HDMI cables a "Ripoff"

I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.

"noel8" ...
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.


If you're not interested in HD, then why are you trolling around an HD
newsgroup?

"Jeff" wrote:
"noel8" ...
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.


If you're not interested in HD, then why are you trolling around an HD
newsgroup?

Maybe he was stupid enough to spend $700
on an hdmi cable and he is ****ed (at himself).

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

wrote ...
"Jeff" wrote:
"noel8" ...
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.


If you're not interested in HD, then why are you trolling around an HD
newsgroup?

Maybe he was stupid enough to spend $700
on an hdmi cable and he is ****ed (at himself).

Chip

I'd like to see who's selling HDMI cables for $700. Even
BlueJeansCable.com's most expensive HDMI cable is less than $100 ... and
it's 50 ft long!

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/dvi/index.htm

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:47:49 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
wrote:

On 30 Apr 2007 06:45:25 -0700, noel8 wrote:
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.

Buy a cheap one. There's almost never a reason to spend more than about
$12 for a reasonably short cable. If you get a picture at all, it'll be
as good as the most expensive cable you can buy. If you can't, buy
another cheap one and grumble about poor manufacturing control. You
generally won't be able to see a difference between a $15 cable and a
$150 cable showing the same source.

It's just for the gullible people out there that think they are getting some
kind of improvement on screen and then kid themselves that they can see it
afterwards. I guarantee that the same people would not be able to pass a blind
test between a cheap cable like you can find on eBay for a few quid and a
really expensive one.

"Memnoch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:47:49 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"

wrote:

On 30 Apr 2007 06:45:25 -0700, noel8 wrote:
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.

Buy a cheap one. There's almost never a reason to spend more than about
$12 for a reasonably short cable. If you get a picture at all, it'll be
as good as the most expensive cable you can buy. If you can't, buy
another cheap one and grumble about poor manufacturing control. You
generally won't be able to see a difference between a $15 cable and a
$150 cable showing the same source.

It's just for the gullible people out there that think they are getting
some
kind of improvement on screen and then kid themselves that they can see it
afterwards. I guarantee that the same people would not be able to pass a
blind
test between a cheap cable like you can find on eBay for a few quid and a
really expensive one.

You do see an improvement! Not a substantial one, but those who scrutinize
piucture quality will see it. I would never pay $300 or $700 for one, but
go on Ebay and find a high quality used one for about $20! I had a thread
about this about 5 months ago and I would hate to go back there, but higher
quality materials DO make a difference in the delivery of the information,
even of it's digital.

I know, "it's zeroes and ones, so it is what it is." However, you can't
tell me that all DVD players offer the same picture quality now can you?
Since they cannot and you will explain it, then why don't they offer the
same picture quality? Let's leave out digital enhancements...

"Guest" wrote in message
...

"Memnoch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:47:49 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"

wrote:

On 30 Apr 2007 06:45:25 -0700, noel8 wrote:
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.

Buy a cheap one. There's almost never a reason to spend more than about
$12 for a reasonably short cable. If you get a picture at all, it'll be
as good as the most expensive cable you can buy. If you can't, buy
another cheap one and grumble about poor manufacturing control. You
generally won't be able to see a difference between a $15 cable and a
$150 cable showing the same source.

It's just for the gullible people out there that think they are getting
some
kind of improvement on screen and then kid themselves that they can see
it
afterwards. I guarantee that the same people would not be able to pass a
blind
test between a cheap cable like you can find on eBay for a few quid and a
really expensive one.

You do see an improvement! Not a substantial one, but those who
scrutinize piucture quality will see it.

NO. There is nothing subtle about digital transmission. The two cables will
either present the same picture, or one will have dropouts and/or flashes of
light. As for prices, assume $1.50 for each connector, $2 for decent cable,
and you get $5. Triple that for retail, and a fair price is $15.

Tam

I would never pay $300 or $700 for one, but
go on Ebay and find a high quality used one for about $20! I had a thread
about this about 5 months ago and I would hate to go back there, but
higher quality materials DO make a difference in the delivery of the
information, even of it's digital.

I know, "it's zeroes and ones, so it is what it is." However, you can't
tell me that all DVD players offer the same picture quality now can you?
Since they cannot and you will explain it, then why don't they offer the
same picture quality? Let's leave out digital enhancements...

Guest wrote:

"Memnoch" wrote in message
.. .


On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:47:49 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"

wrote:



On 30 Apr 2007 06:45:25 -0700, noel8 wrote:


I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.


Buy a cheap one. There's almost never a reason to spend more than about
$12 for a reasonably short cable. If you get a picture at all, it'll be
as good as the most expensive cable you can buy. If you can't, buy
another cheap one and grumble about poor manufacturing control. You
generally won't be able to see a difference between a $15 cable and a
$150 cable showing the same source.


It's just for the gullible people out there that think they are getting
some
kind of improvement on screen and then kid themselves that they can see it
afterwards. I guarantee that the same people would not be able to pass a
blind
test between a cheap cable like you can find on eBay for a few quid and a
really expensive one.



You do see an improvement! Not a substantial one, but those who scrutinize
piucture quality will see it. I would never pay $300 or $700 for one, but
go on Ebay and find a high quality used one for about $20! I had a thread
about this about 5 months ago and I would hate to go back there, but higher
quality materials DO make a difference in the delivery of the information,
even of it's digital.


Yepper!! The anti high end cable people take their opinions too far on
this subject.
There is an absolute difference, but you have to have a system and the
knowledge that
can distinguish the differences. And then you will approach the
Diminishing Return Theory.

Now to say that a $150 interconnect will look $130 better than a $20 on
a low/mid
level system I can absolutely agree with.

I know, "it's zeroes and ones, so it is what it is." However, you can't
tell me that all DVD players offer the same picture quality now can you?
Since they cannot and you will explain it, then why don't they offer the
same picture quality? Let's leave out digital enhancements...





--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

Guest wrote:
"Memnoch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:47:49 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"

wrote:

On 30 Apr 2007 06:45:25 -0700, noel8 wrote:
I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables and then the component
cables, and now HDMI. I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.
Buy a cheap one. There's almost never a reason to spend more than about
$12 for a reasonably short cable. If you get a picture at all, it'll be
as good as the most expensive cable you can buy. If you can't, buy
another cheap one and grumble about poor manufacturing control. You
generally won't be able to see a difference between a $15 cable and a
$150 cable showing the same source.
It's just for the gullible people out there that think they are getting
some
kind of improvement on screen and then kid themselves that they can see it
afterwards. I guarantee that the same people would not be able to pass a
blind
test between a cheap cable like you can find on eBay for a few quid and a
really expensive one.

You do see an improvement! Not a substantial one, but those who scrutinize
piucture quality will see it. I would never pay $300 or $700 for one, but
go on Ebay and find a high quality used one for about $20! I had a thread
about this about 5 months ago and I would hate to go back there, but higher
quality materials DO make a difference in the delivery of the information,
even of it's digital.

I know, "it's zeroes and ones, so it is what it is." However, you can't
tell me that all DVD players offer the same picture quality now can you?
Since they cannot and you will explain it, then why don't they offer the
same picture quality? Let's leave out digital enhancements...

Note that a standard definition DVD player converts the image to an
analog NTSC signal before making it available on the composite video or
S-Video output jack though. The quality of THAT circuitry might result
in image variation.

IF a digital cable is BAD enough to mask some of the voltage transitions
in the digital data stream some of the image data could be
unrecoverable, affecting display quality.

noel8 wrote:

I'm new to this terminology..HDMI. I've seen prices as high as $700 to
$2.98...I thought that hd was the answer to perfect viewing, now all
of a sudden they are throwing a special cable to make it supposedly
better? First they said to use s-video cables

1985? LOL

and then the component
cables,

1995? LOL

and now HDMI.

The 21st Century!

I'm perfectly satisfied even with my anolog
reception, let alone hd...what a rip off.


Then you should be very happy!
You can fulfill your needs very cheaply!


--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson