Expensive HDMI cables make no difference - the absolute proof

Well done ER

Another fine piece from TR. Obviously you don't pick up too much sponsorship or ad revenue from the high-end snake oil merchants. Well done for finally confirming that the emperor has no clothes.

Just makes you wonder about the sincerity and objectivity (or intelligence, even) of the so called reviewers who do spout all that rubbish about skin tones etc, and the self-serving gullibility of their readership.

By dalerm on 25 May 2012

A better test...

When designing a test for such an item, I always ask that the inventor or the seller be the one who makes the differentiation... I seldom have them agree to this.

James Randi.

By Amazing on 25 May 2012

Very interesting but not surprising!

In the days of high end analogue audio, I believe the differences in cable quality, while minimal in my opinion, were there for the audiophile to hear. However, like this review suggests, with digital signals, there really should not be any discernible difference between cables. My £1 HDMI cable (from Amazon) has so far served me well on my 52" Samsung plasma television and I won't be investing in anything more expensive anytime soon! However, there are differences in the quality of the manufacture of different brands of HDMI cable, as there is a greater failure rate with the very cheapest ones. For some people it's down to the pride of ownership of a better made product as much as its functionality. e.g, my £15 Sekonda watch looks as good as much more expensive watches and keeps nigh on perfect time, but it's not a Rolex, and that wouldn't do for some people!

By Knockermalin on 28 May 2012

Another better test.....

These results don't surprise me. What would be more interesting is to repeat the test using longer cables, and see if there is correlation between price and distance capability of HDMI cables.

By jedengreen1 on 28 May 2012

Never doubted the result...

Once video and sound went digital, other than ensuring that the signal reaches from source to destination without excessive loss there is no explanation as to why cables should differ.

As long as the cable has properly moulded connectors, the cheapest will suffice.

When I rearranged our home cinema, I changed from a 1m (£5) cable to a 7m (£11) with no discernible change in picture quality.

I laugh at all those nincompoops that have been conned out of a fortune for so called high end cables. I ROFLOL at those who think it improved their picture.

By terry46 on 28 May 2012

Golden Ears; Golden Eyes

This whole premium cable malarkey started back in the 1970s when a new generation of hi-fi journalists reckoned they could make better judgements subjectively than with objective, scientific measurements. people started paying barmy prices for loudspeaker cables, connectors and audio cables. And so, it drags on well into the digital era; and it suits the market men and the company balance sheets. In the absence of clear information to the contrary, the average buyer is going to err on the side of vastly overpaying for a cable than (allegedly) compromising the performance of the newly bought kit.

Congratulations on your article. I hope it gets the widest possible readership.

By HJHill on 28 May 2012

Excellent, honest and true.

Excellent article, however, it seems the audiopholes have jumped onto a different bandwagon now. Apparently, plugging a £175 power cable, into a Sky box, can make your Sky box turn water into wine, or some other nonsense miracle. It seems these people will believe any trend, if it allows them to keep up with the Jones's.

The only difference I have found, in more expensive cables, is that they are not as heavyweight as some of the cheaper cables. This puts less strain on the HDMI socket, and is easier to manage when routing them through trunking/conduit. Other than that, never seen a single bit of difference... ever. And as a professional computer artist, you learn to spot image irregularities.

By LeeC22 on 28 May 2012

A Challenge

It first started with speaker cables. Very learned professionals SWORE that there was no difference using different cables between amplifiers and speakers and rubbished those who knew there clearly was. As testing became more sophisticated and blind tests consistently identified differences, the sceptics diminished to a small but vocal minority. Same with audio interconects. Then came digital and it was appealing to think that a binary code between sources could not be affected as surely it was either a case of transmitting 0's and 1's? Yet again the differences were not subtle on transparent equipment. even my wife, with no training could reliably identify differences in musicality, directionality and timing. In some cases, this is very obvious if you have well developed hearing. I have heard the 30% of the population who cannot taste the most gross of differences swear that there is no difference between wines and that all is baloney. For them perhaps or the scientist who measures alcohol content or polyphenolic content. Some human beings have very well developed senses that can reliably detect differences. HDMI cables Do make a difference. As with wine, price does not necessarily determine quality or experience. Context matters. Differences in some systems are small and large in others. HDMI also conduct electrical information and Radio Frequency Information which affect contrast, brightness, tone and dimensionality. Cheap may often be excellent but there are differences or clarity and the feeling of the experience conveyed. Can you measure the difgfernce between a Stradavarius and cheap violin? Maybe, maybe not. This story is like saying that you selected some measurement parameters and that the violins are the same and the Strad is a waste of money. If Mr Randi is willing to accept rigorous double blind crossover conditions with a trained panel, he WILL lose his money. Even if they cannot describe the difference, but consistently can demonstrate that there is a preference then Mr Randi would lose his money. Most people would not be able to identify why, blind they prefer a Stradivarius to a violin form Amazon BUT the difference can be enormous. I have had this privilege close up and perhaps in 100 years our scientific testing will have caught up with our ears and our eyes. If a differnce can be reliably identified in controlled conditions then there is a difference. A challenge Mr Randi!

By angusf27 on 31 May 2012

none so gullible as want to believe

well, angusf27 - about the whole Strad thing? Maybe compared to a 'cheap' violin there is a difference - but apparently compared to a decent modern violin things the supposed ineffable superiority of the Strad proves strangely elusive. It all comes down to proper blind (or preferably double blind) trials.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16419
168

Odd how when nobody (neither the researcher nor the listener) knows which one is which or which they are 'supposed to prefer', the differences vanish.

The other clue that self-delusion has taken hold is the language used by the cognocenti to describe the imagined differences - strangely nobody else can understand the vague and undefined terms like 'musicality'.

By dalerm on 1 Jun 2012

Re. None so gullible

Dear dalerm Hearing a Strad in the right hands (this is key) in a viewing at Christies was a life changing event and showed how far the best hifi systems have to go. It was an OMG moment. This would not have been the same with a mundane violin. Same with any refined sensory experience, those whose channels are not sensitive will not perceive. It is true that there are emperors clothes sold in every walk of life as 'the real deal' to the believing and gullible BUT there is a grade of true quality in every experience that involves senses and perception. Try comparing Maria Callas at her peak in 1955 performing Madame Butterfly with an ordinary performer. Sometimes the differences between ordinary and extraordinary cannot be measured but consistently felt. Greatness is real and yes even with hifi and video systems. I use a digital cable between my CD and DAC. The best cable sounds spectacular. Replace the cable with one which measures the same and all of the life of the performance collapses so much that even my insensitive wife will say: what did you do? That sounds crap? Same data, same error rate, same voltage and impedence. I can demonstrate the differences in blinds.

By angusf27 on 1 Jun 2012

Re. None so gullible

Dear dalerm Hearing a Strad in the right hands (this is key) in a viewing at Christies was a life changing event and showed how far the best hifi systems have to go. It was an OMG moment. This would not have been the same with a mundane violin. Same with any refined sensory experience, those whose channels are not sensitive will not perceive. It is true that there are emperors clothes sold in every walk of life as 'the real deal' to the believing and gullible BUT there is a grade of true quality in every experience that involves senses and perception. Try comparing Maria Callas at her peak in 1955 performing Madame Butterfly with an ordinary performer. Sometimes the differences between ordinary and extraordinary cannot be measured but consistently felt. Greatness is real and yes even with hifi and video systems. I use a digital cable between my CD and DAC. The best cable sounds spectacular. Replace the cable with one which measures the same and all of the life of the performance collapses so much that even my insensitive wife will say: what did you do? That sounds crap? Same data, same error rate, same voltage and impedence. I can demonstrate the differences in blinds.

By angusf27 on 1 Jun 2012

Re. None so gullible

Dear dalerm Hearing a Strad in the right hands (this is key) in a viewing at Christies was a life changing event and showed how far the best hifi systems have to go. It was an OMG moment. This would not have been the same with a mundane violin. Same with any refined sensory experience, those whose channels are not sensitive will not perceive. It is true that there are emperors clothes sold in every walk of life as 'the real deal' to the believing and gullible BUT there is a grade of true quality in every experience that involves senses and perception. Try comparing Maria Callas at her peak in 1955 performing Madame Butterfly with an ordinary performer. Sometimes the differences between ordinary and extraordinary cannot be measured but consistently felt. Greatness is real and yes even with hifi and video systems. I use a digital cable between my CD and DAC. The best cable sounds spectacular. Replace the cable with one which measures the same and all of the life of the performance collapses so much that even my insensitive wife will say: what did you do? That sounds crap? Same data, same error rate, same voltage and impedence. I can demonstrate the differences in blinds.

By angusf27 on 1 Jun 2012

Maybe a compromise?

Maybe there is some sense to paying up for expensive cables, violins, wines, etc. This article points out why quite nicely. Basically, it says that we are not daily involved in double blind trials, and instead much of our subjective appreciation of any sensory input is conditioned by our pre-conceptions. i.e. objectivity is not the only value, subjectivity is just as important in informing our sensory pleasure. And why not?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/should-w
e-buy-expensive-wine/

However, that does not detract from the fact that, take away the subjective and the pre-conceived, and then there is no difference between a Strad and another quality violin (as between cables in the TR article). And that was using the violinists themselves as the test subject - so if they can't tell the difference, surely we can't be arguing that its just because they are the unwashed, cloth-eared ignorant of anything musical or refined?

http://eatthis.inmusic.ca/2012/01/the-stradivarius
-violin-its-superior-sound-quality-is-a-given-conf
ounding-unmatched-inarguably-unrivalledmeh-maybe-n
ot.html

So I can understand someone paying top-dollar for a fancy cable, beliveing somehow it is superior, and deriving geninely greater listening pleasure regarless of there being no actual objective difference. And since the purpose is to increase one's listening pleasure, then why not?

By dalerm on 1 Jun 2012

HDMI Cable Review

First off, I concur whole-heartedly on the outcome that the testing team arrived at: HDMI cables (and many other varieties as well) rarely if ever exhibit behavioral differences in static tests in laboratory "clean" environments. However, as a former NBS engineer specializing in cable-related matters, it isn't the subjective issues that will bite you.

Where some (admittedly few) higher-end cables can shine is in situations where the strain-reliefs on the cable terminations are more rugged. In high noise environments robust shielding can have some merit, and when the cables are flexed, stretched, kinked or otherwise compromised the capacitance/inductance characteristics can be subtly altered. Lastly, the soldering/welding of the connections will have some merit in terms of longevity.

In short, a "normal" (read 'optimal') environment will rarely stress either the cable or the signal it conveys to the point where even quantifiable means will reveal distinguishing differences between low and high-end cables.

Those of us who live in less fortunate situations may require more stringent tests to make up our minds.

By davel on 8 Jun 2012

HDMI Cable Review

First off, I concur whole-heartedly on the outcome that the testing team arrived at: HDMI cables (and many other varieties as well) rarely if ever exhibit behavioral differences in static tests in laboratory "clean" environments. However, as a former NBS engineer specializing in cable-related matters, it isn't the subjective issues that will bite you.

Where some (admittedly few) higher-end cables can shine is in situations where the strain-reliefs on the cable terminations are more rugged. In high noise environments robust shielding can have some merit, and when the cables are flexed, stretched, kinked or otherwise compromised the capacitance/inductance characteristics can be subtly altered. Lastly, the soldering/welding of the connections will have some merit in terms of longevity.

In short, a "normal" (read 'optimal') environment will rarely stress either the cable or the signal it conveys to the point where even quantifiable means will reveal distinguishing differences between low and high-end cables.

Those of us who live in less fortunate situations may require more stringent tests to make up our minds.

By davel on 8 Jun 2012

MD5 hash truth

Excellent article.
I'd just like to comment on this: "An MD5 hash is a unique fingerprint of file: if two files have the same MD5 hash, they're physically and scientifically identical, no argument."
This is actually not true, although very small, there is a possibility that two different files have the same MD5 hash. This is a very very small possibility and it usually doesn't matter but it IS there.

By PaleRider on 9 Jun 2012

The absolute nonsense

A very erroneous piece of work; this article has been written by someone with very little knowledge of test equipment and audio/video quality evaluation process. Without a doubt, there are differences in audio and video performance between a good and a poor quality HDMI cable. However, I would like to make the following comment: Can you tell the difference in the audio performance of two amplifiers by simply measuring its frequency response and distortion?

By abbii on 23 Aug 2012

The absolute nonsense

A very erroneous piece of work; this article has been written by someone with very little knowledge of test equipment and audio/video quality evaluation process. Without a doubt, there are differences in audio and video performance between a good and a poor quality HDMI cable. However, I would like to make the following comment: Can you tell the difference in the audio performance of two amplifiers by simply measuring its frequency response and distortion?

By abbii on 23 Aug 2012

Don't confuse Analogue and Digital

Dear abbii & others - You are making a category error. 2 amps will have many, many analogue differences. HDMI is digital. If a digital connector does not reproduce at one end what goes in the other, it is broken/faulty, not "cheap". I challenge any of you to successfully distinguish between 2 HDMI cables in a truly blind test. I really think you are all fooling yourselves. Its analogous to people who insist they're 'allergic' to Wi-Fi. Read about the blind tests that have been performed upon them - 100% self-delusional. Get as upset or superior as you like - I can prove I'm right. You, however, can not.

By carpetkiss on 29 Oct 2012

You're all right but very wrong.

Dear wannabe engineers, You say digital is digital and its all 1s and 0s so riddle me this. If all HDMI is created equal, and digital is digital than why HDMI 1.4? Why will HDMI 1.0 no longer support today's technology? Your source may be sending a digital signal, and your TV or monitor may be receiving the 1s and 0s However if the 1cannot be distinguished as a 1 and the 0 cannot be distinguished as a 0 then you have a bit error. Bit error may or may not affect the picture to the naked eye. HDMI is still built as an analog cable but passes a digital signal, there is a large difference in quality of cable construction and termination. The reason there is no difference in this test is because 1 it was a 1 second test, this test needs 10 seconds at minimum, over a 10 second period of time the lesser quality cable will have millions of errors vs. a better quality cable with minimal errors and a particular manufacturers cable which is very affordable and passes 100% lossless video = 0 errors. The equipment used to test this costs roughly $250,000.000 and your equipment is not worthy of your findings. Same can be said using an oscilloscope and claiming theoretically all speakers that accurately produce full range should sound the same, however that isn't the case. Frequency range is obviously important but just because a speaker can show in a test it can produce full range means nothing. For instance, middle C is and always will be 261.626Hz HOWEVER, doesn't a acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a electric guitar, a piano, a French horn and a snare drum sound extremely different? Of course do? Your test is kinda like an oscilloscope showing me 262.626Hz can be accomplished on 25 different speakers ranging from $5 to $5000. It's irrelevant. Joel Silver, founder of the image science foundation has proved without a doubt that HDMI quality does make a difference IF the equipment has capabilities of SHOWING the difference. Sure at 24
Hz refresh rate, 4 bit color depth and 1080 lines of resolution your test showed no difference. Duhhh! That's like me playing the SAME guitar on at 10db on 15 different speakers that can produce middle C will sound to the human ear..... IDENTICAL!

I think I have made my point but if not try this.... Go buy a 90 inch 2k Monitor(it exists, though its not for sale), then play your media at 32bit color at 240Hz and watch your high end cables produce flawless picture while your cheap Amazon cables as you all like to say fail all day and night. If anyone wants to put 1M on that feel free to hit me up :)

By Shakylegs on 11 Feb 2013

There is no difference in 1s and 0s

To clarify @shakylegs, the article does state that digital transmits as 0s and 1s. If a bit is transmitted as a 0 and received as a 1 (or vice versa), then this is an error and, therefore, wrong. An incorrect bit means that there could be an imperceivable difference in image or audio quality. In fact, we were completely open to this possibility and the fact that an expensive cable may produce an image with fewer errors.

However, our test compared the actual data. So, the frame transmitted from our test PC was identical to the one captured. This is a pure digital comparison of the image files and doesn't require expensive test kit to prove. So, we detected no errors in our tests and all the captured files were identical.

Don't forget that a file being identical means that, and there's no margin of error on the comparison. If there was, that would mean that there'd be a chance that every time you opened a Word document on your PC, there could be a new spelling mistake.

As to why there are different HDMI standards, that's because there are new picture standards and the cables have to be capable of providing the right amount of bandwidth, plus extra information, such as the 3D sync data. This isn't unusual. After all, there have been different standards of Ethernet cable in order to support different speeds.

By dcludlow on 11 Feb 2013