HDMI cheap cables

[tryinghard]

“jayn_j”
“Uh, what the heck is your problem, tryinghard? “

Not a damn thing, I don’t have the problem, jayn_j


“jayn_j”
“If a cable meets spec, you should be confident it will work in the application. Unfortunately the spec doesn't extend to long runs, which is why this discussion started in the first place.”

No is wasn’t, it wasn’t about the length until after Ilya jumped in with that "Gizmodo” test they showed some differences in a few 6 ft cables ? and I said it can’t be, if both cables are in spec ? and if they are not in Spec it’s a different story, is there something wrong with that analysts ? then and only then did it stray into cable length, off topic of 6ft cables that started this, to get into a little debate point on what a lab sees ? cable length is a weak point when the whole subject was the price of typical hdmi cables of $3 to $100 for a 6ft cable ? and hdmi covers 30m + on their web site.

“jayn_j”
“Obne problem is that none of these cables actually claim conformance to any standard. Some are starting to list HDMI 1.3 spec, and that should give some assurance. However, the 1.3 spec excludes long runs and recommends repeaters and amplifiers.”

“and that should give some assurance“ and what do you mean “none of these cables actually claim conformance to any standard. Some are starting to list HDMI 1.3 spec, and that should give some assurance”

If they have that hdmi logo on the package they conform to the hdmi Spec ?
jayn_j first what cables ? what length ? if these cables you talk about have that hdmi logo on the package they do “claim conformance” they have too if they don’t hdmi org investigates them for making / producing out of Spec product, what am I missing here ? I posted info from hdmi site on both, the 1.3 and lengths, when it comes to 30m + then and only then do they state buy from a trusted source, please take a peek.

“jayn_j”
“Oh yeah, I've spent my 30 years in the test & measurement industry, designing those instruments you spec out in the chemical industry”.

Good, so tell me, if I use a cable that has the spec of the manufacture instrument we use and recommends to get the most out of it, are you telling me I have to wonder on what brand of cable I use ? its just that simple, if it isn’t a hdmi spec, it would be just like RCA and component cables ? the Spec is everything.

“jayn_j”
“If you look at my posts on cables, you will see that I am not advocating second guessing anything. I stay away from overpriced cables.””

Your second guessing the Spec ! and remember my post was for cheap hdmi cables ! but the Spec can be challenge ? I can’t believe that two 6ft hdmi cables in spec have a seeing and audio difference, this is where it all started, I have said one can show me all the scope data you want, but if the video and audio doesn’t change to ones eyes and ears what the hell is the deal ? it’s only a big deal to lab techs and this is the real heart of it, not to people who come to this site to get answers about a typical person looking for the best way one can hook up their HD equipment.

I have known about this spec for years I was lucky, I found the hdmi site, I wasn’t like some others who seem to come out of the womb and state, hay don’t be a fool, buy cheap hdim cables sucker ?

“jayn_j”
“ However, if there is going to be a spec, I firmly believe that it should be based on measurable and repeatable criteria and not an eye diagram. I am also not advocating that the user has to know squat about those specs, except that a particular cable passed the conformance test.”

Doesn’t the Spec have a “minimum” standard ? and the user doesn’t have to know “squat” about what some people see and get out of lab equipment ! its only a little debate point and not much of one either.

If you or Ilya had come out and said more than a few rip-off hdmi cables not in Spec or in Spec and causes video and audio problems in real life issues, it would be a whole different story and I for one would want to get to the bottom of it, but as far as I read here it doesn’t, it didn’t start with long cable lengths either it started with 6 ft cables, it comes down IMO as who has the bigger 4 wheel drive truck ! wrong forum.

 

[jayn_j]

Tryinghard, I know I should just walk away from this one, but I can't let this be the last word, as others may misunderstand. You know you are right, and there is probably little I can say to change your opinion here.

A specification just isn't the holy grail of authority. It is only as good as the people who wrote it, and the people who enforce it.

Over the years, I have been involved in writing a number of standards for the T&M industry, including the VXI system specifications, VXIplug&play, SCPI, IEEE-488 and IEEE-1451. There are a number of things that will weaken a standard to worthlessness.

First, the word 'should' in a specification translated to 'is recommended'. That is translated by users to "I don't gotta do this and you can't make me". SHALL is the word that has proven to stand up to court challenges and is generally specified in standards. I can quote paragraph from the IEEE standards guidelines if you want.

Second, specifications that reference vague and non-measureable criteria are useless. If the spec says, must pass a 1080P signal, how do you prove that it doesn't. Is it good enough to say the picture comes through clean on a single hand picked set, or does there need to be a torture test set that it must work with. That set wasn't specified, so nobody has to go there.

Third, a standard without complience criteria and a certification lab are useless. HDMI does have a pretty good certification process, but from what I see, most cable manufacturers simply submit for the lowest level certification.

Fourth, the standard is only as good as its enforcement. This gets to be a tricky area. Sueing someone who didn't join the marketing alliance is a drop kick, but what do you do with a paying member who is releasing non-compliant or misleading product, especially if it is coming out of China or somewhere else where it is difficult to mount litigation?


Here are the logo guidelines for cables, in their entirety:

5. Cables
Cables are categorized based on the performance capabilities and compliance testing of the cable. There are two categories of cable:
• Category 1: tested to carry a 74.25MHz (standard HD) signal
• Category 2: tested to carry up to a 340MHz signal
We recommend that Category 1 cables be marked as: “Standard HDMI™ Cable” We recommend that the following description be used to describe the qualities of a standard cable: Standard HDMI™ cables are tested to carry a standard HD 720p or 1080i signal. You will need a High Speed HDMI™ Cable if: - your home theater/television is capable of increased resolution (1080p at 60 Hz refresh rate or higher) -your home theater/television supports resolutions greater than 1080p - your home theater/television supports Deep Color for resolutions of 720p, 1080i and higher.
Category 2 cables should be marked as: “High Speed HDMI™ Cable” The following description should be used to describe the qualities of a High Speed cable: High Speed HDMI™ Cables are tested to carry an HD signal up to 1080p and higher.
Use a High Speed Cable also for 720p/1080i signals that are capable of increased refresh rates (above 60Hz) or Deep Color.
High Speed HDMI™ Cables will also support applications that only require a Standard HDMI(TM) Cable. All cables should reasonably indicate on both the cable itself (on the cable and/or the cable over mold) and on the front of cable packaging, whether it is a High Speed HDMI™ Cable. High Speed cables and front packaging should include the “HDMI” mark followed by the designation “High Speed” in equivalent size and font. The spacing and other usage requirements applicable to the Adopted Trademarks and HDMI Logo shall apply to all such usages.

First, does anybody see any "shalls" other than the one about hijacking the trademark? They seem to be more concerned with making sure everybody joins the alliance and that they don't abuse the logo than making sure that the products actually work. Second, what does "carrying a 74.25MHz signal" mean. How many dB of loss is acceptable? What is the phase shift requirement? I assume this is in the testing criteria that they don't publish to the public.

 

[tryinghard]

Tryinghard, I know I should just walk away from this one, but I can't let this be the last word, as others may misunderstand. You know you are right, and there is probably little I can say to change your opinion here.

A specification just isn't the holy grail of authority. It is only as good as the people who wrote it, and the people who enforce it.

Over the years, I have been involved in writing a number of standards for the T&M industry, including the VXI system specifications, VXIplug&play, SCPI, IEEE-488 and IEEE-1451. There are a number of things that will weaken a standard to worthlessness.

First, the word 'should' in a specification translated to 'is recommended'. That is translated by users to "I don't gotta do this and you can't make me". SHALL is the word that has proven to stand up to court challenges and is generally specified in standards. I can quote paragraph from the IEEE standards guidelines if you want.

Second, specifications that reference vague and non-measureable criteria are useless. If the spec says, must pass a 1080P signal, how do you prove that it doesn't. Is it good enough to say the picture comes through clean on a single hand picked set, or does there need to be a torture test set that it must work with. That set wasn't specified, so nobody has to go there.

Third, a standard without complience criteria and a certification lab are useless. HDMI does have a pretty good certification process, but from what I see, most cable manufacturers simply submit for the lowest level certification.

Fourth, the standard is only as good as its enforcement. This gets to be a tricky area. Sueing someone who didn't join the marketing alliance is a drop kick, but what do you do with a paying member who is releasing non-compliant or misleading product, especially if it is coming out of China or somewhere else where it is difficult to mount litigation?


Here are the logo guidelines for cables, in their entirety:


First, does anybody see any "shalls" other than the one about hijacking the trademark? They seem to be more concerned with making sure everybody joins the alliance and that they don't abuse the logo than making sure that the products actually work. Second, what does "carrying a 74.25MHz signal" mean. How many dB of loss is acceptable? What is the phase shift requirement? I assume this is in the testing criteria that they don't publish to the public.

"jayn_j"
"Tryinghard, I know I should just walk away from this one, but I can't let this be the last word, as others may misunderstand. You know you are right, and there is probably little I can say to change your opinion here."

I am right, NOT because I invented the Spec for HDMI cable, the cable that how many companies sign on too ? I counted 50 page downs on hdmi org just look for "HDMI Adopters"

And jayn_j, this technology wasn't invented by someone in a garage here is the list of founders

HDMI Founders

Hitachi, Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation
Philips Consumer Electronics International B.V.
Silicon Image, Inc.
Sony Corporation
Thomson, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation

I run into people like you all the time, please don't take that as bad, it just your too much into the tech to see the common sense of a fact that if the cable has a Spec and must be made to that Spec to achieve the results of that Spec, even with all them "shalls" the cable will work as specified and to even suggest that two cheap 6 ft hdmi cables don't bring the best and same possible signal one can get, too me this is a common problem of the insane IMO : - )), because if one of them is off (seeing and sound) it can not be in spec, one can have all the little debate points in the world, doesn't mean anything when watching and hearing with an in spec cable, if we were talking about component cables, well that would be a totally different but we wouldn't be having this little tit for tat ? why would one care if two cables getting different reading in lab equipment, but give the same results in the seeing and sound department just how is that a big deal ?? I don't watch HD through lab scopes ? maybe some do, I know it makes pages on some web sites but to the viewing public I am sure it's no big deal ?

If we also were talking about the difference between 60 hz and 120 hz that would be something, because all is fair in that discussion, I have a 120 and see no difference at all, do I don't have a ps3 or x-box hook up to it, no that might be the difference, that would come down to seeing not lab scopes and the people who pay more for it and that is the reason why some people think, yeah I see it : - ))

Again no hard feelings, but until we start seeing the $3 hdmi cable giving bad results in real life then we can have at it, but CNET doesn't buy into your slant either, as I have posted in this topic : - )

jayn_j,

You never did like Kenny Rogers did you ?

The Gambler

[You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.}

 

[jayn_j]

Sigh. You are seriously misquoting me.

I am not arguing against $4 cables. I have never argued against $4 cables. I buy from monoprice. I buy from the bargain bin at Frys. The only time I have EVER bought Monster was when they were closed out for $5/ea on woot.

I would really only worry about cables that were longer than 10 ft, and I don't have any of those in my system.

I am only arguing that simply placing an HDMI name and logo on a package pretty much proves nothing about quality and compliance. The list of adopters really means nothing in this case. It only shows that the standard is popular. In my experience, the more popular a standard is, the more likely there are lots of escape holes. Also, the standards I have worked on are not "garage" standards. They were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, Fluke, Racal, National Instruments, Boeing, NIST, etc.

My whole point was that the standard itself has some serious holes, and appears to be pretty much a marketing focus, rather than a serious technical focus. There is some serious restrictions on the connector, but the bandwidth requirements are vague.

I also think I am being patient here, and I see your frustration. Please don't shoot the messenger when you think he disagrees, especially when I don't.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Tryinghard, I know I should just walk away from this one, but I can't let this be the last word, as others may misunderstand. You know you are right, and there is probably little I can say to change your opinion here.

A specification just isn't the holy grail of authority. It is only as good as the people who wrote it, and the people who enforce it.

Over the years, I have been involved in writing a number of standards for the T&M industry, including the VXI system specifications, VXIplug&play, SCPI, IEEE-488 and IEEE-1451. There are a number of things that will weaken a standard to worthlessness.

First, the word 'should' in a specification translated to 'is recommended'. That is translated by users to "I don't gotta do this and you can't make me". SHALL is the word that has proven to stand up to court challenges and is generally specified in standards. I can quote paragraph from the IEEE standards guidelines if you want.

Second, specifications that reference vague and non-measureable criteria are useless. If the spec says, must pass a 1080P signal, how do you prove that it doesn't. Is it good enough to say the picture comes through clean on a single hand picked set, or does there need to be a torture test set that it must work with. That set wasn't specified, so nobody has to go there.

Third, a standard without complience criteria and a certification lab are useless. HDMI does have a pretty good certification process, but from what I see, most cable manufacturers simply submit for the lowest level certification.

Fourth, the standard is only as good as its enforcement. This gets to be a tricky area. Sueing someone who didn't join the marketing alliance is a drop kick, but what do you do with a paying member who is releasing non-compliant or misleading product, especially if it is coming out of China or somewhere else where it is difficult to mount litigation?


Here are the logo guidelines for cables, in their entirety:


First, does anybody see any "shalls" other than the one about hijacking the trademark? They seem to be more concerned with making sure everybody joins the alliance and that they don't abuse the logo than making sure that the products actually work. Second, what does "carrying a 74.25MHz signal" mean. How many dB of loss is acceptable? What is the phase shift requirement? I assume this is in the testing criteria that they don't publish to the public.

This is all "geek" to me.

 

[tryinghard]

Sigh. You are seriously misquoting me.

I am not arguing against $4 cables. I have never argued against $4 cables. I buy from monoprice. I buy from the bargain bin at Frys. The only time I have EVER bought Monster was when they were closed out for $5/ea on woot.

I would really only worry about cables that were longer than 10 ft, and I don't have any of those in my system.

I am only arguing that simply placing an HDMI name and logo on a package pretty much proves nothing about quality and compliance. The list of adopters really means nothing in this case. It only shows that the standard is popular. In my experience, the more popular a standard is, the more likely there are lots of escape holes. Also, the standards I have worked on are not "garage" standards. They were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, Fluke, Racal, National Instruments, Boeing, NIST, etc.

My whole point was that the standard itself has some serious holes, and appears to be pretty much a marketing focus, rather than a serious technical focus. There is some serious restrictions on the connector, but the bandwidth requirements are vague.

I also think I am being patient here, and I see your frustration. Please don't shoot the messenger when you think he disagrees, especially when I don't.

jayn_j, sorry I am late getting back to you had a busy weekend

“jayn_j,”

“Sigh. You are seriously misquoting me.”

I did ? please list that ? or is it more of the tangle webs getting in the way ???

“jayn_j,”

“I am not arguing against $4 cables. I have never argued against $4 cables. I buy from monoprice. I buy from the bargain bin at Frys. The only time I have EVER bought Monster was when they were closed out for $5/ea on woot.”

I know your into cheap hdmi cables everyone here is (except newbees), nothing wrong with that, so am I ?

“jayn_j,”

“I would really only worry about cables that were longer than 10 ft, and I don't have any of those in my system.”

And it looks like I didn’t cover all bases in my original post, I made a general statement about low cost cables being equal and didn’t specify any length so I take responsibility for that.

I didn’t think I would run into this kind of thing about simple typical hdmi cables, where two 6 ft long cables were of different grades this is how all this started, some people trying to hang on to the last word started to bring up “hdmi cable length” it’s a non-issue to me, I would also buy a better “long cable” if I was in that position, the thing on cable length was face facing at best, IMO.

“jayn_j,”

“I am only arguing that simply placing an HDMI name and logo on a package pretty much proves nothing about quality and compliance. The list of adopters really means nothing in this case. It only shows that the standard is popular. In my experience, the more popular a standard is, the more likely there are lots of escape holes. Also, the standards I have worked on are not "garage" standards. They were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, Fluke, Racal, National Instruments, Boeing, NIST, etc.”


A couple of things here
First I disagree with your statement of:

“simply placing an HDMI name and logo on a package pretty much proves nothing about quality and compliance.”

That IMO is a very weak statement I stated so much about that I woun’t do it all over again, that logo has very thing to do with it, it states that the hundreds of makers of HD equipment adopted the Spec it speaks volumes, and how on hdmi site state that they go after non compliance makers of cables.

“list of adopters really means nothing in this case. It only shows that the standard is popular”

Well that is some progress you did call it a “standard” and it is popular considering how many sign on and how many makers had that little jack in the back of equipment : - ))

“jayn_j,”
“Also, the standards I have worked on are not "garage" standards. They were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, Fluke, Racal, National Instruments, Boeing, NIST, etc.”

Go back and re-read that statement of mine, never mind I will copy it below…

[“And jayn_j, this technology (hdmi Spec) wasn’t invented by someone in a garage here is the list of founders”]

As anyone can tell after I listed that above I listed the industry trade names that invented this hdmi Spec, I never called your references “"garage standards” I wouldn’t be so lame.

“jayn_j,”

“My whole point was that the standard itself has some serious holes, and appears to be pretty much a marketing focus, rather than a serious technical focus. There is some serious restrictions on the connector, but the bandwidth requirements are vague.”

Q. What’s new in the HDMI 1.3 Specification?

Higher speed: Although all previous versions of HDMI have had more than enough bandwidth to support all current HDTV formats, including full, uncompressed 1080p signals, HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.

New HD lossless audio formats: In addition to HDMI’s current ability to support high-bandwidth uncompressed digital audio and all currently-available compressed formats (such as Dolby® Digital and DTS®), HDMI 1.3 adds additional support for new lossless compressed digital audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio™.

“jayn_j,”
“and appears to be pretty much a marketing focus, rather than a serious technical focus”

Q. What is HDMI?
HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) is the first and only industry-supported, uncompressed, all-digital audio/video interface. By delivering crystal-clear, all-digital audio and video via a single cable, HDMI dramatically simplifies cabling and helps provide consumers with the highest-quality home theater experience. HDMI provides an interface between any audio/video source, such as a set-top box, DVD player, or A/V receiver and an audio and/or video monitor, such as a digital television (DTV), over a single cable.

….” pretty much a marketing focus….” ??????????????? WTH ?

“jayn_j,”

“I also think I am being patient here, and I see your frustration. Please don't shoot the messenger when you think he disagrees, especially when I don't.”

Friend your mistake here is you think I am frustrated and as for the messenger please this cable supports everything out there without a hint of user seeing anything different from video / audio, you see this is where you and others don’t get it, you and some others hang everything on lab scopes : - )

Please hdmi is the greatest invention that ever came out to transport HD signals in “uncompressed 1080p signals” no one out there is seeing a problem in there signals only some people just trying to hang on to some very weak debating points the points that some writers use to fill up dead spaces in trade magazines and some web sites, if there was a problem out there instead of the lousy 2% of the cables that “don’t pass the Spec” then and only then would people like you have center-stage and as for any lab test that would shown a difference between two 6 ft long hdmi cables and didn’t state “this was a very rare problem ? if indeed there was a seeing and audio difference, well I better not state how I feel about that, well I may have, it’s dishonest at best !

All this because I said as long as a hdmi cable passes Spec there are no difference in them and that little true statement has just a few all upset ? and the stuff started to fly all the way now too

“and appears to be pretty much a marketing focus, rather than a serious technical focus”

Now just start to hum that tune I told you about : - )))