HDMI cables a "Ripoff"

Jeff wrote:
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!

Here ya go, $749.99 for a 100-ft HDMI cable:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2555462

"Ric Seyler" wrote in message
...


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.

Seyler spouts this total bull**** once more. Of course, he can't cite any
real evidence. Unless the cheap cable is actually defective in it's
transmission, you will notice no difference, even if you are as much an
"expert" as this assclown. More expensive cables CAN be better for a few
reasons: first, durability. Of course, I've seen fragile expensive ones as
well as rock solid cheap ones, but on the whole, build quality and materials
is better with more $. Second, the better materials can make a difference
on really long cables, where the analog issues inherent to high speed
digital transmission become more of a factor. I'm reminded of a bright
young engineer I worked with 20 years ago. We were a small company doing
high speed (at the time) fiber optic systems for military and aviation use.
He ad designed a circuit and breadboarded it using wirewrap conections.
Each IC was mounted in a socket that had one inch long leads for each
pinout, aand he was trying to clock the thing at 100 mhz...so factors like
capacitance between the leads, different lengths of wire, reflections and
the like all worked to make the signal lose coherency the higher he clocked
it...he was great digitally, but had no idea of the issues involved with
what was also an RF signal. Longer (50' and over) HDMI runs can suffer from
the same issues.

Seyler is one of the hairheads who buys into the audio fool sniff test
bull****.


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...



Because they are active devices where as a cable is passive, you moron. Try
to set up a valid comparison. You can't leave out the digital enhancements,
or differences in the DACs, and differences in the converted analog signal
processing.




--
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

"Michel Oui" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Jeff wrote:
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!

Here ya go, $749.99 for a 100-ft HDMI cable:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2555462

We have a winner! ... or a loser.

Belkin doesn't reference this product on their website. I suppose they
discontinued it due to lack of demand.

http://catalog.belkin.com/pureav_det...duct_id=178779

In article ,
"Guest" wrote:

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.

Right. Anyone who's done any work with digital transmission will
recognize that the rounder, more fully packed zeros and straighter,
taller ones delivered by high priced cables produce superior results to
those slumping ones and semi-deflated zeros of ordinary cables,
checksums notwithstanding.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

The Polish Bicycle Ride wrote:

"Ric Seyler" wrote in message
.. .


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.


should read "won't look" $130 better


Seyler spouts this total bull**** once more. Of course, he can't cite any
real evidence. Unless the cheap cable is actually defective in it's
transmission, you will notice no difference, even if you are as much an
"expert" as this assclown. More expensive cables CAN be better for a few
reasons: first, durability. Of course, I've seen fragile expensive ones as
well as rock solid cheap ones, but on the whole, build quality and materials
is better with more $. Second, the better materials can make a difference
on really long cables, where the analog issues inherent to high speed
digital transmission become more of a factor. I'm reminded of a bright
young engineer I worked with 20 years ago. We were a small company doing
high speed (at the time) fiber optic systems for military and aviation use.
He ad designed a circuit and breadboarded it using wirewrap conections.
Each IC was mounted in a socket that had one inch long leads for each
pinout, aand he was trying to clock the thing at 100 mhz...so factors like
capacitance between the leads, different lengths of wire, reflections and
the like all worked to make the signal lose coherency the higher he clocked
it...he was great digitally, but had no idea of the issues involved with
what was also an RF signal. Longer (50' and over) HDMI runs can suffer from
the same issues.

Seyler is one of the hairheads who buys into the audio fool sniff test
bull****.


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! And the world just keeps on a spinnin'................



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...





Because they are active devices where as a cable is passive, you moron. Try
to set up a valid comparison. You can't leave out the digital enhancements,
or differences in the DACs, and differences in the converted analog signal
processing.





--
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









--
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

"noel8" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Big price to pay to turn your entire AV system into a DRM / HDCP lockdown.
Makes me wonder if much of the high cost of these 2 way wires is funneled
back to RIAA and Hollywood to recoup the losses from home taping, copying,
etc.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:41:46 -0400, "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...

I think there is a huge difference between comparing two DVD players which
have a lot of electronics inside them, different manufactures etc. And then
there is a cable which only transmits the assembled picture from one end of
the cable to the other. Comparing the two is silly really as the difference in
complexity between the two is huge.

When it comes to cables, I see a big difference between S-video and
HDMI, but comparing HDMI cables against each other is a bit different.

First, remember that HDMI cables are handling a high speed digital
signal that takes a lot of bandwidth. They have to do this over a
given length without cross talk between signals and without
degradation of those signals. The longer the cable the more the
leading and trailing edges of the pulses are rounded off eventually to
the point of the set being unable to decode them. Also the pieces of
equipment at each end of the cable generally "talk to each other"
which makes the HDMI cable much more like an oversize net work cable
than the analog S-video.

HDMI cables are multi-conductor which means they have a multi pin
connector on each end. There are differences between the quality of
the connectors and the cables and HDMI cables were made in
*relatively* small quantities which at first put them in a specialty
market. Some makers/distributors are still relying on the mind set of
that market and the trade name they developed.

Beyond the actual quality (ruggedness, flexibility, lay of wires, size
of wire, material used in wire, insulation, connector construction and
materials. ) of the cable and connectors which can determine the
difference between a cheap and quality constructed cable there should
be little difference.

I doubt there is little that would raise the cost of a set of cables
made of the best materials including gold plated contacts above where
they *could* be sold in the neighborhood $20 to $50. Anything beyond
that would in general have to be hype.

OTOH you may find both high quality and poor quality cables for about
the same price.

"Ric Seyler" wrote in message
...


The Polish Bicycle Ride wrote:

"Ric Seyler" wrote in message

SNIP



HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! And the world just keeps on a spinnin'................




And once again, he refers you to not a single shred of evidence to support
his unfounded claims.



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...





Because they are active devices where as a cable is passive, you moron.
Try
to set up a valid comparison. You can't leave out the digital
enhancements,
or differences in the DACs, and differences in the converted analog signal
processing.





--
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









--
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

The Polish Bicycle Ride wrote:

"Ric Seyler" wrote in message
. ..


The Polish Bicycle Ride wrote:



"Ric Seyler" wrote in message


SNIP





HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! And the world just keeps on a spinnin'................






And once again, he refers you to not a single shred of evidence to support
his unfounded claims.


Why would I want to go through the time and trouble to try and change
your opinion?
If that's what you think, then more power to ya, man. shrugs shoulders



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...






Because they are active devices where as a cable is passive, you moron.
Try
to set up a valid comparison. You can't leave out the digital
enhancements,
or differences in the DACs, and differences in the converted analog signal
processing.







--
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










--
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









--
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