Hi,

Has anybody experimented with longer HDMI cable lengths, such as 10, 12, or 15 ft? Any degredation in the video signal at around 10-12 ft? Also, any recommendations on good manufacturers for 10-15ft HDMI cables?Anyone have any experience with Blue Jeans, RAM Electronics, Better Cables, or even Sony (they make white cables to match walls/carpets)? Those cables are much better priced than Monster for example.

Cheers,

Sany.

I've purchased cables from cablesforless before.  In fact I'm using the 30 ft HDMI cable (only $50) and I don't see any difference then using my 6ft cable.

http://www.cablesforless.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=406

You should see no degradation in the signal at lengths less than 50 feet or so with a standard HDMI cable...if you need to go longer, I'd get a higher end HDMI cable...

PC World just did a test on various HDMI cables, from Kimber Kables & Monster Calbes to CableWholesale...all were about 4-4.5 meters (about 10-15 ft). Turns out that not much difference could be found between the $30 CableWholesale and even the $300 monster cable. I hope this helps!

 Hello,

Since I've been reading a lot about the differences and lack of differences between "expensive" cable and "cheap" cable and different cable lengths, I thought this weekend I would experiment with different cables and lengths, and try to come up with a conclusion myself. Using only my own observations, I concluded the following below.

Equipment I used in test: Samsung HLP-5085w DLP TV (uncalibrated), a Denon 2910 DVD player (in 720p mode and uncalibrated), and a Scientific Atlanta Explorer HD8300 HD-DVR cable box with Cox service.

Interconnects:

1. 15-ft generic HDMI cable from Cables for Less (bought over internet) - $23.99
Observations: Came in a plastic bag, thick sturdy rubber coating on cable, gold tipped connections.

2. 15-ft generic HDMI-DVI cable from Cables for Less - $17.99
Observations: Came in a plastic bag, thick sturdy rubber coating, gold tipped connections which had plastic caps on them.

2. 8-ft Monster Ultra 1000 HMDI cable - $199.99.
Observations: Excellently packed, very thick and armoured cable. Much fancier terminations. Gold tipped connections.

3 13-ft Monster HDMI1400/DVI HDMI-DVI cable - $139.99.
Observations: Open box item. Thick sturdy cable with gold tipped conncetions (note no plastic caps).

4. 12-ft generic component cables that came free with my cable box.
Observations: Gold tipped connections. Brand unknown.

Tests:

1. Viewing analog cable television with HDMI-HDMI, HDMI-DVI and component cables:
I first compared the 8-ft Monster HDMI cable and 15-ft generic HDMI with each other.
I watched tv freely as well as recorded scenes of television which I re-played over and over again, looking at colors, blacks, and pixelation and at the same spots on the screen at times. I also observed static and moving pictures, animations and real life.
I then compared the HDMI-DVI (DVI terminated at TV) cables with each other and repeated the tests above.
Lastly I conducted the same test with the generic component cables.

RESULT:
There was NO discernable difference that I could find between the HDMI-HDMI cables.
There was also NO discernable difference that I could find between the HDMI-DVI cables. However I found that the HDMI-DVI cables provided a picture that was more light and seemed more washed out than the HDMI-HDMI connections. This was the exact same situation with both HDMI-DVI cables I tested however.
Lastly, out of the 3, the component cables looked the best using my cable box. There was less pixelation with the component cables and the colors were more vivid. It was clearly the winner for me.

2. Viewing HDTV with HDMI-HDMI, HDMI-DVI and component cables:
I repeated the above tests.
Again, I found NO discernable difference between the HDMI-HDMI nor between the HDMI-DVI cables.
Again, the HDMI-DVI cables setup using both cables seemed to produce a more washed out picture than the HDMI-HDMI cable setups.
Again, it seemed that component cable looked best in my setup - though the difference was now less pronounced via HDTV.

3. Viewing a DVD with HDMI-HDMI, HDMI-DVI and component cables on DVD player:
Repeated above tests and since my DVD player has a DVI and HDMI output (cable box only had HDMI and component) I tried using my DVD player as well as the TV's DVI ports - to see if it was my TV which had a poor DVI connection causing the more washed out pictures.

Again, NO discernable difference between HDMI-HDMI cables.
Again NO discernable difference between HDMI-DVI cable.
Component cables this time looked much worse through DVD player for some reason.
Again, the HDMI-DVI connections (using either the TV and DVD player's DVI port) seemed more washed out, blacks were lighter, and generally all colors were lighter as compared to the HDMI-HDMI cables.
Clearly HDMI-HDMI was the winner in this setup

My conclusions/observations:
- To be perfectly honest, I was expecting the more expensive and shorter Monster HDMI and HDMI-DVI cables to perform better. However the difference I could tell between the "known" and "generic" brand cables I posessed, apart from the length, looks, and a superiority in build quality, was the price. Even despite the fact the "cheaper" cable was twice the length as the more "renowned" cable - they seemed to perform the same. I would bet that Monster would be better in backing their lifetime warranty. I'm not even sure if my generic cables have a similar warranty. I also noticed one of my generic HDMI cables' termination felt a tad more wobly in the back of my cable box than the monster which fit more snugly and it seemed to be because one of the terminators on the generic cable wasn't too firm if one pulled at it - but that didn't effect the picture at all and it seemed to be just that end of that particular cable. Certainly the monster cable was thicker. So it would be much harder for a rat to chew through it and after a few hundred years under the sun, it would probably last longer than the generic cable. The monster cables had much nicer packaging and the cables looked much fancier too. There is no doubt about their excellent build quality.

- It seems that the HDMI-DVI connections produced a more washed out picture compared with HDMI-HDMI, no matter which DVI port I used. Perhaps there are people here with more expertise as to why similar digital interconnects, which are carrying the same uncompressed data, are yielding different results? Does DVI require more calibration on a tv? Anybody observed the same?

My results are not scientific at all. There might be differences between my longer and shorter cables and between a generic and "known" brand. I'm not even sure if the "generic" HDMI cables I ordered were "certified" or not or whether they have a lifetime warranty. Perhaps with specialised equipment I could measure the differences technically - but with just my eyes, I couldn't discern if any cable was more superior than the other at all and if there were indeed any differences, it wouldn't be worth the difference in price for me. Heck, if one of my $25 cables dies in a few years, I can order another one and it would still be much cheaper. I'm keeping the generic and returning the expensive ones.

I hope this is interesting or helpul to somebody out there. Draw your own conclusions.

BR,

Sany.

PS: Thanks Jeffrey for pointing me to Cables For Less!

PPS: Would be nice if this website supported Mozilla Firefox. I'm forced to use IE to post properly on here.

Sany, thanks for the informative post.  As I just bought a Samsung 42" DLP, this is especially interesting to me.  I do not have digital cable or HDTV yet.  Standard cable on a TV this size looks pretty bad.  DVD looks great!  I am usuing component cables currently:  from the DVD to the REC to TV.

Jim, what TV model did you buy and what equipment (DVD player etc.) is it connected to, if I may ask? I haven't tried sending video signals via my receiver. My HK doesn't have HDMI or DVI inputs, so I just go directly into the back of the tv from the source. The really annoying thing is on my DVR/HD cable box, there is no way I could find to switch between component and HDMI connections. When component cables are connected, that is used as default. Once an HDMI cable is connected, it uses that connection as default. So one can't switch between connections when flipping between analogue or HDTV channels to optimise the picture. My older non-DVR HDTV cable box could put out signals via all ports at the same time, so I could swap. 

As for SDTV, it's the same situation for me, most SDTV channels look very bad on such a large HDTV screen. Some channels are better than others though. When I called the cable company, even they suggested not using HDMI or DVI as a connection to improve the picture on non-HDTV signals. The large screen plus doubling the scan lines and a very good uncompressed signal all amplify all the imperfections, with perfection

As for HDTV, you'll find it's still an imperfect medium as well. Most days, it's great. But some days, a certain network will only pipe enough data to fill your screen 90%, some times it's less or more and on others, the picture will be grainy and terrible. And when they pipe "old" programs via HDTV, you're not getting any improvement in the picture because the source wasn't that great to begin with, infact, it will even look worse than seeing it via analogue cable on a CRT tv. But most of the time, HDTV looks great though and you won't be dissapointed, plus for me, it was just an extra $9/mo and it's well worth the money on your great tv. It's a totally new way of watching tv.

I am very happy with my Samsung. If you notice vertical screen smudges on the sides of your screen when the temperature drops. They dissapear when your screen warms up or you can wipe them away (like static) with a soft cloth. It is due to the two layers of screen bending and touching, with temperature changes. It is a known problem from Samsung and they'll replace your screen if it's a problem. Depending when your unit was manufactured, it may come with the "fixed" screen. There is some matting and you may see that with fast movements, but all in all, their the best DLPs you can buy.

I don't know why my component cables lookes so much worse via my DVD player. I admit I never made any calibrations in the tests, so that all things remained the same. Hopefully it isn't a problem with any encoders in any components. I also noticed that even with the HDMI cable when watching DVDs, I saw some low level noise on some small dark areas. For example, a person in the background's dark colored pants or shirt. Have you experienced the same? This is on a standard DVD disk, not any "high quality" recording.

BR,

Sany, 

Sany, I purchased the Samsung HL-R4266W 42" DLP.  The current DVD player is a Panasonic DMREH50S DVD recorder with DVR.  The wife LOVES it - as she'll never miss a show again with DVR. 

I am not much of a TV watcher myself, and that is why I have a hard time paying another $20/month for HD in my area.  I guess I should with the 42" though?  On DVD via component (I haven't tried any other way) the TV looks great!

I haven't noticed any problems with the screen as you mention, but I've only had it for 8 days now.  I do notice a thin horizontal line about 1/8" from both the top and bottom of the picture on DVD though - have you seen this?  It is very faint, and more noticible in lighter scenes rather than dark.

I am very happy with the PQ of the set.  I am a big CRT fan, as I think it still offers the best picture when properly set-up.  The trade offs with space in the new sets are nice though and they are improving rapidly.  I originally intended to get a plasma, but from my close sitting position of 7', I kept seeing the 'screen door' effect on a 42" set.  LCD has too much motion blur and horrible black levels IMO.  DLP is great!

 

Jim, I agree with your wife - DVR is great Initially I was debating over whether to just get a cheap VCR, a DVD burner, or DVR service - because all I wanted to do was to record the BBC each morning and an extra $10/mo seemed too steep when you consider you'd be paying the price of any of the above within 2 years or less. But after signing up, I found out how convenient it is to be able to easily schedule your recordings and I found that it also added value to my cable service, as I found myself beginning to look for interesting programming to record off of channels that I otherwise hadn't really watched.

For cable service, what I did was ask only for limited basic (analog) cable for something like $12/mo which saved me some $30/mo at least over the "basic cable" analog package that cable companies usually try to sell you as the "minimum" (they never seem to advertise the "limited basic", you need to ask about it yourself). For me, some kind of analog service was required to initiate any service, then a "digital gateway service" (i.e. digital tv without any channel packages) was needed at minimum to reach HD for $7/mo. HD was then $9/mo. So it would be possible to get basic analog+hd channels for something like $28/mo - and you'd get most of the popular networks, like NBC, Fox, CBS, WB, etc.

I haven't noticed a thin line using my DVD player...hmph. I'll take a look again next time. Your tv is a 2005 model so Samsung would have used the new 2 layer screens which are better taped together, so you shouldn't be seeing the "smudge" effects at all. I need to call them to install the newer screen under my warranty.

I considered all the same technologies as you and totally agree. I think that DLP gives you the best value over all compared to the others. And the contrast ratio of our sets, 2500:1, is as good as a good plasma. My 50" screen might be a little overkill for a viewing area of 11ft though :-)

I am using a 30' HDMI cable and there is no discernable differnce that I can see.  Caleb wrote a great blog on the so called "premium cables" vs cheap cables.  There is a link to a very infrmative website that basically affirms what most of us think... Expensive cable is expensive because of their marketing and some peoples desire to spend more for "pride of ownership."  Just my 2 cents.

Dave