HDMI cables are all the same?

[Marco]

Stop posting words such as "cold hard facts", when said 'facts' simply aren't conclusive, or perhaps even relevant, in relation to this subject (and people's experiences of it), or it will be deleted. Any more of that, and you'll be out for a week.

Have you read the Ethos of this site? If not, I suggest you do, especially from post 5 onwards: https://theartofsound.net/forum/show...asics-of-Ethos

Marco.

[Gazjam]

So let's get this right, as long as I say that you might see a difference that's OK, but if I say and prove in a way some will understand who are not experts in the field as fact then the thread will be closed. You guys are trying to lump video in with audio, audio can be highly subjective but is a different entity all together. Which you are failing to understand.

Taking a bit of flak here Barry!
Don't let it get to you mate it's all friendly.

First up,
Video quality is important to me.
Trying to play the "can't we all just get along" card, just this once, I'll put forward this, and ask you to have a think about it.

Some people prefer a brighter picture on their TVs, others turn the colour up to make it look "richer", because it's their preference.
That's the subjective part?

Conversely: There are facts that are facts...that are facts...as I think your alluding to.

For myself, OLED was a gamechanger.
Some things are just better.
I've had mine ISF calibrated and yup, the pictures better for the calibration.
After calibration though, I was presented with a choice of 3 profiles, to accommodate my preferences, which I found interesting.

So I hear you on the picture calibration and standards.
Video quality and preference is subjective just as with audio IMO.
For music..."Is it like I am i sitting at the recording desk listening to this?" or "Feels like I am in the 4th row at a live gig!", usually works.

But...there's no universally subjectively preferred way (by all) of viewing video.
Again, that's the subjective part...

Can't really say it's unfair to say that colour grading in movies can completely change the experience of seeing the same film?
How many "Director's cuts" and anniversary reissues were put out where the picture was messed about with (grain removed, colours enhanced, DNR applied...etc) to outcry by the "purists"?
Crikey, just look at the Star Wars reissues with updated SFX!

but I'd ask the question - One can say this is the best picture because its "calibrated" - But I'd ask...the best to whom?
Only thing that matters to ME is how something performs...in my room...with my eyes...with my equipment.

No disrespect, but have to disagree with you one important point:
Its my opinion that Video IS subjective - just like audio!
It's the brain interpreting inputs, thats all it is. Same with music.


My point, if there is one , is that the calibrated "standard" was created by people who CHOSE those settings,I'd ask you to contrast that with the nebulous concept of "artistic vision", bringing in aspects like colour grading, cinematography and the like.

And interestingly...and to your point...
Trying out different HDMI cables and finally settling on the "one" for me with my AV kit, I was able to clearly see these differences - and the differences the way different HDMI cables presented them.

...for the record.

[Gazjam]

You see that chart mate, any difference in colour it moves, switching HDMI it stays the same. That is not science but cold hard fact and not my view either, it is the law of colour.

Colour,
viewed differently by different eyes, depending on age, eye health and a zillion other things.
Understand what I'm meaning, again, not with any disrespect to your views.

[Marco]

Now *that* is the type of input, founded upon extensive personal (subjective) experience, which I'd take notice of far more than the views of any expert, no matter how 'factual', simply because as you rightly say:

Only thing that matters to ME is how something performs...in my room...with my eyes...with my equipment.

Me too. And I suspect that that thinking applies to the vast majority of us here!

Marco.

[Dr Winston O Boogie]

So let us say you had a newbie join here, keen as mustard to spend ex amount of pounds on an HDMI cable, you guys are going to say go for it as it will make a difference?

[walpurgis]

Well how far would he get without one?

[Dr Winston O Boogie]

Stop posting words such as "cold hard facts", when said 'facts' simply aren't conclusive, or perhaps even relevant, in relation to this subject (and people's experiences of it), or it will be deleted. Any more of it, and you're out for a week.

Have you read the Ethos of this site? If not, I suggest you do, especially from post 5 onwards: https://theartofsound.net/forum/show...asics-of-Ethos

Marco.

Maco, that is geared towards Audio which is highly subjective, video and video standards are not.

[struth]

no, its geared to THIS SITE.

[Dr Winston O Boogie]

Taking a bit of flak here Barry!
Don't let it get to you mate it's all friendly.

First up,
Video quality is important to me.
Trying to play the "can't we all just get along" card, just this once, I'll put forward this, and ask you to have a think about it.

Some people prefer a brighter picture on their TVs, others turn the colour up to make it look "richer", because it's their preference.
That's the subjective part?

Conversely: There are facts that are facts...that are facts...as I think your alluding to.

For myself, OLED was a gamechanger.
Some things are just better.
I've had mine ISF calibrated and yup, the pictures better for the calibration.
After calibration though, I was presented with a choice of 3 profiles, to accommodate my preferences, which I found interesting.

So I hear you on the picture calibration and standards.
Video quality and preference is subjective just as with audio IMO.
For music..."Is it like I am i sitting at the recording desk listening to this?" or "Feels like I am in the 4th row at a live gig!", usually works.

But...there's no universally subjectively preferred way (by all) of viewing video.
Again, that's the subjective part...

Can't really say it's unfair to say that colour grading in movies can completely change the experience of seeing the same film?
How many "Director's cuts" and anniversary reissues were put out where the picture was messed about with (grain removed, colours enhanced, DNR applied...etc) to outcry by the "purists"?
Crikey, just look at the Star Wars reissues with updated SFX!

but I'd ask the question - One can say this is the best picture because its "calibrated" - But I'd ask...the best to whom?
Only thing that matters to ME is how something performs...in my room...with my eyes...with my equipment.

No disrespect, but have to disagree with you one important point:
Its my opinion that Video IS subjective - just like audio!
It's the brain interpreting inputs, thats all it is. Same with music.


My point, if there is one , is that the calibrated "standard" was created by people who CHOSE those settings,I'd ask you to contrast that with the nebulous concept of "artistic vision", bringing in aspects like colour grading, cinematography and the like.

And interestingly...and to your point...
Trying out different HDMI cables and finally settling on the "one" for me with my AV kit, I was able to clearly see these differences - and the differences the way different HDMI cables presented them.

...for the record.

Can I ask who did the calibration and why you had it done please?

[Dr Winston O Boogie]

no, its geared to THIS SITE.

So again I ask if a newbie comes along and is going to pay say £100 for an HDMI cable the guys on here are going to say go for it as you will clearly see a difference?