Support NeoGAF

[iamblades]

Actually, plenty of people had issues with long runs of older HDMI 1.0 cables when they went to newer gear.

They never should have used DVI as a basis for an A/V interconnect. It wasn't designed for long runs in the first place.

I hadn't heard much about that, and I never had much issues myself, but I haven't really dealt with any runs longer than 15-20 ft.

You are correct that DVI is not ideal for long runs, the question is, what is better? I don't know of anything that allows that kind of bandwidth over longer distances. 10GbE or fibre channel could just about manage, but probably too expensive for consumer devices, at least when HDMI was developed.

 

[AmMortal]

I have no Idea wtf this is, but it sounds MASSIVE.

 

[Raistlin]

I hadn't heard much about that, and I never had much issues myself, but I haven't really dealt with any runs longer than 15-20 ft.

You are correct that DVI is not ideal for long runs, the question is, what is better? I don't know of anything that allows that kind of bandwidth over longer distances. 10GbE or fibre channel could just about manage, but probably too expensive for consumer devices, at least when HDMI was developed.

Yeah, you're probably right.

I'm so used to using stuff like fiber channel at work, I forget how much it costs.

 

[maharg]

When people say "all HDMI cables are the same quality", they typically mean that it either works or doesn't work ... unlike with analog cables. While that isn't entirely true, its generally accurate. Technically, it isn't all or nothing, but you can tell when somethings wrong (either intermittent blanking out ... white dots, etc).


However, that doesn't mean that a cable that works fine with your DVD player will automatically work with something else using a newer HDMI spec. The rating states the bandwidth (BW) the cable supports. As the HDMI spec continues to include new features, if a device is using more BW than your cable supports ... it won't work.

Fortunately, when that happens you'll find out and you can go buy a *new* $10 cable that will probably be up to the standards of what you want at the time. The reality is that equipment being sold *now* is using bandwidth available *now*. Very few people, and especially very few of the people suckered into $100+ cables, have equipment that is even pushing the envelope on one end or the other.

Ugh.

Monster Cables are certainly overrated and idiotically (geniusnessly?) marketed, but it's not god damn just 0s and 1s. There is something to be said about signal integrity.

It pretty much is on a digital interconnect. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no Magic Subspace Signal going across an HDMI cable to give you dot crawl or colour bleed.

 

[Raistlin]

Fortunately, when that happens you'll find out and you can go buy a *new* $10 cable that will probably be up to the standards of what you want at the time. The reality is that equipment being sold *now* is using bandwidth available *now*. Very few people, and especially very few of the people suckered into $100+ cables, have equipment that is even pushing the envelope on one end or the other.

Oh ... I agree

Didn't mean to imply Monster Cable was worth it

 

[sc0la]

Why do they use both the Metric and the Imperial systems for the length of the cable?

They don't trust americans to multiply 3* by anything larger than six in their head?

* (3.37)

 

[AlexMogil]

Question: Aren't all HDMI cables the same? After all, it's just ones and zeros.

Today's High-Definition TV technology is on an unprecedented pace of growth placing greater demands on HDMI cable technology. With recent advances in High-Definition displays such as 1080p, and sources such as PlayStation® 3, data rate requirements have tripled since last year.

Cables that worked with original HD standards may not work for the much more demanding standards of today and tomorrow. As a result, HDMI co-founder Silicon Image has developed many revisions of HDMI cable specifications to meet these demands.

Not all HDMI cables are the same but you can look to Monster for high performance cables and designs that exceed current specifications.

Question: Okay, yeah, so aren't all HDMI cables the same? After all, it's just ones and zeros.

This could go on for days.

 

[purnoman3000]

What I don't understand is how a bandwidth/data transfer rate of 2.35 gbps, much less one of 14.93 gbps is even necessary. The highest quality image, short of a crazy high-res image from a computer (2560 by 1600) which DVI is able to handle just fine, is Blu-ray. Blu-Ray at its current quality using 50 GB discs tends to have an average video transfer rate of ~30 mbps if the built-in bit rate counter on the PS3 is anything to go by. Even if it peaks slightly higher and factoring in uncompressed audio, at this point, I don't see it ever being higher than 100 mbps. Now unless i'm completely off in my interpretation of these numbers, I go back to my first question.

 

[xsarien]

It pretty much is on a digital interconnect. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no Magic Subspace Signal going across an HDMI cable to give you dot crawl or colour bleed.

Coming soon from Monster: Gold-plated, super-conductive "2" filter on all HDMI cables.

 

[MickeyKnox]

WTF, this thread is almost a year old.

 

[Amzin]

What I don't understand is how a bandwidth/data transfer rate of 2.35 gbps, much less one of 14.93 gbps is even necessary. The highest quality image, short of a crazy high-res image from a computer (2560 by 1600) which DVI is able to handle just fine, is Blu-ray. Blu-Ray at its current quality using 50 GB discs tends to have an average video transfer rate of ~30 mbps if the built-in bit rate counter on the PS3 is anything to go by. Even if it peaks slightly higher and factoring in uncompressed audio, at this point, I don't see it ever being higher than 100 mbps. Now unless i'm completely off in my interpretation of these numbers, I go back to my first question.

I think the only way to increase the amount of data needed to transfer would be some kind of holographic displays. 1080p is already pushing the limit of detail human eyes can differentiate between (at a normal viewing distance, it's already passed it), so there's no reason to increase that beyond tech-penis waving, so far as I know.

1080p holographs would probably be absurd amounts of data, but that's so far off that those cables will be eaten by a random kitten long before their extra transfer rate is useful.

 

[Jack Scofield]

WTF, this thread is almost a year old.

Oh shit, I didn't even realize that I had bumped this thread by mistake. I must have gotten mixed up when reading this thread.

Sorry guys.

 

[maharg]

I think the only way to increase the amount of data needed to transfer would be some kind of holographic displays. 1080p is already pushing the limit of detail human eyes can differentiate between (at a normal viewing distance, it's already passed it), so there's no reason to increase that beyond tech-penis waving, so far as I know.

Well, the next step is just to get less and less lossy. There's still plenty of room for growth there. It won't be any time soon, though, that's for sure.

 

[domokunrox]

A monster audio cable(TRS,XLR,TS high resistance) is better than some shitty no name brand stuff, plus they have a lifetime warranty. Digital cables though......

Not really. If you can find anyone out there who knows how to solder Analog Audio cables, they can do it for way cheaper and they're much nicer.

All my Cables are Canare with Switchcraft Plugs (The all metal kind).