Question on Home Entertainment systems - Page 4

VFX · #31 01-01-2009, 07:22 PM

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 · #32 01-01-2009, 08:02 PM

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 · #33 01-01-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

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!

.

banditpowdercoat · #34 01-01-2009, 09:38 PM

I allways shake my head when I go into Futureshop and see the Mosntercable innterconnects. $100+ for a 6ft cable. And People buy it thinking it improves your picture

Good connectors, yes, I definately belive in that. Gold, well, it's not the best conductor out there. Silver is the best conductor. BUT, silver oxidizes fast where as Gold doesn't. Thats why Gold is used on the connectors, no oxidization. I remember one type of innterconnect cable, for Audio, they used different sized strands, claiming larger strands for the low frequencies, and the finer strands conducted the higher frequencies. Total crock of BULL. Electricity acctually prefer's to run on the Outside of the strands. No matter what the frequency. It's called the skin effect. False advertising really ticks me off on things.

mark · #35 01-01-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VFX

At last somebody talking sense on this subject!

Thank you!

.

hey, I think I've been trying to make the point to save some bucks as well

.

VFX · #36 01-01-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark

hey, I think I've been trying to make the point to save some bucks as well

.

Sorry Mark!

You been talking sense too

.

Sebae again · #37 01-02-2009, 12:13 AM

IMO if you go with a shielded cable with gold plated connectors,you can not go wrong.Just think if you were the retailer,would you be happier selling a $20-$50 cable or a $100-$200 cable? It is all about profit margin.I have Costco and Monster cables and I can not tell a difference.

Johnny Reefer · #38 01-02-2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebae again

....Just think if you were the retailer,would you be happier selling a $20-$50 cable or a $100-$200 cable? It is all about profit margin. ....

I'm not so sure that's always the case. In about 4-6 months I'm planning on a full meal deal upgrade. Sony LCD 1080p TV, HD, PVR, surround sound, perhaps Blu-Ray, yada yada. My current TV is about 14 years old. I'm going to have a lot of questions. A local independant dealer has been HIGHLY recommended to me. I expect straight up, no BS, advice and service.

banditpowdercoat · #39 01-02-2009, 01:16 AM

And if he recommends the expensive cables???

Slick Fork · #40 01-02-2009, 01:41 AM

Ha,

I'm starting to feel like I've created a "monster" with this thread! I did some digging on the net and one point that was made regarding the HDMI cables is that it's a digital signal meaning it's all ones and zero's so you either get a signal or you don't and that the shielding argument disappears because it takes a LOT of distortion to make a computer confuse a one with a zero.

For me though, that link mark provided where they compare the three cables with a computer really does settle the argument. Zero degradation on all 3 cables regardless of cost.