htv cables
 

cables http://www.techsupportforum.com/9721...y-hdmi-cables/

I always figured the difference would only be noticeable with sensitive test equipment.

I got my 'gold-plated' 6' HDMI cable from a Harbor Freight store, I think it cost $8.

here in the UK we have several chains of 'pound shops' where everything costs £1 (pretty much $1.60)
that's where I buy all my cables, HDMI, Ethernet, SCART, satellite and TV aerial cables, USB, and so on. over the 10 years I've shopped there i never had a single cable failure.

Each is £1, not the £5 for supermarket economy brands, not the £15 in regular electronic stores, and not the £50 for a premium brand.
in fact at these prices I could buy a bunch at £1 and mail them to you guys in the States and almost do it cheaper than the $8 you pay!

Popdigr bought this one the other night from Tuesday Morning:

Attachment 46379

monoprice
 

http://www.monoprice.com

That is all

Grav, that one could also go in the "Faces" thread.

Technical concepts were provided by mbpark in Understanding HDMI. To appreciate what is described, understand that all communications (even digital) are analog. It's all about the frequency response.

USB solved this problem simply. Any USB cable can be any length as long as its meets frequency response parameters. Only then can it have that USB symbol on the connector. To make a USB cable longer mean the cable nees parameters that make it more expensive.

Same applies to HDMI. However this standard did not create simple consumer standards found in USB. Manufacturers play games by not providing tech specs. It works because so many foolishly rate quality in terms of dollars while completely ignoring spec numbers.

What HDMI cable do you need? Notice Best Buy et al prefers to you stay ignorant. However a simple standard exists to identify scams. If Monster is selling it, then the actual retail price should be somewhere as low as one tenth the Monster price.

Some HDMI cables can have lower frequency response. So a TV, et al displays at lower resolution. Most people don't notice lower resolution 480i signals on their 720 or 1080 TV. So again, they make a sale by keeping the consumer ignorant.

Huh?:eyebrow:

That is a long goddamn way from all.

The $50 keyboard fucked them for me. I don't care what it does, or what it doesn't do. For $50 it better blow me. Well.

Most people must be Helen Keller blind, then, because 480 looks like absolute shit on Popdigr's TV. To the point we removed those channels from the line-up.

It does it you compare 720 to a 489 screen. But have someone walk into a room, only view one screen, then report the resolution. They cannot.

In fact, many assume a bigger screen TV is HD when it is only 480. A difference only apparent when both are compared. Or if known are what details to look for.

So yes. The difference is apparent if viewing two separate channels. However only view one channel and say what its resolution is. Most cannot without making a comparison,

720? Pfft. What are you? Poor?

:p:

I can pick up the difference between 480, 720, and 1080 very easily. Maybe it's because I have a 1080p laptop at work.

Additional factors are at play. I am not sure if these numbers are exact since it has been a while. A 1080 screen looks sharper when a ratio of screen size to distance from screen is 3 to 4. If that viewing distance increases beyond four, then the screen is no different than a 720 screen. One factor defined by how the human eye works. Factor that explains why many 'feel' a screen is better when it really isn't.

Resolution is but another parameter often distorted by hype. Beta VCR quality was clearly superior to VHS. So why did VHS end up the superior standard? Most layman could not see a difference.

Other 'betters' that a layman did not appreciate included quadraphonic sound, many of the Dolby standards, 3D computer video (from maybe 8 years ago), and 3D TVs. (Those are two completely different 3Ds.)

Since you are probably closer to a computer (than the 3 to 4 ratio), then better resolution might be more apparent. But in so many other cases, consumers do not really know a difference. Many spend more money only because it sounds better - a placebo effect is at play.

I just compared a same TV broadcast on two channels simultaneously. One broadcast in 720. The other in 480. Both screens have similar resolution. Another example of how observation not tempered by underlying concepts can easily be deceptive.

Long before cable companies were providing HD, I setup an antenna to watch football playoffs. At the party, nobody noticed the difference until I pointed out a key difference. You could see divots in the grass on HD (from the antenna); not on a lower resolution cable on a bigger TV. Until I pointed that out, virtually everyone 'knew' the big screen (with a lower resolution) was the better picture. An example of why only a fewer can actually tell the difference.

How many could see a difference between S-video and composite? The difference clearly existed. How many actually saw it? Big box electronics store salesmen profit on these games.

Who are you, and what have you done with tw? Hosting parties! :)