General Discussion

[lethal1984]

is there much of a difference using different hdmi cables for a tv?

[PatC_PSN]

---

lethal1984 wrote:

is there much of a difference using different hdmi cables for a tv?

---

In theory digital cables are not all equal, in practice you are very unlikely to perceive any difference in transmission qualilty. Of course the build quality will vary considerably, and if you buy cheap you get cheap.

Probably best to stick with a v1.4x cable anyway, although I doubt even that would make any real difference in most applications.

[Chuk_Chuk]

HDMI cable transmit data digitally (0 and 1s). So the quality of the signal isn't affected by interference. Also HDMI 1.4 is the only HDMI cable that supports sterioscopic 3D.

[fski]

---

Chuk_Chuk wrote:

 Also HDMI 1.4 is the only HDMI cable that supports sterioscopic 3D.

---

Try telling my 6 year old HDMI 1.3 cable that, the damn thing insists on working perfectly well transmitting 3D signals.

[The-Sea-Trout]

I dont think there is no. I currently have 3 different HDMI cables in use on my TV and it all looks the same to me lol.

[PatC_PSN]

---

Chuk_Chuk wrote:

HDMI cable transmit data digitally (0 and 1s). So the quality of the signal isn't affected by interference.

---

That's the simplistic view, and someone always comes up with it. But it's perfectly possible for line attenuation (or RF interference) to be such that the 0s and 1s (which are only different voltages) cannot be decoded correctly at the receiving end.

If your theory was correct you wouldn't need repeaters on undersea digital cables, reconstructing the digital signal while it can still be recognised. But as i said, for HDMI cables that problem is largely theoretical.

---

Also HDMI 1.4 is the only HDMI cable that supports sterioscopic 3D.

---

I'm willing to bet that it will work with any HDMI cable, it just isn't guaranteed to do so except with the 1.4 standard.

[Chuk_Chuk]

fski wrote:

Chuk_Chuk wrote:

 Also HDMI 1.4 is the only HDMI cable that supports sterioscopic 3D.

Try telling my 6 year old HDMI 1.3 cable that, the damn thing insists on working perfectly well transmitting 3D signals.

officially supported should be the wording

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

Chuk_Chuk wrote:

HDMI cable transmit data digitally (0 and 1s). So the quality of the signal isn't affected by interference.

---

That's the simplistic view, and someone always comes up with it. But it's perfectly possible for line attenuation (or RF interference) to be such that the 0s and 1s (which are only different voltages) cannot be decoded correctly at the receiving end.

If your theory was correct you wouldn't need repeaters on undersea digital cables, reconstructing the digital signal while it can still be recognised. But as i said, for HDMI cables that problem is largely theoretical.

---

Undersea cable tend to stretch for hundred of miles while a persons HDMI cable stretches for a couple of metres he doesn't have to worry about line attenutation. The problem is technically negligble for home use. Also as far as I am aware undersea cables are fibre optic so they use light and not electricity to transmit the data, so a comparison between them and HDMI is wrong without more information than what you have provided.

For RF intereference unless his house right next to giant electromagnetic source he won't have to worry about full data loss (he should probably care more about his health than data loss if he does live next to a giant electromagnetic source).

Also degradation isn't a very big factor unless the signal for 1s and 0s are reaching a point where the decocder can not tell the difference between them, but I've got a feeling that even the dirt cheap cables are put through enough testing to ensure there is a suffcient difference between the 2 signals under the average RF inteference they would expect to occur in a persons home. 

Might as well tell him what i said since the other thing are mainly considered by people doing industrial work.

[PatC_PSN]

---

Chuk_Chuk wrote:

Undersea cable tend to stretch for hundred of miles while a persons HDMI cable stretches for a couple of metres he doesn't have to worry about line attenutation. The problem is technically negligble for home use. Also as far as I am aware undersea cables are fibre optic so they use light and not electricity to transmit the data, so a comparison between them and HDMI is wrong without more information than what you have provided.

---

Yes, I realise that undesea cables are typically longer than those people may use in their homes. As I said, largely a theoretical matter for HDMI. But whether transmitted over wire or optical fibre, digital bit streams suffer from line attenuation and other transmission losses.

[Chuk_Chuk]

The problem isn't theoretical, it would be more accurate to say negligible.

[lethal1984]

Thanks guys for the replys guys