[mike70sk]

I always thought that there is no difference in quality with different hdmi cords. Its digital and either works or it don't. Does this stand true with longer hdmi cables?

Last week i hooked up my computer via hdmi in the living room with a 6 foot hdmi cable, the picture looked good and sharp. hd movies looked great. sd movies looked good.

So i bought a 5 meter (16.4 feet) cable, to run from the bedroom. i hooked it up and the the desktop did not look sharp and crisp as it did before. hd looked ok, but sd looked horrid, I also has some eye strain (could be unrelated though)

At 16.4 feet is there a difference in hdmi cables? our there other ones that size that would be better?????????

Should there be a difference in quality from 6 feet and 16 feet?????????

The cable looks a bit cheap kind of plastic (like the ones shaw give you). The other cable was a different material not sure what its called.

anyway here are the specs of the 16 feet cable

Rocelco
hdmi 1.3b full 1080p
Double shielded with gold plated connection
RoHS Stanard & HDMI certified


thanks for reading, thanks in advance for help

 

[lex_rx]

As usual, different sources will tell you different things. I came across Blue Jeans cables about a year ago. One of the favorites of value-minded audio/videophiles. Here's an explanation of HDMIs on its site:

I did end buying four HDMI cables here.

 

[57]

You may have a problem with your longer cable (could be a bad cable too). Usually when you go beyond 15', I recommend 24 or 22 ga. Your specs don't say the gauge, but it's the most important spec. I bet it's 28. Here's the thread on the topic:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=30452

... and here's someone with similar issues:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=129352

 

[mike70sk]

Hi thanks for the information, which is better to have 22 or 24? my cable needs to be alt least 16 feet. I cant seem to find anything to indicate what the ga is. The cable was purchased at princess auto for 24.99. So can one assume if there not indicating that its a 28. Are 28 know to cause pictures issues like this?

 

[cavu]

i bought a 5 meter (16.4 feet) cable, to run from the bedroom. i hooked it up and the the desktop did not look sharp and crisp as it did before. hd looked ok, but sd looked horrid, I also has some eye strain (could be unrelated though)

Absolute nonsense!!!

There will be no difference whatsoever in the image passed.

If the cable actually had problems, it would show itself by the presence of "sparkles" spread across the image (think "snowglobe") or the image will cut off altogether.

I suspect the displays in your two rooms are not identical and probably each have different EDID information which may cause the computer to send different resolution images to the two displays.

But the HDMI cable length has absolutely nothing to do with this.

BTW, a 16-ft HDMI cable is a very ordinary length; HDMI cable problems don't generally show up until you get into the 70ft range.

 

[cavu]

which is better to have 22 or 24? my cable needs to be alt least 16 feet.

Completely irrelevant at this length.

 

[mike70sk]

cavu as i prefaced my first post. That it was my understanding that hdmi cables are all the same, there digital they either work or they don't work. I'm not running two displays. it was the same computer with the the same tv. only difference was the hdmi cable. im not talking subtle difference in quality, but blatant differences. Some post suggest that 15 feet and over, there is a difference. I really have know idea about hdmi cables, but i know a bad picture, maybe it had something to do with the computer i don't know. Just posting this to get ideas

 

[57]

HDMI cable problems don't generally show up until you get into the 70ft range.

Not true. Some tests have shown thin cables to have (minor) issues as early as 20-25' as indicated in my link and in lex_rx' link. That's why I recommend 22 or 24 ga when going over 15' to be safe. 22 is the thicker (better) option if you don't mind the thickness/weight, larger bend radius, etc. 24 ga is probably fine at 15-20' though.

Once you go over 30' a repeater may even be necessary depending on the equipment/cable involved. The problems are more than just sparklies - handshakes may not convey the correct information, so the "auto" setting on a BD player may not send the correct signal, or perhaps the signal has errors, forcing a lower format, etc. This doesn't mean you need to spend a bundle for a cable since they are available for around $20 or less on many websites.

At lengths under 15', 28 ga is fine. It is possible that the cable has a manufacturing defect, as I mentioned.

 

[cavu]

im not talking subtle difference in quality, but blatant differences.

It is simply not possible.

 

[ScaryBob]

Its digital and either works or it don't.

Yet another urban myth. Digital signal degrade just like analog signals. Whether it works or not depends on decisions made by protocol designers and product engineers. Some digital signals may just be cut off at a certain level but others may be decoded and presented in a degraded form. The most common scenario seems to be that digital signals are cut off when error correction fails and they are known to be corrupted. That does not need to be the case though. I have a few CDs with encoded CRC errors that prevent ripping but they play fine in a CD player.

The HDMI spec places a distance limit of 45' on HDMI cables. That varies with equipment and cable design. As previously stated, HDMI signal problems will show up as specks, streaks or loss of signal. If enough of the signal gets through to enable full decoding (and it usually does), the original picture and sound will be exactly like the original. The differences being seen are probably due to the TV or other factors such as lighting and picture adjustment, not the cable

 

[mike70sk]

Quote
As previously stated, HDMI signal problems will show up as specks, streaks or loss of signal. If enough of the signal gets through to enable full decoding (and it usually does), the original picture and sound will be exactly like the original. The differences being seen are probably due to the TV or other factors such as lighting and picture adjustment, not the cable


other then this, so are you saying its simply not possible for the picture quality to be affected by the cable and 22g or 24 g would not change it?

 

[cavu]

so are you saying its simply not possible for the picture quality to be affected by the cable and 22g or 24 g would not change it?

That is correct.

 

[cavu]

Not true. Some tests have shown thin cables to have (minor) issues as early as 20-25'

I've only installed a few hundred long HDMI cables and rarely seen issues under 70ish feet. But what do I know?

How many HDMI cable problems at 20-25ft have you seen?

 

[57]

How many HDMI cable problems at 20-25ft have you seen?

A few (at lengths of 15-30'), but none that I provided as part of my service, only ones that I've corrected.