Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> There it is.  Let me know if I'm wrong.  I can't believe that I could be 
> right about all of this stuff, as there seem to be so many people out there 
> who seem to think I'm wrong. 

You seem to have encountered the High-Def equivalent of extreme
audiophiles. You can find the same people buying CD/DVD/Blue-ray
de-magnetizers, because it makes the sound/image quality better. Or
wooden knobs for their amps, for the tonal quality. Or acoustic rocks,
after-market power cords infused with nitrogen, R-Type stickers that
make their cars go faster . . . wait, slipped off topic for a bit there.

All said, there can be a difference in cable quality. I would not try
pushing 10Gbps ethernet over cat5 cable for any distance. HDMI, if it
were supporting 1080p, 60 Hz frame rate, 12 bit per color with no
compression, would have to support a data rate close to 4.5 Gbps. (G is
SI, not 1024M here). I don't think I would try sending that over
unfolded cloths hangers wrapped together with gaffers tape. But, for the
normally short distances between a TV and other components, just about
any braided copper wire will do, if properly shielded from cross-talk
and such which, I would think, the HDMI standard should cover. If you
get problems between two components then you can look at just those
cables involved, and figure out if they are really bad cables or if the
components need a better cable to communicate over.

For 120Hz, and now 240Hz, some (most?) of those TVs blend frames
together, to blur the change between each frame. Watching the
side-by-side demos in stores hasn't impressed me too much, maybe because
the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
these big TVs. Maybe when 3D becomes more used, I will check them out again.

Post a reply to this message