HDMI Cables Comparison
 

This one should be a no-brainer right? Everyone knows that HDMI is a digitally lossless form of transmitting audio and video, so it stands to reason that the cables - no matter how cheap or expensive - should either work or not work. There is no middle ground here.

But has anyone ever actually tested this, by directly capturing the traffic of the HDMI port using multiple cables of varying quality? Is there any actual need for this £655 HDMI cable?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...vs-hdmi?page=1

never had problems with short distance analog video cables, neither with HDMI. Kinda obviously, why would it otherwise be used that much... I was kinda hoping we would get an answer what would happen if we use cables of 5m-10m-15m ... Will gold plated make a difference then? Are there other tricks used (good shielding)? Ow, and when I'm buying something I want to know from beforehand if it will work, not: "and if it is in some way not up to the job, you'll see it immediately in the form of obtrusive digital artifacting"

I did notice a difference with a coax cable (to connect TV) gold plated vs cheapo one gave visible difference in image quality with cable TV

I'm not surprised, audio/video professionals have been using it for half a century, that's not without reason :)

HDMI cables work or don't. That's it. It's a purely digital signal...

The analog TV is analog...

Same was told about DVB-T, it either works, or it doesn't work... Truth is, there is a grey zone where you get artifacts, I've seen this happening with DVB-T, DVB-S and IPTV. Communication protocols: the same thing.

I was very curious about the influence of cable length :(

there's signal degradation over longer distances, check the anomalies on in the screenshots, also noticeable is for example is that 720p works, 1080p doesn't; can be due to a bad cable