xbox 360 or playstation 3

[RNBRAD]

Honestly Justin, and it may just be my computer and the ones I've used in the past. The transition from one frame to the next is not as smooth. It's real noticeable the faster the frames move. Can't explain it. My dvd was hooked up through component video cable and I'm using rgb from the computer. Maybe that's the problem, I dunno, I'm not a computer guru.

 

 

On the fiber optic vs analogue, I was like you, why not just run the fiber optic to a dedicated receiver and let it do all the work and not pay for all the extra internal of the dvd player? Then all this extra money spent can only be used on whatever format disc your player can play, which is really everything in my case. Well for some reason and really can't point to specifics but the 6 channel analogue transfer provided better audio quality than anything that could be processed from the fiber optic cable after the fact. I never researched this indepth as to why, just looked at the specs of comparisons between the two and Denons recommendation was 6 channel analogue transfer as were most all high-end units at the time. Not sure if that has changed now or not. Not sure why the opticals could not meet the demands of data transfer. That may be different today or maybe not, I'm really not sure as I haven't kept up with changes in fiber optic technology. But I totally understand your point on the matter and really makes sense, but at the time 6 channel analogue was superior and it still may be. Like I say, I'm unsure as of late. But it does also have fiber optic out, of course it's not that old.

[XxMeltIcexX]

Honestly Justin, and it may just be my computer and the ones I've used in the past. The transition from one frame to the next is not as smooth. It's real noticeable the faster the frames move. Can't explain it. My dvd was hooked up through component video cable and I'm using rgb from the computer. Maybe that's the problem, I dunno, I'm not a computer guru.

On the fiber optic vs analogue, I was like you, why not just run the fiber optic to a dedicated receiver and let it do all the work and not pay for all the extra internal of the dvd player? Then all this extra money spent can only be used on whatever format disc your player can play, which is really everything in my case. Well for some reason and really can't point to specifics but the 6 channel analogue transfer provided better audio quality than anything that could be processed from the fiber optic cable after the fact. I never researched this indepth as to why, just looked at the specs of comparisons between the two and Denons recommendation was 6 channel analogue transfer as were most all high-end units at the time. Not sure if that has changed now or not. Not sure why the opticals could not meet the demands of data transfer. That may be different today or maybe not, I'm really not sure as I haven't kept up with changes in fiber optic technology. But I totally understand your point on the matter and really makes sense, but at the time 6 channel analogue was superior and it still may be. Like I say, I'm unsure as of late. But it does also have fiber optic out, of course it's not that old.

 

HDMI infact does sound better than Optical, I tried optical vs. HDMI and I could notice the difference, HDMI was much clearer and not as muffled (On a 7.1 surround). Who woulda thunk.

[Justintoxicated]

HDMI infact does sound better than Optical, I tried optical vs. HDMI and I could notice the difference, HDMI was much clearer and not as muffled (On a 7.1 surround). Who woulda thunk.

 

 

Wrong, they should sound identical since they are both sending the SAME EXACT digital signal (The Device receiving the signal is doing the decoding not the device sending the signal). Assuming of course you plugged them into the same receiving source (because the signal is not processed by the sending unit, just passed through). To put it another way the receiving device is receiving a bunch of 1's and 0's and translates it into an analog signal via DAC. You will get identical 1's and 0's using HDMI, S/PDIF Coax, or Optical unless there is some kind of interfearance.

 

HDMI is about the same visual quality of a Single Link DVI Cable + Added S/PDIF (Coax Digital) (Single Link DVI is limited to resolutions just above 1920x1080p, Dual Link is rated for resolutions above and beyond like the new 30+ inch LCD Monitors; that said it has nothing to do with the quality of the cable, the Dual link simply has more pins to send more data at a time). HDMI, is just 2 cables in one. It's not magical in any way, and will not sound better than optical or Coax S/PDIF. The advantages of optical is a greater range you can extend the cable, and since it's optical, there can be no electrical interfearance (does not need to be shielded). Perhaps it was just the device you were using, or a bad optical cable or optical signal source.

 

HDMI could actualy drop is signal quality faster than other types of connectors depending on the thickness of the wires used, typicaly HDMI cables are thinner than DVI+ seperate audio source, although fin most cases it makes no difference for shorter runs. What I don't like is that you have to pass the whole HDMI Cable to the receiver first then use a second cable to extend to the TV (or to the TV then to the receiver via some other kind of audio if your TV supports this). Of course depending on your needs this may not be a disadvantage. The advantage of DVI is that the video gets pipeped straight to the receiving source, and you can plug the sound into a Home Audio Receiver. Plus I like the larger DVI connectors better because you can screw them in to better secure them, if you use thick HDMI cables like I do they put alot of weight on the plug ends which makes them easier to fall out.

 

Analog RCA's are different, with these the decoding done by the sending source (DVD Player, HD Player etc, and not through the receiving source (TV, Receiver etc) RCA's can sound better or worse depending on the device sending the signal. I use all 3 types of audio cables and they all sound excelent. In Car Audio the Head Unit does the decoding, hence the need for Analog RCA Cables with Sheilding. No matter which type of audio cable you use the end result will be analog...

 

For my cable box I'm using a DVI to HDMI adapter, which means the HDMI plug end of the cable contains no audio. So I ran an optical cable to my reciever instead. It took 2 cables instead of one, however my Receiver does not take an HDMI cable because it is audio only so either way if my cable box had an HDMI output I would have needed to use 2 cables.

 

A quick google will result in the same information.

 

BTW if you guys need cables Monoprice.com's high end cables are really good for the price, better or equal at leaast to monster cables for a fraction of the price.

[Justintoxicated]

I'm running an HMDI 1.3 if that makes a difference? Not all up on HDMI cords just was letting you know my personaly findings. On the 7.1 it did sound a little bit better, but when plugged in strait into the TV in my room (40" LCD Samsung), which has 3xHDMI and 1xOptical it sounded CONSIDERABLY better (I guess it sounds like it gets more trebel, not sure how to explain it).

 

EDIT: Obviously its just stereo, Justin since you know so much about Speakers/Cords and such can you explain the best way to use computer speakers (4.1 with Back/Front inputs) with my TV? Just use AV (right/left) and plug into just front(3.5mm)? But wouldnt that defeat the purpose of surround? Is there some type of Optical to front/back 3.5mm plug (If thats infact the right size, or infact you can reverse the signal to optical out, lmao i dotn know much about sound as you can tell)

 

 

Perhaps I can help but I need more information. Which speakers are you using and do they have their own internal DAC? If they do then using Optical straight into their receivers input, should automaticaly decode the sound. This is how I am running my Z5500's. When feeding in optical it automaticaly picks up if the signal is 5.1, 4.1, Stereo, etc. If they do not, then they are relying on your sound source to do the decoding (hence to get surround you will need RCA/3.5 types of jacks), and you would need to select 4.1 from the source (PC TV etc) allwing the source to do the decoding.

 

Unfortunately alot of devices do not support 4.1 only Dolby 5.1,and if this is the case your sound will be terrible since it assumes your using a center channel which you would be missing. Hopefuly whatever your trying to run via analog (ie. if your Computer speakers do not have a DAC) will support 4.1

 

As to why it sounds better using HMDI that may well be so, like I said it depends on how the recieving device (your TV) is handeling the signal. The cable should not be what is making the difference.

 

EDIT: Where did your post go?

Edited October 26, 2007 by Justintoxicated

[XxMeltIcexX]

No clue, thats weird. So RCA would be my best bet? I just want better speakers, even if its just StereoX2, than the ones on my TV.

[Justintoxicated]

No clue, thats weird. So RCA would be my best bet? I just want better speakers, even if its just StereoX2, than the ones on my TV.

 

 

I dunno if it is your best bet or not, do your computers speakers receiver have a DAC?

[XxMeltIcexX]

I dunno if it is your best bet or not, do your computers speakers receiver have a DAC?

 

My speakers:

 

http://www.alteclansing.com/downloads/641_MAN.pdf

[RNBRAD]

Here's a question to ponder? Are all digital transport cables created equally? Can a 30 dollar HDMI have the same picture as a 150 dollar high end cable as well as other types of cables for that matter? In a perfect world I would say that digital signals reach the intended source without degredation, but that just isn't the case. A lot of variable come into play, this is why I think we see differences, either way, depending on those variables one may look or sound better than another.

[XxMeltIcexX]

Here's a question to ponder? Are all digital transport cables created equally? Can a 30 dollar HDMI have the same picture as a 150 dollar high end cable as well as other types of cables for that matter? In a perfect world I would say that digital signals reach the intended source without degredation, but that just isn't the case. A lot of variable come into play, this is why I think we see differences, either way, depending on those variables one may look or sound better than another.

 

I can tell you my picture changed drastically - more color and vividness when changing from 1.0 to 1.3 HDMI

[Justintoxicated]

Here's a question to ponder? Are all digital transport cables created equally? Can a 30 dollar HDMI have the same picture as a 150 dollar high end cable as well as other types of cables for that matter? In a perfect world I would say that digital signals reach the intended source without degredation, but that just isn't the case. A lot of variable come into play, this is why I think we see differences, either way, depending on those variables one may look or sound better than another.

 

Thicker cables can usualy travel a longer distance without degredation, and poorly sheilded cables can pickup interfearance. (optical should yeild the least differences since they are not prone to electrical interfearance, and light travels without having to worry about resistance in wires). Digital is digital though so 90% of the time it's likely all in the users head (not always!). But yes you are absolutly correct. However a 10k pear cable will not make enough difference to be worth the money with a digital audio connection. I'll spend an extra $10-20 on a cable but not an extra $100 or $1000 or $10k (unless your talking about reall really really long runs of cable in which case the cables are just plain more expensive..

 

So Yes a $30 HDMI cable can have the same picture as a $150 HDMI cable. So long as you get it from monoprice :0 likely it will not even cost $30 lol. These are near the same quality as cables that cost up to 10x the price! Again, no magical cables, just thicker wire / Better sheilding etc. Knukonceptz also makes cables superior to stuff like monster and sell them for less money. So price alone does not gaurantee quality is my point. I prefer to go overkill with the prices that monoprice sell them for, since they are like $30 tops might as well get their high end cable!

 

With digital it does not matter how strong the signal reaches the source as long as it reaches correctly and is readable. With anlog, well thats another story. Often with digital it either works or does not...

Edited October 27, 2007 by Justintoxicated

[RNBRAD]

You know, or maybe not, they have different transfer rated HDMI cables in Gbps? The higher end cables are generally capable of data flow up to 14.9 Gbps, as where entry level or old standard was 2.2 Gbps. Do you think a 2.2Gbps cable could handle the transmision information, say from a PS3 that is rated at 6.68 Gbps with 12 bit color and 1080p? Do you then think the more expensive 14.9 capable cable would provide a better picture than say a 2.2 Gbps cable hooked up to a PS3? These cables have to meet certain standards and it isn't just as simple as it works or it doesn't. Trust me, I've seen the difference between a standard and high end HDMI cable on the PS3. I feel bad because I wanted to save some money on a cheaper set of HDMI cables for my youngest sons PS3. My older son has one as well and they both have the same identical LCD's and PS3's. My 6 year old hasn't figured out his brothers picture is far superior to his, thank god cause it will cost me a 100 dollars to fix it. The only difference between the two system is the quality of the HDMI cable, and believe me the difference is night and day.

[Justintoxicated]

You know, or maybe not, they have different transfer rated HDMI cables in Gbps? The higher end cables are generally capable of data flow up to 14.9 Gbps, as where entry level or old standard was 2.2 Gbps. Do you think a 2.2Gbps cable could handle the transmision information, say from a PS3 that is rated at 6.68 Gbps with 12 bit color and 1080p? Do you then think the more expensive 14.9 capable cable would provide a better picture than say a 2.2 Gbps cable hooked up to a PS3? These cables have to meet certain standards and it isn't just as simple as it works or it doesn't. Trust me, I've seen the difference between a standard and high end HDMI cable on the PS3. I feel bad because I wanted to save some money on a cheaper set of HDMI cables for my youngest sons PS3. My older son has one as well and they both have the same identical LCD's and PS3's. My 6 year old hasn't figured out his brothers picture is far superior to his, thank god cause it will cost me a 100 dollars to fix it. The only difference between the two system is the quality of the HDMI cable, and believe me the difference is night and day.

 

Again, that is not wat I was saying at all... Thicker wire does not = more transfer rate when it comes to HDMI. This is not the Quality of the cable but the TYPE of cable. You can not compare a quality MX port Job to a Quality Cheata Cub Port Job, it's just not the same thing! Using a HDMI 1.3 cable on a component that has HDMI 1.0 or 1.2 hardware isn't going to make the image/sound look/sound any better.

 

This is the same as comparing a Dual Link DVI Cable to a Single Link DVI Cable. Single link is FINE for 1080p, but if you go beyond that then you should use a dual link cable. Don't get hung up in transfer rates this has more to due with resolution, and now with HDMI 1.3 the support for lossless sound. This will ONLY make a differnece if your receiving source is setup for lossless Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD over HDMI. If hardware on both sides does not match you will not see the benefits of a higher standard cable. If for example HDMI 1.4 was to come out, you woul dneed a new game console, New TV, and possibly a new receiver to actualy benefit from it. Changing cables alone will not make any difference. It will also not help you to run a longer distance or get rid of interfearance. Quality != Type.

 

Now looking into this more S/PDIF over coax will not be capable of supporting the new lossless standard, where as optical and HDMI 1.3 will. Does this mean my CD player is going to sound better if I upgrade to optical or HDMI 1.3? Nope....If I get a $100 Optical Cable instead of a $20 cable for a short run is the sound magicaly going to sound better? No!

 

So yes digital cables typicaly either work or not when your comparing the same type of cables of different QUALITIES. Digital data is digital data so long as it reaches the other side. Using a HDMI 1.0 cable on a 1.3 source to a 1.3 receiving device is a sure way to ensure that you do not get all the possible data to the other side but simply upgrading to a higher QUALITY 1.0 cable isn't going to help things much at all. If you want to support the new standard then get the correct cable.

 

The QUALITY of digital cables is it's resistance to outside interfearance and it's ability handle longer runs.

The TYPE of cable will determin what kinds of data steams it can support.

 

For example a Dual Link DVI cable is capable of MUCH higher transfer rates than a single link cable (If that is how you want to rate them: in terms of transfer rates), however on a 1080p monitor both Cables will display the same exact image, a dual link cable is not going to look any better than a single link. The higher resolution's that require higher transfer rates are not available for a 1080p TV anyways, you would need a high end computer monitor right now to see resolutions above 1920x1200. The dual link cable simply has more pins, it has nothing to do with the "Quality" of the cable but everything to do with the "TYPE" of cable. Same goes for HDMI. If your running a 1080i image to a 1080p screen then YES you are losing quality. But buying a more expensive higher quality cable is not going solve this problem. It is simply a different standard... My Point is that if you are using Sub Standard cables then obviously you will lose picture/sound quality, but this has absolutly NOTHING to do with the quality of the cable.

 

Another example would be a POS HDMI 1.3 cable showing overwheling better picture and sound than a super high quality HDMI 1.0 or Component system.

 

I have yet to hear True Lossless HD sound so I will not comment on how much better or not it is. It still has to be decoded at some point so untill someone demonstrates it for me on a really high end system I will not be convinced it is really so much better.

 

Brad, if you head over to monorpice you will find a HDMI 1.3 cable, even the highest QUALITY one, is Far from $100. Should you decide to get one, I think you will be happy, and you can directly compare the picture and sound your are getting to another one of your more expensive cables of the same type to verify that there is indeed no difference in picture and sound.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Justintoxicated

[Justintoxicated]

Here is the cable I am using it is obviously NOT 1.3a compliant as there is no audio signal passed by the DVI (VIDEO ONLY) connector on the cable box. Using optical for the sound source. (I HIGHLY DOUBT my cable box is even in need of an optical cable...)

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product....3#specification

 

Here is a cheap 1.3a cable to fix your son's display

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product....=1&format=2

 

Here is a higher Quality 1.2a cable made to run longer distances.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product....=1&format=2

Edited October 29, 2007 by Justintoxicated

[RNBRAD]

Your, in a confusing way, wanting to say that all cables across the board are equal even with the same CEC rating. Either they send the information or they don't regardless of price and technology it is the same as the next. I disagree, if this is a correct assumption. Lets look a little deeper here, the advancements in technology of the HDMI have come along ways with windings, coating, balancing, conductors, soldering, material, on and on etc since the advent of the 1.0... It's very easy for an HDMI 1.3 cable to look better on a 1.0 system. The specification are much more critical based on there data transfer rates. Therefore they have to be of higher quality to even work on a 1.3 system. Granted the 1.0 system will not benefit from all of the 1.3 capabilities because they are not incorporated, but believe me they can look better than a 1.0 cable just solely based on the advancement in design and quality of materials used. I also feel this could be reversed in certain cases where a high quality 1.0 cable could render better attributes than a cheap 1.3 on those attributes they share.

 

And granted don't take me wrong when I say 30 dollar cable compared to a 150 dollar cable. I totally agree the cable market is a racket and they will charge you high end prices for low quality stuff. Yes some and many 30 dollar cables can and will outperform and equally perform as well as much higher priced units. This is because price does not equal the technology and materials used in some of these cables. That's where research comes into play in reviewing cable comparisons in real world scenario's. Not just a bunch of hype on the cover or a 1.3 rating.

[Bansh88]

Not to interupt, but I ntoiced above, mention of sound quality HDMI vs Optical. Qualilty may be the same but only an HDMI can transport HD/Lossless audio. For that you need the higher end reciever to be able to translate that HD audio.