Dont pay over the odds for HDMI cable

Yes it is a rip off - I have written about it before. The shocking thing is that even trusted brands like Richer Sounds try to flog people these overpriced cables. You kind of expect that from the likes of Currys and Dixons. I have written about this before:

HDMI Cable Con | Consumer Information

There's a huge difference between cheap cables and expensive ones. We once hooked up a cheap and rubbish HDMI DVD player next to an expensive HDMI 1080p DVD player. A cheap HDMI cable made the expensive player look as bad as the cheap DVD player, and the good cable made the rubbish DVD player look exquisite. A decent cable has better insulation so you get less interference from other cables etc.

If you are looking for a serious home cinema set up, you can ruin the picture with a cheap cable. But then again, if you aren't too worried about picture then the money is definitely not worth it. £50 or more is a lot of money for a cable..

I disagree with that Gekko. My dad bought a HDMI cable with his TV for £50 in Currys. I picked one up in GameStation for a tenner for my PS3 and you really cannot tell the difference, whether it be watching normal TV, a HD channel, or on the PS3. I'd go with the cheaper option any day.

Gekko, your cable must have been damaged. If you get on for 50p on Ebay then you may have problems but there will no difference between a £10 one and a £50 one.

when is a cable cheap?

Hi all just joined your forums (yay) Great information and advice here.

This post got my attention

Firstly, Tony, what do you think is the difference between a 50p ebay cable, a £10 or £50? Cost does necessarily relate to quality. A 50p ebay item is often as good as a more expensive one.

BUT, they do make a difference!! Steve (and all) you cannot compare a cable just by hooking it up to YOUR tv.

One, unless you have 'reference' equipment is your tv capable of displaying full High Definition signals (Is it 'full HD, not 'HD ready' how GOOD a display is it, has it been set-up and CALIBRATED?)Even so a 'Full HD' set is not guaranteed to support the 1080p24 format. Most tv displays CANNOT display a full HD 1080p24 signal (1920x1080 pixels) without some form of scaling.

Two, you cannot compare by changing one cable for another. Your visual acuity and brain cannot possibly take in,process, remember and recall all the information it was given. (you would need two IDENTICAL systems, with IDENTICAL calibration running at the same time to even begin to compare with your eyes, and don't believe everything you see!)

It also depends on the amount of contrast in the picture at the time. (Ever notice in the shops how the displays are all set to bright pictures with little darkness! (the tv is set to 'shop mode' and the source is specially selected!)

Hands up who has taken their 'HD' sets out of shop mode and calibrated the screen?

Three, is your transmission equipment up to par? Do you know of any broadcast transmissions that broadcast full High Definition at 1080p? (No, is the answer)

Don't get me wrong guys I'm not having a dig at anyone here, just a bit of education.
A poor quality cable is such a let down if you have Full HD equipment, believe me I install systems.
A good quality cable will pass a cleaner signal and be less prone to interference, lasts longer (And Looks cool too, Lol)

If a cheap cable suits you fine. But don't knock a good quality interconnect without being able to do a scientific comparison.
Wait till you try 'real' HD on a proper display using Blu-ray as a source, you'll all be dumping your cheap cable for something better!

P.s. Blu-ray is 'only' 1080p24 better to come!

Sh*t sorry for the long post, this isn't a quick subject.

Just read the report\article ' HDMI Cable Con'

You don't understand digital transmission. It is not purely a matter of 'on' or 'off' with the signal. Or there would be no difference between normal CD quality and SACD (Super Audio)

There would be no difference between a cheap cd\dvd player and one of good quality (And you know there is a great difference)

The ability of the interconnect to cleanly pass the signal and without interference at a high transmission rate makes a great difference on the audio\visual quality

Even a cheap disc (CD or DVD) looks\sounds different!

Cheap gear, cheap cable. Good quality gear, you'll go shopping

siaynoq said:

Just read the report\article ' HDMI Cable Con'

You don't understand digital transmission. It is not purely a matter of 'on' or 'off' with the signal. Or there would be no difference between normal CD quality and SACD (Super Audio)

Click to expand...

Siaynoq, I would agree with you if you were talking about analogue interconnects. but most people simply can't tell the difference even with blu-ray and a 1080 television.

The difference between CD and SACD is not related to the interconnect, they are different stadards with SACD transmitting at a higher rate.

I must admit sacd was a BAD example of a point I was trying to get across

And I do concede that most of these cables are fashion not function, eg 'gold' plated plugs (only of benefit if connecting to gold plated sockets!) but I have seen with my own eyes and read study's that show how alot of these 'cheaper' cables adversely affect the picture quality.

As an aside you think hdmi can be a rip off, how about these mains cables at £1149!!! (Can't post link but at lessloss dot com, dare you to read the blurb)

(I'll have six please lol)