Welcome,   •  Sign In  •  Register  •  Help

Blu-ray, HDMI cables and HD audio

Started by stevekaden • May 2, 2008 • 17 posts
Read-only archive
#1
I have to throw in, I have the Planet Earth on HD DVD and I did not think of it as a reference production. Beautiful to the max, but a bit off from something like Corpse Bride. For non-graphic/cartoon there are a bunch of great ones - I hear King Kong on HD DVD is a reference, as is the Hulk. And many more - for all my discs, I just have not noted what was best - but Batman Returns was superb,

As for the cable, that is another whole class of discussion, and I do not feel that you need a certified cable, or a 1.3 cable or a Cat (in HDMI ??) at all. If the HDMI receiver device can detect the 1's vs. 0's the cable works. It will matter if the cable is long enough, but $15 cables are passing the visual test against $100 cables for almost everyone I have read a commentary from. (analog cable is another matter entirely.)

The audio question is also debateable. Clearly TrueHD and DTS MA are much better (if you listen to it and note the differences) - but do you need a new receiver?? For convience and auto calibration I would heartily say yes, but if the player has analog out and internal decoders, you would only need a receiver with an 5.1 analog input.

I picked up a Panasonic ...30 Blu-ray player and it is one that does NOT have internal decoders - so it did need a new 1.3 receiver for lossless audio. Maybe more of the vendors are planning to move to that direction. If it can makes things cheaper and cable-cleaner that is cool by me. I'm an advocate for a set of HW with minimal repeated hardware - decoders, legacy analog etc. - e.g. my panansonic BR and the Onkyo ...606 receiver.
#2
Hi stevekaden =

No "contest" with your wish to Not promote those silly $ 100 + cables - the certified 1.3a / Cat 2 are needed for the PS3 + next Fall's Blu Ray Player and perhaps even the Xbox, etc.....

These are still under $ 10 from any number of legitimate web stores.
eli
P.S. -

Here's an interesting "read" on the evolution / history / status of HDMI Cables if you have a minute -
scroll down some to the table of data -

http://www.mycablemart.com/help/hdmi_versions.php

www.mycablemart.com
#3
...the certified 1.3a / Cat 2 are needed for the PS3
Maybe yes, maybe no. All a certified 1.3a / Cat 2 cable says is that they went through the trouble to verify and get certified that the cable will meet 1.3a standards. A certified 1.2a cable says that it was verified and certified for 1.2a standards. However, it does not say the cable will not support 1.3a / Cat 2. Higher certifications cost more money and therefore are not always done.

So I would say if you are in the market to buy a new cable then get a 1.3a / Cat 2 cable. But, don't go out and replace the cable you have unless you see issues with your image. (Just my opinion :) )
#4
Is there any source yet, or even anticipated, that exceeds the boundaries of the 1.2 spec? That even enters the realm of 1.3? (would a 7.1 PCM signal push the envelope?)

I don't know that there is a disc on the market that would not be considered within the bounds of HDMI 1.2. In the future there maybe such media, but if you don't buy those "lifetime investment" expensive cables, then when the source is there - AND our 1.2 era cables crap out, then maybe worry about the cable being certified 1.3. Of course if it's reasonably priced and certified to 1.3 (or even just certified at all) that certainly would be a good choice.

This opinion does not include non-replaceable inwall cables and very long lengths. I would advocate going for broke in that kind of situation.

On another hand - some of the expensive cables are just incredibly good looking. Weaved jackets, milled and dyed billet connectors. There are times where cables are exposed and could be considered part of the astetic experience. Not many of us would go for that concept, but pride of craftsmanship and precision/organization of the installation is a solid pro and hobbist concept.
#5
So far, I haven't seen difference between 1080I and 1080P.

There would be no difference in audio. Are you saying you don't see a difference on your 1080p set? Or between a 1080i and 1080p set?
#6
Not sure of your question - but my statement - starting with a real question about source (because I have not recently reviewed the info on source vs. HDMI specs) is about source data flow being more than the HDMI 1.2 specification rates. If the source is typical present day 1080/60p video, and let's say DTS-HD MA or PCM 7.1 (if there is a 7.1 out there) would those subsquent data rates exceed the 1.2 spec.

In simplist terms - would any disc we can get to day, run at it's best outputs exceed the specs of HDMI 1.2.

As for your question - an answer is: I would not bet the farm I could recognize 1080i vs. 1080p unless someone walked me through a demo that showed the difference - and I would assume that to be on a TV with a mediocre deinterlacer. I have two different TV's (768 and 1080p) so already I am into many permutations. Personally I setup what seems to be the best setting and then live with it (and I have been very happy with it). I am more sensitive to audio. I use HD-DVD and Blu-Ray at 1080p and DISH at 1080i.
#7 (edited May 6, 2008)
In simplist terms - would any disc we can get to day, run at it's best outputs exceed the specs of HDMI 1.2.
I assume you mean HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Yes, for example Dolby TrueHD is only specified in HDMI 1.3a. But, remember this has to do with the specification of the equipment, not the cable. For the cable, it is just a certification that it will support 1.3a. It is possible a certified 1.2a cable will run with 1.3a equipment.

If you want more information see this web site http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx.

As for your question - an answer is: I would not bet the farm I could recognize 1080i vs. 1080p unless someone walked me through a demo that showed the difference
I have no way of knowing whether you would see the difference. It all depends on what you are sensitive to. I can only tell you there is a difference with the right material. However, the right material is not movies. :)
- and I would assume that to be on a TV with a mediocre deinterlacer.
I was assuming a good deinterlacer. The difference comes from seeing 30 images a second vs. 60 images a second. Therefore, the things on the screen can move faster and smoother. This can be seen when playing games with a game console.

I have two different TV's (768 and 1080p) so already I am into many permutations. Personally I setup what seems to be the best setting and then live with it (and I have been very happy with it). I am more sensitive to audio. I use HD-DVD and Blu-Ray at 1080p and DISH at 1080i.
What ever your digital TV is, is what you are watching. So on your 768 you are watching 768. On your 1080p you are watching 1080p. The question is what is the source and which device is doing the up or down conversion.

For example, on your DISH some channels are 480i, some are 1080i, and some are 720p. If you have your DISH set to output 1080i then it will convert the source signal to 1080i and pass it to the TV. The TV will then convert the 1080i to either 768 or 1080p (depending on which of your TVs). Many people find that setting the DISH to pass through the native signal (480i, 1080i, or 720p) and let the TV upconvert produces the best picture. This is because most cable/satellite boxes have cheap converters.

For your HD-DVD and Blu-Ray I assume you have it set to 1080p/60 (60 frames per second). Therefore the disc player usually converts from 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 and then the TV either plays it naturally or down converts it to 768 (depending on the TV). If your TV and player can handle 1080p/24 then it is usually better to output 1080p/24 since no conversion has to take place.

Bottom line, you are right that if you are watching only movies you will probably not be able to see a difference between 1080i and 1080p.
#8
Once again I see that my previous post got to wordy. Sorry. :)
#9
Don't feel bad - it was reasonable. Me...I rechecked and see that I answered the 1080i/p question for "simoncable". I saw the 's' and always with my opinions, ran with it.

BTW, I reviewed the HDMI.org faq and see that 1.3 does spec the lossless audio. Having had that - internally decoded - in my HD-XA1, and not having a 1.3 receiver (I used analogs), I missed that the lossless was decoded internally, and output via PCM. Thus, it was "TrueHD" but still only HDMI 1.2. Oh the details.

So....I guess I must rephrase my question - is there ENOUGH boundaries pushed with the present sources to challenge a 1.2 certified cable. And I will answer that with - I bet no one knows outside of a lab. You'd have to have a marginal cable, of some significant length to push the ability of the cable past it's being able to not corrupt the "eye" (real net square wave) past readability.

So back to the same answer - just don't waste a lot of money unless you can't upgrade the cable or you need it to look good. Besides they need to add some sort of lock to the cable to support them at the connector and keep them from falling out. So we would hopefully see a new (mechanically speaking) class of cables someday.
#10
1080p vs 1080i.

Being that 1080i is interlaced and assumes a good quality deinterlacer{not common until 2007}, and being that Blu-ray's bitrate is higher than most FTA/OTA HDTV, then 1080p will be superior, granted your TV must actaully accept a 1080p signal, also not common until recently.
As for 1080p vs 768p as screen resolutions, no surprise 1080p is better.....but this assumes a 1.6-1.8mtr viewing distance with a 46in HDTV.

Sound.....my feeling is that the new HD audio will be over-rated and possibly useless unless you have a very large room and very good/powerful equipment.
#11
Adding to this great discussion...

HDMI.org is OK and http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/ ... m?hdmidept
is better.

A 1.2 cable could run 1.3 content but not at the same distance. HDMI does not specify distance, only the ability to pass a specific signal at the distance tested. The shorter the 1.2 cable the more likely it could do 1.3. 1.3 typically cuts the 1.2 distance rating in half for the same cable construction.

I have to agree that one should worry about this when a problem arises or if you are buying product that supports 1.3 then get 1.3 cables - it's not like they are expensive; well not the ones we would recommend anyway!

On the HD audio front it has nothing to do with room size but it does have to do with proper setup and good equipment. This is no different than SACD or DVD Audio versus CD - let that be your guide.
#12
Wouldn't it follow that the larger the room size, then a higher bitrate will be needed to maintain SQ......seems to work with video..?
#13
While anecdotal - not at all. The difference can be heard with headphones...

The difference is due to MORE audio information at the source! SACD and DVD Audio, 24/96 and 24/192 greatly expand the amount of data that is used during the recording and collected for encoding (trying to keep it simple). CD was FAR from perfect.
#14
I struggle to tell the difference between an AC3 and a mp3 of that AC3{256k}, but I can tell a huge difference between older SDTV 128k mp3's.
I just bought a 2 Disc DVD of "the Shining"....and just using my 5 yr old $70 Altec Lansing PC speakers, I was impressed with the DD5.1 on the DVD.
#15
All it takes to really appreciate good sound it to go hear a good system and have someone point out some of the aspects of quality. A good store and saleman can do that. Things like: smooth high frequencies, clarity, spaciousness, detail. Also helpful to learn are types of sources and calibration for multichannel systems.

It really does not take long and will give you more ability to enjoy everything you hear though you may become dissatisfied with the lower tier of equipment - eg. HTIB systems. But even a cheap receiver (with auto calibration) and a packaged set of speakers (for less than $500 or so) can give you superb sound - and even in fairly large or small rooms. In large rooms with a "small" system you won't have the volume or low end power. But the other aspects can still be of high quality.
#16
Adding to this great discussion...

HDMI.org is OK and http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/ ... m?hdmidept
is better.Awesome information. Thanks.

It does basically say that the big difference between good cables and bad cables is the good cables will work with longer distances. :)
#17
It would be hard to determine from the outside, but similar to analog cables, the worst, maybe cheapest, cables would be more likely to break the connections between the wires and the connectors with twisting etc. And sometimes they plug in rather loosely. But - those are probably only the cheapest of the lot. I'd think that you'd find those at discount department stores and similar places that retail junk in general. Or the rediculously cheap on ebay (just assuming). The low-reasonably priced cables from online cable companies all seem to be of resonable quality.