Question on Home Entertainment systems

[Pansy-Paws]

I also bought my cables from monoprice.com (about 1 month ago) ... 2 six foot cables, and 2 ten foot cables ... total delivered price $32US. At that price I didn't worry about our anemic exchange rate . I'm very happy with their performance on my Blu-ray and 1080p LCD.

The issue of cables will probably never be resolved, as Monster has done a wonderful marketing job. Yes, their cable components are higher quality, but as the CBC Marketplace article shows, for sending and receiving a digital signal it can be overkill. Monster made their name in the analog world (e.g. speakers), where cable sizes and premium connectors make a difference.

That said, monoprice.com does have a range of cables to choose from. I went for the HDMI 1.3a Category 2 certified 28 AWG. The 24 AWG cables are suggested for lengths over 12 foot.

[mark]

Originally Posted by GreenSpottedPuffer

All I know is that I am happy with mine

And that's really all that matters

[VFX]

I've dumbed it down A LOT here but...

True Hi Def (full resolution HDTV) gives a picture format of 1920 x 1080 at 24 frames per second.

That is the source we create (I work in the film & TV industry) that goes onto Blu Ray disks & also give to the broadcasters to transmit to your homes (for those of you that have HD satellite or cable).

You need a 1080p capable display to properly to render this in it's entirety. If you don't then your TV will be downsizing the signal to 1080i, 720p, 720i etc.

Doesn't matter if you're using a 120Hz or a 60Hz display, the data going through the cable is still 1920x1080 @ 24 frames per second.

The cables we use at work are built by our tech guys & are good basic shielded cables with very good quality connectors.

Our cable runs are huge & can have dozens of cables bundled together, running 20m away from the source.

There's no signal degradation issues.

Until we start pushing more data down the line (1080p@50 or 60 is in the works) & unless you have a long cable run, there's no need to spend big $$$'s on cables.

Just my personal experience.

.

[RSM]

I hate to disappoint all of you, but I install Pro-Audio/Visual system to make a living. I know for a fact that expensive HDMI cables are no different than $20.00 HDMI cables--data/speed wise. Quality of connectors will vary with price as well as the jacket and possibly fancy packaging; however, there are tests that PROVE that the data from both types of cable arrive at the SAME TIME from one source to the next. IT'S A DIGITAL SIGNAL--"you either get the feed or you don't"--quoted off this study on the internet: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...e/4235717.html
The blu-ray player I own is connected to a TV that is 1080p which supports this resolution. It is funny how many people have a blu-ray player but have a TV that does not support it, and they wonder why they don't see any difference. Just trying to help out here, we can go on and on about this, but there are FACTS that are undisputable.

[VFX]

Originally Posted by RSM

I hate to disappoint all of you, but I install Pro-Audio/Visual system to make a living. I know for a fact that expensive HDMI cables are no different than $20.00 HDMI cables--data/speed wise. Quality of connectors will vary with price as well as the jacket and possibly fancy packaging; however, there are tests that PROVE that the data from both types of cable arrive at the SAME TIME from one source to the next. IT'S A DIGITAL SIGNAL--"you either get the feed or you don't"--quoted off this study on the internet: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...e/4235717.html
The blu-ray player I own is connected to a TV that is 1080p which supports this resolution. It is funny how many people have a blu-ray player but have a TV that does not support it, and they wonder why they don't see any difference. Just trying to help out here, we can go on and on about this, but there are FACTS that are undisputable.

At last somebody talking sense on this subject!

Thank you!

.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by VFX

I've dumbed it down A LOT here but...

True Hi Def (full resolution HDTV) gives a picture format of 1920 x 1080 at 24 frames per second.

That is the source we create (I work in the film & TV industry) that goes onto Blu Ray disks & also give to the broadcasters to transmit to your homes (for those of you that have HD satellite or cable).

You need a 1080p capable display to properly to render this in it's entirety. If you don't then your TV will be downsizing the signal to 1080i, 720p, 720i etc.

then why does shaw broadcast there HD at 1080i? I have the TV to support P, but the highest output availble from my HD box is 1080i.

And Sony, although I don't like sony, that what was bought for me, decided in there infanate wisdone to not allow there blue-ray player to push 1080p through componant, so if you want the p you have to use HDMI. so now I have to buy an new reciver and TV mind you my Tv is starting to have issues anyways

Steve

[VFX]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

then why does shaw broadcast there HD at 1080i? I have the TV to support P, but the highest output availble from my HD box is 1080i.

So you're asking me that if I deliver at 1080p then why do Shaw broadcast in 1080i?

You'll have to ask Shaw why they choose to broadcast at lower than full HD.

The specification we delivery ALL our HD broadcast materials are 1920x1080 at 24 frames per second.

What they do with it once they receive it is up the individual network to decide.

Like I said before I dumbed it down a lot - perhaps too much for some.

.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

then why does shaw broadcast there HD at 1080i? I have the TV to support P, but the highest output availble from my HD box is 1080i.

Steve

If Shaw broadcast at 1080p, I'd have to have a 1080p-compatible set (or a new box to handle the downconvert), and I don't. Neither do 99% of the other HD customers. Also, Shaw would have to double their bandwidth per channel, and there just isn't enough bandwidth availalbe to do that for all channels. It will be a long time (maybe never) before you see 1080p in broadcast. Incidentally, bandwidth conservation is the reason why Shaw (and most others) broadcast in 1080i instead of 720p, although many people prefer 720p. Never mind; these days, the real "quality issue" isn't lines or interlacing -- it is compression. All the carriers are compressing their streams mercilessly, and that means artifacts (like blocking) all over the place. It is much more noticable than lines of resolution (meaning you can actually see the effect). Whenever I get a chance to see an over-the-air HD broadcast of a hockey or football game, it is startling to see how much better it looks without compression.

1080p ("full HD") is just not a quality issue for the vast majority of HD set owners. Your bad setups, uncalibrated tvs, SD sources, bad lighting, and distance from the set all will be bigger contributers to your viewing experience than 1080p v 720p or 1080i. Very, very few people will ever notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, unless they've got a killer setup, and are pretty close to their sets. Our eyes just aren't that good. Of course, expectation bias will convince many people that the bigger number is better.