone, but are you guys *seriously* still debating about the placebo study? O.o
> 
> It doesn't matter. Let's put away the study and instead talk about HDMI, which you can use to prove that HDMI cable perceptions are placebo. Here's how that works:
> 
> ...


----------



## dleblanc343

Ok guys, yesterday I, being the rookie of our hi-fi shop, had to fully set up two Sharp LC- 60LE840 while missing out on sales. After that was done I said what the hell, I may as well play around for a bit. So, I decided to bring out a 2m Audioquest diamond hdmi cable and hooked one tv with that, while the other *same *model tv was hooked up with a monster m2000 hdmi of the same length as the audioquest. I didn't really notice a difference at all, but when I got closer, I could see which tv was better; no bias, no placebo effect. I was watching a hockey game on RDS HD network, and the television with the audioquest cable performed noticeably better in terms of speed. With the monster cable, if I watched extremely carefully and closely, I noticed some visual lag when the puck was slapped at high speed a few times and when some players got big checks into the boards. Color vividness and sharpness was the same; the overall picture quality was in fact. But one of the tv's felt a tiny bit snappier and more responsive to fast movement and sudden camera changes. It's really hard to explain, but I saw it; and I kind of wish I could deny it.
   
  I was not expecting any difference, and if I was standing 6 feet + away from the screens I did not notice a difference. But up close, you could see that one television was responding a little bit better compared to another.
   
  Oh, and I also have visual acuity of 16/20 if that helps in any way


----------



## Shotor102

Interesting. 

Were the TVs menus set up the exact same way?

What was the feed by the way, HD network broadcast or a pre-recorded game?


----------



## ac500

(Obviously) no two LCD panels are manufactured with 100% identical consistency. Any two panels are bound to have some differences, and certainly not just limited to response time either. If you have someone swap cables (when you're not looking, to eliminate placebo), I think you'll find the same TV set having the better response time, regardless of what cable is attached.


----------



## Magick Man

ac500 said:


> (Obviously) no two LCD panels are manufactured with 100% identical consistency. Any two panels are bound to have some differences, and certainly not just limited to response time either. If you have someone swap cables (when you're not looking, to eliminate placebo), I think you'll find the same TV set having the better response time, regardless of what cable is attached.




This, 100%.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> (Obviously) no two LCD panels are manufactured with 100% identical consistency. Any two panels are bound to have some differences, and certainly not just limited to response time either. If you have someone swap cables (when you're not looking, to eliminate placebo), I think you'll find the same TV set having the better response time, regardless of what cable is attached.


 

 I'm sorry, but I have to call B.S. on this one.
   
  If you're a consumer buying a $2500 - $3000 Hi End TV, let's say with all the trims and fixings, like 3D, LED, 240hz refresh, Smart TV features+internet and such, trust me that TV manufacturers better make sure that their TVs operate with the outmost precision to their promise.  The description of difference the other person noted is not an acceptable difference within the 99.99999% - 100% margin you discuss.   If you buy two TV from a fairly reputable company like Sony, LG, Sharp, Samsung etc, then if you compare them side by side with the exact same setting and lighting hooked up to identical sources (individually) with identical HDMI's, then unless one of the TV's has a defect, that lag the other poster discusses should not be evident no matter how close you stare at it.
   
  Now, this is not an HDMI discussion, mind you, rather TV discussion.  This is why I asked what was the source, and if it was connected to both TV via chain link like many stores do, which causes the signal to weaken.  Also the settings, something as simple as noise reduction could cause this, and often missed. Check all settings, and I mean ALL settings.  Futher, if it's a network broadcast, that could also be an issue.


----------



## Magick Man

$2500-3000 isn't high end in any way when talking about TVs.

What dleblanc343 said is still anecdotal, not evidence. I'm not going to change my views based on my experience without some solid scientific proof.


----------



## LizardKing1

Shotor no one's saying it's acceptable for a fairly expensive TV to have a quality control lacking so much it would present differences between 2 models. However what is being said is that this lack of QC is much more likely to be the cause for this difference than a different HDMI cable. It happens wether we like it or not, and like dleblanc343 said it was barely noticeable. I don't think his observations are false, I believe he actually did see a difference, I just don't believe the HDMI cable was the cause.
   
dleblanc343 I suggest that if possible next time you try using the same TV with those 2 cables. It's never as good a method because you can't compare it immediately, but it is fairer in terms of result analysis. try using those 2 cables, and also add in a similar length of cheap cable (just make sure it's shielded).


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





magick man said:


> $2500-3000 isn't high end in any way when talking about TVs.
> What dleblanc343 said is still anecdotal, not evidence. I'm not going to change my views based on my experience without some solid scientific proof.


 


  Hi end for what department exactly? 60' Sharp TV? Maybe not.
   
  But what is the retail for a 52' Samsung LED 3D HDTV? Mind You, I wasn't explicit on pricing, rather gave an example of one of Samsung's 55' best LED panels (which goes for about $2300 or so) 
  Of course you can go up to $6000 and up on a 65' Bravia or 80' Aquos..  
   
  No need to be cheeky about those semantics.  
   
  Besides, I wasn't discussing the HDMI issue with this particular example. In fact, before I even accepted that this might be an HDMI issues, I suggested the poster to double check all settings on both TV's and in addition, to provide more detail on the set-up itself.  I was arguing that there's probably something more evident and obvious about the setup that caused that lag in one TV before suggesting the 'No 2 TVs perform 100% in the exact same way' argument.   
   
  Yes, it's anecdotal, which is exactly why I asked for clarification.


----------



## Somnambulist

If it was a difference in motion it was probably the settings, you can get some pretty varied results and 'the video camera effect' when playing about with the settings, and 95% of all the TVs I've seen in stores are about as far away from a realistic picture/motion as possible.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Shotor no one's saying it's acceptable for a fairly expensive TV to have a quality control lacking so much it would present differences between 2 models. However what is being said is that this lack of QC is much more likely to be the cause for this difference than a different HDMI cable. It happens wether we like it or not, and like dleblanc343 said it was barely noticeable. I don't think his observations are false, I believe he actually did see a difference, I just don't believe the HDMI cable was the cause.
> 
> dleblanc343 I suggest that if possible next time you try using the same TV with those 2 cables. It's never as good a method because you can't compare it immediately, but it is fairer in terms of result analysis. try using those 2 cables, and also add in a similar length of cheap cable (just make sure it's shielded).


 
  Lizard King, 
   
  Please read my post/s better next time.  I clearly CLEARLY specified that this wasn't an HDMI cable argument, nor was I suggesting to accept that it was. I'm going to reiterate this point again so it won't be missed: I specifically asked a few things from dleblanc343, to specify the setup of those two tvs and to MAKE SURE that every single setting on those tv's are identical to each-other.
  It goes without saying that more than one experiment with the TVs should be conducted, rather multiple, with controlled variables such as lighting, source and power supply, etc..
   
  If you've read my post carefully, you should have realize that I didn't accept that the cables were the cause in this particular scenario, nor that I was doubting that he/she saw a difference. In fact, I am convinced that he/she did.
   
  When I said that it's unacceptable in regards for these TVs, I wasn't merely stating a mentality, but an industry standard in terms of TV's.  Trust me that if what ac500's suggested to be true, then we would have seen that issue surface a long time ago in regards to tv manufacturers. There are countless of people out there that conducted countless of similar comparisons with tvs just like dl conducted, if not more detailed and precise (no offense dl). And trust me that if such a difference was noticeable (although hardly), and deduced to be a TV display issues, this would've been a major issue in the industry, both for the technology and the company who made that TV itself.  When I say unacceptable, it means that, this difference IS NOT the 'not 100%' margin of display ac500 discusses, or the QC you discuss.  If the TV's are identical (and presuming with no defects), set up in the exact same way, identical source (again, individually setup) that is also setup in the exact same way and using identical HDMI cables, then NO. No difference in display should be noticeable to the naked eye. Up close, farther away, with a magnifying glass... doesn't matter how.. Human naked eye.. absolutely would not be able to spot any difference at all.


----------



## LizardKing1

I always read a post I'm quoting or replying to, and I did notice you asking that poster to repeat the test because it might be some other variable, and definitely other than the cable. My poit was another: I simply said I felt that quality control even on these moderately expensive TVs, from what I've read, isn't good enough to ensure an unnoticeable difference between 2 identical models. I might be wrong, because I know next to nothing when it comes to video. In fact the only thing I'm sure is that it's not the cable =) and I could be wrong and indeed it's impossible for 2 identical well-built same-setting TVs to look any different. In a nutshell, you and I could maybe disagree on what's causing the difference, but I had no intention to argue (it's late here).


----------



## DaBomb77766

Hm, when it comes to prescribing placebo treatments to patients, I honestly don't see the problem, just so long as the patient doesn't have to pay for the drug they're not getting.  That would simply be stealing.  But if all other methods of treatment have been exhausted, prescribing a placebo as a last resort seems like a perfectly ethical method of treatment.  I choose the lesser of the two evils - if it works, then as long as you aren't ripping the patient off by forcing them to pay for a ludicrously expensive non-existent drug then I don't see the problem.  I guess this is outside the scope of this argument though.
   
  Anyway, I had a problem with Shotor's "blind test" from earlier - from what I recall, he simply said that he saw a difference when the cable was swapped, right?  However, were you able to actually tell which cable was which?  Or would you be able to tell if the cable wasn't actually switched at all?  Things like this are extremely important and have to be taken into account.  I honestly see difference with my TV's quality every day, sometimes it looks better and sometimes worse, usually depending on my mood, lighting conditions and many other factors.
   
  This is one thing about science that most people don't seem to grasp - you need to be thorough otherwise the data you have gathered is as good as worthless.


----------



## El_Doug

food for thought:  a Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is considered an expensive, high-end headphone.  check out the latest measurements showing just how godaweful their consistency is! 
  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to call B.S. on this one.
> 
> If you're a consumer buying a $2500 - $3000 Hi End TV, let's say with all the trims and fixings, like 3D, LED, 240hz refresh, Smart TV features+internet and such, trust me that TV manufacturers better make sure that their TVs operate with the outmost precision to their promise.  The description of difference the other person noted is not an acceptable difference within the 99.99999% - 100% margin you discuss.   If you buy two TV from a fairly reputable company like Sony, LG, Sharp, Samsung etc, then if you compare them side by side with the exact same setting and lighting hooked up to identical sources (individually) with identical HDMI's, then unless one of the TV's has a defect, that lag the other poster discusses should not be evident no matter how close you stare at it.
> 
> Now, this is not an HDMI discussion, mind you, rather TV discussion.  This is why I asked what was the source, and if it was connected to both TV via chain link like many stores do, which causes the signal to weaken.  Also the settings, something as simple as noise reduction could cause this, and often missed. Check all settings, and I mean ALL settings.  Futher, if it's a network broadcast, that could also be an issue.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to call B.S. on this one.
> 
> If you're a consumer buying a $2500 - $3000 Hi End TV, let's say with all the trims and fixings, like 3D, LED, 240hz refresh, Smart TV features+internet and such, trust me that TV manufacturers better make sure that their TVs operate with the outmost precision to their promise.  The description of difference the other person noted is not an acceptable difference within the 99.99999% - 100% margin you discuss.   If you buy two TV from a fairly reputable company like Sony, LG, Sharp, Samsung etc, then if you compare them side by side with the exact same setting and lighting hooked up to identical sources (individually) with identical HDMI's, then unless one of the TV's has a defect, that lag the other poster discusses should not be evident no matter how close you stare at it.
> 
> Now, this is not an HDMI discussion, mind you, rather TV discussion.  This is why I asked what was the source, and if it was connected to both TV via chain link like many stores do, which causes the signal to weaken.  Also the settings, something as simple as noise reduction could cause this, and often missed. Check all settings, and I mean ALL settings.  Futher, if it's a network broadcast, that could also be an issue.


 

  
  While there might not be that significant of a difference between most TV's, it's hard to tell what % difference might be seen between any 2 given TV's at one time. I don't know what kind of testing they do before a product ships. If they do a performance measure of some sort, they probably have a minimum goal or a target goal with a +/-% margin of error. Maybe one TV was at the lowest acceptable measure while the other was towards the high end of TV's that shipped.
   
  Also, it's worth considering shipping issues. They might leave the factor with consistent performance, but there's always the chance that something during the shipping process did something.
   
  Even high end TV's end up with problems like dead pixels as a brand new product or after very little use. There are a lot of things that can contribute to inconsistent products, so it's difficult to rule that out as a possibility. This is especially true with products that are mass produced. I can't say I know all of the things that could go wrong or what problems could result, but I wouldn't expect it's an impossibility.
   
  There are a lot of variables when testing different equipment and we'd need more information about everything used in that set up.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> While there might not be that significant of a difference between most TV's, it's hard to tell what % difference might be seen between any 2 given TV's at one time. I don't know what kind of testing they do before a product ships. If they do a performance measure of some sort, they probably have a minimum goal or a target goal with a +/-% margin of error. Maybe one TV was at the lowest acceptable measure while the other was towards the high end of TV's that shipped.
> 
> Also, it's worth considering shipping issues. They might leave the factor with consistent performance, but there's always the chance that something during the shipping process did something.
> 
> ...


 


  I actually have a relatively high-end TV that is fairly defective, but I didn't get on the warranty fast enough to deal with it...it's just such a pain to pack up a 55" TV and send it back.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> food for thought:  a Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is considered an expensive, high-end headphone.  check out the latest measurements showing just how godaweful their consistency is!


 

 Um... Are you sure you're in the right thread here? 
  Pretty sure I was discussing TV's...  But hey... what hell, Beyerdynamic it is.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





> Anyway, I had a problem with Shotor's "blind test" from earlier - from what I recall, he simply said that he saw a difference when the cable was swapped, right?  However, were you able to actually tell which cable was which?  Or would you be able to tell if the cable wasn't actually switched at all?  Things like this are extremely important and have to be taken into account.  I honestly see difference with my TV's quality every day, sometimes it looks better and sometimes worse, usually depending on my mood, lighting conditions and many other factors.


 
   
  Well of course I did, initially that is.  Remember that the first scenario was not a blind test, rather me going step by step to see whether my Player is the problem or the HDMI cable was. And it turns out that with that specific player and that TV, the cable was the issue. With a new player and the same TV, older player and any other TV I tried, no issues to this day.  
   
  As for the blind test, no, I couldn't tell.  I actually mentioned this in my post/s.  The first time around I noticed mostly that with the new cable, the image was basically 'stronger' if that makes sense. Basically the separadtion of the whites and the black levels was a tad.. and I mean like a spec more flushed with the older cable. This created an impression of stronger color scheme, although I'm not sure if colors were actually affected by this.   In follow up blind tests, I've tested numerous TVs sequentially on after the other at the same time with swapping cables.  This was one day. Another day, the same thing with other sets of HDTVs.  Now, I say again, during the next tests, it was really hard to tell which was which. In some scenarios like with the 32' LCD.. it was really really hard to tell, almost to the point of giving up. However, when it came to bigger screens, 42' and above, it was a tad easier. I although I didn't have a specific preference. With the Plasma I could which one was the new cable, but with the LCD I really couldn't. There was a difference in Shading, but it came to the point that it really didn't matter.
   
  And that's about it.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> While there might not be that significant of a difference between most TV's, it's hard to tell what % difference might be seen between any 2 given TV's at one time. I don't know what kind of testing they do before a product ships. If they do a performance measure of some sort, they probably have a minimum goal or a target goal with a +/-% margin of error. Maybe one TV was at the lowest acceptable measure while the other was towards the high end of TV's that shipped.
> 
> Also, it's worth considering shipping issues. They might leave the factor with consistent performance, but there's always the chance that something during the shipping process did something.
> 
> ...


 
  That's the thing though, you're kind of missing my point. 
  I did expand of the possibility of a defect in the TV itself, and this is what you were mainly discussing in your post.  Something happening during shipping, dead pixels (yes, even on hi end TVs) after short usage... Yes, that happens; clearly nothing is perfect. But this is why a warranty exists.
   
  What I am discussing is what you mentioned in the first part of your post. the -/+% margine of performance.
  I probably shot myself in the foot with the 'Hi-End' example. However, just to re-address this, these companies, the trusted ones (like LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Pioneer, Hitachi, Sharp) are expected to deliver a fairly precise and consistent performence from their panels (unless of an obvious cheapo model, which does rise up once in a while, but that's a different story). It doens't matter if it's a 42' 60hz 720p HDTV or a 60' 1080p LED 3D smart HDTV.  Side by side, this margin of performance these companies strive for must be so tiny, that despite the fact that no two TVs perform with 100% consistency, if two given panels are compared (and shown and proven to have no defect in them), then a difference that the other poster described should not be noticeable no matter how close you stare at it and for how long.  This I'm stating in regards to a consistency of that difference, as the other poster described. If it was a random fluctuation where one TV does this, and then goes back to optimal performance, while the other exhibits something else...  perhaps, random gaps in speed of transfer, decoding and buffering..   That I can accept.  
   
  But clearly, this is not what was described.


----------



## ac500

Shotor has more faith in TV quality control than he does in the entire scientific community regarding HDMI (never-mind that TV quality control is done by more or less the same scientists). Not that it matters (although he makes it seem like this thread has to be an effort to personally convince _him_ HDMI cables do/don't matter).


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> That's the thing though, you're kind of missing my point.
> I did expand of the possibility of a defect in the TV itself, and this is what you were mainly discussing in your post.  Something happening during shipping, dead pixels (yes, even on hi end TVs) after short usage... Yes, that happens; clearly nothing is perfect. But this is why a warranty exists.
> 
> What I am discussing is what you mentioned in the first part of your post. the -/+% margine of performance.
> ...


 


  Making a TV is a little bit like making a CPU - it's not 100% precise and we're still pretty much just crossing our fingers and hoping they turn out properly at the end of the assembly line.  There is actually an astonishingly high rate of error when making CPUs (and obviously far higher than for a TV) and that's how they make cheaper CPU models - they just take the CPUs that didn't turn out as well and put a clock limit on them, and they take the exceptional ones and remove the clock limiter entirely.  You'd think that with the extreme precision and everything required in a CPU they would all turn out absolutely identically, but this is not the case.
   
  The same goes for speakers and headphones too - there can be (and are) many examples of headphones (even relatively higher-end ones) having pretty significant differences from one unit to the next.  They usually just match the two drivers used in the headphone to be as close as possible, but take another unit and it may sound quite a bit different.  Since most people aren't comparing two headphones of the same model side-by-side and descriptions people make of the sound are only so accurate, they can get away with this pretty easily.
   
   
  One more thing, while HDMI is a spec, there are several revisions to it...did black level adjustments have anything to do with any of these?  I did notice there was an "HDMI black level" option in my TV's settings, could it be that earlier specs don't support anything like this or something...?


----------



## El_Doug

Nice job diverting the subject - i was pointing out that even high-priced high-tech items from very well established companies can have a lot of variation.  This applies 100%
  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Um... Are you sure you're in the right thread here?
> Pretty sure I was discussing TV's...  But hey... what hell, Beyerdynamic it is.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Shotor has more faith in TV quality control than he does in the entire scientific community regarding HDMI. Not that it matters (although he makes it seem like this thread has to be an effort to personally convince _him_ HDMI cables do/don't matter, as if that somehow matters).


 


  That's quite hypocritical of you to say, don't you think?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Seeing how you have so much faith in the scientific community regarding HDMI cables, yet fail to apply the same scientific standard to TV's quality control.
   
  You also seem to be beating a dead horse here.
  I've abandoned the HDMI discussion a while ago.
   
  But hey, feel free to argue anything you'd like


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Nice job diverting the subject - i was pointing out that even high-priced high-tech items from very well established companies can have a lot of variation.  This applies 100%


 

 Sorry dude, I wasn't trying to divert, I honestly thought you were posting within the wrong context.  
   
  In regards, as I stated earlier, the Hi-End example was just an example. The same standard of quality control is held throughout lesser expensive models as-well (providing that it's not an obviously cheaply made tv by a reputable company like Sony). 
   
  In your example, you're discussing a headphone that has obviously been tested and proven inconsistent despite its high claim and hype of being high end.  So anyone who is going to do a research in regards will be able to find that out.  This is a clear issue where Beyer didn't adhere very well to their own standards.   I'm sure that there are panels that are reviewed the same way. There quite a few panels by various companies that have lower QC, and it is reflected by review and ratings of the product itself. Those would be considered lower quality and cheaper models, and such inconsistent issues are expected and are mostly known.  But if you're discussing solid made panel models, then such issues as previously described won't happen.
   
  ac500's argument is no different than stating that taking any given Iphone4s or Samasung Glaxy S-II's or any good tablet out there like Asus, Ipad-2 or Tab 10.1' will have these noticeable issues (even though small) and justifying it with an expected +/-% margin of error.   Trust me that if this was the case, there will be hell to pay by these companies.


----------



## ac500

_> ac500's argument is no different than stating that taking any given Iphone4s or Samasung Glaxy S-II's or any good tablet out there like Asus, Ipad-2 or Tab 10.1' will have these noticeable issues (even though small) and justifying it with an expected +/-% margin of error.   Trust me that if this was the case, there will be hell to pay by these companies. _
  
 I don't think you realize how much variation goes on. In some laptop companies, they'll even vary between different _manufacturers_ for the screen within the same laptop model. This is obviously quite noticeable. Even within a single screen make/model of course, there is some variation, no matter how much you'd like to be in denial about this. Sorry, but saying "trust me there would be hell to pay" are empty words from an empty argument of empty speculation.
  
 That's not the point of this thread. As much as you want to declare this thread a discussion about TV sets... it's not. This is a discussion about HDMI cables, and the facts here are that HDMI cables cannot cause contrast, brightness, sharpness etc. changes, period. If you wish to argue the technical details of HDMI cables, go ahead. All this speculation about TV sets etc. really is pointless.


----------



## ac500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
   
  "*There may be up to +/- 2ms maximum response time differences between individual panels that came off the same assembly line on the same day."*
   
  Of course, while I'm sure their quality control is very good -- no matter how good, there will always be a small tolerance +- a bit of response time (not even considering that quality control always fails now and then). According to Shotor of course, "there is hell to pay" by these companies for this. Of course according to people in the real world, this is how production works.


----------



## Shotor102

Prople in 'the real world' ???

That's definitely a new one.

Kept fighting the good battle ac.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> That's quite hypocritical of you to say, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  First off, beating a dead horse isn't exactly a problem when it's actually on topic for the thread. Second, the fact that there is still disagreement on the topic means it's not really "dead" yet. Some people just gave up.
   
  Your point about the "faith in the scientific" community is silly. You tried to turn things around on him and did a terrible job. You have shown no knowledge of the exact testing the TV companies do for quality control and no information on the results these companies have seen in testing. Production of these types of things will always have some marginal differences and quality control usually accounts for this. Unless you're suggesting you have data that shows that these TV's are all tested and proven to perform EXACTLY the same when shipped, then you can't really make that point. The fact that there is a lack of this evidence kind of means that he was applying the same scientific standard. No evidence to suggest all TV's perform the same -> question if they do. Evidence to suggest that HDMI cables perform the same -> support the idea that they do. It's quite logical.
   
  I find it almost hilarious that you consider HDMI cables and TV's comparable when talking about variability in image. You seem to really resist the scientific approach to these things. HDMI cables should not affect the image quality as far as our current understanding of the technology indicates. We can test this and show that there isn't a difference in the data (at a significant level). You question this based on perception based tests you've done, with no actual evidence to support your view. You (seemingly) assume that these TV manufacturers could not release products with variability or else they would be criticized. It would seem there is evidence (as seen in ac's post) suggesting there is variability even with products produced on the same day. Yet, it seems you'll continue to defend the manufacturer quality control. Unless you're not revealing some quality control data from these companies, you don't really have an argument and it further questions your judgement/opinion on the whole HDMI topic. You seem to support the side that has a major lack of evidence.

  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Prople in 'the real world' ???
> That's definitely a new one.
> Kept fighting the good battle ac.


 

 Not really sure what you were trying to get at with this post. It assume ac was suggesting that your reality seems to not quite line up with the real world, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I'd have a hard time believing any product has a 100% consistency in the products shipped. We're talking about relatively complicated electronic devices that are composed of quite a few parts that could all have variability. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that there will always be some variability in products.
   
  Not to be an *******, but I have to call you out on a reply like that. Were you intentionally avoiding the topic because you could not refute ac's points? He took the time to make some valid responses to your posts and provided some evidence and reasoning to support his ideas. You just kind of dismissed them entirely. 
   
  Also, on an unrelated note: "fighting the good battle" is REALLY bugging me... it's "fighting the good fight"... I can't tell if that was intentional or not lol.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





> First off, beating a dead horse isn't exactly a problem when it's actually on topic for the thread. Second, the fact that there is still disagreement on the topic means it's not really "dead" yet. Some people just gave up.


 
   
  Weren't you the first in line to state that my last post in regards to ME debating HDMI cables effectively killed the discussion? Not that I care whether others discuss it, But I won't. There's nothing to be said. Unless some new empirical evidnce surfaces by those who claim to see a difference, I personally don't see much reason for myself to debate it any longer.  I've already gave my sentiments; I can't prove a thing since what I described, by definition is anecdotal. Whether some believe it to be a true matter or not at this point is irrelevant. You either have the scientific approach, or the philosophical one.  And that's about it.  The disagreement will always be there, again, until more empirical evidence surfaces to support the HDMI cable difference against the scientific approach.  So when I state, dead horse, it was directed to ac500 in regards to him directly prompting me to re-engage the debate. But I say again, from this point on, anything that will be said from the philosophical perspective of the discussion will simply meet with repetition of the same claims and discussion we've already seen on the first two pages.   Hey, feel free to discuss anything, I couldn't care less. But as far as I am concerned, it's beating a dead horse.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Your point about the "faith in the scientific" community is silly. You tried to turn things around on him and did a terrible job. You have shown no knowledge of the exact testing the TV companies do for quality control and no information on the results these companies have seen in testing. Production of these types of things will always have some marginal differences and quality control usually accounts for this. Unless you're suggesting you have data that shows that these TV's are all tested and proven to perform EXACTLY the same when shipped, then you can't really make that point. The fact that there is a lack of this evidence kind of means that he was applying the same scientific standard. No evidence to suggest all TV's perform the same -> question if they do. Evidence to suggest that HDMI cables perform the same -> support the idea that they do. It's quite logical.


 
   
  Sorry to call you on your point here. But that's a load as-well. I never once stated that the tv's will perform at 100% to each other given the same model. What I am saying is that the difference described by the other poster is outside that tolerable margine of -/+%.  If he/she saw a difference (and presuming that there was no defect and that the HDMI cables played no role in this, nor the source or any other factors) in motion, then it means that one TV has refresh rate/response time lag issues when it should not.  Now, he was watching a game, and I presume most likely on some HD network or recording from some PVR. Either way, the feed isn't 1080p native anyways, nor was presented in the 24p natively as BD players do. And yet he still saw a difference. Imagine those two tv panels hooked up to BD and playing  a true 1080p material. That difference will increase and be more evident. Then think about gaming (as in VG), which most of them run at 60fps. Just think of how that lag will translate from a 720p/1080i netwrok stream to either a game or a 1080p material source with the tv set to the highest refresh rate. You're looking at an obvious lag here.  This is why I say that the 100% argument does not fit that specific example.  I never argued that they do in the first place. 
   
  Also, I find it funny that ac500 strongly suppports that argument with the 100% difference claim, yet denies that aspect when it comes to HDMI cables.  That same logic should apply there, don't you think? If TV's can't follow a certain standard, then how HDMI cables will?
   
  As for anything else you've stated in regards to HDMI discussion, I'm not taking part in it.
   
  As for fighting the good fight, or good battle..?
   
  This really bugs you?    Really?
  Not to be an ******* myself here, but dude, get out more.


----------



## ac500

_> I've abandoned the HDMI discussion a while ago._
 ​ This is an HDMI discussion thread. Anyone who has abandons this discussion topic therefore needs to leave this thread.​  ​ _> Not to be an ******* myself here, but dude, get out more._​   
Also Shotor: A lot of your comments towards various people on this thread are direct personal attacks, and you've continued to do this over and over again (not only on this thread but on other threads too). If you cannot stop the personal attacks and debate about the issue itself like the rest of us, you could get banned, since this is directly in violation of head-fi's policy.​


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> That same logic should apply there, don't you think? If TV's can't follow a certain standard, then how HDMI cables will?


 

  No.
  "If analog cables can degrade the signal then how can a digital cable not degrade it?"
  It doesn't make sense either. Again, not a direct analogy, just an example that even though a sentence is grammatically correct it can still not make sense.
  A screen plays decoded data, it can show errors, the number of variables that can make it not work is huge and they all work at the same time. A cable has much fewer variables and they are all covered by error correction.


----------



## Shotor102

For CCs sake I will apologize as it was't supposed to be a personal attack.
Just like CC made an observation, I made one as-well. It just do happens to be more harsh sounding. 
But if I may be honest here, I find it insulting and personally offensive when someone who knows better, deliberately posts a derailing remark thats it's sole purpose is to undermine the previous posters overall position. It's called a red herring and we all know this.


Much like yourself here AC500, please don't get all self righteous on me here. You've offered you fair share of personal insults here and on the other thread, namely calling and strongly suggesting that some people flat out ignorant when they actually have legitimate reasons in doing and believing in their personal purchases. And your entire tone and mannerism of posting, I personally find offensive. Majority of the time when you don't agree with some statement, your reply post is degrading sarcastic and elitist in nature. Just because you found a way to offend people while flying under the 'policy' clauses radar, it doesn't mean you don't do the same thing. It's just in a different form.


----------



## Shotor102

lizardking1 said:


> No.
> "If analog cables can degrade the signal then how can a digital cable not degrade it?"
> It doesn't make sense either. Again, not a direct analogy, just an example that even though a sentence is grammatically correct it can still not make sense.
> A screen plays decoded data, it can show errors, the number of variables that can make it not work is huge and they all work at the same time. A cable has much fewer variables and they are all covered by error correction.




And are you telling me that HD tvs don't adress these possible errors in their design? Specifically discussing a decoded Digital signal? 

Again, I never denied the 100% argument. Obviously no two or three or four, etc.. tvs of the same model will scientifically perform within 100% accuracy to each other or to their ideal premise. That's a given for any product. But, that margine is so small, as when discussing tvs, in which by inherit nature is DISPLAY, attributing the 100% argument to that
Specific example just does not add up. 

It's really the same as stating that just because products aren't suppose to perform within 100% accuracy to each other, then any given small difference should be considered as such before investigating other more obvious reasons. 

The best example I can think of would be cars. Ac's argument is the same as measuring two Corvettes'' top speed and 0 to 100 off the line, and upon finding that one corvette's top speed is let's say 350kph while the the other is 370, and while one goes from 0-100 in 3.8 seconds while the other does this in 3 seconds flat. And this is what 20kph and a fraction of a second here...?

Would I be justified to claim that he difference between the corvettes is because one can't expect them to perform identically with 100% accuracy, and just accept it as part of the nature of the industry's standard?

What do you think?


----------



## kwkarth

*To ALL*
   
  Just remember that this thread is being watched.  If we feel that the arguments cross the line into personal attack territory, we will start deleting posts and issuing infractions.
   
  So please, for everyone's sake please keep things civil.  It's just the internet...


----------



## DaBomb77766

Shotor, are you absolutely sure that the two TVs you saw in that comparison had the exact same settings?  It would be pretty easy to, say, turn on game mode for one of them, which would reduce lag, or turn on image smoothing on another, which would make everything look smoother and less jerky.  The only way to know if these modes were on would be if you were to go right into the menus and check.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Please keep it civil lads


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> The best example I can think of would be cars. Ac's argument is the same as measuring two Corvettes'' top speed and 0 to 100 off the line, and upon finding that one corvette's top speed is let's say 350kph while the the other is 370, and while one goes from 0-100 in 3.8 seconds while the other does this in 3 seconds flat. And this is what 20kph and a fraction of a second here...?
> Would I be justified to claim that he difference between the corvettes is because one can't expect them to perform identically with 100% accuracy, and just accept it as part of the nature of the industry's standard?
> What do you think?


 

 Almost always the best analogies use cars, it's just something they have that applies to most things I guess.
  I'd say you can still have differences. We can actually follow your analogy perfectly in this case: you have 2 cars of the same model giving you different results (2 equal TVs, different display). The only difference are the tires (HDMI, not perfect because tires can actually impart a difference, but whatever). Logically, if you find differences and you only have 1 variable, that variable is causing the difference. However, what we're saying is that the car factory has a natural error associated that makes the usual difference between 2 same-model cars to have much more impact than changing the tires. This doesn't mean you can't expect 2 cars to perform the same, they're supposed to. Only that if you find differences between them it's normal to associate it with quality control. This is just something that happens, factories actually keep record of how much their products deviate one from the next, how much it would cost to reduce this change and wether it would compensate.
   
  Also, and I am not sure at all, this is merely me supposing, TVs have those variables I mentioned after the signal gets decoded from digital to analog. So while a HDMI cable can have interference and end up messing the signal, there's those awesomely complex correction systems ac mentioned that make sure it gets corrected. However it reaches the TV, gets converted and becomes an analog signal, for which you can't have a correction (at least not in a pratical manner), so any problems that may arise from there on stick with the signal.


----------



## Shotor102

Sorry DaBomb,

But that was the other poster. Forgot the name.
He/she discussed using two exact same models with different HDMI cables.

My scenario was different; same tv with different cables.


----------



## CC Lemon

First off, I'd like to mention that I didn't really take offense to anything said. I admit it was a rather stupid/pointless thing to be bothered by but that's just the kind of thing that happens to bother me at times. While it didn't really distort your meaning, it was an incorrect use of a common phrase. It would be like if you said "a penny saved is a penny pocketed" or something along those lines. Like I said, I know it's kind of stupid. I'm not offended by your comment and I don't think anyone needs to get in trouble. I know I've been a little less than polite at times, but this is a debate... that's occasionally part of the territory, right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I don't feel like going back to find my comment, but my intended meaning wasn't that you debating the HDMI cables ended the discussion. I believe it was at a point that you said it was pointless to debate further. Since you're the only one that has consistently debated for the idea that HDMI cables do make a difference, the debate comes to a halt when you stop providing input for that side.
   
  I'll agree that in most cases, the TV shouldn't have a noticeable difference in performance. I'd have to see a more detailed report of accepted variations to completely rule it out. If you happened to be comparing the "worst acceptable" to the best, it might be possible that there would be a visible difference. Like you said, there are a ton of other possible reasons for the differences seen and we don't have enough clarification to really know the cause. That's really the important part.
   
  I know I'm being a pain again, but the top speed example isn't necessarily a good example. Unless a car is aerodynamically limited, the power level will not affect the top speed. The gearing in the transmission, paired with the engine output speed (rpm), is responsible for the top speed. Like you said, the power of the car will affect how quickly you reach the top speed, but it shouldn't affect the top speed unless you have aerodynamic limits. Just kind of throwing that information out there for anyone curious, I guess.
   
  To address your point: There are differences in the way that the same production of cars will perform and it's kind of something that is just accepted unless it's a massive difference. One of the problems is proving it. Most power numbers are published as the output from the engine, so taking a measurement at the wheels (after drivetrain loss) is not the most accurate way to confirm the power claims of the manufacturer, as they will definitely be lower. Then you have to consider all the variables that can affect the power levels. Elevation, temperature and humidity are just a few environmental factors that can really impact the power produced. Also, there is variability in the dynos (device used for measuring power output, for those that might not be aware) and you can see some pretty huge differences from testing on one dyno and moving to another. The car I used to drive was rated at 232 hp (at the flywheel/engine output). A "strong" car would dyno in the 190-200 hp range (at the wheels). A typical dyno was more likely to be in the 170-190 range. At the end of the day, the skill of the driver can make a larger difference than those kind of power differences. Cars that *shoud* be faster are often beaten by "slower" cars because of bad drivers.
   
  To continue the car example: Comparing variability or effects of an HDMI cable to the potential differences a TV could cause would be like comparing a spark plug wire to an engine. Generally speaking, the spark plug wire connects to an ignition coil and a spark plug. If there is a proper connection, you get a spark. If not, no spark. Durability of the wire and the connectors, as well as any corrosion resistance can affect whether or not you have a proper connection, but the wire itself should not make a difference as long as it performs properly. A plug wire either makes the connection or it doesn't. An engine on the other hand, has tons of parts that could cause tons of different issues. If you're having engine trouble, it could be related to whether or not a plug wire is connected properly, but there are also a ton of other reasons you could be experience issues and all of those components also offer potential for variations in the way 2 cars will perform, even in new or good condition.


----------



## Shotor102

Yes, car analogies are almost always perfect for anything. 

That said, yes, I agree with your analogy.
But that wasn't the point I was making. In regards to the othe poster's scenario with 2 identical tv models, but with a different HDMI cable at the helm; 1 tv exhibited lag in either refresh rate or response time. The reason I sued the car analogy here is to emphasize the importanc of these specific issues that tv had. Simply this, yes the difference was small BUT noticeable. And these specs; like refresh rate and response time are key features in HDTVs. If you have one tv claims to have 120hz refresh rate, but actually never reaches 120 rather some number blow that, that IS an issue beyond the accepted -/+% margine. When a tv spec claims to be 3ms delay in response time, yet actually performs with a 6ms lag, that IS an issues beyond that accepted margine. Why? Because those are some of the key differences that manufacturers charge signifanct amounts for. I'm sorry, but to me, the 100% argument for this specific case, is like stating that it's okay for a 1080p tv not to display actual 1080p resolution, but rather something that's obviously higher than 720p and barely noticeable when compared to another identical model...

Yet, it's there. 
That's something that is not acceptable.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Sorry DaBomb,
> But that was the other poster. Forgot the name.
> He/she discussed using two exact same models with different HDMI cables.
> My scenario was different; same tv with different cables.


 

 Ah, sorry, I missed that.
   


  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Yes, car analogies are almost always perfect for anything.
> That said, yes, I agree with your analogy.
> But that wasn't the point I was making. In regards to the othe poster's scenario with 2 identical tv models, but with a different HDMI cable at the helm; 1 tv exhibited lag in either refresh rate or response time. The reason I sued the car analogy here is to emphasize the importanc of these specific issues that tv had. Simply this, yes the difference was small BUT noticeable. And these specs; like refresh rate and response time are key features in HDTVs. If you have one tv claims to have 120hz refresh rate, but actually never reaches 120 rather some number blow that, that IS an issue beyond the accepted -/+% margine. When a tv spec claims to be 3ms delay in response time, yet actually performs with a 6ms lag, that IS an issues beyond that accepted margine. Why? Because those are some of the key differences that manufacturers charge signifanct amounts for. I'm sorry, but to me, the 100% argument for this specific case, is like stating that it's okay for a 1080p tv not to display actual 1080p resolution, but rather something that's obviously higher than 720p and barely noticeable when compared to another identical model...
> Yet, it's there.
> That's something that is not acceptable.


 


  Well it is pretty much impossible for a TV that's supposed to be "true" 120Hz to refresh at a number lower than that, that's not how TVs work.  Maybe the timing would be off by a few nanoseconds, but that's pretty much the extent any defect can go.  Some "120Hz" TVs don't actually refresh at 120Hz though, they use magical shenanigans to create a similar, if slightly inferior, effect.
   
  Buuut that's kind of off-topic.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Ah, sorry, I missed that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Actually, that's perfectly on topic. If I understood you correctly, then you're saying that a true 120Hz refresh rate TV cannot produce a lower refrsh rate.
  And I presume that this is a standard to all TVs (from a reputable company, and not some CheapO knock offs)?  Thus, this would mean that any 2, 3, 4, 5 - 10, 20 identical model panels of 120Hz refresh, should perform with pretty much idnetically in that regard?   What about Response time, such as 3ms, or 6, or the slowest since 2007, 8ms?  Would same model panels perform pretty much identically to their standard spec ? 
   
  If the answer is yes, then I rest my case in regards to the scenario of the Two TVs with different HDMI cables.
   
  But, going back to that scenario, I don't believe the HDMI cables were the cause of what he/she saw. 
  After all, there was some information missing. Like what exact TV model, response time/refresh and viewing angle specs.
  Also, we weren't told what the source was. Was it a BD of a game in full 1080p 24, or was it a network broadcast ? And if so, was the source feeding to both TVs as many commercial outlests do? Or was each source connected individually to each tv?  And the stream itself, was it 720p? 1080i ? Because so far, no network streams full 1080p over the air. I hear sat might, but I'm not too sure about that.
   
  My guess here is that it was something to do with the source itself.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Actually, that's perfectly on topic. If I understood you correctly, then you're saying that a true 120Hz refresh rate TV cannot produce a lower refrsh rate.
> And I presume that this is a standard to all TVs (from a reputable company, and not some CheapO knock offs)?  Thus, this would mean that any 2, 3, 4, 5 - 10, 20 identical model panels of 120Hz refresh, should perform with pretty much idnetically in that regard?   What about Response time, such as 3ms, or 6, or the slowest since 2007, 8ms?  Would same model panels perform pretty much identically to their standard spec ?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then I rest my case in regards to the scenario of the Two TVs with different HDMI cables.
> ...


 


  Well while refresh rate shouldn't be a variable, I believe response time can be...I think someone said this earlier.
   
  Have you ever seen high-end headphones of the same model measured against different units of the same model before though?  For example:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3sn2312488.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3sn2312341.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3sn2312454.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3sn2312260.pdf
   
  Now, while some of the differences may just be environmental, since as you can see there is some variance in one model with multiple positions on the dummy head (the grey lines in the FR chart), it does seem to be a bit more than just that.  Keep in mind this is a $2000 headphone we're talking about here.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Well while refresh rate shouldn't be a variable, I believe response time can be...I think someone said this earlier.
> 
> Have you ever seen high-end headphones of the same model measured against different units of the same model before though?  For example:
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3sn2312488.pdf
> ...


 
   
  So, would you buy these headphones?
   
  Is this the nature of headphones in general ? Honestly I'm not sure.
   
  But if it's not, then this definitely turned me off from LCDs.


----------



## dorino

It is the nature of headphones in general. The LCD3's deviance from unit to unit is typical of headphones from 200 to 2000 dollars.


----------



## dorino

On the topic of televisions: LCDs are terrible pieces of technology when it comes to consistency. Two brand new, same model 2000 dollar HDTVs will be different in terms of color and brightness, even across their individual screens.
   
  LCD manufacturers (there are few - most TV manufacturers buy the LCD panels from another company) are notoriously bad at quality control and TV's suffer. Listed specifications on televisions are also far from reliable, and often times the difference between some statistics actual impact is not even perceivable. It's mostly marketing. 6-bit LCDs (like most consumer-level computer monitors, and most low end LCD TVs) are marketed by basically every company as displaying "16 million" colors, when in reality they're only capable of just over 262 thousand. Manufacturers use (often very noticeable) dithering to achieve the 16 million.
   
  A lot of 120hz televisions aren't truly 120hz - again, it's marketing.
   
  Response times? Ha. That's all basically ********, anyway. Even the slowest are faster than you can perceive with a 24fps feed (read: basically anything on a television). Response times in LCDs are only important when dealing with gaming monitors, and even then it's not something that's plainly visible.
   
  Backlights are another terrible part of LCDs when it comes to testing. Most LED backlights will illuminate either the edges or center of the screen brighter than the rest of the screen. Most CCFL backlights will illuminate splotches brighter than other areas. The quality control is very terrible, but the untrained eye doesn't see it as obviously as others.
   
  Then there's dead pixels, dead subpixels, stuck pixels/subpixels, etc., which manufacturers consider acceptable to a degree.
   
  For those reasons, there's basically no such thing as "2 identical" LCD televisions. Any objective testing with a television needs to be done on one television alone - If you used two TVs, the differences between two same-spec cables (if there was one! there isn't... ) would, in all likelihood, be more subtle than the differences between the two "identical" televisions.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





dorino said:


> On the topic of televisions: LCDs are terrible pieces of technology when it comes to consistency. Two brand new, same model 2000 dollar HDTVs will be different in terms of color and brightness, even across their individual screens.
> 
> LCD manufacturers (there are few - most TV manufacturers buy the LCD panels from another company) are notoriously bad at quality control and TV's suffer. Listed specifications on televisions are also far from reliable, and often times the difference between some statistics actual impact is not even perceivable. It's mostly marketing. 6-bit LCDs (like most consumer-level computer monitors, and most low end LCD TVs) are marketed by basically every company as displaying "16 million" colors, when in reality they're only capable of just over 262 thousand. Manufacturers use (often very noticeable) dithering to achieve the 16 million.
> 
> ...


 


  My LED sidelit TV unfortunately has big bright blotches all over the left side of the screen...it's very distracting.


----------



## Shotor102

Okay, so why is the response time a crock..
   
  And what about Plasma TVs?
   
  In addition, could you provide a proper source to the claims that LCD panels are terrible technology when it comes to consistency?


----------



## ac500

I honestly don't know how much debating TV quality control adds much to the cable discussion, since it's effectively addressing a single anecdotal case anyway. Of course, we can address and explain each single anecdotal case one by one, but it's going to fill these pages with a lot of mostly irrelevant subject material (like TV quality control) because all such claims of HDMI cables naturally involve contributing factors other than the HDMI cable, since as we have shown the HDMI cable does not make a difference.
   
  But I guess it doesn't matter to me. I'll try to monitor this thread and answer technical questions as best I know how (I cannot claim any technical knowledge of TV panel production though, other than the common knowledge that it's very inconsistent), but if we keep going off onto various side-topics regarding individual anecdotal cases, I'll probably miss a few hidden technical questions I don't find - just fyi.


----------



## Shotor102

Well let's not get all heated up over this.
   
  As our nice moderators stated earlier, this is just the internet, and this is just a discussion.
  At the end of the day, majority of us will still make choices based on personal experience, research and choices available to us. This is the reality of it.
   
  I would like to extend my apology to you ac500 for being overly harsh with my 'BS' statement earlier.  I honestly didn't realize just how much inconsistency LCD panels suffer from (including high end models).  That said, I do realize that certain fluctuations must occur with tvs, even with the same exact 2 models and size. And of course, notwithstanding that a lot of marketing gimmickry is involved, I still retain that certain Quality Control issues should be remained in-tact, while others can be forgiven. I guess that this is up to personal bias and opinion. But the way I consider it, image lag that causes 'stepping'/'shadowing' to an obvious point should not be evident when comparing two exact tv models. Given that it's a decent TV panel with a fairly decent to high ratings from a reputable company. And further, given that all source variables are controlled properly to avoid validity issues, that aspect shouldn't have that kind of obvious deviation.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Well let's not get all heated up over this.
> 
> As our nice moderators stated earlier, this is just the internet, and this is just a discussion.
> At the end of the day, majority of us will still make choices based on personal experience, research and choices available to us. This is the reality of it.
> ...


 


  Well ghosting in the image is caused by not turning on the image processing that most modern TVs come with...and some TVs are simply defective.  Image lag is caused by turning the image processing on.  But that doesn't really mean anything unless you're playing games, since HDMI (should) automatically sync the audio to the video.
   
  You're right though, people will still buy things based on their own personal experiences - which, I guess, is fine, but I personally wouldn't want to buy something if I know that it actually isn't making any physical difference and it's all in my mind.  If someone compares one HDMI cable to another and sees an obvious difference, whether they buy it or not is entirely up to them - but I wouldn't be the one buying one.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> Well ghosting in the image is caused by not turning on the image processing that most modern TVs come with...and some TVs are simply defective.  Image lag is caused by turning the image processing on.  But that doesn't really mean anything unless you're playing games, since HDMI (should) automatically sync the audio to the video.
> 
> You're right though, people will still buy things based on their own personal experiences - which, I guess, is fine, but I personally wouldn't want to buy something if I know that it actually isn't making any physical difference and it's all in my mind.  If someone compares one HDMI cable to another and sees an obvious difference, whether they buy it or not is entirely up to them - but I wouldn't be the one buying one.


 

 So let me ask you this hypothetical one:
   
  Supposedly you buy, just for the hell of it, two different HDMI cables, one for let's say $15 at Monoprice, and one for about $50 - $60 known brand name from Best Buy.  You come home and you are convinced you're seeing a difference (of any kind, lag, artifacts, shadowing, contrast, sharpness, brightness or whatever) You do the testing, the switch thing, try multiple different variables. Have someone do a blind, test and retest on you.  And literally exhaust all possible combinations of testing. And you do so for about two weeks, document your findings, time and day, conditions of lighting, your stress level, fatigue and such..
  And let's say that after two weeks of experimenting, you still see a difference, you're not sure which is better for you, but you do see a difference, although very minimal, it's still there. 
   
  What then?
   
  And please, no cop-out answer like 'well, it's impossible because science...'
   
  Give me an actual answer given that scenario.


----------



## ac500

Well, it's impossible because science... That's not a cop out. In fact, any other reply is the cop out because it avoids the "hard mathy stuff" people want to shy away from. But in realty, it's this "sciencey stuff" that made HDMI possible to begin with.
   
  In any case, in that scenario, you'd have to be VERY careful about controlling circumstances. In other words, you have to go to extremely careful precautions to make sure your blind tests are actually blind. Also, it doesn't matter how *long* you "still see a difference", but rather how many controlled tests you perform. In other words, you'd have to perform enough tests for the results to be statistically significant. In any case, a few dozen would be good enough to see some statistically significant results if there are any to detect (after 5 tests though, it's completely meaningless because not enough tests have been done). For example if 28 out of 30 times you can determine which HDMI cable is being used, then that would be fairly significant (if it was between 10 and 20 times out of 30, then it could more or less be due to random chance). I'd have to do an actual statistical hypothesis test calculation and derive confidence intervals etc. though to be sure. The reason it can't be anywhere near 15/30 is that the probability distribution of even completely random guesses will sometimes result in 20/30 correct guesses for example, and you need to ensure that it deviates significantly enough that it is statistically improbable that the results are due to chance. The more tests you do, the more reliable the results, but again due to the nature of random numbers you need to take into account statistical properties like variance to ensure your results are scientifically reliable. This is all basic statistics of course, unfortunately most details I've since forgotten since I don't work in experimental science. In any case, just having done "a few tests" and correctly guessing the correct HDMI cable is NOT scientific.
   
  Also, keep in mind it's EXTREMELY important for such tests that the environment and everything be very carefully controlled in such a way that you literally do not know which HDMI cable is being used, even indirectly. Believe it or not, one of the most common experimental 'lies' among beginners is "I did a blind test" when in reality what the person did is "I swapped stuff around and saw a difference, so I will say it was a blind test on the internet because I don't think I'm susceptible to placebo and nobody will know the difference anyway". I'm not saying anyone here is doing this necessarily, just that by the nature of the internet, just saying "I did a blind test and the results are 100% conclusive!!!" proves absolutely nothing. This is why science is so careful about careful controls, documenting everything about the testing environment, etc. This is the internet, so we need to be doubly careful.
   
  But yeah, it's not possible because science. HDMI cables don't matter, digital is digital as I've explained.
   
  In seriousness, it really is most productive to talk about the actual technical aspects because this is the only scientifically valid discussion in this thread. An actual carefully monitored and recorded study would be scientifically valid as well, but I doubt anyone is going to do a proper scientific study.
   
The reason no scientist does an actual experimental study to determine if HDMI makes a difference, is because any scientist proficient enough to know how to perform such a controlled study would also be educated to the point where he/she knows exactly why it would be a waste of time -- he/she would be educated to know enough about the technical intricacies of HDMI cables that making double-blind ABX studies is about as silly as trying to design a Jet Airliner by statistically studying people's opinions on airfoil designs.
   
  To be clear, I'm trying to explain that double blind type testing is generally done to measure statistical data about something so extraordinarily complex and non-understood that we have no other way of measuring it -- social interactions, politics, etc. All these things must be measured statistically because there is nothing else to do. HDMI and electronics etc. is not like that -- it's fully understood, because we designed it from the ground up. I don't know how else to hammer this concept into some people's brain but just repeatedly reiterate "WE BUILT IT - WE UNDERSTAND IT". I know it's very very hard for some people to comprehend that the technological "magic" is understood FULLY 100%, but this is what engineers do.
   
  I think there's some mass delusion (particularly prevalent in audiophile communities) that technology is some kind of natural "magic" that just happens, and that scientists and engineers study this magical sourcery and seek to understand it. There's this weird belief that technology somehow is magically sprouting from the ground and from trees, and that engineers are curious scientists who try to figure out how these computer chips sprouting out of the ground work. It doesn't work that way. Science is like this - you examine nature, and try to understand it, reverse engineer it, hypothesize models that may or may not fit it. Engineering is not like that. Engineering is where we take the science we firmly know to work, and apply it by designing and building things. When you design and build something, you understand how it works FULLY. I don't know how else to batter this into some people's thick skulls. We understand what we build... FULLY. Because we built it. It is not magic, it did not just come to be through nature -- it exists solely because this technology is the product of our imagination. _To say that we don't understand it is stupid and absurd simply because the very existence of the technology assumes that someone conceived it in their mind and therefore fully understands it._
   
  But anyway, if you want to do a scientifically valid test, by all means go ahead -- but you see, you're wasting your time, that's all. To those of us who actually understand the quantity being studied, the results of your statistical analysis are already known in advance. Don't let me stop you though, your study would be a helpful learning experience at least, even if it will be a waste of time.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> So let me ask you this hypothetical one:
> 
> Supposedly you buy, just for the hell of it, two different HDMI cables, one for let's say $15 at Monoprice, and one for about $50 - $60 known brand name from Best Buy.  You come home and you are convinced you're seeing a difference (of any kind, lag, artifacts, shadowing, contrast, sharpness, brightness or whatever) You do the testing, the switch thing, try multiple different variables. Have someone do a blind, test and retest on you.  And literally exhaust all possible combinations of testing. And you do so for about two weeks, document your findings, time and day, conditions of lighting, your stress level, fatigue and such..
> And let's say that after two weeks of experimenting, you still see a difference, you're not sure which is better for you, but you do see a difference, although very minimal, it's still there.
> ...


 


  Double blind testing is scientific - so yes, because of science, I would accept that the cable does make a difference and I would keep it.  However, if the differences go away after the double blind test, that is where I will draw the line - some may continue to argue in the face of science, but to say that the double blind test is false is to reach into the realm of pseudoscience.
   
  So yeah, if I can be convinced that the differences are real and testable (double blind tests are not anecdotal anymore, so it is a valid test) then I will admit that the cable was worth the extra dough (unless the differences were so incredibly minor for a massive amount of money - but $50-60 isn't a huge price to pay if it did in fact fix problems like lag and ghosting).


----------



## astrallite

A cheap cable might not be soldered correctly.


----------



## Magick Man

astrallite said:


> A cheap cable might not be soldered correctly.




Then it isn't a "spec" cable. I have $5 Monoprice HDMI cables, they work perfectly. In terms of performance, they're every bit as good as $1000 Audioquest.


----------



## CC Lemon

@shotor's question:
   
  I mostly agree with ac500's post, though it did kind of go a bit off the topic of what you were asking. It's basically what I've been saying this whole thread. If you can show consistent results of being able to accurately identify the different cables, then there's reason to believe there might actually be a difference. Your post is slightly vague since you only indicate being able to see a difference, but not specifically being able to identify which is better or any level of consistency. If I feel like I see a difference, but I don't know which is better and my preference switches back and forth between cables, then I probably would assume I'm imagining it. Accuracy and consistency would be needed for me to care about keeping the more expensive or "better" cable.
   
  Even if I was able to do it consistently, I'd like to see the test replicated with other people just to confirm the results and hopefully rule out anything that was missed in my test. I don't think anyone is set in the idea that nothing will ever possibly change their minds about HDMI not making a difference, but it would have to be some very solid evidence to cast any doubt on our (human/scientific) understanding of how HDMI and digital signals work.
  
  Quote: 





astrallite said:


> A cheap cable might not be soldered correctly.


 


  Cheap and reputable aren't necessarily conflicting concepts. I wouldn't say people should just run out and find the cheapest cable from any place they can find one because there might be issues with the construction of the cord. Monoprice offers rather good prices and quality products. A lot of cables are higher quality than a lot of the more expensive options. I haven't heard any bad experiences with monoprice and all of the cables I've purchased have been great. Just be a smart shopper. There's no reason to go out and buy an expensive cable, but that doesn't mean that all cheap cables will be a smart purchase either.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> So let me ask you this hypothetical one:
> 
> Supposedly you buy, just for the hell of it, two different HDMI cables, one for let's say $15 at Monoprice, and one for about $50 - $60 known brand name from Best Buy.  You come home and you are convinced you're seeing a difference (of any kind, lag, artifacts, shadowing, contrast, sharpness, brightness or whatever) You do the testing, the switch thing, try multiple different variables. Have someone do a blind, test and retest on you.  And literally exhaust all possible combinations of testing. And you do so for about two weeks, document your findings, time and day, conditions of lighting, your stress level, fatigue and such..
> And let's say that after two weeks of experimenting, you still see a difference, you're not sure which is better for you, but you do see a difference, although very minimal, it's still there.
> ...


 


 Good scenario. Well one of the cables consistently gives me a better image, which makes me happy, and I would keep it. I have no doubts either one cable is faulty or I'm just imagining it, either way unless it's a really bad Monoprice cable I suppose the difference is imaginary. Of course the blind tests screw things up, because how could it give consistent results? In that case, of like 30 blind tests giving, say, 80% preference for the 60$ cable, the only thing remaining is the other cable is faulty.


----------



## Somnambulist

Indeed, although what's perpetuated more is the idea that there _is_ some sort of scientific explanation behind this stuff, when it's basically just guff using fancy words. It's like homeopathy. :-/
   
  Quote: 





ac500 said:


> I think there's some mass delusion (particularly prevalent in audiophile communities) that technology is some kind of natural "magic" that just happens, and that scientists and engineers study this magical sourcery and seek to understand it. There's this weird belief that technology somehow is magically sprouting from the ground and from trees, and that engineers are curious scientists who try to figure out how these computer chips sprouting out of the ground work. It doesn't work that way. Science is like this - you examine nature, and try to understand it, reverse engineer it, hypothesize models that may or may not fit it. Engineering is not like that. Engineering is where we take the science we firmly know to work, and apply it by designing and building things. When you design and build something, you understand how it works FULLY. I don't know how else to batter this into some people's thick skulls. We understand what we build... FULLY. Because we built it. It is not magic, it did not just come to be through nature -- it exists solely because this technology is the product of our imagination. _To say that we don't understand it is stupid and absurd simply because the very existence of the technology assumes that someone conceived it in their mind and therefore fully understands it._


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Good scenario. Well one of the cables consistently gives me a better image, which makes me happy, and I would keep it. I have no doubts either one cable is faulty or I'm just imagining it, either way unless it's a really bad Monoprice cable I suppose the difference is imaginary. Of course the blind tests screw things up, because how could it give consistent results? In that case, of like 30 blind tests giving, say, 80% preference for the 60$ cable, the only thing remaining is the other cable is faulty.


 

 Okay, so you buy another 10 of those Monoprice cables, and 10 other of those brand name cables.  Do the same tests, and let's say, 30 blind tests and still see a difference.
   
  Hypothetically here, what then?


----------



## Shotor102

Also,
   
  Here's a question that I never fully got proper answer to.
   
  Why are HDMI cables shielded at all, let alone the longer ones? 
   
  I have my own understanding of the reasons, but I would like to be humored here.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Okay, so you buy another 10 of those Monoprice cables, and 10 other of those brand name cables.  Do the same tests, and let's say, 30 blind tests and still see a difference.
> 
> Hypothetically here, what then?


 


  Then it would mean that you're right, and that more expensive HDMI cables do make a difference.  But this is not the case.


  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Also,
> 
> Here's a question that I never fully got proper answer to.
> 
> ...


 


  They are shielded to reduce the number of errors to be as little as possible.  Once the number of transmission errors reaches a certain point the cable will no longer display a clean image, or won't display any image at all.  Some environments have a ton of EM interference, so shielding is necessary even on short runs.  However, the shielding most cheap cables are given is pretty much enough for most applications.


----------



## ac500

_> Why are HDMI cables shielded at all, let alone the longer ones? _
   
  I answered that in detail many pages back, don't you remember?
   
  Edit: Here it is for your reference: http://www.head-fi.org/t/595768/the-hdmi-cable-discussion/15#post_8149177


----------



## Shotor102

Okay, so just to refresh my memory here further.
   
  Shielding is done to make sure that no interference occurs. Otherwise, you all sorts of crap on your screen (which we discussed already).
   
  And of course, it could result with some signal that isn't too strong, or cluttered somehow.. or no signal at all.
   
   
  However, what happens in regards to the argument of 'there's either a signal, which produces the highest quality possible, or there isn't one' ?


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Okay, so just to refresh my memory here further.
> 
> Shielding is done to make sure that no interference occurs. Otherwise, you all sorts of crap on your screen (which we discussed already).
> 
> ...


 


  There is a certain margin of error that can be accepted.  If you look at the signal at the end with an oscilloscope, you will see that it is not a perfect square wave.  In order for the receiver at the end to tell whether the bit is a 1 or a 0, the signal needs to be close enough to an actual square - otherwise, the "box" you can put between the different bits on the visual graph will be closed off, and the receiver won't be able to read it.
   
  I'm not sure if I've done a very good job at explaining or not...but there are a few better explanations online somewhere if you care to look.


----------



## LizardKing1

But HDMI uses error correction, not error retrieval? So the image displayed, even if for just a picosecond, is not exactly the one sent. Don't throw me into the fire pit just yet, I'm not saying this is in any way noticeable, I'm just asking.


----------



## Somnambulist

I think ac500 covered that in post 12.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Okay, so just to refresh my memory here further.
> 
> Shielding is done to make sure that no interference occurs. Otherwise, you all sorts of crap on your screen (which we discussed already).
> 
> ...


 

 I don't think anyone is arguing that there is an absolutely perfect signal for every single to spec cable. Errors still happen but at a very small level that wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be noticeable once it makes it to the screen.
   
  The signal/no signal thing is also accounting for the TV to properly detect errors and decide when the cable has connectivity issues. If the image is being displayed, then the signal should be a proper signal. If it's not being displayed, a problem with the signal has been detected. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely no signal is making it through, but there has been enough of a problem to consider it not a proper connection.
   
  I don't believe anyone specifically addressed my understanding of the cable design earlier, so I'm going to assume that I have a proper understanding. The HDMI cable is designed to send the signal twice at the same time. One is the "original" signal and the other is the same signal but inverted. These signals are sent through different channels. The receiving device receives both of these signals and compares them in order to detect and correct for errors. If my understanding is correct, then I believe you would need the channels for both the original and inverted signal to be affected in exactly the same way at the exact same time. Otherwise, the interference would cause errors that would be detected and with enough errors the TV should indicate that there is a connectivity issue. The idea is that the TV should identify this issue before it affects the image in a way that would be noticeable.
   
  This still gets back to the point that you can simply measure the data being transmitted through the cables to compare. These high end cable manufacturers don't publish any numbers indicating that they produce less errors than other brands. They'll tell you why the cable is better, but don't offer any proof and the specifications don't indicate anything other than meeting the required specifications for HDMI standards.


----------



## Shotor102

This is all nice and fine..
   
  But it still doesn't answer my question.
   
  It seems that there are two statements going on here:
   
  One is Either there is a connection, and a proper signal is displayed, or it's not.
  The other is that with interference, there is still a signal, just distorted...   But there's still image displayed, just improperly ...
   
  If my understanding is correct here, the shielding is designed to address these interferences.
   
   
  Is this correct?


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> This is all nice and fine..
> 
> But it still doesn't answer my question.
> 
> ...


 

 Not distorted. According to ac500 the missing pixel is colored with an average of the other pixel's shading, which makes it virtually undetectable even if that mistake was there for more than a few thousandths of a second.
   
  As to answer your question, I don't know. In that scenario I see a difference, and yet I _know_ there's no scientific explanation for that difference to exist. And I see that difference consistently in several blind tests where the placebo variable is nullified. I don't think this scenario is possible, but for the sake of hypothetical questions, I guess I would have to assume something was going on, that indeed the cable was producing a different quality image. It's not that I trust my own sight more than science, but simply my observations through a blind test are as objective as possible.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Not distorted. According to ac500 the missing pixel is colored with an average of the other pixel's shading, which makes it virtually undetectable even if that mistake was there for more than a few thousandths of a second.
> 
> As to answer your question, I don't know. In that scenario I see a difference, and yet I _know_ there's no scientific explanation for that difference to exist. And I see that difference consistently in several blind tests where the placebo variable is nullified. I don't think this scenario is possible, but for the sake of hypothetical questions, I guess I would have to assume something was going on, that indeed the cable was producing a different quality image. It's not that I trust my own sight more than science, but simply my observations through a blind test are as objective as possible.


 
   
  Thanks for replying accordingly to my hypothetical question.  To be honest, that's all I really wanted to know in that regard.
  As I previously stated, on blind tests I've conducted in my scenario, with the Plasma TV I could tell which was the brand name cable, and which was the cheaper no name brand. But with LCD's it was a bit more tedious. I could still see something, but it wasn't as relevant. And since the quality itself and the difference was so insignificant, I never kept the cable. Trust me that I don't just buy expensive brand name products for the sake of it, or because company x or company y says this and that.  If this was true, I would be perusing the streets with Beats Studios or SkullCrushers or something like that. But I don't, I peruse the streets with my SRH440 monitors and look like a complete tool... But I don't care.
   
  As for ac500's post.. I've personally seen just how badly distorted poor HDMI connection or signal looks like.  Snowy/Artifacts/color bleeding/poor audio video sync/pixalation issues and blockiness..  and that's just to name a few...
   
  So my question, again, is the HDMI technology is as simple as 'Either there's a signal and it's properly displayed, or there's not' 
   
  Or
   
  Is there more to it than that.
   
  I would like a straight answer, no circular answers or beating behind the bush.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> This is all nice and fine..
> 
> But it still doesn't answer my question.
> 
> ...


 


  If you read again, I answered your question exactly as you wanted. To say there is either a signal or not is not correct. The end receiving the signal is _supposed_ to detect when the signal is problematic and should indicate that the cable is not properly connected before creating visible errors. Even with a faulty cable, there's a decent chance some signal is still making it from the source to the receiver unless the connection is just completely severed at some point. If there was absolutely no error detection or correction, then I'd imagine the TV's might still attempt to display something and would create a lot of the errors you described. I believe seeing these errors is a combination of the TV failing to react to them and the HDMI cable having issues with transmitting the signal.
   
  -There is likely always a signal unless a cable has completely failed
  -There is likely a physical connection with data being transmitted (assuming the cable is plugged in)
  -The TV is supposed to detect errors and correct for them or determine that there is a problem with the connection
  -This doesn't necessarily always happen, so it is possible that a faulty connection causes issues with the image
   
  So:
  -There is either an acceptable connection/signal or not. Whether or not the TV correctly detects and responds to it is not guaranteed.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> If you read again, I answered your question exactly as you wanted. To say there is either a signal or not is not correct. The end receiving the signal is _supposed_ to detect when the signal is problematic and should indicate that the cable is not properly connected before creating visible errors. Even with a faulty cable, there's a decent chance some signal is still making it from the source to the receiver unless the connection is just completely severed at some point. If there was absolutely no error detection or correction, then I'd imagine the TV's might still attempt to display something and would create a lot of the errors you described. I believe seeing these errors is a combination of the TV failing to react to them and the HDMI cable having issues with transmitting the signal.
> 
> -There is likely always a signal unless a cable has completely failed
> -There is likely a physical connection with data being transmitted (assuming the cable is plugged in)
> ...


 

 I see..
   
   
  Well, that's good enough for me.


----------



## minimus

You folks need to find something better to do than write long-form essays on HDMI cables...

I borrowed three HDMI cables from the Cable Company for free to try between my Perfect Wave DAC and Perfect Wave Transport, ranging in price from $200 to $500. I already own a PS Audio Perfect Wave HDMI cable. I thought the Wireworld Platinum Starlight might have had better bass than the free one that came with my Oppo, and the Harmonic Technology cable sounded a bit distorted. But the differences were minuscule. I do hear significant differences in interconnects, power cords, headphone cables, and vacuum tubes, so I am not a member of the "flat earth" society when it comes to such things. Based on my admittedly flawed experiment, I would agree that all HDMI cables sound nearly identical, regardless of price.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





minimus said:


> You folks need to find something better to do than write long-form essays on HDMI cables...
> I borrowed three HDMI cables from the Cable Company for free to try between my Perfect Wave DAC and Perfect Wave Transport, ranging in price from $200 to $500. I already own a PS Audio Perfect Wave HDMI cable. I thought the Wireworld Platinum Starlight might have had better bass than the free one that came with my Oppo, and the Harmonic Technology cable sounded a bit distorted. But the differences were minuscule. I do hear significant differences in interconnects, power cords, headphone cables, and vacuum tubes, so I am not a member of the "flat earth" society when it comes to such things. Based on my admittedly flawed experiment, I would agree that all HDMI cables sound nearly identical, regardless of price.


 
   
  Based of a 'flawed experiment'....  hmm...
   
  And you stated that they sound NEARLY identical, but not exactly Identical.... ?


----------



## Astrozombie

It's sad, this store called Fry's electronics had buckets full of Monster $40 HDMI cables on tables the other day,i guess they want to be more like best buy? $20 optical toslink, RCA connectors.......then i get to the speaker wire section and see RCA brand for reasonable prices and then on the bottom shelf non-descript generic speaker wire for cheap by the bushell. I was thinking "I bet that's the stuff real HT installers use, just won't tell anyone, they call it 'Super-HD cable', since it's cheap and all basically the same" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Somebody posted on another forum, this guy just tried dressing up his speaker cables with Emotiva heatshrink and color coded jackets with bi-amping and Jazz (which i'm told makes no real improvement either) and some other guy said "You can make it as fancy as you want on the outside, on the inside you have some cheap 18gauge wire" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




which made me wonder, how often do we know what's going on inside our components? Surely a lot of our goods have corners cut somewhere and use cheap components, but yet we think we can make things noticeably better with just one part of the component chain? On this speaker review some guy mentioned replacing the caps in a crossover to make the speakers sound better and he said "night and day" but how many of us would bother? Or know how to do something like that? 
   
  I also don't appreciate the lower picture settings they like to give the plasmas and questionable settings they use with the rear projection tvs, feeding it their crummy signal that's been split who knows how many times, it's quite sad, nobody knows how good those tvs can look in their own homes. But that's for another day...


----------



## astrallite

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Then it isn't a "spec" cable. I have $5 Monoprice HDMI cables, they work perfectly. In terms of performance, they're every bit as good as $1000 Audioquest.


 


  Funny enough, only my monoprice cables have gone bad. I've ordered 7 of from them and 3 had to be sent for warranty replacement because they weren't properly soldered to the tang and the signal kept dropping out.


----------



## SixthFall

Hey guys. I don't really subscribe to the whole its $300 so it must be a nicer hdmi cable thing, but what about optical cables? Does a higher price mean a nicer cable?


----------



## astrallite

Quote: 





sixthfall said:


> Hey guys. I don't really subscribe to the whole its $300 so it must be a nicer hdmi cable thing, but what about optical cables? Does a higher price mean a nicer cable?


 


  Most optical cables are plastic fiber. *Some* of the more expensive ones have glass fibers which are manufactured for industrial / telecommunication purposes. Depending on the density and number of glass fibers the cost of production goes up. Note glass toslink cables have almost no flexibility (or they would shatter obviously) so may not be practical for home use and are commercially used for long distance underground pipe runs. I had some custom made from 470-strand fiber glass and can't say I really heard a difference.
   
  That said a lot of expensive optical cables are nothing more than plastic cables with a huge brand mark up.


----------



## SixthFall

Quote: 





astrallite said:


> Most optical cables are plastic fiber. *Some* of the more expensive ones have glass fibers which are manufactured for industrial / telecommunication purposes. Depending on the density and number of glass fibers the cost of production goes up. Note glass toslink cables have almost no flexibility (or they would shatter obviously) so may not be practical for home use and are commercially used for long distance underground pipe runs. I had some custom made from 470-strand fiber glass and can't say I really heard a difference.
> 
> That said a lot of expensive optical cables are nothing more than plastic cables with a huge brand mark up.


 
  Hmm kind of thought as much, thnks.


----------



## AltairDusk

Quote: 





astrallite said:


> Funny enough, only my monoprice cables have gone bad. I've ordered 7 of from them and 3 had to be sent for warranty replacement because they weren't properly soldered to the tang and the signal kept dropping out.


 

 You could still order twice the amount of cables you need from Monoprice for less than you would pay buying them at any retail store though.  Personally I've never had any issues with their cables but the longest HDMI cable I've needed to use is only 8 feet.


----------



## astrallite

Quote: 





altairdusk said:


> You could still order twice the amount of cables you need from Monoprice for less than you would pay buying them at any retail store though.  Personally I've never had any issues with their cables but the longest HDMI cable I've needed to use is only 8 feet.


 


  I buy from Amazon now...cheaper than monoprice and gets here the 2nd day after I order.


----------



## Magick Man

astrallite said:


> Funny enough, only my monoprice cables have gone bad. I've ordered 7 of from them and 3 had to be sent for warranty replacement because they weren't properly soldered to the tang and the signal kept dropping out.




Then you buy a dozen, like I did. If one goes bad or has an issue, you replace it. That's still 100s of times cheaper.


----------



## Happy Camper

A headphone is a headphone, a vinyl needle is a vinyl needle, so why pay for the top end when they are all the same?

Cables (analog) are tone controls of the most minute adjustment. They balance a sound based on the components used. IMO 

Digital cables are much more in question as to having any observable influence but I've not had enough experience to make an absolute opinion. How can one make an analog adjustment to a digital signal?


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> A headphone is a headphone, a vinyl needle is a vinyl needle, so why pay for the top end when they are all the same?
> Cables (analog) are tone controls of the most minute adjustment. They balance a sound based on the components used. IMO
> Digital cables are much more in question as to having any observable influence but I've not had enough experience to make an absolute opinion. How can one make an analog adjustment to a digital signal?


 


  I'm not sure what you're trying to go for with your first line. If you're trying to compare analogue to digital, then I think it's clear why they aren't directly comparable.
   
  Analogue cables have more of a basis as to how they could affect a signal, though the extent is still a little questionable. This is something I, admittedly, have not done a whole lot of research on. As far as I can tell, your description is fairly accurate. They don't make massive differences, but can be used for fine tuning purposes. I definitely think that a lot of people fall victim to the placebo effect with analogue cables as well, but I think actual differences do play a role.
   
  Consistent information indicates that there should not be a difference between digital cables. There are claims of differences without consistency or questionable methods used to test differences. What do you mean with your comment about analogue adjustment to digital signal? Are you asking how you would make an adjustment, similar to an analogue signal's adjustment, to a digital signal? If so, then you would basically have to emulate it or control it from the signal source or have some sort of device alter the signal before it reaches the receiving device. Something like an EQ setting would be an example. You won't see a digital cable make a "shift" in sound or images. By shift, I mean something like a general change in bass or treble for sound or a change in stuff like contrast or colors for images.
   
  Thinking of digital audio seems easiest to me. When a digital signal is sent, it is just a stream of sampled audio data. This data is recorded as 0's and 1's. A cable isn't going to only affect something like bass, for example. When the digital signal is going through the cable, it would have to reinterpret the data in order for it to make a change like that. It's not something that could be changed by something like a change in just the materials.


----------



## Happy Camper

As to the initial statement, people think a cable is a cable and that there are no differences in performance. Do they also consider a baseline headphone to be the same as the flagship model using the same driver? Is the basic vinyl needle the same as the flagship model, they are both needles after all. The same analogy people use for cables you wouldn't need to spend any more than a basic headphone or a basic needle to get the same performance as the flagship models.

The statement about a digital cable making an analog adjustment to the sound is rubbish. The signal in the digital realm hasn't been converted yet so I don't see how a digital cable can influence what you hear in your headphones. It can't improve bass extension or unveil the highs.


----------



## Shotor102

I have an interesting analogous discussion here.
   
  How does Headphone Break-In/Burn-In philosophy compare to the HDMI discussion?
   
  Is it a myth, is it real, is it Placebo or is it only applied with specific headphones?


----------



## Magick Man

Break-in likely exists, but the changes are probably not as profound as many think.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> As to the initial statement, people think a cable is a cable and that there are no differences in performance. Do they also consider a baseline headphone to be the same as the flagship model using the same driver? Is the basic vinyl needle the same as the flagship model, they are both needles after all. The same analogy people use for cables you wouldn't need to spend any more than a basic headphone or a basic needle to get the same performance as the flagship models.


 


  That was kind of a point I was making. They aren't comparable products and there are reasons one could, and does, make a difference and the other does not matter.

  
  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I have an interesting analogous discussion here.
> 
> How does Headphone Break-In/Burn-In philosophy compare to the HDMI discussion?
> 
> Is it a myth, is it real, is it Placebo or is it only applied with specific headphones?


 

  
  First, I'd like to point out that they aren't exactly analogous. Similar to my above point, there is actually a proposed reason explaining burn-in and it's rooted in the basic understanding of how the product works. They are both debated topics, but the actual arguments are vastly different.
   
  I do believe that burn-in can occur, though I haven't seen enough evidence to conclusively say it does. I'm not sure how you'd reliably test it, short of having quite a few of the same headphone being measured over time. I do think that more happens with the listener than with the headphone. People will become accustomed to a headphone and, in a way, adapt their perceptions of it. It's another situation that needs to be tested with quantitative measures before we can really be sure. There's definitely a basis for the argument in support of burn-in, though it's hardly conclusive. I can't say I've personally noticed anything because I tend to assume my perception is changing, but I definitely think it's possible.
   
  The original idea is most likely not placebo. I'd assume it was first considered because someone was listening to a speaker or headphone and had changed perceptions of it over time. They probably didn't expect a change with time at first. Becoming accustomed to something new is definitely not a placebo. That said, the placebo definitely plays a role now. I'm not saying it's the sole factor, but it will definitely affect perceptions.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I have an interesting analogous discussion here.
> 
> How does Headphone Break-In/Burn-In philosophy compare to the HDMI discussion?
> 
> Is it a myth, is it real, is it Placebo or is it only applied with specific headphones?


 

 Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification. The real question should be: can the human audition notice it or not? I believe in most cases it cannot, the differences should be very small. But until someone can explain how a cellulose or some other synthetic polymer diaphragm can suffer pressure shifts in miliseconds for days and not acquire micro-crevices and dents, I think it's safe to assume a driver *driver* change over time. But like other users have mentioned, our hearing memory is really crappy compared with other amazing stuff the human body has, so it's much easier for us to believe we heard a difference than to actually notice it. And even in high-end models there's enough variation so that a burned-in model and a not burned-in have differences from the beginning that are not related to burn-in, and I think they might even in some cases surpass the differences a driver suffers from burn-in. So it's not at all a black-and-white subject.


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> As to the initial statement, people think a cable is a cable and that there are no differences in performance. Do they also consider a baseline headphone to be the same as the flagship model using the same driver? Is the basic vinyl needle the same as the flagship model, they are both needles after all. The same analogy people use for cables you wouldn't need to spend any more than a basic headphone or a basic needle to get the same performance as the flagship models.
> The statement about a digital cable making an analog adjustment to the sound is rubbish. The signal in the digital realm hasn't been converted yet so I don't see how a digital cable can influence what you hear in your headphones. It can't improve bass extension or unveil the highs.


 

 I don't understand. Are you saying there are differences in analog cable performances? Of course, if you consider like normal copper vs OCC copper, or better yet, vs OCC silver. Can humans perceive those differences in headphones? Definitely not as much as they say, and probably not enough for most to pass double-blind tests even with high-end headphones.
   
  Now what puzzles me is the analogy. Are you saying that because there are differences in needles or headphones with different enclosures, there is a comparable number of differences in cables? Because I don't even know where to start.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





magick man said:


> Break-in likely exists, but the changes are probably not as profound as many think.


 

 in all honesty - I have noticed break-in with EVERY SINGLE Dynamic
  Not with BA's - apart from me getting used to it - aka: brain burn-in.
   
  I don't really have to prove how burn-in changes. And it really isn't psychological.
  Honestly - listen to TFTA 1XB's out the box, then listen to them after 50hrs.
  I could list all my earphones I've heard that have changed with burn-in...


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I have an interesting analogous discussion here.
> 
> How does Headphone Break-In/Burn-In philosophy compare to the HDMI discussion?
> 
> Is it a myth, is it real, is it Placebo or is it only applied with specific headphones?


 

 I find it real - but also mental, not placebo.
  Placebo to me is like trying to believe something is better, but it never was in the first place.
  Brain-burn-in or psychological burn-in - exists with anything - including driving a car.
  At firs you might think its very hard to drive - 1 month later you find yourself drifting around corners -> just takes getting used to.
   
  In actual burn-in - as in not mentally - If you gave me as said above, 2 DD's that iv'e heard, blind testing one being burnt in, the other not - I'm guaranteed I'll find differences.
  The fact I use guaranteed is that I'm so sure I'll hear a difference that I don't even have to "explain it"
   


  Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification. The real question should be: can the human audition notice it or not? I believe in most cases it cannot, the differences should be very small. But until someone can explain how a cellulose or some other synthetic polymer diaphragm can suffer pressure shifts in miliseconds for days and not acquire micro-crevices and dents, I think it's safe to assume a driver *driver* change over time. But like other users have mentioned, our hearing memory is really crappy compared with other amazing stuff the human body has, so it's much easier for us to believe we heard a difference than to actually notice it. And even in high-end models there's enough variation so that a burned-in model and a not burned-in have differences from the beginning that are not related to burn-in, and I think they might even in some cases surpass the differences a driver suffers from burn-in. So it's not at all a black-and-white subject.


 

 I'm no physicist, neither am i that go by science or anything like that.
  I believe what I hear/experience.
  If I hear the IE8's being rubbish, then that is what I go by, for their range of products. Doesn't mean because of the hype on head-fi i should be lead to believe they are good or bad.
   


  Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I don't understand. Are you saying there are differences in analog cable performances? Of course, if you consider like normal copper vs OCC copper, or better yet, vs OCC silver. Can humans perceive those differences in headphones? Definitely not as much as they say, and probably not enough for most to pass double-blind tests even with high-end headphones.
> 
> Now what puzzles me is the analogy. Are you saying that because there are differences in needles or headphones with different enclosures, there is a comparable number of differences in cables? Because I don't even know where to start.


 
  Well I would love to test or see someone actually telling the difference between a silver and copper cable.
  I don't find its THAT much of a difference - even from stock to custom cable.
   
  I've still yet to understand people spending hundreds or even thousands on audio cables.
   
  Of course length etc matters...but really...for a 1m cable paying over $200?
 Then those people say the HDMI guys who buy expensive cables are not smart...


----------



## ac500

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> As to the initial statement, people think a cable is a cable and that there are no differences in performance. Do they also consider a baseline headphone to be the same as the flagship model using the same driver? Is the basic vinyl needle the same as the flagship model, they are both needles after all. The same analogy people use for cables you wouldn't need to spend any more than a basic headphone or a basic needle to get the same performance as the flagship models.
> The statement about a digital cable making an analog adjustment to the sound is rubbish. The signal in the digital realm hasn't been converted yet so I don't see how a digital cable can influence what you hear in your headphones. It can't improve bass extension or unveil the highs.


 
   
   
  So basically you're saying that if there's a difference in headphones or vinyl needles, there must be a difference in digital cables too? That makes absolutely no sense. Just being different or having a different price means nothing inherently unless you understand in what way it's different, or analyze the overall perception with ABX testing. I'm an advocate of actually understanding the technology, but the reality is not many people here will I suppose. I did try to explain my best though _so if you actually aren't lazy and are willing to read my posts a few pages back_ I explain exactly why it's NOT like differing quality headphones, etc.
   
   
  Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Good one. I don't think anyone who's been in a physics class argues burn-in occurs. Although people like to argue in terms of "burn-in happens or not", that's an oversimplification.


 
   
  That's a good way of explaining it, and this actually applies to analog cables as well. Any physicist or electrical engineer will tell you that different metals and cable configurations etc. will result in a different effective capacitance and inductance that results from the wire (at least from a very simplified model of how it works). What this means in theory is it does modify the frequency spectrum somewhat (everything has limited bandwidth; nothing is perfect in the analog world), but the question is whether this is even remotely within human hearing range to even begin to matter.
   
  As I understand it (and analogue design isn't my specialty), headphone cables should be providing much more than 22khz bandwidth -- I'd suspect gigahertz or more would be more common on a high quality wire (it's not like these wires are miles long) - literally millions of times more than you need. For perspective, even assuming your headphones can respond to 50khz (even though your ears can't), I doubt there's any wire that doesn't easily exceed that anyway.
   
  Let me just make this clear. Saying that some cable cuts off frequencies at frequency X gigahertz does NOT in any way impact the frequencies below like 22 khz. To say otherwise is like saying "WHAT? The speed limit here is 100,000,000,000 miles per hour? This is unfair! Now I can't drive at 55 MPH properly. Don't give me your 'scientific mumbo jumbo' about it not effecting my speed, _it's a speed limit therefore it must limit my speed, right!_ I don't care what science says, I'm gonna find a road with a higher speed limit so I can PROPERLY enjoy driving at 55 MPH." Do you see how silly that sounds?
   
  If I was an audiophile scammer/snakeoil company though, I'd do it *right*: I'd build a cable that contains a tiny little capacitor which would absolutely and measurably change the frequency spectrum. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.


----------



## srivas95

I use the one I got for free with My PS3


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> A cable that contains a tiny little capacitor. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.


 


  I've been looking for a new cable and this sound exactly like what I want. Where can I get one?


----------



## Pomp

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> If I was an audiophile scammer/snakeoil company though, I'd do it *right*: I'd build a cable that contains a tiny little capacitor which would absolutely and measurably change the frequency spectrum. Basically I'd make it act as an analogue equalizer, reducing treble or whatever. Then just make up a big technobabble spiel about scalar waves and the crystal harmonics that induce magic fairy love bubbles into the audio bit stream or something, paint it a unique color, and sell it for $100,000 a piece.


 


   
  Make sure it looks this impressive, important, and expensive though.


----------



## Happy Camper

ac500 said:


> So basically you're saying that if there's a difference in headphones or vinyl needles, there must be a difference in digital cables too? That makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> I am saying that analog cables do have a small but noticeable difference in sound. I use the analogy that basic devices and flagship devices do have some differences in sound so why not analog cables.
> 
> Digital cables, on the other hand, will not have an impact on analog sound.


----------



## Shotor102

Wow...
   
  Well, the main reason why I find the HDMI and the Break-In discussions analogous is because that both have the philosophical aspect of it that claims of a difference and effect, while the scientific approach claims otherwise.  Note that there is no scientific backing for Break-in for headphones and is largely regarded as a myth or wishfull perception. Since we've established that headphones sound actually fluctuates from one to another, including in higher end models, such philosophy as Break-In is both hard to prove and disprove all at the same time. 
   
  I remember when I initially bought my Sony XB500's, I was asking the salesperson what's the estimated break-in period on these, and he actually stated that all Sony headphones are pre-broken-in.
   
  Interesting discussion either way.   I know this much, I have my Shures for almost a year now, and I love them more and more, and could actually swear that they sound better than when I initially got them.. But when I try to actually pin-point at which aspect, I find myself at halt.. simply because there really isn't anything in particular that is better. They are as clear, well defined, balanced and neutral as they used to be at the beginning..


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> I remember when I initially bought my Sony XB500's, I was asking the salesperson what's the estimated break-in period on these, and he actually stated that all Sony headphones are pre-broken-in.
> 
> Interesting discussion either way.   I know this much, I have my Shures for almost a year now, and I love them more and more, and could actually swear that they sound better than when I initially got them.. But when I try to actually pin-point at which aspect, I find myself at halt.. simply because there really isn't anything in particular that is better. They are as clear, well defined, balanced and neutral as they used to be at the beginning..


 
   
  I could EASILY tell you how my XB700's changed, along with the C710's, the C751's, the TFTA's, the MTPG's - list goes on.


----------



## ac500

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Note that there is no scientific backing for Break-in for headphones and is largely regarded as a myth or wishfull perception. Since we've established that headphones sound actually fluctuates from one to another, including in higher end models, such philosophy as Break-In is both hard to prove and disprove all at the same time.


 
   
  No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.
   
  One thing to note is that there is definitely an _additional_ psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.
> 
> One thing to note is that there is definitely an _additional_ psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.


 
   

[size=medium] _pla·ce·bo_[size=smaller]/pləˈsēbō/[/size][/size]   
 [size=small] 
 Noun: 
 
 A harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.
 A substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
 
 
 [/size]
   
  Placebo is not the same as brain-burn in and getting used to.
  I got confused of you guys constantly using the term, that I even though it meant something else.
  Looked it up again just to be sure.
   
  having you getting used to the sound sig - is vastly different than me saying: "these should be good, thus they are"


----------



## ac500

I'm pretty sure the general principle is the same, but that's true that placebo is generally used in a medical concept. "Confirmation bias" as an alternate for example doesn't fully explain it though, but it's related to both that and placebo. The effect described here we see in many things, and it's very real, particularly in audio. The point is more about communicating this concept than making sure our usage of the term "placebo" is 100% correct, and I think it's pretty well understood what is meant when "placebo" is said here.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> I'm pretty sure the general principle is the same, but that's true that placebo is generally used in a medical concept. "Confirmation bias" as an alternate for example doesn't fully explain it though, but it's related to both that and placebo. The effect described here we see in many things, and it's very real, particularly in audio. The point is more about communicating this concept than making sure our usage of the term "placebo" is 100% correct, and I think it's pretty well understood what is meant when "placebo" is said here.


 

 ok 
 I'm just stating that brain-burn in, is difference from placebo that you would get from feeling you ahve a better cable, because u paid more for it.
   
  So:
 Placebo being: I bought £500 earphones, they have to sound better, and they do!!!
 When in fact they are just £50 drivers with a £500 price-tag -> monster
   
  Cable:
 I bought this Monster cable £100 wire - it has to be better than that £4 amazon one.
  When in fact it isn't (as we have been discussing)
   
   
  HOWEVER:
 Burn-in, has nothing to do with placebo.
  People who don't believe in it will say:
 You just got used to the sound signature, nothing has changed physically, no coils have changed etc
   
  People who believe in burn-in:
 I feel that the coils etc after being used, have been now getting used to the music I play, and thus sound different.
   
  using placebo for burn-in is wrong - at least I feel that way.


----------



## moj0

When  I buy HDMI cable, I go to the big supermarkets and buy the most inexpensive one most probably made in China. Never pay more or else you're a jackass.
  One more thing - HDMI cables will work with HDMI version 1.3, 1.4 etc. so no need to look for something that states 1.4 to use in your 1.4 devices - got the idea yes? Not applicable for example to USB 2 and 3 - only HDMI.
  Thumbs up if you feel the same way about HDMI cables!


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





moj0 said:


> When  I buy HDMI cable, I go to the big supermarkets and buy the most inexpensive one most probably made in China. Never pay more or else you're a jackass.
> One more thing - HDMI cables will work with HDMI version 1.3, 1.4 etc. so no need to look for something that states 1.4 to use in your 1.4 devices - got the idea yes? Not applicable to USB 2 and 3 - only HDMI.


 

 that's a little misleading/false
   
  1.4 HDMI transfers a 3D signal.
  I don't think 1.3 transfers a 3D signal.
   
  And paying a little more for a nicely "braided cable" + gold jack isn't bad - as in £10 worth of cable, but agreed nothing more than that.


----------



## moj0

@ Totally Dubbed, you are correct. TVs and Bluray players have specs such as 1.3, 1.4 etc. If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4 for example, you could still use your "old" HDMI cable you used with your HDMI 1.3 TV and player and have 1.4 goodies like 3D etc. That's what I was saying - about the cable. So next time you see an HDMI cable having Bluray 3D stickers and a bigger price you know you're not going to be fooled.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





moj0 said:


> @ Totally Dubbed, you are correct. TVs and Bluray players have specs such as 1.3, 1.4 etc. If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4 for example, you could still use your "old" HDMI cable you used with your HDMI 1.3 TV and player. That's what I was saying - about the cable.


 

 yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol 
   
  Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)


----------



## moj0

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol
> 
> Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)


 

 Dude, did you read what I wrote? Read it again so that it sinks in.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





moj0 said:


> Dude, did you read what I wrote? Read it again so that it sinks in.


 
  No need to be rude 
  
  And in fact it doesn't even make sense:

    


> If you upgrade your TV and Bluray player from 1.3 to 1.4


 
   
  I know what you mean - but your getting confused then accusing/insulting me of not reading lol


----------



## moj0

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> No need to be rude
> 
> And in fact it doesn't even make sense:
> 
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> yes of course-  but if you had a 3D tv with a 3d blueray, then you wouldn't be able to use ur good old 1.3 cable to play that 3d film, avatar you just bought - for example lol
> 
> Well anyway 1.4 cables are just £1-2 extra over 1.3b (on ebay)


 
  It's rude to ignore what someone says completely and stay fixated on your own opinion, rather than question yourself about what the truth of the matter is.
  Here's a link to confirm what I'm saying but you seem like you don't understand.
  About HDMI cables: "all HDMI products cannot make any reference to HDMI version numbers."
  "High speed" cable is all that's required to watch 3D Bluray. High Speed cables have been on the market since the PS3 came out like 5 years ago - which is my memory bookmark.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





moj0 said:


> It's rude to ignore what someone says completely and stay fixated on your own opinion, rather than question yourself about what the truth of the matter is.
> Here's a link to confirm what I'm saying but you seem like you don't understand.
> About HDMI cables: "all HDMI products cannot make any reference to HDMI version numbers."
> "High speed" cable is all that's required to watch 3D Bluray. High Speed cables have been on the market since the PS3 came out like 5 years ago - which is my memory bookmark.


 
   
  I'm not ignoring what you have said - but what you are saying is false (at least this is my assumption, as I've worked for LG  )
  It's not an opinion its a fact lol.
   
  Also, as said above, please don't be rude.
   
  EDIT:
 Some links for you:
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-hdmi-1-3-and-1-4/
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4
   
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/3d.aspx


----------



## moj0

Yeah there are plenty of spec changes between version 1.3 and 1.4 devices. Talking about cables, I can still use a 3 year old HDMI cable to watch (1.4) 3D bluray.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





moj0 said:


> Yeah there are plenty of spec changes between version 1.3 and 1.4 devices. Talking about cables, I can still use a 3 year old HDMI cable to watch (1.4) 3D bluray.


 

 Well "plenty" more like higher res support and better 3D capabilities


----------



## CC Lemon

Just wanted to add a bit about placebo (as if that hasn't be discussed enough)...
   
  Though ac500's post wasn't describing placebo, he is correct in mentioning it as something that could have an effect. Since burn-in is a well known idea, many will expect results which will have an effect on their perceptions. Getting used to the headphones definitely has an effect and it's possible that someone is also experiencing a placebo effect, if they had been exposed to the idea of burn-in. Of course, all of that would be in addition to any actual changes.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> No, not only is break-in for headphones scientifically proven (at least loosely, to my satisfaction by Tyll's double-blind tests AND measurements), but it's understood why this would be. Now I'm not a mechanical engineer / physicist, but from the very limited theory I know, there's no reason that a resonating semimechanical mechanism won't change its characteristics over time. In fact I'm pretty sure it's inevitable, and a big problem for production (because they'll want to reduce this). The question is, how good of a job has production done in making sure any "break in" has settled, before shipping? I'm sure it's different for every headphone, but what is no longer argued is that break-in exists (I don't think anyone is arguing against it?) because Tyll has proven it with double-blind testing AND with measurements.
> 
> One thing to note is that there is definitely an _additional_ psychological component to many things, which means that even though break-in is real, there's an additional placebo effect on top of that. That's just the way the human brain works. I wish some of you people would stop trying to say placebo doesn't effect you, sorry to say it's just not true.


 

 Actually, I have yet to see even one article that consistently shows that Break-In actually exists or works the way it is described to; being a drastic change in sound.  If you have a link to an article or some empirically published study in regards, I would love to read it and see if I can pick any holes in it.  Just as there are 'scientific' arguments from engineering standpoint that Break-In exists and works, there are 'Scientific' arguments from engineering standpoint that it simply does not, but rather a matter of perception. 
   
   
   Here's an article that elaborates on this pretty well.
   
http://headphonebreakin.blogspot.ca/
   
   
  As for the Placebo effect.  Once again, I urge you to conduct more research on what Placebo entails exactly and on what properties and grounds it is actually proven efficient, and on which it does not.  I've discussed this with Doctors, M.D.s, Psychologists to name a few, and the notion is fairly obvious; in order for a Placebo to work and be effective, two things must occur:
   
  1. Deception
  and/or
  2. The Mind deceiving itself  -  This is more or less similar to the concept of the movie Inception. The person is somehow being introduced to some notion, and the subconscious automatically draws an idea from that notion.
   
  And that's about it.  And yes, Placebo is real, and yes, many people are affected by it and are unaware. However, asides from the ethical implications of its use, therapists and M.D.s don't like using it because it has potential limited effectiveness; thus, it is solely based on a state of mind which by its nature is prone to change and being unpredictable.


----------



## CC Lemon

The article you posted actually kind of supports the idea that break-in exists. Not definitively, but it shows more support than doubt.
   
  Here's the article ac500 was referring to: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
   
  By no means a perfect test, but it's somewhat compelling for further investigation.
   
  Here's the subjective test they did: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/testing-audibility-break-effects
   
  In theory and from the little evidence we have, there is reason to believe that break-in is possible. There is a proposed cause and some results that support the idea. I haven't really seen any proposed explanations against the idea that the mechanical movement will be affected with use over time and no evidence that suggests that there is no difference over time.
   
  Arguing semantics is missing the point. He used the term placebo incorrectly. The meaning should have been understood. There are likely psychological effects that also contribute to changed perceptions of the sound over time. As I explained, placebo is still a possible contributing factor.


----------



## LizardKing1

Well the test was pretty good. You could see a trend in the FR variation, except for the 20 hour measurement, so I'd say you can draw some conclusions from that test - break-in did happen. If it the differences were just from driver placement in regards to the microphone, the curves wouldn't align that well. But since you don't even get to a 1dB change, I think saying it's a very obvious night-and-day difference is excessive.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Oh well be it proved or not proved.
  Which dynamic drivers have u guys owned?
  And if they correspond to some I've owned - I can tell you that break-in or whatever you want to call it changed the sound sig.
  Not because I was getting used to it - as I was A/Bing
   
  For example:
 TFTA 1V vs TFTA 1XB - almost the same sound sig - one has less bass than the other.
  One was broken in the other not - I could hear the difference A/Bing
  Has anyone ever done that?
   
  EDIT:
 ANd I also don't find the burn-in effect as present in headphones.
  Generally there is a very SLIGHT difference in headphones - but when it comes to earphones - that's another story.
  I found that I've gotten used tot he D2K's sound sig, rather than feeling they were burned-in.
  The sound sig "changed" but I find I got used to the sound - instead of anything really changing.
   
  When I put earphones on - not only does the sound sig get more familiar to me:
 ie coming from d2k's and putting on the mg7's
  But the initial sound i could hear fromt he denon c710's for example vs what they sounded like 20hrs later was DRASTICALLY different.
  C710 description out the box: And I'm not joking here (I came fromt he C751's):
 -Bass uncontrolled
  -Bass non very present
  -Bass sounded almost like there was a problem with the driver
  -Very sibilant
  -Forward mids
   
  After 20-50hrs:
 -Less sibilant
  -Better highs
  -Bass unbelievably punchy and accurate
  -Soundstage opening up
   
  What did it for me, and summarised burn-in to its fullest effect was how the bass had changed.
  Meanwhile, throughout the 20hrs of initial burn-in i was re-visiting my C751's, which sounded better.
  After burn in, the C710's beat the 751's hands-down.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> The article you posted actually kind of supports the idea that break-in exists. Not definitively, but it shows more support than doubt.
> 
> Here's the article ac500 was referring to: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break
> 
> ...


 
   
  Here's the thing, my argument is never stating 'Breaking does not exist', rather that 'any evidence is still very much inconsistent to draw conclusive summation'. Which is why I found it a bit analogous to the HDMI discussion. Although the test itself and the nature and design/engineering behind speakers and headphones tends to lead to stronger presumption of break-in properties/hypotheses, it is still unporven without a shadow of a doubt. 
   
  Personally I don't really fall into any camp. When I buy headphones I do treat them to the Break-In process as much as I can, but to be honest with you, I have yet to been able to conclude audible change; or at least not the one described as per Break-In audible change.  Clearly some manufacturers suggest break in period, but some others don't.  Also, it is commonly known that it is very unhealthy to run speakers or headphones at blasting volumes right off the bat, rather gradually..  Not sure how much this aspect supports break in, but it certainly hints of flexibility within the driver itself and adaptation to abuse and usage. 
   
  As for subjective blind tests, even if done properly, with Double-Blind standards, ruling out Placebo effect, conducting multiple experiments via Between Subjects design and Within designs and applying every possible balancing method like Latin Square and such... We are still dealing with technology that apparently produces inconsistent performance within the said products. As already established, even with the same model from the same make (high end), the Sound and FR still fluctuates.  Even if you get 2, 3, or even 10 headphones that are measured the same fresh out of the box, there is still no telling how they would respond with usage and how they will differ along the way.  Yes, one can conduct intermittent measuring every so and so hours just like in the cited link, but what about the hours in between? That is still not measured. And even if you use the 'Best Guess' Method (within a marginal range), remember that anything within that marginal range could also be significant and meaningful in terms of sound and how one may hear those differences.
   
  As for the Placebo, I wasn't arguing semantics. I was just responding to the comment ac500 made in regards that people should stop denying being under or affected by Placebo. 
  Yes, we all know Placebo exists and real, but regardless of that fact, it is still a mental state of mind, and naturally some people are more prone to it, while others are simply not. I'm not suggesting immunity of some sort, but while Placebo effect could be easily achieved and proved, realistically it doesn't affect people that quickly and that drastically; at least not to the levels ac500 seems to suggest.  
   
  Please remember, again, that for Placebo effect to occur, deception of the mental state of mind has to occur, and majority of the time, by the researcher.
  Also, please don't confuse Demand Characteristics with Placebo, which sometimes is the case with experiments and reasearch.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Eighteen pages and it is now time for some test results -
   
  C-net on there being no difference between HDMI cables

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20056502-1/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/

 Test of HDMI cables

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1282699/hdmi-investigated-are-expensive-cables-a-scam/3

 Another test with video games

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi

 One with lots of cables

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/hdmi-cable-testing-results
   
  In conclusion
   
  1 - HDMI either works or it does not. By not working that means pixelating, ghosting or lines appearing.
   
  2 - length matters and some cables will not work at shorter lengths than others
   
  3 - cost of cable has little influence on how long a cable can be before it stops working
   
  4 - comparison tests find little to no difference between cables of any price and any difference that is supposedly seen again is not reflected in the price of the cable.
   
  I bought a £6 ThatCable HDMI off eBay after reading the above test results. Others may make a different decision, its up to them.


----------



## Shotor102

Well now I'm totally convinced.


----------



## stevenswall

^Me too. I used to not think that cables made a difference, and now I realize they don't make a difference... what was I thinking? Oh, that's right, _logically_.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





stevenswall said:


> ^Me too. I used to not think that cables made a difference, and now I realize they don't make a difference... what was I thinking? Oh, that's right, _logically_.


 

 haha


----------



## CC Lemon

Harsh... but funny.


----------



## Stormfriend

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1282699/hdmi-investigated-are-expensive-cables-a-scam/3


 
   
  I thought this was amusing:
   
*PROBLEMS WITH TESTING*
  Inevitably, we encountered a few problems with our tests. The most frustrating one was that the two PlayStation 3 consoles exhibited subtly different colours (we definitively tracked this down to the consoles and not the TVs, Blu-ray discs or cables). However, the difference was subtle enough that only two of our eight testers commented on it. One chose TV A in all four video tests, citing "stronger/better colours". The other noted that TV A seemed warmer, but was unable to say that one was better than the other in any of the tests. Of the remaining eight people, four found no difference between the TVs in any of the tests, while the other four's opinions changed from test to test. As such, while this anomaly was certainly less than ideal, it didn't necessarily spoil the results.
   
   
  So doing blind A/B tests, even when they definitively identified a difference between two pieces of hardware most of those doing the testing didn't even notice it!


----------



## LizardKing1

Ironic, isn't it? People pay huge amounts of money, worrying about noticing differences that don't exist and they don't even notice the ones that do exist.


----------



## Currawong

You can already see way too much detail with large screens as it is -- I don't want to see the pits in the presenter's face when they do a close up, so even if cables did improve resolution somehow, I wouldn't want it!


----------



## Magick Man

Yeah, our main local news station just moved to HD, seeing the makeup goofs and pimples on the anchors can be distracting. "Wow, the weather guy's eyes are really bloodshot and dark today, looks like he had a rough night".


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





currawong said:


> You can already see way too much detail with large screens as it is -- I don't want to see the pits in the presenter's face when they do a close up, so even if cables did improve resolution somehow, I wouldn't want it!


 

 I actually find it the opposite.
  Smaller screens tend to look better due to the 1080p being on a 20" - meaning from close up, physically, they look better, than a 50" at close up.
   
  Take the iPad3 for example, and its resolution.
   


  Quote: 





magick man said:


> Yeah, our main local news station just moved to HD, seeing the makeup goofs and pimples on the anchors can be distracting. "Wow, the weather guy's eyes are really bloodshot and dark today, looks like he had a rough night".


 

 hahah


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> iPad3


 


  It's "the new iPad", not the iPad 3!!!!!!
   
  (I have an unreasonable level of hate for their naming patterns... iPhone -> iPhone 3g -> 3GS -> 4 -> 4S. iPad -> iPad 2 -> the new iPad -> ??the new new iPad??)


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> It's "the new iPad", not the iPad 3!!!!!!
> 
> (I have an unreasonable level of hate for their naming patterns... iPhone -> iPhone 3g -> 3GS -> 4 -> 4S. iPad -> iPad 2 -> the new iPad -> ??the new new iPad??)


 

 I hate apple regardless, so sorry for calling it the ipad3 lol
   
  "the even newer ipad"
   
  That said, the ipad's are very good tablets.
  iphones however...lol whole different story.
  I personally call them the iFails
   
  Just like how us head-fiers see Beats products, i see Apple in the same light.
  Rich, and have no idea what you are buying  = your typical ifail owner


----------



## ac500

Apple is not at all comparable to Beats, and that argument fails every time. Beats produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing but their technology makes everyone else in the industry laugh.
   
  Apple produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing and due to the fact that their technology and implementation is so good it scares almost pretty much every other company in the industry.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Apple is not at all comparable to Beats, and that argument fails every time. Beats produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing but their technology makes everyone else in the industry laugh.
> 
> Apple produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing and due to the fact that their technology and implementation is so good it scares almost pretty much every other company in the industry.


 

 haha no.
  Let me re-phrase that for you:

 Apple were the first to create a handheld touchscreen device that actually worked, and due to the popularity it has grown to become what it is now, and since then people buy iphones not because they are good, but because everyone else has them, and thus gets them.
   
  Give me the benefits of an Ifail4s with a sticker over the SGS2?
 Considering the SGS2 is £150 cheaper
   
  I know this from personal experience - ie. my Dad wanting an iphone when he had literally no clue what he was buying or paying for.
  Ended up convincing him to get the S2, and he still is thanking me for persuading him to buy the S2 over the iphone 4 - let alone the 4s.


----------



## ac500

I'm not talking about Apple's past, I'm talking about now. Right now, a lot of their technology literally makes other companies look like junk and seriously is scaring them competition-wise. Trust me, I've worked at those other companies.
   
  I've tried the iPad clones, and I've tried the Macbook Air clones, etc. All of them feel like junk in comparison, suffer performance issues, not to mention dumb software. Hopefully Windows 8 _might_ lead the way to some actual competition to the iPad, but who knows what's gonna happen with that.
   
  I am neither an apple fan or an apple hater (or any other product), so I have no bias. So many people have bias though, and freely admit it, it's kind of funny.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> I hate apple regardless, so sorry for calling it the ipad3 lol
> 
> "the even newer ipad"
> 
> ...


 

 Oh... please don't mention monster and apple in the same sentence.
  Sarcasm aside, apple has been a major pioneer in the pc technology. I don't like macs, but their products are actually great.
  I don't really see whats the problem with the iphones. They're great devices and smartphones. Pretty much any smartphone out there now is a result of apple's innovation and inspirartion. Steve Jobs is a modern day genius. How is the first iphone a fail? and how is the 3GS a fail? And to top it off, the 4? how is that a fail by any means? It has set a benchmark for screen res and display standards. The 4s with its 8mgps camera is yet one of the best cameras on any mobile phone out there. Siri is another thing. Although gimmickry, it actually works. Even now with all these new phones with the dual cores and bigger screens, namely the note, the iphone still reigns as the one to beat in terms of res display and overall design. It's still the most attractive phone out there. With Samsung releasing a new phone every 6 months and HTC releasing one every 2-3 months, iphone 4s is still in the top 3 best smartphones to buy according to consumer choice.
   
   
  The problem isn't the phone and never was, it's the people's expectation. Far too high of an expectation.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Oh yeah I used to love apple products until they screwed my ipod with their "new" iOS4 - then I decided to buy a phone, was between the iphone4 and the SGS i9000.
  Bought the SGS i9000, and realise now how brain washed I was from apple products back thne for let alone considering to buy and Ifail4.
   
  And yeah, I'm talking about NOW.
  If anything their line of products have not really gain as much popularity as before, due to competition.
   
  LTE SGS2 or a 4s on HSDPA?


----------



## ac500

Brainwashing aside rant, in purely technical specifications Apple is kicking the collective rears of the entire industry, at least with the iPad.
   
  As for apple losing popularity, I'm not sure where you live, but I haven't seen a non-apple laptop in probably a year at my school. Granted I am in the general area of apple so that might have something to do with it, but I've seen it in universities in washington too (Microsoft's "territory").


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> *Steve Jobs is a modern day genius.*
> *I has set a benchmark for screen res and display standards.*
> *The 4s with its 8mgps camera is yet one of the best cameras on any mobile phone out there*.
> *Even now with all these new phones with the dual cores and bigger screens, namely the note, the iphone still reigns as the one to beat in terms of res display and overall design.*


 

 you made me laugh - thank you
  Pointless even arguing with you if u are like the video below lol
  here watch this:
  
  EACH TIME i hear apple fan boys i think of this:


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Brainwashing aside rant, in purely technical specifications Apple is kicking the collective rears of the entire industry, at least with the iPad.
> 
> As for apple losing popularity, I'm not sure where you live, but I haven't seen a non-apple laptop in probably a year at my school. Granted I am in the general area of apple so that might have something to do with it, but I've seen it in universities in washington too (Microsoft's "territory").


 

 Ive seen more ipads than apple macs and laptops


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Steve Jobs is a modern day genius.


 

 This is the only thing that annoys me. The adoration Steve Jobs get. No one knows the name of the guy who invented Java, no one knows who invented C or C++. They know and worship the guy who took all those tools made by other people and used them in a fancy box. It's like not caring who invented the car, but adoring the guy that made a cooler-looking steering wheel.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> This is the only thing that annoys me. The adoration Steve Jobs get. No one knows the name of the guy who invented Java, no one knows who invented C or C++. They know and worship the guy who took all those tools made by other people and used them in a fancy box. It's like not caring who invented the car, but adoring the guy that made a cooler-looking steering wheel.


 
  I remember it was Dennis
  
  had to look it up for: Dennis Ritchie.
   
  See the thing here is:
 C++ is known by coders etc - Steve was more of a marketing pioneer, and had a true passion/skill in technology.
   
  That's where the difference is.
  People don't know how the car is built, or who invested it - but people know its brand - Audi. For example.


----------



## Shotor102

Regardless of anything said here.. denying credibility to apple is being sheer antis.
  And comparing apple to Monster and beats is talk either out of hate or ignorance.
   
  I still can't see for the life of me how the iphone-4 is an i-fail.  When I first went to buy a smartphone, I was debating between the two top ones on the market, and a year ago it was iphone-4 or Samsung Galaxy-S.  So I demoed each, and you know what, regardless of android platform and all the drawbacks of the apple ecosystem, the iphone was simply more intuitive.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Lol - up to you 
  But it really isn't - oh hell enjoy your lithium battery degrading.
  I've since, already replaced my battery you could do the...oh no wait sorry! 

 That's the MAIN reason I bought the SGS or a matter of fact anything that isn't battery locked down, like 100% of craple


----------



## Magick Man

totally dubbed said:


> Lol - up to you
> But it really isn't - oh hell enjoy your lithium battery degrading.
> I've since, already replaced my battery you could do the...oh no wait sorry!
> 
> ...




I replaced the battery in my wife's iP4, it wasn't that tough.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> Lol - up to you
> But it really isn't - oh hell enjoy your lithium battery degrading.
> I've since, already replaced my battery you could do the...oh no wait sorry!
> 
> That's the MAIN reason I bought the SGS or a matter of fact anything that isn't battery locked down, like 100% of craple


 


  So.. how much was that new battery may I ask?


----------



## ac500

Using the word "crapple" pretty much shows the bias and removes any validity of literally _any_ argument made on the part of that person regarding Apple. Hate-boys are as bad as fan-boys, at least when it comes to full honesty. But there's no point arguing the matter further because it's really off topic to this thread.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Using the word "crapple" pretty much shows the bias and removes any validity of literally _any_ argument made on the part of that person regarding Apple. Hate-boys are as bad as fan-boys, at least when it comes for full honesty. But there's no point arguing the matter further because it's really off topic to this thread.


 







   
  Finally there's something I agree with you on...
   
   
  Oh yeah, there's the whole 'Beats are not worth their asking price' thing too..


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> So.. how much was that new battery may I ask?


 

 £10 - cheaper than ur £500 or is it £600 replacement?
   


  Quote: 





ac500 said:


> Using the word "crapple" pretty much shows the bias and removes any validity of literally _any_ argument made on the part of that person regarding Apple. Hate-boys are as bad as fan-boys, at least when it comes to full honesty. But there's no point arguing the matter further because it's really off topic to this thread.


 

 Yup - and I've become one after all the Aple fan-boys - blame them.
  I'll just go and chop off my...(video)
   


  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Finally there's something I agree with you on...
> 
> Oh yeah, there's the whole 'Beats are not worth their asking price' thing too..


 
  Is it so hard to find an apple "fan-boy"?
 I think not lol


----------



## Magick Man

umm... I paid $15 for a new iPhone battery.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





magick man said:


> umm... I paid $15 for a new iPhone battery.


 

 And u opened the iphone up and got rid of ur warranty - yup that's right 
   
  I know how lithium batteries degrade - and its just as simple as that.
   
  Anyway, lets get back on "topic"about HDMI's
   
  Apple-rant over lol - But that's exactly how i feel about them
  Apple = Monster Beats


----------



## LizardKing1

I stumbled upon something, maybe many of you have already seen it. Check the reviews for these gems:
http://www.amazon.com/Coffee-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connection/dp/B003CT5KMO/ref=pd_sim_sbs_e_4
http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connection/dp/B003CT2A6I/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
   
  Apparently the ultra-high-end market of HDMI cables has already been swarmed by hilarious trolls. I was wondering how an expensive HDMI cable could have such a rating and now I understand. Thank you internet =)


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I stumbled upon something, maybe many of you have already seen it. Check the reviews for these gems:
> http://www.amazon.com/Coffee-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connection/dp/B003CT5KMO/ref=pd_sim_sbs_e_4
> http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Digital-Audio-Ethernet-Connection/dp/B003CT2A6I/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
> 
> Apparently the ultra-high-end market of HDMI cables has already been swarmed by hilarious trolls. I was wondering how an expensive HDMI cable could have such a rating and now I understand. Thank you internet =)


 

 hahahahah


----------



## Magick Man

totally dubbed said:


> And u opened the iphone up and got rid of ur warranty - yup that's right
> 
> I know how lithium batteries degrade - and its just as simple as that.
> 
> ...




The warranty had already expired, if it were still under warranty Apple would have just swapped the iPhone for another one, just walk into the store and it takes 5 minutes. They're good about that.

You irrational dislike for Apple doesn't change the fact that they're a very good company to do business with.


----------



## Shotor102

Not that I want to distract the HDMI debate but totally dubbed here owes us an answer.
So how about it? How much was your new battery?

1. After iPhone warranty expires, they offer a replacement plan for a $100.00 and they don't replace the battery, they give you a brand new phone. So it's not $500 or $600 like you suggest.

2. By the time the battery actually start to fail, chances are that the customer would want to upgrade anyways. So $100 for a new same version, or a new plan with a brand of the newest phone. 

Don't be a hater or a troll.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





magick man said:


> The warranty had already expired, if it were still under warranty Apple would have just swapped the iPhone for another one, just walk into the store and it takes 5 minutes. They're good about that.
> You irrational dislike for Apple doesn't change the fact that they're a very good company to do business with.


 
   
  Well I can understand then 
 That said, they don't replace it just like that for battery problems. I'm not saying terrible battery problems, I'm just talking about lithium batteries.
   
  You see I have the same-ish battery in my SGS that u do in ur iphone.
  After over 1yr of constant use my battery started to give me less and less battery life.
   
  Imagine my mum's brand new SGS was giving double the battery life.
  So I bought another battery, official 1,500mha one, and now my battery is brand new, like it was the first day I got it.
  Things like this an iphone could never do.
   
  And you might have skills etc to open it, but think of my mum for example, who wouldn't be able to do that.
  Instead with the SGS, all she does is take the backplate off (like u do to take out the sim card) and just replaces the battery.
   
  I can sell you that, if it wasn't for apple locking down the battery, they wouldn't get as many sales, as people on 3GS's would not upgrade.
  I heard of countless people saying:
 I'm getting the iphone4, as the battery seems better, and mine is dying...
   
  Up to you at the end of the day.


  Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Not that I want to distract the HDMI debate but totally dubbed here owes us an answer.
> So how about it? How much was your new battery?
> 1. After iPhone warranty expires, they offer a replacement plan for a $100.00 and they don't replace the battery, they give you a brand new phone. So it's not $500 or $600 like you suggest.
> 2. By the time the battery actually start to fail, chances are that the customer would want to upgrade anyways. So $100 for a new same version, or a new plan with a brand of the newest phone.
> Don't be a hater or a troll.


 

 0. My new battery is perfect, 2x the battery life vs my used one 
  1. That's nice, I never heard of it! ! Either or, I can save myself money + replacement costs and buy a phone with a removal battery
  2. False. My battery started not to fail, but reduce in battery life. This was within a year -> no its not the phone its just how lithium batteries operate -> I had no plans to upgrade to the s2, i wanted to stay on my s1 - if i had bought the iphone4, then i would have probably now bought the sticker of the S.
   
  I'm no troll.
  Hater, that I am.
  Fan-boy/brainwashed you are


----------



## CC Lemon

I hate to continue the off topic discussion... but I'm curious how apple is significantly better in terms of technical specifications. Which specifications? Better screen and camera are about the only things that stand out to me.
   
  The are a few reasons why I dislike apple products and chose other options. Their use of proprietary connectors is somewhat annoying. The iPod connector is a nice connection and offers nice features, but it reduces options and compatibility with other products. I'd much rather have USB and HDMI ports for my devices. They do a good job with the available internal memory options, but I don't think they'll ever offer expandable/external memory as an option. While their devices run very smoothly, I think they're lacking in the ability to customize. The 2 android phones I've owned have been newer devices with great hardware, so I have very few issues with the way they run and still have the benefit of being able to customize. Even if my phones didn't run quite as well as they do, I'd still like the customizable features. I also support android because I see it as the better product in the future. The earlier iOS devices were extremely impressive and their upgrades were similarly impressive. As time goes on and newer versions of the software and hardware are released, I feel like the changes are less significant and becoming less impressive. At this point, I might be considered a bit of an Android fan boy but it's because I legitimately enjoy the devices more. I'm generally into technology, so I look forward to new devices and enjoy seeing the competition. I found the 4S and new iPad to be rather disappointing.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Actually that's one thing I don't really agree on.
  Android lost popularity a little with manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC - they were looking into their own come brand or Windows 7.
   
  Hate to say it, but the way forward is windows.
  With their Win8 to be speculated to be just like on the PC, it would mean a phone that runs just like on the PC, which would make it a killer tablet.
  I've never had a windows phone, so I'm getting a lumnia 800 sent to me for 2 weeks for a trial - I'll keep u posted on that.
   
  I find iOS, much better in terms of basic UI - but that's when its advantages stop - android, as u said can be customisable to a very large degree, whereas apple is constraint.
   
  TO be honest it dpeends who u are:
 If you are my mum, you would prefer something like the iOS platform, UI, and how it is locked down, so to speak.
   
  If however you are in the slightest interest of expanding your memory (micro SD), having a removable battery, having better hardware, a better screen, and a much more open source OS - then android is clearly for you.
  I mean the ONLY thing Apple wins in, is the fact that its so "secure" and that everything is done for you, that even a baby could use it. Its software backup is quite good too, by that i mean itunes etc.
  That said, when i had an ipod, i despised using itunes - i hate it.
  As soon as i got my S1, suddenly i could drag and drop on ANY PC without the need to sync and all that rubbish.
  And if I want playlists, then I can easily create them on my phone.
   
  Long story short, depends who it applies to, but for people to tell me apple is a better phone (hardware), "everyone copied them", its more "secure", is easier to use is plain right brainwashed.
  -Hardware: Take a look at iphone4 vs SGS1 or S2 vs 4s
  -Copied them...nuff said
  -Secure - yeah sure iOS is more "secure"...but on android, if you are incompetent enough to download a virus, then u deserve to have one in the first place.
  -And easiness to use: Just get used to it, its a lil different but end of the day is really easy to use. My 60yr old dad has an s2, and my 58yr old mum has a s1 - if u tell me android is hard to use, then just compare yourself. 
   
  Now this is ON TOPIC.
  Changed the title of the thread - cuz i can


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





> 0. My new battery is perfect, 2x the battery life vs my used one   1. That's nice, I never heard of it! ! Either or, I can save myself money + replacement costs and buy a phone with a removal battery
> 2. False. My battery started not to fail, but reduce in battery life. This was within a year -> no its not the phone its just how lithium batteries operate -> I had no plans to upgrade to the s2, i wanted to stay on my s1 - if i had bought the iphone4, then i would have probably now bought the sticker of the S.
> 
> I'm no troll.
> ...


 
   
  Actually, you sound very much like a hater and a troll to boot. Not saying this to offend, just stating the way I see things.  As for #2 being false? I doubt it, I have my iphone 4 a little over a year now and the battery shows no degradation of any kind.  My wife's iphone 2's battery started acting up after 3.5 years. And by the time she went to get the $100 exchange program, the 4s came out while she was expecting #5. So much like yourself, she opted to stick with her old phone, get a new version of the old phone with a full year's warranty and await iphone #5.  In the meantime, she got the New Ipad.
   
  And no, I am not brainwashed nor a fanboy. In fact, when I was initially setting on a smartphone, I wanted to boycott apple altogether and go with Samsung GS-1. But then I compared functionality and decided on the Iphone-4.  
   
  The 4s is definitely not the best on the market, nor I don't think anyone here will claim it to be. The S-2 and the Note alone are better. And I haven't read through the hoards of specs on the fleet of HTCs.  That said, majority of the guff and hatered towards apple stems from high expectations and not agreeing with the Apple Bubblewrapped ecosystem of Itunes and apps.
   
  But, that's their gimmick and source of sales and gross. The products are one thing, but itunes and apps are a whole different beast.
   
  At the end of the day, IMO, it's all about preference.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Indeed all about preference 
   
  But about your battery I can guarantee your battery isn't as good as when you got it new.
  I didn't even notice my battery degrading, until my mum got hers, and I couldn't believe the difference:
 Same rom, same kernel, same phone, same wallpaper, launcher etc:
 Mine: 1.5days
  Hers: 3.5days
  Of battery life - Medium usage (back on froyo with speedmod kernel - talking gibberish to you, but for anyone in the i900 scene, they will know what i mean)
  As soon as I saw that, I went on the hunt for a new battery.
   
  Got the new battery, and then was so happy to be using my phone back to how I used to use it.
  If you don't believe me, look up lithium batteries, and stop calling me a troll


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> Indeed all about preference
> 
> But about your battery I can guarantee your battery isn't as good as when you got it new.
> I didn't even notice my battery degrading, until my mum got hers, and I couldn't believe the difference:
> ...


 


  A normal Li-ion battery can go through ~500 charge cycles before its life decreases to 80%...unless you went through an entire charge cycle twice a day I honestly don't see how it could drop so much in a year, unless something else was going on.
   
  That said, I agree and disagree with a lot of what you say about the iPhone.  Most of your issues with it would be true, for a normal, locked iPhone - but as soon as you jailbreak it, it's a whole different story.  It suddenly opens up and there are tons of customization options.  You can change practically every part of the interface to suit your needs, and the jailbreak community is extremely active and offers tons of support.  I'd honestly never use an iPhone unless it was jailbroken, but I'd prefer a jailbroken iPhone over most Android phones.   My only problem with it is that they're still tied to iTunes, which I have some issues with...
   
   
  Aaaanyway, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet by being so off-topic.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> A normal Li-ion battery can go through ~500 charge cycles before its life decreases to 80%...unless you went through an entire charge cycle twice a day I honestly don't see how it could drop so much in a year, unless something else was going on.
> 
> Aaaanyway, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet by being so off-topic.


 

 How is it off topic any more?
 You seen the title of the thread ?
   
  Some mod must have moved the thread that said - as we were in members lounge before.
   
  And about the battery - I speak off experience with my own phone + my old 3rd gen ipod touch


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> Actually that's one thing I don't really agree on.
> Android lost popularity a little with manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC - they were looking into their own come brand or Windows 7.
> 
> Hate to say it, but the way forward is windows.
> ...


 


  Well, I would agree and disagree with your point here. First off, I was generally talking about android vs apple, so windows wasn't a consideration at that point. More specifically, I was pointing out my lack of faith for the future of apple because of how restricted their iOS is. We now have the hardware capabilities for mobile devices to be much more than what iOS offers, in my opinion. The hardware is only getting better, so I think apple has to make a huge design change to their OS or its simplicity will hurt it in the long run. Your point about Windows 8 is actually kind of what I was talking about. Mobile devices are at the point that they don't have to depend on a limited/simple mobile OS design to be reasonably functional and smooth. I admit that apple has made some significant changes to the design of iOS, but they need to let go of their endless rows of app tiles being the only design.
   
  As far as market share, I thought android was rising in numbers and apple had been losing ground. Obviously it's slow, but I thought that was a continuing trend and recent numbers continued that trend.
   
  Windows 8 _might_ be the way forward. I agree that it looks promising and will likely put up a good fight, but it's a bit early to tell. I thought WP7 would be a bit more successful but it hasn't really caught on as much as I would have thought. Obviously, Windows 8 has a lot more invested in it and the way it works across different platforms should make it a much more convenient option. A lot of promising things have been failures before, so I wouldn't say it's a guaranteed success yet.
   
  I also agree with your point about iOS being simple and better for some people because of that. I don't think android is that difficult and I'd expect most people wouldn't have that much difficulty using it, but some people are just absolutely stupid with technology. I frequently get calls from my mom to help her solve issues with her iPhone because she forgets how to do stuff. If she has issues with iOS, there's no way I'd recommend an android device to her.
   
  One thing I forgot to mention that annoys me is the popularity. It's not that I'm the type to dislike something for the mere fact that it became popular. I honestly do not believe that the iPhone is good enough to warrant it's market share as a single device. Realistically, the debate is always iPhone vs Android. No one Android device comes close to the market share of the iPhone, even though there are multiple devices at any given time that are considered competitive. Maybe it's the fault of Android being sold through multiple brands but I really don't think the iPhone, as a single device, deserves that large of a market share.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> One thing I forgot to mention that annoys me is the popularity. It's not that I'm the type to dislike something for the mere fact that it became popular. I honestly do not believe that the iPhone is good enough to warrant it's market share as a single device. Realistically, the debate is always iPhone vs Android. No one Android device comes close to the market share of the iPhone, even though there are multiple devices at any given time that are considered competitive. Maybe it's the fault of Android being sold through multiple brands but I really don't think the iPhone, as a single device, deserves that large of a market share.


 

 I agree with all the points...however the last....the Samsung S2...did VERY well for itself - not iphone4 type sales, but still - very good, and created a new buzz.
  It most definitely is an iphone killer - it puts the iphone in all aspects to shame.
   
  I also agree that the iphone hype is just over-the-top, that's why i have a hatred for it. JUST LIKE how we audio-nuts have a nack against people that like beats.
  Is there anything wrong with buying and owning beats?
 OF COURSE NOT!
 But when you could buy BETTER, for a CHEAPER price, then why not do so? Just following the trend are we?
 Thus my initial statement:
 Apple = Beats.
  It feels the same "mentality" to me.
  If you could buy a phone with better hardware: S2
  If you could buy a phone that is cheaper: S1, S2
  But yet decide not to:
  Following the trend -> Iphone4
   
  Of course there are many others, like HTC, Nokia etc - but lets stick to samsung as its the no1 for android + I have a lot of experience with them.
   
  Also:
  A year ago it was like:
  -People couldn't afford the 4, so bought the s1 - and realised in the long run they made the right decision - however presented with a 4, they would gladly take it over the s1.
   
  Now i feel its like:
 -They realise that iOS isn't all that, and in fact there are better phones, like the s2 to compete on almost every basis vs the 4s and for the price, the 4 as well. So now people have tried something different, the s2, and have been preferring it.
  If only we had LTE wide-spread in the EU, the s2 would be even more popular, as people would be buying it not only for all its other hardware capabilities, but its ultra fast browsing speeds.
   
  Now its a little ironic - but I received the Nokia Lumia 800 for trial, from Nokia, and I have to say, this blows iOS out the water, and to some extent android.
  The phone is blazing fast, as W7 manages it perfectly, the specs are there, the price is good, and the UI is VERY VERY easy to use - I spent half the time I took settings up an ipad. I got my FB, twitter, youtube, 9GB's of music (via zune on the PC), all on my phone already. And its only been hours I have it.
   
  I cannot see how a person, who has no idea how to use a device, couldn't use this Lumia 800...its just impossible to get confused.
  I posted some pictures here - (FYI: I don't make money on my website, so I'm not diverting traffic or all that jargon)
   
  I find this is a phone that should replace the iphone, if you want simplicity, then why not try windows 7?
 But most won't...they will, as said above, "follow the trend" and buy an iphone. That's what so sad about it.
   
  SO SIMPLE, yet great at the same time.
  I don't feel it will replace my S1....but god, its got me thinking about windows phone's now, I can tell you that for sure.


----------



## CC Lemon

I still think my point stands: Even the good devices don't reach anywhere near the sales numbers that iphones get. Just a quick search shows that there were 37 million iPhone 4S sales over the holidays. The SGS2 hit 20 million in sales in February. Not that the SGS2 sales are bad... but they're not even close to the 4S. I think we'll both agree that those devices probably should have had a closer market share.
   
  WP7 is a pretty good OS. I haven't used it much, but I tried a demo model in a store once and it was extremely intuitive and the fresh design was very appreciated. It almost tempted me to give it a try over android, but I ended up going with android. The lumia devices look pretty great, but I'll most likely wait to see how Windows 8 fairs once it gets released before I pursue a windows phone.
   
  Edit: Forgot to mention this. When looking at your pictures, the lumia's glass looks a lot more... bubbly... than I remembered. Did you notice that? It just seems like the shape of the glass paired with the way it's set in the device makes it appear to be raised a bit, even though I realize it's not. Not that it's a huge deal or anything, it just looks weird at first glance.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> I still think my point stands: Even the good devices don't reach anywhere near the sales numbers that iphones get. Just a quick search shows that there were 37 million iPhone 4S sales over the holidays. The SGS2 hit 20 million in sales in February. Not that the SGS2 sales are bad... but they're not even close to the 4S. I think we'll both agree that those devices probably should have had a closer market share.
> 
> WP7 is a pretty good OS. I haven't used it much, but I tried a demo model in a store once and it was extremely intuitive and the fresh design was very appreciated. It almost tempted me to give it a try over android, but I ended up going with android. The lumia devices look pretty great, but I'll most likely wait to see how Windows 8 fairs once it gets released before I pursue a windows phone.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention this. When looking at your pictures, the lumia's glass looks a lot more... bubbly... than I remembered. Did you notice that? It just seems like the shape of the glass paired with the way it's set in the device makes it appear to be raised a bit, even though I realize it's not. Not that it's a huge deal or anything, it just looks weird at first glance.


 

 I don't quite get what you mean - as in the glass is raised above the frame?
  It might look like that, it just has rounded edges.
   
  And I'm with you on the windows front - I'll be buying a new PC on Win8 methinks - and possibly a phone to go with it - lets see!


----------



## CC Lemon

Yeah, just the way the edges/corners are curved a little... makes it seem a bit more 3 dimensional.
   
  I may end up slightly annoyed with the windows 8 release date. I was planning on buying a laptop around June which might be cutting it close for the W8 release. Due to some potential travel, I might be looking at a desktop replacement which I would prefer to order from a more custom builder. If that's the case, I might be forced to order a laptop on windows 7 which would be slightly frustrating if the release of 8 is just around the corner. Plus, I hate waiting.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





cc lemon said:


> Yeah, just the way the edges/corners are curved a little... makes it seem a bit more 3 dimensional.
> 
> I may end up slightly annoyed with the windows 8 release date. I was planning on buying a laptop around June which might be cutting it close for the W8 release. Due to some potential travel, I might be looking at a desktop replacement which I would prefer to order from a more custom builder. If that's the case, I might be forced to order a laptop on windows 7 which would be slightly frustrating if the release of 8 is just around the corner. Plus, I hate waiting.


 
  well why not try and look if it will be "upgradable" for free to Win8 ?
   
  I'll be getting a new desktop when i get back to the UK - say mid-sept.
  By then I should be able to get a nice cheap quad core, with a lot of ram, god GFX, a nice 1080p LED screen for under £700 i think.
   
  Btw, I've been posting picture comparisons of the Lumia vs SGS - although they have different cameras the Lumia puts my SGS to shame.
  
   
  EDIT:
 I have requested this thread to be moved to the members lounge.
  I rather this thread be open to any discussions rather than be "locked" to cables


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> well why not try and look if it will be "upgradable" for free to Win8 ?
> 
> I'll be getting a new desktop when i get back to the UK - say mid-sept.
> By then I should be able to get a nice cheap quad core, with a lot of ram, god GFX, a nice 1080p LED screen for under £700 i think.
> ...


 


 Sorry TD.  but I Simply can't take anything you say in regards to apple and iphone seriously anymore.
   
  I don't mind discussing cables and other crap if this thread become an open discussion..
   
  However, you should be aware that anytime you use phrases like 'iFail' or comparos like Beat=Apple, you're bordering troll-like discussion decorum.  Like it or not, that's the truth.


----------



## Currawong

Totally Dubbed: You should start a new thread. Post the link to the new one here then I'll lock this one. That'd be best.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> Sorry TD.  but I Simply can't take anything you say in regards to apple and iphone seriously anymore.
> 
> I don't mind discussing cables and other crap if this thread become an open discussion..
> 
> However, you should be aware that anytime you use phrases like 'iFail' or comparos like Beat=Apple, you're bordering troll-like discussion decorum.  Like it or not, that's the truth.


 
  ok 
  
   


  Quote: 





currawong said:


> Totally Dubbed: You should start a new thread. Post the link to the new one here then I'll lock this one. That'd be best.


 

 Ok cheers currawong - we will keep it to HDMI only then
  EDIT:
Done.


----------



## LizardKing1

I mentioned how Monster used to have rigged HDMI displays where one TV used a monster HDMI cable and the other one used VGA, which of course gives you a better display on the Monster, because you're comparing 2 different technologies and not 2 cables of the same protocol. I found the link through another thread and I think this should be posted.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/17/hdmi-cable-scam-used-to-fool-in-store-customers/


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> I mentioned how Monster used to have rigged HDMI displays where one TV used a monster HDMI cable and the other one used VGA, which of course gives you a better display on the Monster, because you're comparing 2 different technologies and not 2 cables of the same protocol. I found the link through another thread and I think this should be posted.
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/17/hdmi-cable-scam-used-to-fool-in-store-customers/


 

 it's a shame that it isn't well documented.
  That said - do you think its monster or the store that planned it - or both?
 And what was the reaction after it?
 As that's false advertising if they were stated at both being HDMI's


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





totally dubbed said:


> it's a shame that it isn't well documented.
> That said - do you think its monster or the store that planned it - or both?
> And what was the reaction after it?
> As that's false advertising if they were stated at both being HDMI's


 

 Yes, I noticed their "Read" link is broken. Shame. I had heard of this on other places before though.
  I'm almost 100% this was made by Monster. It's exactly the kind of thing they would do. Best Buy isn't exactly a saint, and they probably knew, but I don't think this came out of their heads.
  The reaction... well for the people who knew what this was it didn't matter much, since if you're into audio/video, you probably already knew to stay away from Monster. I think it was a stupid idea, since the people who usually spend 100$ on a HDMI cable usually do their research, and if they stumble upon this they most likely won't buy from Monster.


----------



## Shotor102

Quote: 





lizardking1 said:


> Yes, I noticed their "Read" link is broken. Shame. I had heard of this on other places before though.
> I'm almost 100% this was made by Monster. It's exactly the kind of thing they would do. Best Buy isn't exactly a saint, and they probably knew, but I don't think this came out of their heads.
> The reaction... well for the people who knew what this was it didn't matter much, since if you're into audio/video, you probably already knew to stay away from Monster. I think it was a stupid idea, since the people who usually spend 100$ on a HDMI cable usually do their research, and if they stumble upon this they most likely won't buy from Monster.


 

 But wouldn't those people who are about to spend $100 on Digital cables and do research, eventually would be spending $20 - $30 at most via Monoprice or something like that?


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> But wouldn't those people who are about to spend $100 on Digital cables and do research, eventually would be spending $20 - $30 at most via Monoprice or something like that?


 
  One would hope - but if they are "sold" on the idea of a $100 cable, then I doubt they would go ahead and buy a cheaper one.


----------



## CC Lemon

Quote: 





shotor102 said:


> But wouldn't those people who are about to spend $100 on Digital cables and do research, eventually would be spending $20 - $30 at most via Monoprice or something like that?


 


  You forget about people that have more money than sense. Also, trust the expert heuristics. A lot of people think that best buy employees have some form of expertise and will trust what they are told. Plus, there's impatience. A lot of people wont be buying an HDMI cable by itself. It will frequently be to connect other products being purchased and people wont want to wait to do the proper research. The types to do research would probably do at least a quick search before running to best buy anyway.


----------



## DaBomb77766

I think Monster's rationale behind using two different cable techs is that they're comparing the HDMI cable to whatever else people might be using, so not the Monster cable itself, just HDMI.  Which is totally dumb because the differences disappear as soon as you start comparing to a different HDMI cable.


----------



## Totally Dubbed

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> I think Monster's rationale behind using two different cable techs is that they're comparing the HDMI cable to whatever else people might be using, so not the Monster cable itself, just HDMI.  Which is totally dumb because the differences disappear as soon as you start comparing to a different HDMI cable.


 
  never thought of that - which is true LOL
 Although they are trying to sell their cable, and to try to do so they have to use component lol


----------



## LizardKing1

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> I think Monster's rationale behind using two different cable techs is that they're comparing the HDMI cable to whatever else people might be using, so not the Monster cable itself, just HDMI.  Which is totally dumb because the differences disappear as soon as you start comparing to a different HDMI cable.


 

 I was never in a Best Buy, and so I never saw this kind of display, but from what I've read, the context was trying to show that their particular über-expensive HDMI cable was somehow superior. Of course they probably wouldn't say it explicitly, because that would be blatantly lying to the consumer and I'm guessing very suable.


----------



## Happy Camper

I purchased a new Plasma recently and the guy told me to order off the internet. They know those cables are just a mark up item for Best Buy. I ordered three for $30 and haven't felt any need to upgrade them.


----------



## ac500

This is a really entertaining talk with a scientists that reminds me a lot of the snakeoil audiophile products:
   
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o
   
  He's talking about UFOs, but you can apply a lot of what he says to HDMI cables etc. (Ignore the first part though where he talks about the "unknown", the relevant part is the later half when he talks about how flawed human perception is). Now of course this isn't the best or most definitive "debunking" of the reliability of human perception, but it's still a fun discussion IMO .
   
  To those here who argue semantics on what "placebo" means in the context of medecine or what other forms of bias may or may not apply, I don't care, and neither does science. What we do know is that human perception has been known to be one of the most bafflingly unreliable things we know of, and this applies in a great many areas.
   
  Interestingly enough human perception is exactly the thing some of the latest video compression techniques (HEVC, not out yet) exploit to reduce the file size of your HD movies by 50% without you being able to notice anything . So I'm not saying human perception should be disregarded -- quite the opposite -- just that human perception being unreliable is undeniable.
   
  Double blind is probably the best way to show how faulty human perception is, as we've seen with the audiophile double blind tests with super expensive equipment vs. "good" equipment, where the "experts" actually leaned towards preferring the cheaper stuff when they didn't know what they were listening to. Just one example of many, but let's try to keep it focused on HDMI I suppose.
   
  Edit: Keep in mind one important thing though. This video and the argument regarding human perception is just "icing on the cake". HDMI is not a science -- it's an engineered system that is fully understood. I've explained this earlier so I won't explain it again except to say in this video, don't come out thinking "well still we might be able to find evidence that HDMI can make a difference if we try to measure ABX rigorously enough!" It's not a science, and HDMI is not a force of nature we're trying to comprehend. We understand fully how HDMI works and exactly what may or may not contribute to any loss of quality. There is really no uncertainty about HDMIs operation in any practical sense.


----------



## LizardKing1

Out of pure ego, I'll repost something similar I posted on a now locked USB thread some time ago:
   
   


> There's a gigantic difference between a discovery and an invention. When you say "science has been wrong before" you're talking about *discoveries*. They are a thing of nature that we study. For example, I can analyze a certain chemical compound and through my results "this is molechule X". And later, though better means and new procedures, another scientist takes an identical sample and determines "the previous observations are incorrect, this is in fact molechule Y". This has happened lots of times along science, a good example is the belief that atoms were spheres with little electrons stuck to them, we now know that model is wrong. All of these things already existed and we simply investigated them, drawing better conclusions each time.
> 
> However, with USB it's an *invention*. It's man-made. I don't think it's quite possible for us to invent something like a data transmission protocol and use it without understanding how it works. I don't know if you ever compiled a program in a computer, but it only works if absolutely everything is perfectly correct, so it's not something that you can type by accident and get any results. What I mean is, these things don't come from throwing science at a wall and see what sticks, they only work because we understand them completely. We know it's impossible for a USB cable to actually change the sound in terms of things like frequency response (or soundstage!) because the way it was intentionally designed does not support that kind of change. It's like saying a car might turn into a transformer, that can't happen by accident, only if you added the machinery for that process.


 
   
  I still think an invention is a science, or at least required science to be created. But it's not something we try to understand, it's something we can do because we understand it.
  I like the video so far =)


----------



## ac500

_Exactly,_ that's precisely what I meant to explain, although much better articulated IMO.


----------



## Shotor102

With all that said, I find it ironic how actual manufacturers of these inventions actually claim that their products are superior in this department or that or this aspect.  After all, they're the ones making them and producing them.
   
  I don't think anyone is saying that science does not understand its inventions fully (though it's not really unheard of), but in the HDMI case, there are definitely certain aspects that are not being fully shared or exposed to the general public.


----------



## Somnambulist

Note how the people that make these things advertise them with _very _careful wording - avoiding anything specific that might get them in trouble should someone take them up on it - and rely on hifi/AV magazines or their digital equivalents to do the 'night and day!' talking for them (and of course deny there being anything suspicious about it).


----------



## ac500

_> With all that said, I find it ironic how actual manufacturers of these inventions actually claim that their products are superior in this department or that or this aspect.  After all, they're the ones making them and producing them._
  
 I don't find it ironic at all. After all, they are the ones trying to sell them . If I was selling something, it would make sense to do everything I can to convince people my product is the best without lying or misrepresenting the truth. The problem is 99% of companies promote their product with no regard for the truth per se... they only avoid flat out lies because there would be a damaging backlash if they did flat out lie.
  
 _> I don't think anyone is saying that science does not understand its inventions fully (though it's not really unheard of)_
  
 It would be correct to say that Science does not know everything, however this doesn't mean Science is "wrong". Generally the well-established parts of science are correct in what they claim to extremely high probabilistic certainty. Ultimately though, yes, science does not and perhaps will never fully understand the universe.
  
 But engineering does not deal with understanding the universe, that's the job of science. It is in fact absolutely unheard of that engineering does not fully understand its own inventions. Engineering _employs_ science to create inventions, and these inventions are by definition fully understood. You cannot build an invention upon fringe or pseudo science, otherwise it's not a correctly "engineered" invention.
  
 For example crystal healing devices are NOT by any means products of engineering because they are not solidly founded in established science; i.e. principles they claim to exploit are not repeatably or measurably confirmable. HDMI is absolutely a product of engineering on the other hand, and we understand its reliability and error tolerance to extreme precision and certainty.
  
 One thing to note is that while this distinction between engineering and science is important, it in no way implies the fields do not overlap and co-depend. Modern engineering would not exist without modern scientific understanding, and modern scientific understanding might not have been discoverable without engineered devices. It's a cycle of technological advancement and the two are absolutely related, but strictly speaking, no engineered device can be misunderstood by its own inventors. Of course, things can be engineered erroneously or probability of failure etc. can be evaluated erroneously, but that's purely human fault, not lack of understanding by any means.
  
 _>  in the HDMI case, there are definitely certain aspects that are not being fully shared or exposed to the general public._
  
 Well the HDMI spec I think is available to the public. Understandably, not everyone is an engineer or cares to be one, so not everyone has the pre-existing expertise or time devotion to actually learn and understand how HDMI works as it does from the ground up. One alternate to evaluate a hypothesis of a system you don't understand is empirical testing. Unfortunately testing it empirically is tedious and I don't think anyone has done full-fledged rigorously reliable tests on any audiophile product, although some loose tests have been done. The only alternate then left is to trust an expert. I claim that trusting a company financially involved in selling cables is a bad choice. I also claim that trusting anyone who is not themselves fully aware of how HDMI works as an engineer is a bad choice.


----------



## Shotor102

Nice wall of text.
   
  Too bad that it's nothing new ...
   
   
  I just state it as I see it.
   
  And once again, this is why I find the HDMI discussion analogous to the break-in debate.  The only difference is that here evidence strongly point that there should be no difference between two given HDMI cables (image and sound quality wise) regardless of pricing and company x's claim. However with break-in, the evidence hints towards the notions that break in is real, yet there hasn't been anything consistent and substantial to support that.


----------



## justanut

Read this nice post from CNET and call it a day on this discussion


----------



## sonnybill

You dont need to spend anywhere near that amount of money on a HDMI cable. I'm in Australia and you can get HDMI cables delivered here for $6


----------

