Are expensive hdmi cables better than cheap ones?

Question

ive got a 40inch samsung 1080p lcd tv and a 1080p upscaling dvd player and ive bought a £3.40 hdmi cable from ebay!! picture quality is good and is better than scart but would i get an even better picture with a much more expensive one coz iv sen some goin at a price of £75+

Answer 1

It is funny how everybody always has bad stuff to say about Monster. As far as I know they are 1 of few companies with the speedrating on the package. And yes there are differences but expensive is not always better. Some companies expensive cables are sometimes not as good as others inexpensive cables. The least value often comes from midprice cables which are often no better than the inexpensive cables.

Edit: I see where AGB is comming from. I think part of the problem is that there is a difference between "being suitable for" and "guaranteeing the performance of". I have used budget cables and when they worked it was fine. But when they don't work it is a problem, ie. no picture or bad picture. When it is bad it may be no big deal to replace the cable. But if you want to have a reputation for great cables you can't let that happen very often. So you have to make a cable that guarrantees the performance. That IS a more expensive cable to produce. Monster is expensive but they guarantee the performance up to certain speed ratings. I have seen indications that Ultralink does now as well and they ain't cheap either. Lesser cables have a warrantee as well but that isn't the same as guarranteeing the perfomance. Some people don't want to have to do things over. That is why most people who recommend cheaper HDMI cables (AGB included) recommend more expensive (well better at least) HDMI cables when being installed into the wall. You don't want to do it over so guarranteed performance is needed.

Answer 2

Digital links are less sensitive to quality than analog, but the materials can make a difference in durability, appearance and precision (like how well connectors fit, how long they take to corrode, and how prone they are to breaking when disconnected). Over the life of your gear, a better cable is more likely to stay that way- but generally digital signals arrive at usable levels or they don't. More money spent is not necessarily a guarantee of an improved picture. The best approach is actually borrowing a "better" cable from a friend or a cooperative A/V store to demo it on your gear. It's your eyes, your equipment, your money, and ultimately your choice. Seeing is believing, one way or the other.

Answer 3

The HDMI cable is only responsible of transmitting the signal, it will not affect the picture quality even if you got it for a 100 bucks.

Answer 4

Basically, if you are getting a good picture now, a better cable won't improve it.

See the article at the link.

Digital signals are basically a stream of 1's and 0's ... as long as the signal can be recognized it will reproduce perfectly. With distance the ability to recognize the 1 or 0 reaches a threshhold and the signal fails.

There are diferences between cables -- some physical and some electrical. The physical differences are things like flexibility, quality of connectors, presence or absence of strain relief provisions, etc. The electrical differences will impact on how quickly the digital signal will degrade with distance ... in other words how long a cable of similar construction can be before the signal is unreadable. But, as said earlier, if the cable is working you won't improve it by changing to a better cable. You might get a nicer finish though!

EDIT EDIT

"Isitme" says there is a big difference ... but fails to back up that claim. I stand by my original response.

In addition to my original reference -- which maintains there is no practical difference between budget and expensive HDMI cables for normal (short distance) connections -- I've added 2 links to articles that say essentially the same thing -- one an opinion from an EE and the other a lab test article.

Before accepting any opinion on this site expect at least some evidence, rather than simple opionion, to back it up. You are then in a position to decide for yourself about credibility of the response.

So far I haven't seen anything but unsubstantiated opinion (and thumbs down??) re. difference in results from budget and expensive HDMI cables at short distances (and assuming they pass the HDCP handshake ... which is one area where HDMI cables may fail).

I didn't specify it above (since it wasn't relevant), but have in other responses on Y!A said that an HDMI cable has three states 1) works perfectly, 2) won't give a signal at all, and 3) a narrow transition threshold between the two where the signal will show show some sparking, dropouts or other signs of failure.

I'll be happy to change my position if someone references credible evidence to the contrary.

Answer 5

There is absolutely no question, better quality leads DO make a difference.

Don't go for Monster though, the only thing Monster about them is the price.

Spend £30-£40 on a QED or the Chord Company for a decent HDMI connect and see the improvement.