# AudioQuest HDMI's - Worth It?



## jkratt14

Need to buy a few HDMI cables that will give my Anthem Receiver, Oppo 203, LG OLED, and Paradigm's the best possible picture and sound. Is it worth it to pull the trigger on these? Also, is there any serious difference between the Pearl, Forrest, and Cinnamon options?


----------



## Ratman

No and no.


----------



## jkratt14

Which HDMI cables would you recommend? Just want a reliable cable 5-6 Ft. that can produce the best possible picture/sound.


----------



## Ratman

https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024014&p_id=13590&seq=1&format=2


----------



## Otto Pylot

Agree with Ratman on both accounts. At 5'-6' practically any passive High Speed HDMI cable will work. The cable either works or it doesn't. It can not make your audio/video any better than the source it is coming from. 

EDIT: The cables you reference are active cables which is a bit of an overkill for runs less than 10'. The specs mention 18Gbps but there is no mention of how that is determined or if it is even certified.


----------



## Ratman

It's just an example to recommend a vendor and a provide a price comparison.


----------



## moonmoon

*AudioQuest HDMI cables are great!*

High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
in audio and video. One should buy what ever one's wallet and sound/video values permit. People that say high end cables make no difference have poor listening skills or hearing and/or have never heard these type of cables.

Having eyes and ears, and the other two senses too, does not make a person observant. Being able to eat food, or hear sound, or see does not instantly make a person observant. Practice makes perfect. Observing the details and changes that happen over time with audio and video hones the skills needed to appreciate what high end cable manufacturers create. They know what they are doing!

If you have good listening and viewing skills and so can see and hear differences in video and audio reproductions, then try the Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. It will please you as you watch and/ or listen to your system. If you can afford the Vodka HDMI
cable, by all means get it. If your visual or audio observation skills are poor, then a better reproduction of video or audio will be difficult, and probably unimportant to you, so don't even read about better cables.

I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.
Overall, these changes, with the Audioquest HDMI upgrade was very natural. I found the Wireworld cables overly etched and not natural the way they changed the images and audio.

Give it a try.


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^^  The signal is digital. Either it works without issues or it doesn't. The cable is just a conduit. It can not add something that is not there to begin with. AudioQuest, Monster, et al make fine cables, but their high price is not justifiable.


----------



## Ratman

moonmoon said:


> High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
> in audio and video.
> 
> I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.


LOL! Send your unused AQ HDMI cables to the poster to test/evaluate for themselves. Any _good_ retailer/vendor should jump at that opportunity!


----------



## moonmoon

Very closed minded, hostile, rude, and oppositional comments on the original question, someone interested in better video/audio playback with hdmi high end cable.

Either the original poster wanted to hear "no, no, no!" or they were genuinely interested in forum members "experience" with high end cables.

I was wrong to think that this was a place for these kind of questions. If a member replies to such a query with hostility, why would anyone ask for advice?


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^ high end cables are fine if one wants to spend the money but they can not "improve" pq/aq. The cable is just a data pipe, nothing more. If you get drop outs, pops, sparkles, etc then the cable isn't delivering. If you get clean video and audio then that's the best you can do. A cable can not clean up the signal or improve on it. There is a limit to what humans can see and hear. If cable "specs" exceed those limits, that's fine, but you're paying for something you can't see or hear. If you think you are getting superior a/v that you can perceptibly see and hear, more power to you.


----------



## Ratman

moonmoon said:


> Very closed minded, hostile, rude, and oppositional comments on the original question, someone interested in better video/audio playback with hdmi high end cable.
> 
> Either the original poster wanted to hear "no, no, no!" or they were genuinely interested in forum members "experience" with high end cables.
> 
> I was wrong to think that this was a place for these kind of questions. If a member replies to such a query with hostility, why would anyone ask for advice?


Wah! :crying:
No hostility, rudeness, or closed mindedness intended. Although, oppositional experiences/opinion should be encouraged. There's always a difference of opinions when asking for advice. 

EDIT:
The OP hasn't been back since February, so it's probably either not an issue or has been resolved.


----------



## Otto Pylot

+1


----------



## Dave-T

moonmoon said:


> High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
> in audio and video. One should buy what ever one's wallet and sound/video values permit. People that say high end cables make no difference have poor listening skills or hearing and/or have never heard these type of cables.
> 
> Having eyes and ears, and the other two senses too, does not make a person observant. Being able to eat food, or hear sound, or see does not instantly make a person observant. Practice makes perfect. Observing the details and changes that happen over time with audio and video hones the skills needed to appreciate what high end cable manufacturers create. They know what they are doing!
> 
> If you have good listening and viewing skills and so can see and hear differences in video and audio reproductions, then try the Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. It will please you as you watch and/ or listen to your system. If you can afford the Vodka HDMI
> cable, by all means get it. If your visual or audio observation skills are poor, then a better reproduction of video or audio will be difficult, and probably unimportant to you, so don't even read about better cables.
> 
> I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.
> Overall, these changes, with the Audioquest HDMI upgrade was very natural. I found the Wireworld cables overly etched and not natural the way they changed the images and audio.
> 
> Give it a try.


I am contemplating buying some AudioQuest power cords, the NRG-2 to her exact for my subwoofer, 2 line conditioners, 2 amps and processor. My current generic power cords that came with the equipment are way to long for my setup so i am going to see if power cords make a difference. I can get a 25% discount on Audioquest stuff so some 3' power cords are in my future. I use Audioquest Mackenzie RCA connects, type 4 and type 2 speaker cable and like them all. Unfortunately AQ's HDMI cables that are CL3/CL4 rated are 13' long and I need about 5' shorter. I have considered buying two of 0.6m Carbon HDMI cables for my Oppo 203 and cable box because my 4' ones are to long. I am well aware that forum members are big fans of Blue Jeans and Monoprice which is fine. I had a Monoprice HDMI cable and optical cable and both feel apart so I moved on.


----------



## moonmoon

Dave-T said:


> I am contemplating buying some AudioQuest power cords, the NRG-2 to her exact for my subwoofer, 2 line conditioners, 2 amps and processor. My current generic power cords that came with the equipment are way to long for my setup so i am going to see if power cords make a difference. I can get a 25% discount on Audioquest stuff so some 3' power cords are in my future. I use Audioquest Mackenzie RCA connects, type 4 and type 2 speaker cable and like them all. Unfortunately AQ's HDMI cables that are CL3/CL4 rated are 13' long and I need about 5' shorter. I have considered buying two of 0.6m Carbon HDMI cables for my Oppo 203 and cable box because my 4' ones are to long. I am well aware that forum members are big fans of Blue Jeans and Monoprice which is fine. I had a Monoprice HDMI cable and optical cable and both feel apart so I moved on.


--------
Yeah the Carbon hdmi would give you a good upgrade. Vodka would be noticeably better. All depends on your budget and how much you appreciate good video and audio playback. Audioquest is an excellent brand. Vann's online has a super price on Carbon hdmi and is a reputable dealer

I have not used Audioquest power cords. I use Synergistic Research almost exclusively. I always buy used so can get them for half price or less. 
ebay is a good place to shop, but the UsedCable site is great too and you can phone them an make an offer. 

Actually, the Synergistic Research Tesla Plex SE duplex receptacle is one serious upgrade at $90 new (can find them used, people keep them).
I have had several high end power conditioners and found that the Tesla Plex was a great upgrade especially if you have not high end cables yet.
So starting with the wall outlet, then get a decent high end multioutlet strip and then get power cords, starting with your front end equipment like
digital player, preamp, DAC, those front end components. But the outlet receptacle and then a power strip of the high end category will upgrade everything
thats plugged into it, including your TV/display monitor.

Let me know if you want any leads on what to get, and give me a budget limit. best regards, 

ps I offered a guy on Audiogon who always has the Tesla Plex for sale a $90 delivered price to me in CA and he sold it to me.


----------



## moonmoon

jkratt14 said:


> Need to buy a few HDMI cables that will give my Anthem Receiver, Oppo 203, LG OLED, and Paradigm's the best possible picture and sound. Is it worth it to pull the trigger on these? Also, is there any serious difference between the Pearl, Forrest, and Cinnamon options?



The cables that Audioquest sells all get progressively better as you go up the line and cost goes up too. So the 3 you mention are in order of quality playback, the Cinnamon being the best. I have found that it is best to spend a little more on cables than I would want to, as long as they are from quality manufacturers like Audioquest, Synergistic Research, Wireworld and others. 

The Audioquest line ups on any type of cable are very accurate with gradual and sometimes dramatic improvements as you go up the line. So just think of a slightly high budget and buy used if possible. Always make an offer even if it is a new cable. Vann's online sells these AQ HDMI cables at great prices, for New cables. Used HDMI cables are harder to find than other types of cables, so I would probably buy from Vann's since the new cables are heavily discounted.

Vodka is quite a bit better, in another high fidelity league really, when compared to the cables beneath it.


----------



## olyteddy

moonmoon said:


> ...
> The Audioquest line ups on any type of cable are very accurate with gradual and sometimes dramatic improvements as you go up the line. So just think of a slightly high budget and buy used if possible. Always make an offer even if it is a new cable. Vann's online sells these AQ HDMI cables at great prices, for New cables. Used HDMI cables are harder to find than other types of cables, so I would probably buy from Vann's since the new cables are heavily discounted.
> 
> Vodka is quite a bit better, in another high fidelity league really, when compared to the cables beneath it.


Buy used? Is that so you don't have to go through the hassle of breaking in a new cable?


----------



## moonmoon

olyteddy said:


> Buy used? Is that so you don't have to go through the hassle of breaking in a new cable?


Good question. I buy used instead of new because the cable prices are usually 50-70% lower. So to save money.
I always make sure the cable is genuine, for example Audioquest, made by the manufacturer and purchased from a dealer
or the cable seller is a dealer selling a demo or trade in cable.

Cables do sound better more or less when they are broken in, but when it is a solid manufacturer like Audioquest, Synergistic Research, or Tara Labs, then the upgraded cable will sound better even not broken in.

So now worry about breaking in a cable, especially if it is a serious upgrade. It will sound or show video better. Used will save you money for that next purchase or other treat.


----------



## Otto Pylot

moonmoon said:


> Cables do sound better more or less when they are broken in, but when it is a solid manufacturer like Audioquest, Synergistic Research, or Tara Labs, then the upgraded cable will sound better even not broken in.


B.S. Period.


----------



## olyteddy

olyteddy said:


> Buy used? Is that so you don't have to go through the hassle of breaking in a new cable?



Oh my! I totally forgot my BBcode tags on that one! Here's the corrected version:

[SnakeOil]Buy used? Is that so you don't have to go through the hassle of breaking in a new cable?[/SnakeOil]


----------



## helvetica bold

https://www.cnet.com/news/when-should-i-upgrade-my-hdmi-cables/

"There's no improvement to be had with more expensive cables. It's either all or nothing. The most likely scenario, if your cable can't handle the resolution you want, is the image either won't appear at all, it will flicker or cut out or, a pretty common case, your source will revert to a lower resolution."


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^^ thanks for the link. That's what we've been saying for a long time. But some folks just want to justify paying for overpriced cables by convincing themselves that audio and video fidelity is improved with a high priced cable.


----------



## timjohnson1717

moonmoon said:


> --------
> Yeah the Carbon hdmi would give you a good upgrade. Vodka would be noticeably better. All depends on your budget and how much you appreciate good video and audio playback. Audioquest is an excellent brand. Vann's online has a super price on Carbon hdmi and is a reputable dealer
> 
> I have not used Audioquest power cords. I use Synergistic Research almost exclusively. I always buy used so can get them for half price or less.
> ebay is a good place to shop, but the UsedCable site is great too and you can phone them an make an offer.
> 
> Actually, the Synergistic Research Tesla Plex SE duplex receptacle is one serious upgrade at $90 new (can find them used, people keep them).
> I have had several high end power conditioners and found that the Tesla Plex was a great upgrade especially if you have not high end cables yet.
> So starting with the wall outlet, then get a decent high end multioutlet strip and then get power cords, starting with your front end equipment like
> digital player, preamp, DAC, those front end components. But the outlet receptacle and then a power strip of the high end category will upgrade everything
> thats plugged into it, including your TV/display monitor.
> 
> Let me know if you want any leads on what to get, and give me a budget limit. best regards,
> 
> ps I offered a guy on Audiogon who always has the Tesla Plex for sale a $90 delivered price to me in CA and he sold it to me.



I can buy a $90 receptacle and a $200 power cord? Is that what my system has been missing all this time???

One question though, shouldn't I also upgrade the $3 worth of copper feeding that outlet? What about the $5 breaker, and why not go for broke, call up the power company and tell them I need solid silver conductors from the substation ran to the house. But that doesn't matter right? Its that last 3 feet that makes or breaks it. The thousands of feet before it have absolutely no effect whatsoever?

Whoever is spending money on power cords is stupid. Oh, and hdmi cables too. We don't live in an analog world anymore guys.


----------



## moonmoon

timjohnson1717 said:


> I can buy a $90 receptacle and a $200 power cord? Is that what my system has been missing all this time???
> 
> One question though, shouldn't I also upgrade the $3 worth of copper feeding that outlet? What about the $5 breaker, and why not go for broke, call up the power company and tell them I need solid silver conductors from the substation ran to the house. But that doesn't matter right? Its that last 3 feet that makes or breaks it. The thousands of feet before it have absolutely no effect whatsoever?
> 
> Whoever is spending money on power cords is stupid. Oh, and hdmi cables too. We don't live in an analog world anymore guys.


An idiot thinks and makes decisions like an idiot and believes what he is doing makes sense. Congratulations, rude and stupid
awards goes to you and those who are like you, your buddies surely, who like peeing on anyones parade, ridiculing anyone who
seems to be confident or content, as that is unachievable for you all.

thanks to the cowardly commentators who spoil the fun.


----------



## timjohnson1717

I actually just decided to look that outlet up.

"The Synergistic Research TESLA Plex SE is Synergistic Research's Quantum Tunneled duplex outlet. Quantum Tunneling is a process that changes the way a conductor works at the sub atomic level, impacting the entire TESLA Plex SE assembly. By applying a two million volt signal to each individual unit, at a specific pulse modulation and an ultra high frequency, for an exact duration of time, transforming the outlet at the molecular level. This process is also performed on all cables, from the Core series to the Galileo series. The “before and after” is startling, with a lower noise floor and improvements in inner detail, air, low frequency extension, and overall transparency."

2 million volts, and quantum tunneling? Well sign me up, if it's quantum it must be good! What a steal at $90!

If only they said 1.21 jiggawatts I might just have turned over my life savings for this outlet!


----------



## timjohnson1717

moonmoon said:


> An idiot thinks and makes decisions like an idiot and believes what he is doing makes sense. Congratulations, rude and stupid
> awards goes to you and those who are like you, your buddies surely, who like peeing on anyones parade, ridiculing anyone who
> seems to be confident or content, as that is unachievable for you all.
> 
> thanks to the cowardly commentators who spoil the fun.


Well i would hope that idiots act like idiots, that is after all what makes them idiots in the first place right? Maybe I should apply some quantum tunneling to said idiots, that should help to clear things up.

Actually the only one who seems to not be having fun is you, all the commentators appears to be having a laugh or two.


----------



## Ratman

moonmoon said:


> An idiot thinks and makes decisions like an idiot and believes what he is doing makes sense.


True! Decisions or beliefs don't always make sense... even to one that decides or believes they are not an idiot. Does that make sense?


----------



## Otto Pylot

I think somebody made a bad decision and is now trying to make themselves feel better. It's his money and he can choose to spend it how he sees fit. But he will never be able to convince anyone here that he will get better PQ/AQ with overpriced cabling.


----------



## jautor




----------



## JakiChan

necroposting....

Someone needs to make the equivalent of an Ixia test platform for 2.0a cables. You take X cables, you shove 18Gbps through them for a few days, show which one had the most errors. Simple. 

The only way a fancy cable can help is if it has a lower bit error rate.


----------



## Artie Barnes

timjohnson1717 said:


> I can buy a $90 receptacle and a $200 power cord? Is that what my system has been missing all this time???
> 
> One question though, shouldn't I also upgrade the $3 worth of copper feeding that outlet? What about the $5 breaker, and why not go for broke, call up the power company and tell them I need solid silver conductors from the substation ran to the house. But that doesn't matter right? Its that last 3 feet that makes or breaks it. The thousands of feet before it have absolutely no effect whatsoever?
> 
> Whoever is spending money on power cords is stupid. Oh, and hdmi cables too. We don't live in an analog world anymore guys.


"Whoever is spending money on power cords is stupid. Oh, and hdmi cables too. We don't live in an analog world anymore guys."

Wow, I should have gotten into the power cord business. $170 for a six foot power cord! That’s even better than those gas injected speaker cables they sell for $50. Went to Amazon to see the write-ups and they are getting 4 to 5 stars! Maybe you can fool people with a high priced HDMI cable, but a power cord? It’s just carrying line voltage to the equipment.


----------



## cemo62

I will need an 10-15 meter (35 feet) cable for 4k blurays. Do I have to buy fiber cable or other one? Thanks for help


----------



## Otto Pylot

cemo62 said:


> I will need an 10-15 meter (35 feet) cable for 4k blurays. Do I have to buy fiber cable or other one? Thanks for help


You've been answered in the other forum you posted to. It's best to keep your posts to one forum so the replies can be consistent, make sense, and searching is easy for others.


----------



## cdnscg

I have an older AudioQuest Cinnamon hdmi cable, and would like know if its 18Gbps capable. The cord markings state:
1080P-4K Ultra HD-3D
E148114-D(UL) 30 AWG CMG

Have a newer Cinnamon, but it has a fabric mesh cover.


----------



## Otto Pylot

cdnscg said:


> I have an older AudioQuest Cinnamon hdmi cable, and would like know if its 18Gbps capable. The cord markings state:
> 1080P-4K Ultra HD-3D
> E148114-D(UL) 30 AWG CMG
> 
> Have a newer Cinnamon, but it has a fabric mesh cover.


Probably not. At least not certified by an ATC to deliver a consistent 18Gbps. The same for the Cinnamon. Both overpriced. 30AWG is a pretty thin cable. What is your cable run distance?


----------



## cdnscg

Otto Pylot said:


> Probably not. At least not certified by an ATC to deliver a consistent 18Gbps. The same for the Cinnamon. Both overpriced. 30AWG is a pretty thin cable. What is your cable run distance?


This cable is 4ft which is joined by a coupler to a 25' AudioQuest Chocolate hdmi cable

According to the AudioQuest website, the new 'mesh' wound Cinnamon are guaranteed 18Gbps+.


----------



## Otto Pylot

cdnscg said:


> This cable is 4ft which is joined by a coupler to a 25' AudioQuest Chocolate hdmi cable
> 
> According to the AudioQuest website, the new 'mesh' wound Cinnamon are guaranteed 18Gbps+.


You have a total of 29' for a cable run, with a coupler in-between. The most reliable connection is a single cable run with nothing in-between. Couplers can and do work but 4k HDR is a really touchy beast. The setup more than likely won't work for HDMI 2.1 once the chipsets are sent to the device mfrs. 1080p would be no problem and possibly just 4k. AudioQuest cables are way overpriced for what you get and they are as good, if not better, than Monster when is comes to market-speak. 18Gbps+? What's "+" mean? 18.1, 19, 25? Ask them for a Certificate of Compliance for the cable you purchased and ask them how they verify those claims. A standardized certification protocol? What's the wire gauge? I really hope it works reliably for you.


----------



## cdnscg

Otto Pylot said:


> You have a total of 29' for a cable run, with a coupler in-between. The most reliable connection is a single cable run with nothing in-between. Couplers can and do work but 4k HDR is a really touchy beast. The setup more than likely won't work for HDMI 2.1 once the chipsets are sent to the device mfrs. 1080p would be no problem and possibly just 4k. AudioQuest cables are way overpriced for what you get and they are as good, if not better, than Monster when is comes to market-speak. 18Gbps+? What's "+" mean? 18.1, 19, 25? Ask them for a Certificate of Compliance for the cable you purchased and ask them how they verify those claims. A standardized certification protocol? What's the wire gauge? I really hope it works reliably for you.


Don't get me wrong, the cable run works and is sending 4K from my X800 through an avr to my 300ES 4K pj. I read in the 500ES pj thread that someone had improved their picture with "certified" cables. I was just checking here to see if I had such cables, and was getting the best picture I can. After reading this thread, there appears to be some option that if the cables are passing the 4K signal, then "better" cables won't make a difference. All pretty headie stuff


----------



## Otto Pylot

cdnscg said:


> Don't get me wrong, the cable run works and is sending 4K from my X800 through an avr to my 300ES 4K pj. I read in the 500ES pj thread that someone had improved their picture with "certified" cables. I was just checking here to see if I had such cables, and was getting the best picture I can. After reading this thread, there appears to be some option that if the cables are passing the 4K signal, then "better" cables won't make a difference. All pretty headie stuff


There has been lots of discussion about overpriced cables improving PQ and AQ. Not true. The signal is digital so you either get it or not. If there are sparkles or drop outs then that's either a cable issue (cheaply made), a handshake issue, or an HDMI chipset issue. The cable is just a data pipe. It can not improve the color space or add information that is not in the original data stream. Folks who say their pq has been improved are just fooling themselves trying to justify the cost of the cable. Standardized certification so far is still only good to 25' and if your cable is certified, then the mfr should be able to supply you with a Certificate of Compliance. My guess is that AudioQuest won't. Ask them how they "certify" their cables. My guess is they won't tell you. A well made Monoprice, MediaBridge, BJC cable of sufficient wire gauge will work just as good as the grossly overpriced AudioQuest or Monster cables. Those mfrs will spin all kinds of spec like oxygen-free copper, gold connectors, etc, which is nice but really has nothing at all to do with improving pq and aq. They can show graphs from spectro testing but a lot of the data they present is well above what the human eyes and ears can perceive so you're paying all that extra money for "performance" that you will never be able to appreciate. There may be a little more leeway with audio, but not much, and certainly not video fidelity.


----------



## TWD

Power cords and audio cables absolutely make a difference. HDMI I don’t thinks so. I have compared the Vodka with a cheap mono price HDMI. After A/B comparing ad nauseam, I could not tell a difference. And believe me I wanted too.


----------



## Liquidtrend

It's 12:30am in my city and I just woke up from a long day of networking cables through a new hospital and don't typically enjoy reopening a can of worms from a year ago but came across this post....

I have just begun getting excited in audio and video, so when it comes to quality hardware and keen observations with sound, I am sure everyone here is more educated and experienced than I am.

But what I can offer is my degree in Computer science and my understanding in a specialty field of network engineering, which included wiring large networks and making sure these managed sites have the least amount of interference between devices which would cause any possible type of performance issue.

To everyone who states the cables don't matter, and that we live in a day and age where our digital world doesn't need to be concerned with high end cables. I believe, in my personal opinion, you are absolutely incorrect.

When we create an outline for a network. We follow a set of basic rules at the beginning to start maximizing the transmission of data through the network, which is done through the wires.ans cables of the network. For example, we do not want to put a server room near a break room or kitchen area, simply because if it is to close to a source of a wave like a microwave, the networks interference is substantial enough to "Shake the data current off its track" in a way. We also make sure the data room is free of any little static shock from carpet as most data rooms will be concrete or tiled. Engineers design these locations based off of what seems like silly reasons, but when your network is bogged down, or running slow, it is typically do from some type of cross interference from all the areas data can be bottlenecked.

Ill tie in what I just explained into the world of audio and video, which I am still new to, but understand the following. When you compare a projector to an oled TV, the oled TV will always win (as of 2018) due to the bottle neck of transmitting light (signal) through an open area of space. This does not mean a really nice 4k project is bad, it just states that if the projector did not have any interference between the lense that is physically projecting an image to the screen receiving the imagine, then the quality would be much better. This is true for transmitting ignsl through cables from a source device to an end user device.

If there is any way at all, to shield from potential outside interference. As well as the ability to shield from cross interference from nearby sources like other wires transmitting date in the same cable. And the fact that the quality of the metal for its ability to conduct and transmit a clean signal or ones and zeros on a frequency that the devices can communicate themselves, then you have a way to opening up that bottleneck of transmission. Since the data is sent via "pings" and "blips" through a cable, there are so many ways those pings and blips can be distorted and not come out to the end user device as "clean" or "true as intended"

Therefor, what I'd like to conclude in this post (as my first post), there are high end cables, like the ones being discussed here, that do give a better, cleaner, less distorted. Production of data, let it be audio or video. And that everyone claiming any simple hdmi like an Amazon essential that is not shielded or wrapped, would work as well as something like audioquest, in my professional opinion, might not have an ear that can distinguish between the two, meaning their opinion is not wrong (as it is just their opinion), but they can not back up the FACT that they are wrong. And that in truth, cables matter.

Ask any networking engineer in the field where cabling might be done and you will get the same answer I am giving to you all.

Thanks for take the time to read. I hope I was able to explain things in a way you could understand them.


----------



## Ratman

Stick to "network infrastructure" cabling where your expertise is probably quite extensive.


----------



## Otto Pylot

+1. Cable mfrs love to give specs beyond the usual HDMI 2.0b specs to sell their overpriced cables as offering "better video performance" blah blah blah. While said cables may have better physical testing results, the bottom line is if the cable is certified by an ATC to meet HDMI 2.0b hardware specs, that's all that matters, because the human eyes and ear are limited in what can be perceived, so any other testing results, while not bogus, are meaningless and are meant to just confuse the consumer into thinking that they will get better performance and thus justify the high cost of the cable. If the cable meets those specs, and is certified by an ATC, then it's a well made cable. AudiQuest and Monster are the kings of this type of marketing.


----------



## Ratman

The reason "high end" wire/cable outfits can stay in business is because of folks that "believe" there's magic electrical properties with their cables/wires.


The folks that eat that fodder, come to forums and praise the (add your phrase here) audible/visual improvement that only provides free advertisement and may ease the pain of buyer's remorse. And... the more product sold provides the cable/wire guru's a huge profit to increase advertising.  


Network wiring/cabling/design/RFI/EMI is similar, but less stringent requirements for "home A/V" IMHO.


----------



## Otto Pylot

+1, again


----------



## RWetmore

If Audioquest HDMI cables like Vodka do make *some* difference for audio, it would be because of the lower jitter they offer. For video, it would be due to less error correction (from the error correction circuitry) required at the receiving end, which I don't think is a lossless recovery process (but rather it's interpolated, i.e. 'guessed' recovery of damaged or corrupted bits).


I have Audioquest Carbon HDMI, and was using BJC Series FE prior, which is itself a high quality cable. Was/is there a difference in image quality? Maybe, but I thought I did notice a slight reduction in noise in the image when I upgraded to the BJC Series FE from a regular, cheap cable.


If there is anything going on here, it would be reduced error correction needed at the receiving end, which I don't think is lossless recovery, i.e. bit for bit exact to the original recovery. Of course, if the same exact stream of bits is fed through the HDMI receiving device to the display to display the image, then a 'better' cable can't make a difference. But I'm not sure that is the case, even when the image doesn't appear to have any noticeable artifacts like sparkles or occasional dropouts. 


All this being said, I find the Audioquest HDMI cable is extremely well constructed and the connectors fit snugly into the jacks.


----------



## RWetmore

TWD said:


> Power cords and audio cables absolutely make a difference. HDMI I don’t thinks so. I have compared the Vodka with a cheap mono price HDMI. After A/B comparing ad nauseam, I could not tell a difference. And believe me I wanted too.



If there is a difference for HDMI video, it is very small.


----------



## Ratman

When it comes to HDMI... I'd pose those assumptions to @Joe Fernand for clarification.


@Otto Pylot way also be able to assist.


I personally stand by post #44 . Either you have a well constructed cable or a poorly constructed cable.


----------



## Otto Pylot

RWetmore said:


> If there is a difference for HDMI video, it is very small.


No. You either get the signal or you don't. The cable can't alter or modify the signal in any way. "Sharper, clearer, video" or what the smoke and mirror guys say is just that, smoke and mirrors. If you scope the cable performance out, you may see technical differences but they are beyond what the human eyes and ears can perceive so it's all marketing. For runs under 25', stick with Premium High Speed HDMI cables. For runs longer than that, you may have to go with a hybrid fiber if you want to push 4k HDR over about 20'. In any case for long runs install your cabling in a conduit (1.5" - 2.0") because that is the ONLY way to future proof your cabling. There are no 100% guarantees for cabling because of the vast differences in equipment, installations, ad naseum. All you can do is try.

I currently use BJC Premium High Speed HDMI cables for my new HTS upstairs. The downstairs one I'm using MediaBridge cables. Prior to that I think they were Monoprice but I don't remember if those were certified or not. I never saw any video or audio differences at all other than moving up from 480i to 1080p to 4k HDR.


----------



## RWetmore

Otto Pylot said:


> No. You either get the signal or you don't. The cable can't alter or modify the signal in any way.



This is not correct. If it were, there wouldn't be the need for error correction circuitry at the receiving end. A digital cable most definitely can and does distort the signal somewhat. The better the cable, the better and less distorted the 1s and 0s come through at the other end. Now, as long as the receiver can ultimately interpret all the 1s and 0s the same (and send the same exact bitstream to the display), then a better cable won't make any difference, of course.


I'm saying this isn't universally the case at all, especially at very high data rates. If there is a difference (however small), it's a higher quality transmission of what amount to little square waves, i.e. 1s and 0s for digital. They don't come through as perfect square waves at the other end of the cable, but are always somewhat distorted (and sometimes a lot distorted). A higher quality cable delivers the signal with less distortion, i.e. closer to the original square waves, than a low quality cable. 


I'm also saying I don't think that the error correction circuitry always provides lossless recovery (i.e. bit for bit exact to the original), but instead often provides interpolated recovery of damaged or distorted bits. And if there is a difference, this is why.


----------



## Otto Pylot

The chipsets in the sink end of an active cable are there for error correction, timing, etc so that the signal can be successfully transferred over a longer distance without any loss of signal integrity. If you do lose integrity, sparkles and other annoyances appear which is obvious. If the signal is received intact without any issues at the sink end, then you are getting whatever the source sent. The cable CAN NOT make the pixels look any better than what the source is sending. Again, the human eyes and ears are very limited in what they can perceive so while a cable may have stellar performance specs, it's all for naught once you reach the human limits. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Things will get clearer


----------



## RWetmore

Otto Pylot said:


> The cable CAN NOT make the pixels look any better than what the source is sending.



I've never claimed this, nor do I think it. It's not what I'm saying at all. 


I think I've stated what I want clearly enough. Readers can decide for themselves.


----------



## Ratman

RWetmore said:


> This is not correct. If it were, there wouldn't be the need for error correction circuitry at the receiving end.


Is there a reputable source about error correction and how the "cable" relates?




> A digital cable most definitely can and does distort the signal somewhat.


What is a "digital cable"? It's just a cable.
What is distorted and how is it distorted where it becomes "visible or audible"? 




> The better the cable, the better and less distorted the 1s and 0s come through at the other end.


That _may_ be correct, but it's just a cable. A well constructed cable and following distance recommendations are all that's needed. 
What's the difference between and non-distorted vs.a less-distorted 1 or 0?




> as long as the receiver can ultimately interpret all the 1s and 0s the same (and send the same exact bitstream to the display), then a better cable won't make any difference, of course.


 How does the cable make sure the interpretation is accurate?




> I'm saying this isn't universally the case at all, especially at very high data rates. If there is a difference (however small), it's a higher quality transmission of what amount to little square waves, i.e. 1s and 0s for digital. They don't come through as perfect square waves at the other end of the cable, but are always somewhat distorted (and sometimes a lot distorted). A higher quality cable delivers the signal with less distortion, i.e. closer to the original square waves, than a low quality cable.


Sounds good, but not quite accurate. Given a $5 cable or a $500 (passive) HDMI of equal length and construct (with no "crap") in between source and destination, the cable shouldn't be a distortion factor of sine waves or square waves (or tsunami waves). 




> I'm also saying I don't think that the error correction circuitry always provides lossless recovery (i.e. bit for bit exact to the original), but instead often provides interpolated recovery of damaged or distorted bits.


It doesn't.




> And if there is a difference, this is why.


 Perhaps. 


Wonder what HDMI.org has to say?


----------



## RWetmore

Ratman said:


> What's the difference between and non-distorted vs.a less-distorted 1 or 0?



How rounded, i.e. less square, it is, but more importantly whether it can be correctly interpreted as a 1 or a 0 by the receiving device. Here is good video tutorial that explains how digital signal transmission can go wrong and get distorted:


----------



## Otto Pylot

Any well made cable can have issues for various reasons. The title of this thread is "AudioQuest HDMI's - Worth It? ". And the answer is no, regardless of how the mfr spins their claims to justify their overpriced cables.


----------



## Ratman

Hans is probably very informed. (Sorry... can't watch videos of YouTube " experts.)


But:
How is it distorted where does it becomes "visible or audible" due to a cable (given passive, correct distance, and directly connected from source to destination)? 


Apples to apples.


----------



## frank xbe

Mono price and Amazon Basic HDMI 2.0 - 18 GB cables work fine here .


----------



## Otto Pylot

frank xbe said:


> Mono price and Amazon Basic HDMI 2.0 - 18 GB cables work fine here .


If the cable is actually labeled "Amazon Basic HDMI 2.0" that cable is probably a cheap Chinese knock-off because HDMI.org requested that cable mfrs not label their cables with the HDMI hardware specification because it was misleading. Properly mfr'd cables should be just labeled as High Speed HDMI cables which implies that they meet the current HDMI protocol standards. Some cable mfrs even go as far as having their cables tested and certified. In which case the cable will be labeled as a Premium High Speed HDMI cable and will come with a QR label for authenticity. Without that there is no way to confirm the mfrs' claims.

That being said, even if you have a cheap Chinese knock-off, and it works as expected, that underscores the fact that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a cable that works. AudioQuest, Monster, etc offer really nice looking cables that are well made but in no way does that justify the cost of their cables.


----------



## frank xbe

Otto Pylot said:


> If the cable is actually labeled "Amazon Basic HDMI 2.0" that cable is probably a cheap Chinese knock-off because HDMI.org requested that cable mfrs not label their cables with the HDMI hardware specification because it was misleading. Properly mfr'd cables should be just labeled as High Speed HDMI cables which implies that they meet the current HDMI protocol standards. Some cable mfrs even go as far as having their cables tested and certified. In which case the cable will be labeled as a Premium High Speed HDMI cable and will come with a QR label for authenticity. Without that there is no way to confirm the mfrs' claims.
> 
> That being said, even if you have a cheap Chinese knock-off, and it works as expected, that underscores the fact that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a cable that works. AudioQuest, Monster, etc offer really nice looking cables that are well made but in no way does that justify the cost of their cables.


Thanks for the correct info .they were labeled "High Speed HDMI" and shipped from Amazon direct . $6.99 ea @ 6 ft.


----------



## Otto Pylot

frank xbe said:


> Thanks for the correct info .they were labeled "High Speed HDMI" and shipped from Amazon direct . $6.99 ea @ 6 ft.


Yep. Those are just plain old High Speed HDMI cables. Cost does not equate with better cables in most cases.


----------



## frank xbe

Otto Pylot said:


> Yep. Those are just plain old High Speed HDMI cables. Cost does not equate with better cables in most cases.


LOL same for my less expensive Mono-price direct cables which I also use for music as well.
speaker cables are inexpensive but decent 16 AWG Monoprice direct pure copper.


----------



## Otto Pylot

frank xbe said:


> LOL same for my less expensive Mono-price direct cables which I also use for music as well.
> speaker cables are inexpensive but decent 16 AWG Monoprice direct pure copper.


For the longest time I used 16AWG dual strand heater cord wire for my HTS downstairs and it sounded really nice .


----------



## sarahb75

In using inherited money to spend $8,200 on home theater equipment, I got a little reckless by going overboard on high priced HDMI cables, while thinking, "What the hell, maybe there's actually something to the salesman's claim that if I go with more modestly priced HDMI cables, my high-def display really could exhibit a "subtle form of red banding".

But a year later, I put that claim to the test. The display that I used to compare HDMI cables was a calibrated Panasonic P58-VT25 plasma, which was the same flat panel that won the September 2010 Value Electronics Flat Panel Shoot Out, with all of the 30 video professionals in attendance at that shoot out, having unanimously picked the VT-25 as the flat panel with the best picture quality.

Anyhow, using a Blu-ray of Casino Royale, along with a 2nd copy of that Blu-ray, that was loaned by a friend, the sames scenes of the flick were simultaneously fed into the HDMI 1 and HDMI 2 inputs of the Panasonic, from a Sony BD player and a Panasonic BD Player.

But even though the high priced HDMI cable cost 15 TIMES as much as the low priced HDMI cable, neither myself, nor any of 3 other people, could see even the most slight difference in picture quality. 

What we did was to have one of the Blu-ray players about 12 seconds ahead of the other in the movie, so that viewers could closely study the picture quality of the scene that was further ahead, and then switch to the TV's 2nd input so that viewers were then seeing the 2nd BD player and HDMI cable showing the same section of a scene they'd just viewed on the 1st BD player & HDMI cable. 

Anyhow, that A-B test comparison convinced me that there is NO visual difference between HDMI cables, as long as a cable doesn't suffer from a defect, like a faulty connector.

BTW, not only was the expensive HDMI cable 15 times as expensive as my low priced cable, but the expensive HDMI cable was only 1 meter long, while the low priced HDMI was 6 feet long.



Mike Boone


----------



## Otto Pylot

+1


----------



## locutus2k

I know what you're saying digital cables are all the same: they works or they don't. But this guy: https://forum.polkaudio.com/discuss...innamon-hdmi-cables-vs-the-cheap-stuff-review maybe has photoshopped the images or a difference between a cheap hdmi and an audioquest cinnamon is clear.
I don't know what to think.


----------



## Otto Pylot

locutus2k said:


> I know what you're saying digital cables are all the same: they works or they don't. But this guy: https://forum.polkaudio.com/discuss...innamon-hdmi-cables-vs-the-cheap-stuff-review maybe has photoshopped the images or a difference between a cheap hdmi and an audioquest cinnamon is clear.
> I don't know what to think.



So who paid for that test, AudioQuest?  My guideline is this:


For 1080p, any well made High Speed HDMI cable from Monoprice, BlueJeans, MediaBridge is fine. If your run is over 25', which is the maximum current certifiable distance, then an active cable or extender should work fine.


For 4k HDR up to about 20', a Premium High Speed HDMI cable should work just fine if it is certified by an ATC and comes with the QR label of authenticity. At lengths over 20' a hybrid fiber cable should be considered. 



Any cable mfr can submit their cables for certification by an ATC (Authorized Testing Center) if they want to pay for the cost of certification. That's the beauty of ATC certified cables is that they are not specific to any one cable mfr. All cable mfrs will claim their cables meet or exceed (?) the HDMI 2.0b hardware specifications but unless the cables are tested and certified by a standardized testing protocol, you have no way of knowing how extensive the testing is or how they actually perform the testing. 



That being said, no one can give you a 100% guarantee, certified or not, that their cable will work as you expect in your setting because there is more to a successful cable connection (bend radius, installation, HDMI chipsets at source/sink end, etc) than just the data pipe , which is the cable. The cable itself can not improve the pq (greens won't be greener, reds won't be redder, etc). What you will see are sparkles, drop outs, etc.


Do they define what a cheap HDMI cable is? Sure, you can always find some cheaply made, Chinese knock-off cable with great sounding marketing and then compare it to better quality cable like the AudioQuest and see differences. If you purchase ATC certified cables from reputable mfrs like Monoprice, BJC, MediaBridge etc you can get the same performance for less money than the overpriced AudioQuest/Monster brands or other similar mfrs.


If you want to "future proof" your cabling the only way to do that is to install your cabling in a conduit if the installation is in-wall or your cables are not easily accessible. Cable connection technology is way behind the video technology so the probability of swapping cables down the road is high.


That article is also over a year old and he mentions "AudioQuest HDMI 2.0 cables". HDMI.org asked cable mfrs years ago to not label their cables with the HDMI hardware specification because it was too confusing for the consumer. HDMI cables are to be designated as High Speed or Premium High Speed. One designation means that the cable meets the HDMI 2.0b hardware specification and the other designation means that the cable has been tested and certified to meet the HDMI 2.0b hardware specifications. Oxygen-free is marketing.


----------



## locutus2k

I don't know if someone paid for the test, but since that guy ends his review with a statement that even with the improvements the Audioquest was too much money for him i tend to believe the test is honest.


----------



## Otto Pylot

locutus2k said:


> I don't know if someone paid for the test, but since that guy ends his review with a statement that even with the improvements the Audioquest was too much money for him i tend to believe the test is honest.



I added a comment to my post after you replied.


----------



## locutus2k

That test was made on SD and 1080p video. Actual Audioquest hdmi cables have "4K - HDR" stamped on connectors.
Also, for his own admission, difference was subtle exactly "_The AQ Cinnamon image has slightly better detail, although this was not perceptible to my eyes when looking at the TV from 12 feet away. If you download the higher resolution pictures attached at the end of this post and flip between them while viewing on a high definition display, you should be able see the differences between them._"
So it hink this is an honest test after all.


----------



## drewTT

I use the AQ Carbons. Didn't notice anything in terms of PQ quality but definitely a subtle improvement in audio quality. However, you need pretty resolving gear to notice so a typical user with a basic receiver shouldn't bother.


----------



## Otto Pylot

locutus2k said:


> That test was made on SD and 1080p video. Actual Audioquest hdmi cables have "4K - HDR" stamped on connectors.
> Also, for his own admission, difference was subtle exactly "_The AQ Cinnamon image has slightly better detail, although this was not perceptible to my eyes when looking at the TV from 12 feet away. If you download the higher resolution pictures attached at the end of this post and flip between them while viewing on a high definition display, you should be able see the differences between them._"
> So it hink this is an honest test after all.



Any cable mfr can stamp just about anything they want on a cable. I'm sure the test was honest but it didn't really prove anything. How long is your run? 



Most folks are concerned now-a-days with 4k HDR (18Gbps) so if you stick with a Premium High Speed HDMI cable, given your cable run, then you'll be fine for 1080p, 4k, and 4k HDR, for now, without having to spend a ton of money on a cable that has specs that are beyond what the human eyes and ears can perceive.


----------



## Otto Pylot

drewTT said:


> I use the AQ Carbons. Didn't notice anything in terms of PQ quality but definitely a subtle improvement in audio quality. However, you need pretty resolving gear to notice so a typical user with a basic receiver shouldn't bother.



Hearing is in the eyes of the beholder, or some such nonsense


----------



## Ratman

IMO... when cable experts sell a cable in "flavors" of increasing prices, there's a red flag.
1) I hear a difference! (low price)
2) My wife hears a difference from the kitchen! (medium price)
3) My 85 year old mother/in-law can hear a difference with hearing aids from the basement! (highest price)


----------



## locutus2k

The point is not about price: "high End" cables are overpriced and that's a fact. the point is that not all HDMI digital cables are the same (read: it works or it don't). When you came to high end equipment the increase in quality is inversely proportional to the increase in price. If someone is wiling to spend such an extra for an Audioquest carbon/vodka or even Cinnamon (one of the "cheapest" in their line) he will buy a cable that will improve (in a subtle way or maybe in a negligible way) his a/v quality, even if he can't say what or where. To each his own but my point is: Audioquest cables are certainly overpriced but they're not snake oil.


----------



## Otto Pylot

locutus2k said:


> To each his own but my point is: Audioquest cables are certainly overpriced but they're not snake oil.



AudioQuest cables are certainly not snake oil. They make very good cables. What is "snake oil" is their claim of improved pq/aq. My guess is that if you test one of their cables, same length, in the same system against a well made Premium High Speed HDMI cable you won't be able to discern any differences in perceived quality. Some people may be more sensitive than others but that percentage is extremely small. Even if AudioQuest released their testing results done with sophisticated instrumentation, the differences are outside of what the human eyes and ears can perceive.


That being said, if one has a HTS that is considered high end ($10,000 +) the differences may become more perceptible just by virtue of the quality of the equipment being used. For most of us the same performance can be achieved without the high cost of an AudioQuest cable for our meager systems 


But it's your money, and if you feel the cost is justified because you can see and hear a difference, then that's all that matters.


----------



## allthebits

I have no dog in this fight regarding HDMI cables, but this guy (Techno Dad) on YouTube did a video over AQ HDMI vs Amazon HDMI cables. The majority of people (including me) seem to believe the AQ had the better image. You can view the comparison and results on YouTube by looking up Amazon HDMI vs Audioquest HDMI / A/B Results! 

Unfortunately, the difference, while noticeable, is so small the cost ($$$) outweighs the improvements.


----------



## Otto Pylot

allthebits said:


> I have no dog in this fight regarding HDMI cables, but this guy (Techno Dad) on YouTube did a video over AQ HDMI vs Amazon HDMI cables. The majority of people (including me) seem to believe the AQ had the better image. You can view the comparison and results on YouTube by looking up Amazon HDMI vs Audioquest HDMI / A/B Results!
> 
> Unfortunately, the difference, while noticeable, is so small the cost ($$$) outweighs the improvements.


Believe what you want but the cable itself can not make reds any redder or greens any greener. If it's the video I'm thinking of his "unbiased" approach was questionable. At under 25', the best you can do is a Premium High Speed HDMI cable (QR label), period.


----------



## sarahb75

*Folks Shouldn't Fall For Pricey HDMI Cables That Are A Pure Waste Of Money*



Otto Pylot said:


> Believe what you want but the cable itself can not make reds any redder or greens any greener. If it's the video I'm thinking of his "unbiased" approach was questionable. At under 25', the best you can do is a Premium High Speed HDMI cable (QR label), period.


You certainly hit the digital nail squarely on the head, Otto Pylot!

High priced HDMI cables have to be the most shameful con & ripoff that's to be found in the home theater category of products!


Though we haven't gotten into UHD 4k yet, my wife and I use 4 very high quality 1080p displays which range in screen size from 58 inches up to an 80 inch flat screen. And, over the years, having used a total of 8 Blu-ray players from the Sony and Panasonic brands, we've had a lot of experience with various HDMI cable brands. When we bought our first high-def display in September 2007, which was Mitsubishi's top of the line 73 inch Diamond series DLP RPTV, I got suckered into using some of the inherited money that we'd just gotten, for buying some very expensive HDMI cables. The sales manager at the home theater specialty store where we dropped $8,200 on A/V equipment, in one fell swoop, insisted that if we wanted to be sure to avoid a supposed possibility of seeing some slight red fringing on such a sizable screen, we should buy the expensive type of HDMI cable that he was promoting. And since there's a lot of truth in the old saying "Easy come, easy go", I said "What the hell, I'm suddenly equipped with all this money, so why not purchase some fancy cables to use with this fancy TV."

But in recent years, though I'm very critical of picture quality, HDMI cables purchased from Amazon for around $7 apiece, have offered all of the PQ performance for our displays that we could ask for. The only critical consideration when judging an HDMI cable's suitability for its application, (assuming it's speed is high enough for the application, (such as being used for carrying 4k signals, rather than just carrying 1080p) is making sure that the cable has good, solid connectors. But, as I've indicated, even very modestly priced HDMI cables from Amazon, have met that requirement for us. And they seem to last. 

But back in 2007, as he was talking to me, while writing up the sales order, that man at that store who sold me our first high def TV, was probably thinking that I was living proof of P.T. Barnum's famous quote "There's a sucker born every minute!"

Anyhow, later I was to discover, through a direct A/B comparison of one of those expensive HDMI cables that I'd bought, with a cheap HDMI cable which cost a very small fraction of the expensive cable's price, that in using the 2 kinds of cables to feed the images of some well produced Blu-ray discs to an excellent flat screen, there was ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in picture quality between the 2 cables.

Executives at companies like Audioquest, who are responsible for ripping off unwary consumers of the type that I used to be, are executives of electronic accessory companies who should be seriously fined, and even jailed, for their behavior, which resembles that of a certain leader who paid out $25 million for victimizing Americans with a phony university named for him.


Mike Boone


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^^ @sarahb75 - The only rule that I follow is this:

If your cable run is under 25' and you want to push 4k HDR, then a passive Premium High Speed HDMI cable is what you need. If you want to push 4k HDR over 25', then the recommendation is to use a hybrid fiber cable (I like Ruipro, which unfortunately are expensive).

Premium High Speed HDMI cables are certified by an Authorized Testing Center (ATC), which is a program designed and maintained by HDMI.org so the cables, from any mfr should they choose to submit their cables, are tested and certified by a standardized procedure. The cables will come with a QR label for authenticity.

Active cables, whether they be copper only, fiber, or hybrid fiber can not be certified by an ATC because HDMI.org doesn't allow for certification of active cables.

Some cable mfrs will present very nice results derived from some sophisticated instrumentation but they are usually outside of the range that normal human eyes and ears can perceive so they are pretty much meaningless.

If someone feels that an AudioQuest cable, of the same length, compared to a Premium High Speed HDMI cable under the exact same test conditions delivers better pq/aq then more power to them. Quite often it's just justifying the high cost of the cable. Cable mfrs have been getting away with questionable claims for years with slick marketing and carefully worded cable descriptions (written by lawyers no doubt). Just wait till HDMI 2.1 becomes mainstream 

Certification is not a 100% guarantee that the cable will work in any given setup. There are just too many variables, besides the data path, that go into a successful cable run.


----------



## allthebits

As others have mentioned, AQ doesn't really promise better picture with their cables. They do promise better sound. I called AQ directly and the guy on the phone said confirmed/said essentially verbatim, "Depending on who you are and your equipment, you may or may not see a picture improvement, but you should hear an audio improvement regardless."


----------



## Otto Pylot

allthebits said:


> As others have mentioned, AQ doesn't really promise better picture with their cables. They do promise better sound. I called AQ directly and the guy on the phone said confirmed/said essentially verbatim, "Depending on who you are and your equipment, you may or may not see a picture improvement, but you should hear an audio improvement regardless."



I don't really buy that either. Unless you have grounding issues or loose connectors, the audio should be fine. If the cable meets ALL of the HDMI 2.0b hardware specifications, that also includes audio. And even it it is true, their pricing doesn't justify a possible moderate increase in audio fidelity. A good sound system shouldn't need special cables anyway unless you're going into the super high end audio equipment, and then I'm sure there are cables for that that are much better than AQ for audio. Marketing b.s.


----------



## Ratman

Otto Pylot said:


> I don't really buy that either. Marketing b.s.


Amen. :angel:


----------



## Joe Fernand

_'"Depending on who you are and your equipment, you may or may not see a picture improvement, but you should hear an audio improvement regardless."_ - just to be clear! The HDMI Source device embeds the audio signal within the video signal, it then jumbles everything up using HDCP encryption before being sent along the HDMI cable. The signal is then decrypted by the Sink (AVR or Display), the audio extracted and processed - and somehow a cable 'fine tunes' the audio!

Joe


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^^^ Word!


----------



## Ratman

Otto Pylot said:


> ^^^^^ Word!


SORRY!!!! I just couldn't resist.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Lol! :d


----------



## Rieper

Joe Fernand said:


> _'"Depending on who you are and your equipment, you may or may not see a picture improvement, but you should hear an audio improvement regardless."_ - just to be clear! The HDMI Source device embeds the audio signal within the video signal, it then jumbles everything up using HDCP encryption before being sent along the HDMI cable. The signal is then decrypted by the Sink (AVR or Display), the audio extracted and processed - and somehow a cable 'fine tunes' the audio!
> 
> Joe


I'd trust Joe. He's been around AVS longer than most, including myself.


----------



## Otto Pylot

^^^ that's basically what we said 3 months ago when Joe posted .


----------



## Solarium

I’ve always been a NONbeliever of HDMI cables making any difference. But recently, while trying to get a 30+ feet HDMI work on my 4K HDR projector (JVC RS-540U), which I was having difficulty obtaining a stable image on my old Bluejeans 35’ cable. I tried a RUIPRO 33’ optic cable, and then just for ****s and giggles I also got a 33’ Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. To my surprise, the AQ Cinnamon held a significant advantage in image quality over the RUIPRO. I could only perceive video differences since this is the receiver to projector output, and I didn’t change the source to receiver HDMI. The AQ held a blacker background, sharper colors, and better contrast. Overall the picture quality was improved dramatically. So they DO make a difference (at least in picture quality, which I can very objectively appreciate).

I then went on eBay and bought the same AQ Cinnamon for $150 (it was over $400 at Best Buy). And they were exactly the same. While this happened, I also ordered some AQ Vodka HDMI’s from Ebay for $36 each ( https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F132381159983 ), compared to the 2M one I got from BB for $500, and did not see ANY differences in them (other than the BB one is 2018, and the Ebay version is 2013). There was a post here somewhere about a guy getting a cheap Ebay “knockoff” that had identical exterior and even interior upon examining the insides, and even the electrical reads. Meaning that these Ebay versions are indeed NOT knockoffs, and likely overstocks from previous versions or obtained some other ways that’s not totally legal to be sold outright (they’re made in China anyway, wouldn’t be hard to get a few under the table). So for those who are curious, I would just get a AQ Vodka from Ebay and see for yourself. I just returned the $500 one to BB last night, and ordered 3 more from Ebay from the same seller.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Solarium said:


> I’ve always been a NONbeliever of HDMI cables making any difference. But recently, while trying to get a 30+ feet HDMI work on my 4K HDR projector (JVC RS-540U), which I was having difficulty obtaining a stable image on my old Bluejeans 35’ cable. I tried a RUIPRO 33’ optic cable, and then just for ****s and giggles I also got a 33’ Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. To my surprise, the AQ Cinnamon held a significant advantage in image quality over the RUIPRO. I could only perceive video differences since this is the receiver to projector output, and I didn’t change the source to receiver HDMI. The AQ held a blacker background, sharper colors, and better contrast. Overall the picture quality was improved dramatically. So they DO make a difference (at least in picture quality, which I can very objectively appreciate).
> 
> I then went on eBay and bought the same AQ Cinnamon for $150 (it was over $400 at Best Buy). And they were exactly the same. While this happened, I also ordered some AQ Vodka HDMI’s from Ebay for $36 each ( https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/132381159983 ), compared to the 2M one I got from BB for $500, and did not see ANY differences in them (other than the BB one is 2018, and the Ebay version is 2013). There was a post here somewhere about a guy getting a cheap Ebay “knockoff” that had identical exterior and even interior upon examining the insides, and even the electrical reads. Meaning that these Ebay versions are indeed NOT knockoffs, and likely overstocks from previous versions or obtained some other ways that’s not totally legal to be sold outright (they’re made in China anyway, wouldn’t be hard to get a few under the table). So for those who are curious, I would just get a AQ Vodka from Ebay and see for yourself. I just returned the $500 one to BB last night, and ordered 3 more from Ebay from the same seller.


As has been stated MANY times before, there are no technical reasons for improved PQ in well made HDMI cables, all things being equal. The cable (data path) can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. It's all ones and zeros. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc then you are getting what the source is sending to the sink.

AQ Cinnamon are active cables and are very well made. Ruipro4k are hybrid fiber cables, if that's the Ruipro cable you used, and also are active. 

Some AQ cables will state on their packaging that they "exceed 18Gbps" and are "guaranteed to exceed the requirements for all possible HDMI data streams". What does that mean? If the cable is tested and passed to meet HDMI 2.0 hardware protocols, then exceeding that means nothing because what is transmitted is determined and set by the HDMI chipset versions at the source/sink, not the cable. Solid copper cables, or silver coated copper (AQ) are limited in their capabilities due to their construction and technology. Hybrid fiber cables are an entirely different technology altogether given their combination of solid copper wiring and glass fibers. Ruipro4k hybrid fiber cables are tested by an ATC (Authorized Testing Center) following the current guidelines and instrumentation as required by HDMI.org. However, being as they are an active cable they can not get the official certification or the QR label for authenticity like copper only, passive HDMI cables can.

Both mfrs make excellent cables, but their technologies differ and for longevity, quality of build and performance, hybrid fiber cables are what will be your best bet going forward. HDMI 2.1, once fully deployed (all HDMI options are available with the newest chipsets) are going to be very demanding on the data path and copper only cables, passive or active, just won't cut it, especially for long runs.

The bottom line is if you feel that you are getting better pq with a copper only active cable as opposed to an active fiber cable (hybrid or otherwise), then that's fine. However, there is no technical reason if both cables meet the current HDMI 2.0 specifications as far as data transfer that pq would be better with one or the other.


----------



## audioheaven

*Cables matter.*

There are plenty of articles that demonstrate that the quality of digital cables matter. Be it - jitter, current, voltage, .... its not just 1s and 0s. Just as ground plane has a tremendous effect on cable signal. Saying cables don't matter is like saying that the quality of your tires on your car don't matter. Everything matters. Yes the power source matters, but minimizing effects of AC on equipment involved matters. AC is full of noise that can and does have a causal effect on audio and video reproduction. 

Again - saying cables don't matter is very short sighted - mainly from those that either can't afford the cables OR are not astute enough to notice the difference because they don't have quality audio gear, or are deaf, hard of hearing, or just flat out refuse to accept that cables - just like everything else - matters.




Higher quality ingredients and higher quality product development and manufacturing - regardless of product space -- will yield higher quality results. 

To suggest otherwise is naïve at best.


----------



## Ratman

audioheaven said:


> Again - saying cables don't matter is very short sighted - mainly from those that either can't afford the cables OR are not astute enough to notice the difference because they don't have quality audio gear, or are deaf, hard of hearing, or just flat out refuse to accept that cables - just like everything else - matters.


This is the rhetoric that reinforces why most say "beware".


----------



## audioheaven

Ratman said:


> This is the rhetoric that reinforces why most say "beware".


My comment is just one facet of how cables do have an impact on SQ and PQ. There are measureable differences between 'value' cables and those that some would consider excessive or unnecessary. Such measureable areas include ground plane effects, jitter, trace, and voltage fluctuations. To say its all 1s and 0s - and only 1s and 0s with nothing else involved has no concept of EE.


----------



## Otto Pylot

audioheaven said:


> My comment is just one facet of how cables do have an impact on SQ and PQ. There are measureable differences between 'value' cables and those that some would consider excessive or unnecessary. Such measureable areas include ground plane effects, jitter, trace, and voltage fluctuations. To say its all 1s and 0s - and only 1s and 0s with nothing else involved has no concept of EE.


There are in fact measureable differences but quite often those differences are outside of the normal human range of auditory and visual acuity so while they "sound" good, they are really meaningless when it comes down to what you see and possibly hear.

Oh, and cables do matter, but only up to a point. A cheap Chinese knock-off is not going to perform the same or better as a cable that is made from a reputable mfr, but cost isn't always an indicator of better performance.


----------



## Joe Fernand

_'There are measureable differences between 'value' cables and those that some would consider excessive or unnecessary'_ - with HDMI both cables are carrying a highly encrypted digital signal which the cable is not capable of decrypting, altering and re-encrypting.

Joe


----------



## cad700

Otto Pylot said:


> Agree with Ratman on both accounts. At 5'-6' practically any passive High Speed HDMI cable will work. The cable either works or it doesn't. It can not make your audio/video any better than the source it is coming from.
> 
> EDIT: The cables you reference are active cables which is a bit of an overkill for runs less than 10'. The specs mention 18Gbps but there is no mention of how that is determined or if it is even certified.


You are technically correct, a cable cannot make any adjustments to the quality of the video/audio source. However a very good cable can prevent loss or degradation of signal so with a new cable the result may be better picture and sound. Just want to make sure people understand that.


----------



## Ratman

cad700 said:


> You are technically correct, a cable cannot make any adjustments to the quality of the video/audio source. However a very good cable can prevent loss or degradation of signal so with a new cable the result may be better picture and sound. Just want to make sure people understand that.


The points intended in your post are contradictory. 

We do understand.


----------



## Otto Pylot

cad700 said:


> You are technically correct, a cable cannot make any adjustments to the quality of the video/audio source. However a very good cable can prevent loss or degradation of signal so with a new cable the result may be better picture and sound. Just want to make sure people understand that.


Any loss or degradation of signal will result in sparkles, dropouts, etc. If you get a clean picture, then you are getting the best you can from your source. A very good cable is one that works as expected regardless of price or fancy marketing.


----------



## Joe Fernand

_'You are technically correct, a cable cannot make any adjustments to the quality of the video/audio source. However a very good cable can prevent loss or degradation of signal so with a new cable the result may be better picture and sound. Just want to make sure people understand that.'_ - No, a '_very good_' cable has no affect on the video or audio quality of the signal passing through the cable vs. any other working cable.

Joe


----------



## K4LK

moonmoon said:


> *AudioQuest HDMI cables are great!*
> 
> High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
> in audio and video. One should buy what ever one's wallet and sound/video values permit.  People that say high end cables make no difference have poor listening skills or hearing and/or have never heard these type of cables.
> 
> Having eyes and ears, and the other two senses too, does not make a person observant. Being able to eat food, or hear sound, or see does not instantly make a person observant. Practice makes perfect. Observing the details and changes that happen over time with audio and video hones the skills needed to appreciate what high end cable manufacturers create. They know what they are doing!
> 
> If you have good listening and viewing skills and so can see and hear differences in video and audio reproductions, then try the Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. It will please you as you watch and/ or listen to your system. If you can afford the Vodka HDMI
> cable, by all means get it. If your visual or audio observation skills are poor, then a better reproduction of video or audio will be difficult, and probably unimportant to you, so don't even read about better cables.
> 
> I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.
> Overall, these changes, with the Audioquest HDMI upgrade was very natural. I found the Wireworld cables overly etched and not natural the way they changed the images and audio.
> 
> Give it a try.


I tried an AQ Vodka between my Oppo 103 and my Panasonic GT30 plasma and actually saw the improvement with my own eyes with 1080p video. I have AQ Vodkas between the DirecTV 4K client and my Marantz SR8012 AVR, between my Apple TV 4K and the AVR, between my Pioneer UDP-LX500 UHD player and the AVR and between the AVR and my Sony 75X950 Bravia. Have an AQ Carbon between the DirecTV MoCA server and the AVR and an AQ Chocolate between the Toshiba HD DVD and the Sony. The Vodka is about $400 for 5' length. Some of their cables cost 4 figures (ouch).


----------



## Otto Pylot

K4LK said:


> I tried an AQ Vodka between my Oppo 103 and my Panasonic GT30 plasma and actually saw the improvement with my own eyes with 1080p video. I have AQ Vodkas between the DirecTV 4K client and my Marantz SR8012 AVR, between my Apple TV 4K and the AVR, between my Pioneer UDP-LX500 UHD player and the AVR and between the AVR and my Sony 75X950 Bravia. Have an AQ Carbon between the DirecTV MoCA server and the AVR and an AQ Chocolate between the Toshiba HD DVD and the Sony. The Vodka is about $400 for 5' length. Some of their cables cost 4 figures (ouch).


This subject comes up from time to time and the answer is always the same.... there is no technical reason for pq improvement on overpriced cables. Digital is digital. You either get the original signal as it was sent by the source with no sparkles, drop outs, etc, or you don't. A cable can not make reds any redder or greens any greener. If you scope high end cables you may see better s/n ratios etc but the "improvements" are beyond what the human eyes and ears can perceive. Gold plated connectors, oxygen-free copper, pure nitgrogen-encased virgin silver ad naseum is all marketing b.s. AudioQuest, like Monster and others, have grossly overpriced cables that do not perform any better than other well made cables of the same length at a considerably less cost. The very slick marketing, and glowing product descriptions, coupled with a high price, gives the consumer the impression that they are getting the best in the marketplace but it's just not true. Caveat emptor.


----------



## Frohlich

Otto Pylot said:


> This subject comes up from time to time and the answer is always the same.... there is no technical reason for pq improvement on overpriced cables. Digital is digital. You either get the original signal as it was sent by the source with no sparkles, drop outs, etc, or you don't. A cable can not make reds any redder or greens any greener. If you scope high end cables you may see better s/n ratios etc but the "improvements" are beyond what the human eyes and ears can perceive. Gold plated connectors, oxygen-free copper, pure nitgrogen-encased virgin silver ad naseum is all marketing b.s. AudioQuest, like Monster and others, have grossly overpriced cables that do not perform any better than other well made cables of the same length at a considerably less cost. The very slick marketing, and glowing product descriptions, coupled with a high price, gives the consumer the impression that they are getting the best in the marketplace but it's just not true. Caveat emptor.


I couldn't agree more. Do people not understand what a digital signal is??? You can't make an HDMI cable magically add more "0" or more "1" to change or improve the signal. It's either all there or you are getting dropouts. Hand rubbed silver quad shielding with gold connectors built by Tibetan midgets doesn't change the digital signal.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Frohlich said:


> I couldn't agree more. Do people not understand what a digital signal is??? You can't make an HDMI cable magically add more "0" or more "1" to change or improve the signal. It's either all there or you are getting dropouts. Hand rubbed silver quad shielding with gold connectors built by Tibetan midgets doesn't change the digital signal.


Actually the Tibetan midget cables do seem a bit better, but I digress .


----------



## renpar61

I have a question regarding my HDMI cables (not related to the quality battle ):
I have AQ Pearl from 2015 connecting my LG OLED C7, AppleTV4K and Yamaha AVR RX780. Are they compatible with today's formats/standards (HDR, DV, Atmos etc.) or am I missing something?
Reason I ask is some (not all) DV or HDR shows from Netflix or Prime look pretty bad: grainy, or with "strange" colors. 
The movie Bliss on Prime Video is almost unwatchable (both on the Apple TV or the built-in app).


----------



## Otto Pylot

renpar61 said:


> I have a question regarding my HDMI cables (not related to the quality battle ):
> I have AQ Pearl from 2015 connecting my LG OLED C7, AppleTV4K and Yamaha AVR RX780. Are they compatible with today's formats/standards (HDR, DV, Atmos etc.) or am I missing something?
> Reason I ask is some (not all) DV or HDR shows from Netflix or Prime look pretty bad: grainy, or with "strange" colors.
> The movie Bliss on Prime Video is almost unwatchable (both on the Apple TV or the built-in app).


A 2015 cable is fairly old, especially if it's not a certified Premium High Speed HDMI cable. I'm not a fan or AQ at all. Too overpriced and overhyped. That being said, how long is your cable run because that will dictate what kind of cable you should be using. The cable is just a data pipe. It can not alter or modify the signal it is carrying in anyway. If you are getting pq issues, it could be that the cable is just not capable of handling the newer signal formats.

I have almost the same setup (LG C8, ATV4k, Yahama A780, and a UHD/BD player). Cable run is less than 10' for me and I use the Ruipro certified Ultra High Speed HDMI cables. PQ is phenomenal regardless of source or material.


----------



## Soul.Survivor

moonmoon said:


> *AudioQuest HDMI cables are great!*
> 
> High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
> in audio and video. One should buy what ever one's wallet and sound/video values permit. People that say high end cables make no difference have poor listening skills or hearing and/or have never heard these type of cables.
> 
> Having eyes and ears, and the other two senses too, does not make a person observant. Being able to eat food, or hear sound, or see does not instantly make a person observant. Practice makes perfect. Observing the details and changes that happen over time with audio and video hones the skills needed to appreciate what high end cable manufacturers create. They know what they are doing!
> 
> If you have good listening and viewing skills and so can see and hear differences in video and audio reproductions, then try the Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. It will please you as you watch and/ or listen to your system. If you can afford the Vodka HDMI
> cable, by all means get it. If your visual or audio observation skills are poor, then a better reproduction of video or audio will be difficult, and probably unimportant to you, so don't even read about better cables.
> 
> I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.
> Overall, these changes, with the Audioquest HDMI upgrade was very natural. I found the Wireworld cables overly etched and not natural the way they changed the images and audio.
> 
> Give it a try.


Here we have an example of the type of person that thinks HDMI cables alter the sound and look of 1s and 0s. But if you can't hear or see excellence just move along, peon.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Soul.Survivor said:


> Here we have an example of the type of person that thinks HDMI cables alter the sound and look of 1s and 0s. But if you can't hear or see excellence just move along, peon.


Yep. He was around a couple of years ago and just disappeared to haunt other forums. Or he quit and then re-joined under a different name. Makes no matter. Unfortunately there are still lots of folks who totally buy into the slick marketing and product claims to justify overpaying for a cable. At one time some cable mfrs even posted their "testing" results to show how much better their cables perfomed due to their "superior design and materials". However, the specs presented for audio and video were beyond what the human eyes and ears can perceive so it made no difference other than make good marketing copy.


----------



## HelpfulDad

Ratman said:


> Wah! :crying:
> No hostility, rudeness, or closed mindedness intended. Although, oppositional experiences/opinion should be encouraged. There's always a difference of opinions when asking for advice.
> 
> EDIT:
> The OP hasn't been back since February, so it's probably either not an issue or has been resolved.


Or, likely scared off by the unnecessarily aggressive condescension from those of you who can’t hear, see, or appreciate the differences things like cables make. Perhaps intimidated him off this board for asking a good question.
I will never understand why people troll these boards to intimidate those looking for information. Perhaps intimidating someone seeking information on a forum gives them a perverted feeling of superiority in a dreadful, tiny, lonely life? IDK, but they pollute any topic on high sample rates, MQA, vinyl sound, and cable preferences with their unwelcome postings


----------



## HelpfulDad

moonmoon said:


> *AudioQuest HDMI cables are great!*
> 
> High end cables of any kind, from Audioquest or Synergistic Research for example, absolutely make noticeable improvements
> in audio and video. One should buy what ever one's wallet and sound/video values permit. People that say high end cables make no difference have poor listening skills or hearing and/or have never heard these type of cables.
> 
> Having eyes and ears, and the other two senses too, does not make a person observant. Being able to eat food, or hear sound, or see does not instantly make a person observant. Practice makes perfect. Observing the details and changes that happen over time with audio and video hones the skills needed to appreciate what high end cable manufacturers create. They know what they are doing!
> 
> If you have good listening and viewing skills and so can see and hear differences in video and audio reproductions, then try the Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI. It will please you as you watch and/ or listen to your system. If you can afford the Vodka HDMI
> cable, by all means get it. If your visual or audio observation skills are poor, then a better reproduction of video or audio will be difficult, and probably unimportant to you, so don't even read about better cables.
> 
> I am using the Diamond HDMI cable. It was like getting an upgrade on my top of the line Sony displays. Brighter, better contrast, blacks, more 3D, transparency, etc.
> Overall, these changes, with the Audioquest HDMI upgrade was very natural. I found the Wireworld cables overly etched and not natural the way they changed the images and audio.
> 
> Give it a try.


I had a similar experience and Im startled at how much HDMI cables matter.


----------



## Otto Pylot

HelpfulDad said:


> I had a similar experience and Im startled at how much HDMI cables matter.


See my post #107. Please explain how a copper cable can alter digital "1's" and "0's" to produce better video if you are receiving a signal that does not have sparkles or auido/video dropouts.


----------



## Ratman

HelpfulDad said:


> Or, likely scared off by the unnecessarily aggressive condescension from those of you who can’t hear, see, or appreciate the differences things like cables make. Perhaps intimidated him off this board for asking a good question.
> I will never understand why people troll these boards to intimidate those looking for information. Perhaps intimidating someone seeking information on a forum gives them a perverted feeling of superiority in a dreadful, tiny, lonely life? IDK, but they pollute any topic on high sample rates, MQA, vinyl sound, and cable preferences with their unwelcome postings


Over three years to address my post with unnecessary aggressive condescension.


----------



## Michael.

moonmoon said:


> Very closed minded, hostile, rude, and oppositional comments on the original question, someone interested in better video/audio playback with hdmi high end cable.
> 
> Either the original poster wanted to hear "no, no, no!" or they were genuinely interested in forum members "experience" with high end cables.
> 
> I was wrong to think that this was a place for these kind of questions. If a member replies to such a query with hostility, why would anyone ask for advice?


I had the Cinnamon USB Audioquest cable in my car and it definitely made a difference. To me it was way too detailed and bright tho. I recently upgraded to the Carbon and that settled it down. For those that say they can’t hear the difference need to hook cables up into a car. 💯


----------



## Tanquen

Michael. said:


> I had the Cinnamon USB Audioquest cable in my car and it definitely made a difference. To me it was way too detailed and bright tho. I recently upgraded to the Carbon and that settled it down. For those that say they can’t hear the difference need to hook cables up into a car. 💯


Unfortunately human beings are really terrible at telling subtle differences between things. The exact temperature in the room or water in your glass and colors and frequencies and so on. It's very easy to fool yourself if you don't have a very well-defined a/b kind of test. The way digital audio and video work the cable just should not matter. There's no tweaking the cable or adding secret codes to make it work with one TV or one AVR or video card or anything like that. There's basically no failure or they is catastrophic failure, video/audio dropouts corruption in the image etc. Even if there is jitter introduced somewhere it's not going to be the cable, DACs and another hardware software inside the decoding device are going to account for it, within reason.

It's kind of like saying you put an mp3 on a different brand SD card and then play it in your mp3 player or on your computer and say that you can hear extra detail in the audio. For the most part the DAC gets the data and decodes it into something you can hear or it doesn't. Reminds me of Sony when they were fighting against HD-DVD and ran commercials where they had "consumers" talking about how much better the image quality was and almost all of the titles they were playing used the same file format off a slightly different optical disc. 

There are some cables that can modify an HDMI signal but those are very specific and rare. I've only seen one that basically adds anti-aliasing to a lower resolution image. Something similar to what your AVR could do for upscaling video.


----------



## Michael.

Tanquen said:


> Unfortunately human beings are really terrible at telling subtle differences between things. The exact temperature in the room or water in your glass and colors and frequencies and so on. It's very easy to fool yourself if you don't have a very well-defined a/b kind of test. The way digital audio and video work the cable just should not matter. There's no tweaking the cable or adding secret codes to make it work with one TV or one AVR or video card or anything like that. There's basically no failure or they is catastrophic failure, video/audio dropouts corruption in the image etc. Even if there is jitter introduced somewhere it's not going to be the cable, DACs and another hardware software inside the decoding device are going to account for it, within reason.
> 
> It's kind of like saying you put an mp3 on a different brand SD card and then play it in your mp3 player or on your computer and say that you can hear extra detail in the audio. For the most part the DAC gets the data and decodes it into something you can hear or it doesn't. Reminds me of Sony when they were fighting against HD-DVD and ran commercials where they had "consumers" talking about how much better the image quality was and almost all of the titles they were playing used the same file format off a slightly different optical disc.
> 
> There are some cables that can modify an HDMI signal but those are very specific and rare. I've only seen one that basically adds anti-aliasing to a lower resolution image. Something similar to what your AVR could do for upscaling video.


It’s definitely not a trick of the mind. My wife can hear the roll-off of the treble and determine the harshness as well. I believe it’s more of the property of the metal itself along with the shielding too. It really makes a difference in a car where you’re closer to the speakers. Definitely worth the upgrade to the Carbon, although wanted the Diamond but wife wouldn’t let me get that.


----------



## Ratman

My mother can hear the difference from the kitchen when I pull into the driveway. 
Fortunately, I purchased a new car and the stock cables sounded better than an expensive cable "upgrade".


----------



## Michael.

Ratman said:


> My mother can hear the difference from the kitchen when I pull into the driveway.
> Fortunately, I purchased a new car and the stock cables sounded better than an expensive cable "upgrade".


Must be nice living with your mom. Let me guess, you believe you’re one of those that believes Dolby Atmos and Lossless can transfer via Bluetooth although Bluetooth doesn’t support either one of those formats. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Otto Pylot

Are we talking about improved audio or improved video? Improved audio with well built cables is a possibility but video is not. AQ is one of the kings of marketing and fool a lot of folks with their product claims.


----------



## Ratman

Michael. said:


> Must be nice living with your mom. Let me guess, you believe you’re one of those that believes Dolby Atmos and Lossless can transfer via Bluetooth although Bluetooth doesn’t support either one of those formats. 🤦‍♂️


No I don't. (Mom has been dead for 15 years and haven't lived in her house since 1976)

Let me guess.... you believed my statements? I was being sarcastic with one of the other anecdotes that I've read here for ~20 years. If you didn't realize the sarcasm, then I'm sure you do believe AQ cables are the best in the world and improve the sound and video quality. 🤷‍♀️

If you are impressed and justify the cost of AQ cables, great for you. Just that more folks here think they are heavily overpriced.

If cables "sound bad" and new cables improve sound, then IME, you had a bad cable.


----------



## Michael.

Ratman said:


> No I don't. (Mom has been dead for 15 years and haven't lived in her house since 1976)
> 
> Let me guess.... you believed my statements? I was being sarcastic with one of the other anecdotes that I've read here for ~20 years. If you didn't realize the sarcasm, then I'm sure you do believe AQ cables are the best in the world and improve the sound and video quality. 🤷‍♀️
> 
> If you are impressed and justify the cost of AQ cables, great for you. Just that more folks here think they are heavily overpriced.
> 
> If cables "sound bad" and new cables improve sound, then IME, you had a bad cable.


No, I really don’t believe your statements. Although, they are overpriced and part of the factor is silver and copper, R&D, etc… but they do improve the sound signature. I mean, I guess I paid for an iPhone 12 and it’s superior sound to previous generations.


----------



## Michael.

Otto Pylot said:


> Are we talking about improved audio or improved video? Improved audio with well built cables is a possibility but video is not. AQ is one of the kings of marketing and fool a lot of folks with their product claims.


There is a lot of fools around here but I don’t believe Audioquest is one of them.


----------



## Ratman

Okay. Enjoy your _investments_.

This is an HDMI subforum.

Perhaps search around in the Car Audio forum or a USB cable forum. 

Phones and sound signatures of cables haven't been on the top of my desires for a few decades.


----------



## Ratman

Michael. said:


> There is a lot of fools around here but I don’t believe Audioquest is one of them.


This is so funny. Typically, those that believe that want others to be be foolish also. Misery loves company.

Welcome to AVSForum!


----------



## Michael.

Ratman said:


> This is so funny. Typically, those that believe that want others to be be foolish also. Misery loves company.
> 
> Welcome to AVSForum!


Doesn’t matter what forum anyone here creates, you’ll always be there with skepticism. One can’t even prove whether or not you’re a female or male. Maybe a rat? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Ratman

Enough.
Gender has no meaning. Insults are not embraced.

Fun is fun, but IMHO, you have not been playing nice. 6 posts and 5 of which are belligirent. Please move on. Thanks.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Michael. said:


> There is a lot of fools around here but I don’t believe Audioquest is one of them.


Let's clarify something. Are we discussing audio fidelity or video fidelity? AQ is definitely not a fool, because they certainly do know how to sell a product to almost anybody.


----------



## Michael.

Ratman said:


> Enough.
> Gender has no meaning. Insults are not embraced.
> 
> Fun is fun, but IMHO, you have not been playing nice. 6 posts and 5 of which are belligirent. Please move on. Thanks.


Why don’t you move on, you’re not contributing to nothing. Talking big and bad living with your mom and driving in a new car. You’re a fraud. 💯


----------



## Michael.

Otto Pylot said:


> Let's clarify something. Are we discussing audio fidelity or video fidelity? AQ is definitely not a fool, because they certainly do know how to sell a product to almost anybody.


What makes you think they may be a scam? Anyone can tell the difference between a regular old cable and an Audioquest and it really doesn’t need to be Audioquest. I spend multiple hours in a car and at Home and can pin-point differences.


----------



## Tanquen

Michael. said:


> It’s definitely not a trick of the mind. My wife can hear the roll-off of the treble and determine the harshness as well. I believe it’s more of the property of the metal itself along with the shielding too. It really makes a difference in a car where you’re closer to the speakers. Definitely worth the upgrade to the Carbon, although wanted the Diamond but wife wouldn’t let me get that.


It's a USB cable though. If you're sending digital information somewhere to be decoded and converted to analog the cable's not going to do anything. If it's some USB adapter from the phone to the car? And it's an analog signal from the phone to the car audio then it's possible but only if the cables manufactured really poorly and there's no shielding it can act like an antenna or have a bad connection but it's not going to cause any kind of roll off. If there's no static or hum in one cable versus another that's all there's going to be. There's no brighter sound stage or anything like that that's going to happen. Lots of people fool themselves into hearing a difference.

It can be easier to hear certain things in music in a car in a smaller contained environment. Kind of like using good quality headphones you can hear a lot more going on in a song if you listen closely versus just playing speakers in your open room with all kinds of different materials and you moving around in the room. There's just no way a cable is going to make any difference in digital and even if you have an analog signal the cables got to be really bad and adding noise.

Different speakers with different woofers and tweeters and stuff sure you can maybe hear some differences but the cables just not going to change things like that. There's a huge incentive for companies that make such things to imply such things but it just doesn't make it true. Like when you open really expensive speakers and they have really cheap thin wire running in them. They're short distances and whatever and it shouldn't matter but it's the same thing with the cable between the speaker and the stereo unless it's really poorly shielded or you've got to run a few hundred yards of cable, the cables just not going to matter.

The only time I've ever noticed any differences an audio is when replacing a cars stock paper one way speakers with quality two-way speaker, cables and stereo are the same but then you can get a little bit more out of the highs and lows and actually hear a difference.


----------



## Michael.

Tanquen said:


> It's a USB cable though. If you're sending digital information somewhere to be decoded and converted to analog the cable's not going to do anything. If it's some USB adapter from the phone to the car? And it's an analog signal from the phone to the car audio then it's possible but only if the cables manufactured really poorly and there's no shielding it can act like an antenna or have a bad connection but it's not going to cause any kind of roll off. If there's no static or hum in one cable versus another that's all there's going to be. There's no brighter sound stage or anything like that that's going to happen. Lots of people fool themselves into hearing a difference.
> 
> It can be easier to hear certain things in music in a car in a smaller contained environment. Kind of like using good quality headphones you can hear a lot more going on in a song if you listen closely versus just playing speakers in your open room with all kinds of different materials and you moving around in the room. There's just no way a cable is going to make any difference in digital and even if you have an analog signal the cables got to be really bad and adding noise.
> 
> Different speakers with different woofers and tweeters and stuff sure you can maybe hear some differences but the cables just not going to change things like that. There's a huge incentive for companies that make such things to imply such things but it just doesn't make it true. Like when you open really expensive speakers and they have really cheap thin wire running in them. They're short distances and whatever and it shouldn't matter but it's the same thing with the cable between the speaker and the stereo unless it's really poorly shielded or you've got to run a few hundred yards of cable, the cables just not going to matter.
> 
> The only time I've ever noticed any differences an audio is when replacing a cars stock paper one way speakers with quality two-way speaker, cables and stereo are the same but then you can get a little bit more out of the highs and lows and actually hear a difference.


Y’all are definitely something. 😂 I bet you can’t hear the difference between a Ford Tempo and Corvette. 💯


----------



## Otto Pylot

Michael. said:


> What makes you think they may be a scam? Anyone can tell the difference between a regular old cable and an Audioquest and it really doesn’t need to be Audioquest. I spend multiple hours in a car and at Home and can pin-point differences.


Who said anything about AQ being a scam? Their cables are just overpriced for what you get because they can get away with it by using slick marketing and carefully worded product descriptions. There are other cables that are just as good for less money.


----------



## Tanquen

Michael. said:


> Y’all are definitely something. 😂 I bet you can’t hear the difference between a Ford Tempo and Corvette. 💯


But there's very good physical reasons for those two engines and exhaust to sound different. There's no reason for a simple short analog cable to sound different than another short analog cable. And you still haven't made it clear that it's being used for an analog signal or a digital signal.

Unless there's really bad manufacturing or there's actual physical reason like bad or no shielding or a bad connection. 

You don't need to be overly critical but it's good to be critical about stuff. Is there any reason the cable should sound different? Is there a good reason for a company to imply that there is a difference? Yeah, they can manufacture the cable for basically the same price and charge more. This kind of thing has been going on forever.


----------



## Ratman




----------



## Ratman

Michael. said:


> I bet you can’t hear the difference between a Ford Tempo and Corvette.


Can you hear the difference between a 1962 Studebaker Lark and a Chevy Impala?

And now.... back the "HDMI" cable thread, please?


----------



## Michael.

Tanquen said:


> But there's very good physical reasons for those two engines and exhaust to sound different. There's no reason for a simple short analog cable to sound different than another short analog cable. And you still haven't made it clear that it's being used for an analog signal or a digital signal.
> 
> Unless there's really bad manufacturing or there's actual physical reason like bad or no shielding or a bad connection.
> 
> You don't need to be overly critical but it's good to be critical about stuff. Is there any reason the cable should sound different? Is there a good reason for a company to imply that there is a difference? Yeah, they can manufacture the cable for basically the same price and charge more. This kind of thing has been going on forever.


It’s obviously called conductors and cores on why it should sound different. I wouldn’t go around listening to some audio engineer who thinks they’re fraudulent because it uses expensive metal to improve sound and signature.


----------



## Otto Pylot

We should probably close this particular discussion because it's getting nowhere and is helping no one.


----------



## Mike Lang

Several posts removed. Move on guys...


----------



## Julian mono

Ratman said:


> No and no.


Ratman, yes audioquest hdmi cables do make a difference you have to have the ear for it to be able to tell the difference


Ratman said:


> No and no.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Julian mono said:


> Ratman, yes audioquest hdmi cables do make a difference you have to have the ear for it to be able to tell the difference


I thought we were done with this. Possibly AQ cables may have an improved audio fidelity for a very small population of people, possibly, but video-wise, no f'ing way.


----------



## Julian mono

Otto Pylot said:


> I thought we were done with this. Possibly AQ cables may have an improved audio fidelity for a very small population of people, possibly, but video-wise, no f'ing way.


Audio wise definitely yes, for visual cinnamon 48 is Max


----------



## Otto Pylot

Julian mono said:


> Audio wise definitely yes, for visual cinnamon 48 is Max


Maybe audio-wise. As far as pq goes, the cable can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc that's the best you can do, period.


----------



## Julian mono

jkratt14 said:


> Which HDMI cables would you recommend? Just want a reliable cable 5-6 Ft. that can produce the best possible picture/sound.





Otto Pylot said:


> Maybe audio-wise. As far as pq goes, the cable can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc that's the best you can do, period.


I disagree on that one. Cinnamon 48 is M


Otto Pylot said:


> Maybe audio-wise. As far as pq goes, the cable can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc that's the best you can do, period.


Depends on what tv you have to. If you have a $1500 tv then yes


Otto Pylot said:


> Maybe audio-wise. As far as pq goes, the cable can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc that's the best you can do, period.


Depends on the tv aswell, if you have a $1500 4k or 8k tv then yes, if you have a $200 tv no difference


----------



## Otto Pylot

Julian mono said:


> I disagree on that one. Cinnamon 48 is M
> 
> Depends on what tv you have to. If you have a $1500 tv then yes
> 
> Depends on the tv aswell, if you have a $1500 4k or 8k tv then yes, if you have a $200 tv no difference


What is "M"? Explain to us how a cable can alter a digital signal (ones and zeros) so that it is better than what the source is sending if the cable is not damaged? I have an OLED in one of my home theater systems and I've never seen a difference is pq using ATC certified PHS HDMI and UHS HDMI cables. What you ultimately see is almost totally dependent on the HDMI chipsets in the source and sink device. The cable is just a data pipe that is designed to transfer the signal from point A to point B with no errors.


----------



## Julian mono

Otto Pylot said:


> What is "M"? Explain to us how a cable can alter a digital signal (ones and zeros) so that it is better than what the source is sending if the cable is not damaged? I have an OLED in one of my home theater systems and I've never seen a difference is pq using ATC certified PHS HDMI and UHS HDMI cables. What you ultimately see is almost totally dependent on the HDMI chipsets in the source and sink device. The cable is just a data pipe that is designed to transfer the signal from point A to point B with no errors.


Sorry I ment Max, the audio side of things if your soundbar is high end yes they do make a difference going from cinnamon to carbon big difference in the audio side of things. Because the more silver a cable has the more noise it blocks so that means better audio quality. Have you read all about the audioquest hdmi cables and the different ranges. Iv spoken to audioquest tech and he knows all about his cables he sells. He's told me everything I need to know and alot more and silver is far better conductor than copper


----------



## Otto Pylot

Julian mono said:


> Sorry I ment Max, the audio side of things if your soundbar is high end yes they do make a difference going from cinnamon to carbon big difference in the audio side of things. Because the more silver a cable has the more noise it blocks so that means better audio quality. Have you read all about the audioquest hdmi cables and the different ranges. Iv spoken to audioquest tech and he knows all about his cables he sells. He's told me everything I need to know and alot more and silver is far better conductor than copper


Of course an AQ tech is going to say his cables are the best in the world. Duh. But how does that equate to a better picture, which is what we are talking about here. I don't have soundbars. Both of my systems are run thru Yamaha receivers with accompanying calibrated speaker setups and I've never noticed a difference in AQ/PQ with any certified cable.

As we have said many times before, there are cables that are just as good as AQ, which does make good cables, for less money. AQ like M, are the kings of hype and marketing.


----------



## Julian mono

Otto Pylot said:


> Of course an AQ tech is going to say his cables are the best in the world. Duh. But how does that equate to a better picture, which is what we are talking about here. I don't have soundbars. Both of my systems are run thru Yamaha receivers with accompanying calibrated speaker setups and I've never noticed a difference in AQ/PQ with any certified cable.
> 
> As we have said many times before, there are cables that are just as good as AQ, which does make good cables, for less money. AQ like M, are the kings of hype and


----------



## Julian mono

Where talking about soundbars, carbon 48 will enhance the picture but you will have to go up close to see any difference. But audio quality wise. That's where there will be a difference iv gone from a monster hdmi to a cinnamon 48 and I can tell a big improvement and you also have to have the ear for it. If you don't have the ear for it than of course it will be the same as any other hdmi


----------



## Tanquen

Julian mono said:


> Audio wise definitely yes, for visual cinnamon 48 is Max


Even with analog cables at the lengths we are talking about there's no difference unless something is wrong with the cable or how it's connected. The signals on HDMI cables are digital there's no changing the cable to make the sound different or the video different, better or worse. If there was then there would be all kinds of legitimate companies making cables at various prices. Audio cables always seem to live in this little bubble of not enough people that care because the cheapest cable works and nobody can tell any difference and people with too much money. You'll never see a true double-blind a/b test because the manufacturers that want to sell the cable for a lot of money know they'll lose. The same reason fancy bottled water, wine and alcohol companies don't let their sales reps do blind taste test because they almost always fail them, even when familiar with the product. Because people stink at telling the exact taste of things or temperature of things or remembering exactly what they just heard moments prior that gives dishonest (though most people on both sides know what's really going on but they're willing to pay more for a cool package or whatever) companies an opening to sell fancy expensive things for the illusion of exclusivity not because they're actually better.

Can you make a serial ATA cable or a USB cable that's too long or too poorly made that there's so much interference that you won't get the data at the other end? Yes but if you get the data at the other end, you get the data at the other end. You can use whatever fancy materials you want and you can pay thousands of dollars for a cable if you want but those blocks of data at the other end are still going to be the same. If they're not you'll get dropouts and blatantly obvious corruption.


----------



## Ratman

I _gotta_ git me one of dem soundbars and some overly expensive cables!


----------



## Otto Pylot

Ratman said:


> I _gotta_ git me one of dem soundbars and some overly expensive cables!


Already got one on order .


----------



## Ratman

Otto Pylot said:


> Already got one on order .


I heard the new AQ "pumpkin spice" cable goes best with soundbars.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Ratman said:


> I heard the new AQ "pumpkin spice" cable goes best with soundbars.


And just in time for the holidays! Black Friday (consumer rip off week) is coming.


----------



## Michael.

Ratman said:


> I _gotta_ git me one of dem soundbars and some overly expensive cables!


You really should!


----------



## Otto Pylot

Michael. said:


> You really should!


Because..........


----------



## Ratman

Michael. said:


> You really should!


Hm-m-m-m
Should I get a soundbar or overly expensive cables? 🤷‍♀️ 

Nah. I've decided to stick with the stuff I have that sounds and look just dandy. Thanks!


----------



## allthebits

I think I last posted about this in 2019. It's now 2022. I'm off to the store to get an AQ Cinnamon and Carbon and actually test for myself on my equipment. If I don't see any improvement, no problem. If I do...I'll judge if it's worth the cost of admission.


----------



## Otto Pylot

allthebits said:


> I think I last posted about this in 2019. It's now 2022. I'm off to the store to get an AQ Cinnamon and Carbon and actually test for myself on my equipment. If I don't see any improvement, no problem. If I do...I'll judge if it's worth the cost of admission.


It's up to you to determine if the cost of the cable is worth it. As we have mentioned many, many times before, the cable is just a data pipe. It can not improve pq. If the cable is ATC certified then that's the best you can do as far as cable specs/construction go. There are other cables that will work just as well for less money but that's your call.


----------



## allthebits

I am flipping back and forth between a 13 dollar HDMI cable, the Cinnamon 48 and the Carbon 48. I see little to no difference between the 3. If I had to make a GUESS, the Carbon has _maybe_ the best color and seems a _bit_ brighter but the difference is literally so small I cannot say for sure and it could be my imagination.

The Cinnamon and Carbon are well built and beautiful cables. I have no doubt they have high quality parts inside. I have extreme doubts over whether these actually improve picture quality (on MY SYSTEM). Your experience may vary.

I will be taking this over to my friend's house tomorrow to do some audio tests with them on his system. I have no need for better sound via HDMI (I run Toslink > DAC) but since he uses HDMI for audio, it will be interesting to do some comparisons between his Monster cable and these.


----------



## Ratman

allthebits said:


> ... the difference is literally so small I cannot say for sure and it could be my imagination.


I'd suggest imagination.


----------



## Otto Pylot

@allthebits Personally, I don't care how pretty the cable is because it's behind my system and are not visible. If the cable looks "pretty" then you are probably paying for that prettiness. My Ruipro cables are teal, which is an ugly color but they can't be seen. The Zeskit, Phoossno, and Cable Matters cables are gray to black and they can't be seen either.

As far a pq goes, there is no difference in the above mentioned cables as they handle the signal perfectly as it is being sent from the source. The cable, regardless of the construction, can not make greens any greener or reds any redder. It's just not possible. Digital is digital. If you don't get sparkles, drop outs, etc then you are getting the signal in its entirety as it is being transmitted from the source to the sink.


----------



## Tanquen

allthebits said:


> I am flipping back and forth between a 13 dollar HDMI cable, the Cinnamon 48 and the Carbon 48. I see little to no difference between the 3. If I had to make a GUESS, the Carbon has _maybe_ the best color and seems a _bit_ brighter but the difference is literally so small I cannot say for sure and it could be my imagination.
> 
> The Cinnamon and Carbon are well built and beautiful cables. I have no doubt they have high quality parts inside. I have extreme doubts over whether these actually improve picture quality (on MY SYSTEM). Your experience may vary.
> 
> I will be taking this over to my friend's house tomorrow to do some audio tests with them on his system. I have no need for better sound via HDMI (I run Toslink > DAC) but since he uses HDMI for audio, it will be interesting to do some comparisons between his Monster cable and these.


Humans are really bad at color and sound test and most any test like this, it has to be side by side and on a loop to see/hear. There is like only one cable that modifies the HDMI video data and it needs hardware in the cable to do it. Some say Ruipro cables can magically fix bad out of spec HDMI devices but they cant, they just had some faulty cables. Low voltage data cables just send high/low signals and it's either readable on the other end consistently or it is not. Once the data makes it to the display the display can mess with the color and brightness, even on different ports you can have different settings.

It's a little like saying some expensive USB cable connected to a keyboard displays a "T" on the screen when you use the Shift+t keys and another cable displays an "X" on the screen when use the same Shift+t keys from the same keyboard. The data sent from the keyboard always being the same, the OS will always add a "T" into notepad or Word. If the cable is really long or you use a coupler to use two or more cables together the signal to the PC may be degraded enough that you no longer get any letters or a "T" or you get the key down but not the release and so on. If you put a computer of some kind between the keyboard and PC then it could read the code for a "T" and change it to something else but the cable alone can not.

Same for the HDMI video. The display will unpack the data and see that a pixel on the screen is a certain color. Lets say it's the brightest red (Red,Green,Blue - 255,0,0), you can't go higher, max red is max red, the cable can not tweak it and ask for (256,0,0) red. An HDMI cable will not change the color data, it knows nothing about what part of the high/low single is in the end, telling the display to set a certain pixel to a certain color. You would need hardware similar to what is in a TV or AVR to tweak the sound or video.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Tanquen said:


> Some say Ruipro cables can magically fix bad out of spec HDMI devices but they cant, they just had some faulty cables.


Please cite your source for this. And where did you see Ruipro mentioned in the current discussion other than the color of the cable, which was in response the poster's comment about how beautiful the AQ cables were. The more you continue your campaign to trash Ruipro the less credible you become.


----------



## A9X-308

allthebits said:


> If I had to make a GUESS, the Carbon has _maybe_ the best color and seems a _bit_ brighter but the difference is literally so small I cannot say for sure and it could be my imagination.


Not _could be_, is your imagination. There is no possible mechanism within the coding and transport of digital video over HDMI that can cause this.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> There is no possible mechanism within the coding and transport of digital video over HDMI that can cause this.


There is but I've only see the one HDMI cable that messed with the image. You would need hardware in the cable to alter the image but none of these cables do that.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Tanquen said:


> There is but I've only see the one HDMI cable that messed with the image. You would need hardware in the cable to alter the image but none of these cables do that.


Link please.


----------



## A9X-308

Tanquen said:


> There is but I've only see the one HDMI cable that messed with the image. You would need hardware in the cable to alter the image but none of these cables do that.


If there is active signal processing within the cable, then it's not just a cable, it's a processor. None of the AQ stuff does so, so it's not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> If there is active signal processing within the cable, then it's not just a cable, it's a processor. None of the AQ stuff does so, so it's not relevant to the discussion.


Yeah, it's just that you had said there was no possible mechanism. They could look like any other HDMI cable, just a little bulkier like active fiber HDMI with transceiver chips/hardware. Its relevant to know that there are and could be cables that mess with the image and audio and what they would need to make it happen but yes none really do, to speak of but that one and I don't think it will catch on. So not like you have a AVR or processor between your Blu-Ray player and TV but still doing some tweaks to the HDMI video like all three can.


----------



## A9X-308

Tanquen said:


> Yeah, it's just that you had said there was no possible mechanism.


Yeah, IN A CABLE which is a _passive_ device. A processor is not.
Good grief, do people need to make obvious disclaimers like that before you understand context? 
I wish I could say what I would in person to this guff.

I don't really need to be explained how signal processing is and what it does as I've been working with it since the company I was an engineer for at the time got our first full (40ru) rack sized processor in 94/95.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> Yeah, IN A CABLE which is a _passive_ device. A processor is not.
> Good grief, do people need to make obvious disclaimers like that before you understand context?
> I wish I could say what I would in person to this guff.
> 
> I don't really need to be explained how signal processing is and what it does as I've been working with it since the company I was an engineer for at the time got our first full (40ru) rack sized processor in 94/95.


Good grief to you also, dude slow down, I don't know anything about your background and was not trying to say anything about it and was not trying to explain signal processing and what it does to you. Just trying to add info for the folks that think an HDMI cable with only wires and no powered hardware could make changes to the video and make it a bit brighter.
Just the wires in the cable, are the cable? Ok?
Not saying it would just be a cable. It's also not a or just a processor. A cable can have a processor in it and look like a "just a cable" cable and I and others would still just call it a cable and not know it has a processor in it. That is all I was trying to say and I said these don't have that. It's worth knowing that some companies are adding processing to cables, not a black box with HDMI in and out ports.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Tanquen said:


> It's worth knowing that some companies are adding processing to cables, not a black box with HDMI in and out ports.


Source? Link?


----------



## A9X-308

HDMI cables with active devices onboard are the very rare exception to the rule and mentioning them without the context of an poster asking will only cause confusion, especially as this thread is about a couple of AQ cables, not a general discussion on HDMI.


----------



## Otto Pylot

To be clear to everyone, the discussion centers around AQ Cinnamon/Carbon cables, which are ATC certified passive bi-directional HDMI cables. Active cables do have electronics on-board for error correction, timing, etc but that has nothing to do with pq but everything to do with signal integrity. The only real difference between the Cinnamon vs the Carbon cables is the silver content of the connectors and the noise dissipation rating. Both which sounds good but really has nothing at all to do with pq but "justify" the high cost of the cables.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> HDMI cables with active devices onboard are the very rare exception to the rule and mentioning them without the context of an poster asking will only cause confusion, especially as this thread is about a couple of AQ cables, not a general discussion on HDMI.


HDMI cables with any kind of processing are a very rare at the moment exception and guessing they will stay that way but that doesn't mean they're not noteworthy and it's not confusing, context was given. It just goes to understanding what's possible with HDMI and it's cables and why. He said he thought one of the cables made the image a bit brighter. Which cables don't really matter as far as the particular brand he's using but if they have any processing or not. If he listens to anything we're saying I don't think it's helpful for him to to be left with the idea that no HDMI cable can add processing.

It's not lot to just say that for the image to be different the HDMI video data would need to be processed and you need hardware to do that, the processing could happen in a media player, AVR or in the display itself and in very rare instances at the moment, even an HDMI cable. A different metal in the wire in the HDMI cable will not process the HDMI video data to make the image brighter or sharper or the colors pop.


----------



## A9X-308

^^ None of which is relevant to the cables under discussion. None.


----------



## allthebits

Otto Pylot said:


> Source? Link?


Marseille Networks mCable Cinema Edition 6-foot HDMI https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LZ3AZ1...t_i_MZN9V38QFVT0TR03RSS1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## Otto Pylot

allthebits said:


> Marseille Networks mCable Cinema Edition 6-foot HDMI Amazon.com


That cable is for HD (1080p only) and near-native 4k (what ever that means). It's active in that it requires a USB connection for power. I doubt that the "smart video processor with AI" can "enhance every image pixel" for better pq. Marketing b.s. There are, or were, external devices that could do just that but they were a lot bigger than a tiny ic board at the end of the HDMI connector. The cable is designed for gaming consoles, DVD players, etc. and adheres to the HDMI 1.4b option sets. If it works and is reliable, that's great.

If it were up to me, and I only had one other choice, AQ, I'd choose AQ.


----------



## allthebits

Otto Pylot said:


> @allthebits Personally, I don't care how pretty the cable is because it's behind my system and are not visible. If the cable looks "pretty" then you are probably paying for that prettiness.


I don't care either. The fact remains they look good and appear well built.

That said, it's no skin off my back that the AQ cables didn't affect the picture in any meaningful way that I could discern. I'll simply return them for a full refund and stick with my other well built $13 cable. I had fun experimenting and don't regret it.

The cables DID impact the sound quality on my friend's setup, but we're talking about pictures here.


----------



## Otto Pylot

allthebits said:


> I don't care either. The fact remains they look good and appear well built.
> 
> That said, it's no skin off my back that the AQ cables didn't affect the picture in any meaningful way that I could discern. I'll simply return them for a full refund and stick with my other well built $13 cable. I had fun experimenting and don't regret it.
> 
> The cables DID impact the sound quality on my friend's setup, but we're talking about pictures here.


Experimentation is a good thing and is what most of us end up doing when it comes the HDMI cables. I have so many HDMI cables in the "electronics file cabinet" that I could probably open up a store 😉. I can see (no pun intended) the audio aspect because that's what AQ does. I think they just combined their audio expertise with an HDMI cable, used all the HDMI buzz words, and came up with an HDMI cable.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> ^^ None of which is relevant to the cables under discussion. None.


It is, and not sure why it upset you so much. We are talking about what cables can and can't do. Others here enjoy adding posts/notes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic but adding that there are cables that can change the output in a thread about digital cables making audio/video different is just too much and needs to be shouted down and belittled. Not the main issue but noteworthy.


----------



## Rebound

A9X-308 said:


> Yeah, IN A CABLE which is a _passive_ device. A processor is not.
> Good grief, do people need to make obvious disclaimers like that before you understand context?
> I wish I could say what I would in person to this guff.
> 
> I don't really need to be explained how signal processing is and what it does as I've been working with it since the company I was an engineer for at the time got our first full (40ru) rack sized processor in 94/95.


Such a “mechanism” is possible, but I think it is unlikely. I can explain if you have the patience for it


----------



## A9X-308

Rebound said:


> Such a “mechanism” is possible, but I think it is unlikely. I can explain if you have the patience for it


Sure, I'll listen to what you have to say, and I'd appreciate it if you could back it up with something verifiable.



Tanquen said:


> but adding that there are cables that can change the output in a thread about digital cables making audio/video different is just too much


When there is no mechanism for it (talking about passive cables), then no, I'm not going to let it stand without some evidence, and that doesn't mean anecdote.


----------



## Tanquen

A9X-308 said:


> When there is no mechanism for it (talking about passive cables), then no, I'm not going to let it stand without some evidence, and that doesn't mean anecdote.


But active cables exist and most don't care about how they work and it still just a cable to them. Why must it be limited to only passive cables? You have a digital source and need a cable, some have hardware to have successfully transfers over long distances and in so far very limited options can change the digital signal without being connected to an obvious extrenail box and then another cable. Not a big deal. Solid copper wire or maybe a toslink fiber only (cable?) can't modify/improve the digital data, cables can have more going on.


----------



## A9X-308

The thread started about passive HDMI cables.

WRT actives, I can see having active electronics to allow transmission over longer distances, but to actively process the signal so that it made the sound brighter or the picture modified in some regard, why? Especially if it cannot be controlled by the user.


----------



## Rebound

A9X-308 said:


> Sure, I'll listen to what you have to say, and I'd appreciate it if you could back it up with something verifiable.


I think you’ll enjoy this. Let me preface by saying that I don’t believe there’s a $500 or $1,000 HDMI cable that produces better yellows or more vibrant blues, etc. That’s all nonsense. And, the phenomenon I’m going to describe exists, but you may not be able to see it.
So here is the explanation: In analog video transmission, as you lose signal integrity, image quality gradually suffers. For example, as you move your analog TV farther away from the broadcast tower, you begin to see static, and the static increases, gradually deteriorating picture and sound quality. And that’s true whether the signal deterioration occurs over the air or over a cable.

With a digital signal, the same effect exists, but it’s considered “cliff-like.” Thus, conventional wisdom is this: With an HDMI cable, you either get an image, or you don’t. Turns out, that’s mostly true, but not 100% true. What I’m going to describe is what happens within the cliff, because the “cliff” is not vertical. The received signal is never 100% perfect, yet it can still display even with a considerable amount of signal lost.

An HDMI TMDS signal (i.e.,up to HDMI 2.0, but not the FRL signaling added in HDMI 2.1) consists of four separate differential signal pairs. In most modes, the four pairs are either R, G, B and Clock, or they’re Y, Cb, Cr and Clock.

The upshot is that bit errors occur all the time. In a home theater, the signal is usually Y, Cb, Cr, unless you’re playing a video game or using a PC. Y, Cb, Cr is particularly robust in signal loss conditions because when some bit errors occur in the cable, it’s extremely improbable that the error occurs on two lines at the same time. So at the pixel level, let’s say you have a good Y, a good Cb, and a bad Cr value. The result will be a pixel that is correctly illuminated but slightly off-color. And then, 1/60 or 1/30th of a second later, it’s corrected, and the random error is affecting some other pixel.

Do these errors occur? Yes, definitely, all the time. All day long. Is a good cable less susceptible to this than a bad cable? Yes, depending on our definition of “good.” (We should point out that some transmitters and some receivers are better than others, so it’s not cable-only). Can you see these errors? Probably not. At least, I don’t think I have ever observed it. If you’re transmitting a solid yellow image in YCbCr or RGB, what you might see is one pixel slightly off-color for 1/60 of a second. If signal quality was substantially worse, you’d begin to see very visible “sparkles” in the image. 

The big problem with a substandard cable is that it works just fine, but fails when you use a new video mode which requires higher bandwidth. For instance, your 1080p60 works great all day long, and suddenly you turn on 3D, and no image, because 3D takes up more bandwidth on the cable. Or you enable 4K, and the 4K works but the 4K HDR RGB fails, because it needs more bandwidth. These errors are cliff-like.

HDMI 2.1 introduced a new transmission mode, called FRL, or Fixed Rate Link. This mode changes everything about HDMI transmission. One of the key new features is Link Training, which tests cable performance during discovery to ensure that there will be an image. Resolution may be reduced or compression may be applied, but you’ll get an image.

At any rate, that’s the “mechanism” by which one cable could provide a higher quality image than another. The effect is probably invisible to most eyes, but there it is.


----------



## Ratman

Rebound said:


> The effect is probably invisible to most eyes, but there it is.



And now... back to "passive" HDMI cables.


----------



## Otto Pylot

FRL Link training is a communication technology used to switch between TMDS and FRL. It's required to change FRL data rates or to start connecting for the first time. FRL is required for higher uncompressed resolutions and ultra high speed bandwidths up to 48Gbps. It replaces TMDS but is backwards compatible (link training).


----------



## A9X-308

Rebound said:


> I think you’ll enjoy this.


I had hoped so.


Rebound said:


> In analog video transmission,


Thanks, but I worked as an engineer in broadcast TV and radio for many years so I understand how it works.


Rebound said:


> The big problem with a substandard cable is that it works just fine, but fails when you use a new video mode which requires higher bandwidth.


So, if your chosen cable works for the highest data rate you'll use, then it will work fine until it fails and causes obvious anomalies such as sparkles. I'm not seeing any mechanism specified that would cause an error that would cause a prolonged, ie longer than frame length that affects some data subset such as colour. So, no, not even remotely convinced. Thanks for trying.


----------



## Rebound

A9X-308 said:


> I had hoped so.
> Thanks, but I worked as an engineer in broadcast TV and radio for many years so I understand how it works.
> So, if your chosen cable works for the highest data rate you'll use, then it will work fine until it fails and causes obvious anomalies such as sparkles. I'm not seeing any mechanism specified that would cause an error that would cause a prolonged, ie longer than frame length that affects some data subset such as colour. So, no, not even remotely convinced. Thanks for trying.


If you have two cables which both work at the highest data rate you’ll use, one will induce more bit errors than the other. You added the bit about prolonged, longer than frame rate errors; that’s cheating.  But, since this is a videophile forum, I thought I should point it out.


Otto Pylot said:


> FRL Link training is a communication technology used to switch between TMDS and FRL. It's required to change FRL data rates or to start connecting for the first time. FRL is required for higher uncompressed resolutions and ultra high speed bandwidths up to 48Gbps. It replaces TMDS but is backwards compatible (link training).











Be Mindful of Link Training When Installing 48G


Link Training may not mesh as well with 48G as the industry initially hoped, and some systems may suffer for it. Here's what you need to know.




www.cepro.com


----------



## Otto Pylot

Rebound said:


> If you have two cables which both work at the highest data rate you’ll use, one will induce more bit errors than the other. You added the bit about prolonged, longer than frame rate errors; that’s cheating.  But, since this is a videophile forum, I thought I should point it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be Mindful of Link Training When Installing 48G
> 
> 
> Link Training may not mesh as well with 48G as the industry initially hoped, and some systems may suffer for it. Here's what you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cepro.com


My comment about FRL Link Training was to offer a little clearer explanation on what it is. Good or bad is up to the industry/consumer to decide. Interesting 2 year old article from DPL Labs.


----------



## Rebound

Otto Pylot said:


> My comment about FRL Link Training was to offer a little clearer explanation on what it is. Good or bad is up to the industry/consumer to decide. Interesting 2 year old article from DPL Labs.


It’s a terrific thing, though. A certified cable SHOULD support 48 Gbps. But what happens if the cable is sub-standard, non-certified, you use wall plates, couplers, etc? With HDMI TMDS, you usually get no image. With HDMI FRL, you will always get an image, because the system tests the cable before transmission. Big plus.

The article points out the downside: The system is not required AT ALL to report when link rate has been reduced. It’s not required to report the link rate at all. So this puts us back to: “Why isn’t my HDMI working right?” You might attach an all 8K system, and only get 4K, or only 8K30, or it may be (invisibly) link compressed. Products are permitted to display all of this information, and I assume that many will, but they are not required to. But, no more black screens. At least… we sure hope so.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Rebound said:


> It’s a terrific thing, though. A certified cable SHOULD support 48 Gbps. But what happens if the cable is sub-standard, non-certified, you use wall plates, couplers, etc? With HDMI TMDS, you usually get no image. With HDMI FRL, you will always get an image, because the system tests the cable before transmission. Big plus.
> 
> The article points out the downside: The system is not required AT ALL to report when link rate has been reduced. It’s not required to report the link rate at all. So this puts us back to: “Why isn’t my HDMI working right?” You might attach an all 8K system, and only get 4K, or only 8K30, or it may be (invisibly) link compressed. Products are permitted to display all of this information, and I assume that many will, but they are not required to. But, no more black screens. At least… we sure hope so.


No argument there, especially the part about "breaks" in the HDMI chain (wall plates, adapters, etc). It SHOULD work as designed, especially if the cable is certified (ATC, DPL, etc) because that should be part of the certification process, for the cable. But what about the source/sink end chipsets? Is FRL a true industry standard or just another HDMI option that can be implemented however the mfr chooses to do so (thinking about CEC here). I would imagine that all HDMI connected devices would have to support FRL the same way for it to be accurate and useful.


----------



## Rebound

Otto Pylot said:


> No argument there, especially the part about "breaks" in the HDMI chain (wall plates, adapters, etc). It SHOULD work as designed, especially if the cable is certified (ATC, DPL, etc) because that should be part of the certification process, for the cable. But what about the source/sink end chipsets? Is FRL a true industry standard or just another HDMI option that can be implemented however the mfr chooses to do so (thinking about CEC here). I would imagine that all HDMI connected devices would have to support FRL the same way for it to be accurate and useful.


FRL (along with link training) is required for all PHY rates above 6 Gbps/channel, or any total speed above 17.82 Gbps. It is optional at rates of 17.82 or less.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Rebound said:


> FRL (along with link training) is required for all PHY rates above 6 Gbps/channel, or any total speed above 17.82 Gbps. It is optional at rates of 17.82 or less.


So, FRL is part of the HDMI 2.0 "standard", even though HDMI.org now considers HDMI 2.0 a subset of HDMI 2.1? What about TMDS, or does HDMI.org now consider that FRL being as HDMI 2.0 is a subset?


----------



## Rebound

Otto Pylot said:


> So, FRL is part of the HDMI 2.0 "standard", even though HDMI.org now considers HDMI 2.0 a subset of HDMI 2.1? What about TMDS, or does HDMI.org now consider that FRL being as HDMI 2.0 is a subset?


I didn’t mention anything about the version number of the Specification.

HDMI devices may continue to use TMDS up to and including 17.82 Gbps. At any higher bandwidth, they are required to use FRL, and they may optionally use FRL at lower rates as well.

For example, if you buy a 4K120 TV, the 4K120 mode will use FRL. When you attach a new Xbox to a 4K120 TV, it will establish an FRL link and that link can optionally remain even when the Xbox is transmitting a 1080p or 4K blu-ray.

There’s an additional quick switching option which can be implemented in this case, which maintains the link between resolution changes. This way, HDCP doesn’t need to be re-authenticated and the EDID won’t be re-read, resulting in faster switching between modes. This particular feature was specified in HDMI 2.1, and clarifications were added in HDMI 2.1a, which should help make it more uniformly and effectively adopted.

Back to TMDS: Several TMDS modes are still required for certification, so we will not see new devices without backward compatibility. And, as a practical matter, most devices will support all of the standard TMDS modes. It’s not required because there are some devices which simply do not need to support so much, such as, perhaps, a connection without an automobile, or a professional camera, etc.


----------



## Otto Pylot

The only reason I mentioned the HDMI protocol number was that it was listed in the specs for HDMI. In HDMI 2.1, FRL is listed in the specs, being backwards compatible with TMDS. The fact that HDMI.org or LA has declared HDMI 2.0 a subset of the HDMI 2.1 further confuses the matter. HDMI.org still lists HDMI 1.4a on the website and then jumps to HDMI 2.1 with no mention of HDMI 2.0. No matter how you cut it, HDMI is still a hot mess. So, we should probably get back to helping folks with their HDMI cables and connections and leave the idiosyncrasies of HDMI for another time.


----------



## Rebound

Otto Pylot said:


> The only reason I mentioned the HDMI protocol number was that it was listed in the specs for HDMI. In HDMI 2.1, FRL is listed in the specs, being backwards compatible with TMDS. The fact that HDMI.org or LA has declared HDMI 2.0 a subset of the HDMI 2.1 further confuses the matter. HDMI.org still lists HDMI 1.4a on the website and then jumps to HDMI 2.1 with no mention of HDMI 2.0. No matter how you cut it, HDMI is still a hot mess. So, we should probably get back to helping folks with their HDMI cables and connections and leave the idiosyncrasies of HDMI for another time.


I answered your questions. 
I think that what’s unproductive is calling HDMI a “mess,” as your push-button retort every time I answer one of your questions.
There are a lot of efforts being made to improve connectivity, but it takes time for them to come to market. The connectivity standard itself doesn’t guarantee that manufacturers won’t build products with bugs, and it’s up to individual manufacturers to correct defects in their products.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Rebound said:


> I answered your questions.
> I think that what’s unproductive is calling HDMI a “mess,” as your push-button retort every time I answer one of your questions.
> There are a lot of efforts being made to improve connectivity, but it takes time for them to come to market. The connectivity standard itself doesn’t guarantee that manufacturers won’t build products with bugs, and it’s up to individual manufacturers to correct defects in their products.


No need to take a defensive posture. HDMI is what it is, and it is what we are stuck with. I am not the only person on these boards who feels that HDMI has lots of room for improvement. It's a lot better than when first introduced, that's for sure, but I think a closer cooperation between the HDMI "standard" and the device mfrs needs to be made so that the issues that keep coming up can be addressed properly by all partners because the consumers get caught in the middle. And, for the record, I don't comment on HDMI being a mess everytime I respond to one of your questions. I am trying to expand my knowledge on all things HDMI, as we all are, so don't be so sensitive.


----------



## spectechular.az

Otto Pylot said:


> ^^^^^  The signal is digital. Either it works without issues or it doesn't. The cable is just a conduit. It can not add something that is not there to begin with. AudioQuest, Monster, et al make fine cables, but their high price is not justifiable.


 That’s crap. Cables make the difference. If you won the lottery would you buy a Ford or a Ferrari? I know those 2 things aren’t price comparisons but if you spent $800 on an amp and $1200 on a tv then why not splurge on a quality HDMI cable!!?? It infuriates me with this ideology.


----------



## Ratman

🙉


----------



## Otto Pylot

spectechular.az said:


> That’s crap. Cables make the difference. If you won the lottery would you buy a Ford or a Ferrari? I know those 2 things aren’t price comparisons but if you spent $800 on an amp and $1200 on a tv then why not splurge on a quality HDMI cable!!?? It infuriates me with this ideology.


It's your money. Spend it anyway you want. You're exactly who the AQ et al marketeers target.


----------



## assimov

Not at that price point. The basics of any good cable would be it's impedance, shielding etc. Nothing justifies those exorbitant prices. You are only paying for the brand name not the sound quality. 

Give this a read for a detailed technical overview:








AudioQuest Wind High-end Cable Review


This is a review and detailed measurements of the AudioQuest Wind RCA "PSS Silver" cable. The sample I have was kindly donated by a member and costs US $2,300 in the 1 meter configuration. No, that is not a typo. It is over two thousand dollars for a pair. The cable comes in a rather cheap...




www.audiosciencereview.com


----------



## Otto Pylot

assimov said:


> Not at that price point. The basics of any good cable would be it's impedance, shielding etc. Nothing justifies those exorbitant prices. You are only paying for the brand name not the sound quality.
> 
> Give this a read for a detailed technical overview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AudioQuest Wind High-end Cable Review
> 
> 
> This is a review and detailed measurements of the AudioQuest Wind RCA "PSS Silver" cable. The sample I have was kindly donated by a member and costs US $2,300 in the 1 meter configuration. No, that is not a typo. It is over two thousand dollars for a pair. The cable comes in a rather cheap...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audiosciencereview.com


The article is discussing audio cables, not HDMI cables, but the point is the same. They are overpriced, sometimes WAY overpriced for what you get. There are lots of other cables that perform just as well for a lot less money.


----------



## Bardia

Cables matter yes. But the last cable in your system you need to worry about is HDMI. if you are running a 25 feet or longer cable, you might want to get a quality made cable. You can go with Blue Jeans Cable for example. All their cables are excellent. But to say you notice a difference in sound and picture from a working cable that costs $20 and the one selling for $2000 is just no there there.


----------



## Otto Pylot

Bardia said:


> Cables matter yes. But the last cable in your system you need to worry about is HDMI. if you are running a 25 feet or longer cable, you might want to get a quality made cable. You can go with Blue Jeans Cable for example. All their cables are excellent. But to say you notice a difference in sound and picture from a working cable that costs $20 and the one selling for $2000 is just no there there.


Nobody is arguing that point, at least not most of us. AQ does make good cables but not at the price point they are asking. It's all marketing. Blue Jeans makes good cables as well, are reasonably priced, and they work. However, for runs over 25' a cable like a hybrid fiber is recommended, and there are lots to choose from, but quite a few of them also fall into the AQ pricing scheme. The cable itself, as we have so often stated, can not improve on pq beyond no sparkles or dropouts. They can't make reds any redder or greens any greener. Period.


----------



## Bardia

Otto Pylot said:


> Nobody is arguing that point, at least not most of us. AQ does make good cables but not at the price point they are asking. It's all marketing. Blue Jeans makes good cables as well, are reasonably priced, and they work. However, for runs over 25' a cable like a hybrid fiber is recommended, and there are lots to choose from, but quite a few of them also fall into the AQ pricing scheme. The cable itself, as we have so often stated, can not improve on pq beyond no sparkles or dropouts. They can't make reds any redder or greens any greener. Period.


Agreed.


----------

