Audioquest HDMI cables

[esldude]

You mey not have understood esldude's description of his comparison method.
Take the two (freeze) frames. Overlay them and switch rapidly from one to the other. Any differences show up as a flicker. Your eyes are very sensitive to this.
I've previously argued this with someone on another forum. His claim was that there was a visible difference between two images, part of a claim that the mere act of copying a file could degrade it although the copy was bit-identical to the original. The suggested test method was to place the images side-by-side on my monitor, the differences should be visible. All it proved was that my monitor needed recalibrating. Laying the images on top of each other and flicking between them showed no differences. Deliberately making small changes to one image, invisible when compared side by side, showed up as flicker.

I should have described in more detail. But yes you have it exactly (I think I know the other person you refer to as well). I first heard of this method from astronomers comparing images of the sky looking for new objects. With monitors now able to swap images in 1/60th of a second it is incredibly good at finding differences in photos or other images.

 

[Don Hills]

... I first heard of this method from astronomers comparing images of the sky looking for new objects. ...

According to my daughter (studying astronomy at Uni), the method is still used but these days the comparison is usually done by computer.
It's unfortunate we can't do as well with audio.

 

[Gregadd]

You mey not have understood esldude's description of his comparison method.
Take the two (freeze) frames. Overlay them and switch rapidly from one to the other. Any differences show up as a flicker. Your eyes are very sensitive to this.
I've previously argued this with someone on another forum. His claim was that there was a visible difference between two images, part of a claim that the mere act of copying a file could degrade it although the copy was bit-identical to the original. The suggested test method was to place the images side-by-side on my monitor, the differences should be visible. All it proved was that my monitor needed recalibrating. Laying the images on top of each other and flicking between them showed no differences. Deliberately making small changes to one image, invisible when compared side by side, showed up as flicker.

"...instantly flip frm one to the oother..." is what he wrote and is dificult to misunderstand. I don't have the ability to try your method so I am not doubting its' efficacy. Side by side works when I am purchasing a TV or evaluating my frends' or familys' latest. acquisition.

 

[Whatmore]

According to my daughter (studying astronomy at Uni), the method is still used but these days the comparison is usually done by computer.
It's unfortunate we can't do as well with audio.

You can do it with audio. Just invert one of the signals and overlay them.

 

[amirm]

"...instantly flip frm one to the oother..." is what he wrote and is dificult to misunderstand. I don't have the ability to try your method so I am not doubting its' efficacy. Side by side works when I am purchasing a TV or evaluating my frends' or familys' latest. acquisition.

The picture of an LCD TV can heavily change depending on viewing angle. So when doing this, try to stand in between the two TVs so that your angle of view is the same to both. Standing in front of one and then looking sideways at the other completely screws up the comparison.

 

[Ethan Winer]

:b You should, 3D is the new 3-dimensional rage.

According to this never-ending thread at the AVS forum, 3D is mostly dead:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-87.html

Again, I have only limited experience, but 3D didn't wow me for several reasons. When Shrek Forever came out I saw it in a local (very large) theater. The effects were cool, if distracting, but the overall look was too dark with the special glasses. More recently I saw How to Tame Your Dragon at a friend's house, and she has high-tech wireless 3D glasses that are better than what they have at theaters. But it still was too dim and murky looking for my tastes. Will 3D get better? Maybe. But will it still be around? I have no idea.

--Ethan

 

[NorthStar]

According to this never-ending thread at the AVS forum, 3D is mostly dead:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-87.html

Again, I have only limited experience, but 3D didn't wow me for several reasons. When Shrek Forever came out I saw it in a local (very large) theater. The effects were cool, if distracting, but the overall look was too dark with the special glasses. More recently I saw How to Tame Your Dragon at a friend's house, and she has high-tech wireless 3D glasses that are better than what they have at theaters. But it still was too dim and murky looking for my tastes. Will 3D get better? Maybe. But will it still be around? I have no idea.

--Ethan

This is the Measurement Based Audio Forum on Audioquest HDMI cables right?

So I'll just be very brief: 3D is not for everyone, and I'm sure it'll come back big someday when the 3D glasses will disappear for good.
But make no mistake, 3D and UHD (4K, 8K, 16K, ...) are the progress in motion picture experience.
...And other stuff too, like frame rate, jitterless, motion blurless, lenses, color pixels, etc.
...And hi-speed hi-res and hi-def HDMI cables to transmit it all with the utmost accuracy.

* There's a new movie playing in town, and her name is 'Deadpool' (I didn't see her), and @ some theaters she is in HDR UHD with Dolby Vision (Atmos sound).
But not in 3D, not @ all, nowhere! That should say something about the new Hollywood movie industry direction. ...It's in Ultra High Definition (Laser cinema) with 3D immersive sound. ...Dolby Vision, for one name. @ both the cinema theaters and @ home too.

As for (((3D))) IMAX theaters; they are making money, even @ non-IMAX 3D theaters. ...3D Cineplexes.
3D theaters aren't going anywhere, and Hollywwod 3D movies are still being produced and they will keep going...a list of 3D movies for 2016, 2017, and even 2018 is already there for all to see, and is quite extensive too. So 3D is far far away of being dead. Plus 3D front projectors are very well and alive, they are not going anywhere.
And with 3D front projectors you need longer HDMI cable runs, so it's important that they measure the requirements.

* Prediction (my own vision): In the future, the new TV revolution is screen-less! That's right, no screen anymore. Not even the 0.1mm thin screen that you can roll and carry anywhere with you. No, the future is in 4D, four tiny camera projectors in four corners and displaying holographic 4D moving pictures. ...Just imagine...and wireless too...that's right...no more HDMI cables.

 

[esldude]

You can do it with audio. Just invert one of the signals and overlay them.

Well that isn't quite the same. You can do that with images. Subtract one frame from another and see if you get anything other than black. The flipping method is one that was easier to accomplish before we had digital displays where subtraction would have been more difficult. And while easy to do now with software it still isn't as simple as putting two files full screen in a photo viewer and hitting forward and back.

 

[Gregadd]

The picture of an LCD TV can heavily change depending on viewing angle. So when doing this, try to stand in between the two TVs so that your angle of view is the same to both. Standing in front of one and then looking sideways at the other completely screws up the comparison.

The significance of that would be proportional to the distance from the television. Good point nonetheless.

 

[esldude]

You also have be careful of uneven lighting falling on the surface of two LCD displays.

 

[Don Hills]

You can do it with audio. Just invert one of the signals and overlay them.

True. The problem is coming up with a comparison method that is (a) sensitive enough for small differences and (b) acceptable to the people who will only accept the evidence of their ears. ABX is about the best we have, provided it's done right.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

True. The problem is coming up with a comparison method that is (a) sensitive enough for small differences and (b) acceptable to the people who will only accept the evidence of their ears. ABX is about the best we have, provided it's done right.

The problem being the audiophile community will only accept that it has been done right when it agrees with what they already believed.

Tim

 

[amirm]

* There's a new movie playing in town, and her name is 'Deadpool' (I didn't see her), and @ some theaters she is in HDR UHD with Dolby Vision (Atmos sound).

Was listening to that soundtrack in Tidal and it is incredible in dynamics and bass. Reminds me of the Daft Punk track for Tron.

 

[NorthStar]

Was listening to that soundtrack in Tidal and it is incredible in dynamics and bass. Reminds me of the Daft Punk track for Tron.

That pretty much reflects what I've read from one "bassophile" ... "I'm gong to need more subwoofers in my room when the Blu-ray comes out."
And that guy who said that he has a state-of-the-art home theater room, fully equipped with Atmos and multiple gigantic subwoofers already.
So when I read that from him; I said to myself ... "Oh my god! ... this is going to be gargantuan sounding."

'Deadpool' is rated R-16 ... it's a comedy for adults, about the ultimate Marvel anti-hero.
I want to see it and hear it and feel it for sure. :b ...That sounds exactly like my cinema bag.
It's not supposed to be even close to 'The Hateful Eight' or 'The Revenant' or Mad Max: Fury Road' ... just more "dynamic" and "punchy".

So many flicks so little time.

_______

@ Ethan, did you see Mad Max? It was playing in 3D @ IMAX. And it's also on Blu-ray in 3D.
Another good one for 3D is 'Gravity'. ...And 'The Walk'.

Yeah, I love movies, I love music ?, I love 3D.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I just became aware of the following upon opening the latest Widescreen Review. The HDMI consortium now has an official certification program administered by HDMI Licensing LLC for the High Speed cables needed for transmission of 4K/UHD video. Member manufacturers may submit their cables for performance tests and measurements in order to gain an official certification, which they can use in advertising and on the product jacket itself. UHD does demand much more of the transmission cable than HDMI versions prior to 2.0 did, and currently that includes 18 Gbs transmission.

What is interesting is that AudioQuest, actually no famous audiophile cable maker that I have seen, is on the quite lengthy list of adopters of the HDMI standard:

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx

AQ and others can still market HDMI cables calling them whatever the manufacturer wishes. But, the HDMI Licensing program is not available to them to certify performance.

Don't know about everyone else, but my next HDMI cables will definitely have this performance certification in preparation for my shift to UHD video. I am sure AQ and others will claim they handle HDMI 2.0 even better than anyone else, except that claim will not be independently verified and certified in a standardized way. Unless I am wrong, AQ will instead expect us to trust and believe them. Do we/will we believe them?

 

[Jinjuku]

Why not get a computer with dual display cards, a display with dual HDMI inputs and mirror the displays.

You throw up and HDR image and have some one switch inputs on the remote.

 

[NorthStar]

Why not get a computer with dual display cards, a display with dual HDMI inputs and mirror the displays.

You throw up and HDR image and have some one switch inputs on the remote.

And that should tell us everything we need to know?

 

[NorthStar]

I just became aware of the following upon opening the latest Widescreen Review. The HDMI consortium now has an official certification program administered by HDMI Licensing LLC for the High Speed cables needed for transmission of 4K/UHD video. Member manufacturers may submit their cables for performance tests and measurements in order to gain an official certification, which they can use in advertising and on the product jacket itself. UHD does demand much more of the transmission cable than HDMI versions prior to 2.0 did, and currently that includes 18 Gbs transmission.

What is interesting is that AudioQuest, actually no famous audiophile cable maker that I have seen, is on the quite lengthy list of adopters of the HDMI standard:

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx

AQ and others can still market HDMI cables calling them whatever the manufacturer wishes. But, the HDMI Licensing program is not available to them to certify performance.

Don't know about everyone else, but my next HDMI cables will definitely have this performance certification in preparation for my shift to UHD video. I am sure AQ and others will claim they handle HDMI 2.0 even better than anyone else, except that claim will not be independently verified and certified in a standardized way. Unless I am wrong, AQ will instead expect us to trust and believe them. Do we/will we believe them?

I agree, this is important, UHD is very serious, and that requires real certification, absolutely. Every component in the UHD chain has to be certified in order to provide optimal performance, anything less and you're not in the true UHD game. From the screen's display to the front projector to the UHD BR player to the UHD Blu-ray movie to the UHD HDMI cable to the receiver with HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2, everything needs the real UHD seal of certification. Some TVs selling as 4K TVs are not true UHD TVs, you have to look for the UHD seal, only the true UHD TVs get that seal. It's the same with the UHD HDMI cables...look for an official certification...as Bill mentioned in one of his earlier posts (I think there are four type of HDMI certifications, including from THX).

This is a new higher definition picture world we are in now. Not the time too fool around and to get less for more. Every time a new technology comes we get screwed.
My first hi-def TV that I bought (Hitachi) I got screwed big time. ...Sony, Panasonic, ...I'm careful now.
The two big names in UHD TVs are LG and Samsung (OLED and LED). ...Sony would be third. IMO
A UHD TV, depending on its size, can go from $1,000 (roughly) to about $30,000 (or more).

UHD front projectors? Sony, JVC, Epson? ...Runco, Barco, ... I don't know enough and the prices can go very high...$400,000 for the cream.

 

[Jinjuku]

And that should tell us everything we need to know?

Do you think it won't show you what you need to see?

 

[NorthStar]

Why not get a computer with dual display cards, a display with dual HDMI inputs and mirror the displays.

You throw up and HDR image and have some one switch inputs on the remote.

And that should tell us everything we need to know?

Do you think it won't show you what you need to see?

I have no absolute idea; will it reveal all the audio/video requirements for an UHD HDMI cable?
...With performed tests similar to the ones to get an official seal of approval...UHD certification.
...Like from the people who have all the professional equipment and expertise to perform those tests accurately?

I am sincerely asking you. If yes then we can all probably save piles of cash and buy more food for our families with it instead of buying food for the HDMI cable manufacturers and their own families. ...With Russian caviar, French wine, Swiss cheese and Cuban cigars.