@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:03:36 » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Talk Talk
|
 |
« Reply #31 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:05:37 » |
|
Can someone summarise this in a paragraph? It's Friday Morning and I was watching all 4 episodes of The Wire until 2 this morning and I'm having a JFW moment
Category 1 = 'standard' spec. Cheapo cables good for 5m. Pricey cables good for 15m. Check the spec of the cable, if the wires inside are 28 AWG (0.081 mm²) diameter then it's a cheapy, if they are 24 AWG (0.205 mm²) then it should go to 15m Category 2 = 'high speed' spec. Pay lots of money but they will definitely work up to 15m.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Talk Talk
|
 |
« Reply #32 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:06:12 » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
 |
« Reply #33 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:07:17 » |
|
Thank you - the missus will be happy - it's already cost me 5 grand...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
magicroundabout
Fanta Pants
Offline
Posts: 8780
|
 |
« Reply #34 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:08:07 » |
|
the link i posted to the PROV1010 is a quality make too
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
 |
« Reply #35 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:10:05 » |
|
Thanks Magic
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 57741
|
 |
« Reply #37 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:42:46 » |
|
Seriously, unless you are running a long run of HDMI a (well built) cable conforming to the HDMI 1.3spec will be more than adequate for full 1080p.
I wouldn't pay more than £10-£15 for one.
3k for a 10M cable, fuck off. These people need to be branded in some way so we can all mock them for believing the Monster hype and for presumably shopping in Currys.
|
|
« Last Edit: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:47:20 by Batch »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sheepshagger
Suburban Capitalist........
Offline
Posts: 920
|
 |
« Reply #38 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:49:12 » |
|
Erm, that's not true SS. It doesn't matter what format the signal is (analogue or digital), all copper cables have physical resistance and will attenuate a signal over a length of cable. At some point on a long cable the digital square waves will be reduced in amplitude to a level that won't drive the receiving end. That depends upon a lot of factors such as wire thickness, shielding etc.
Fizzics, innit?
I think TT we are both right to a degree here.... If the wave form (in the case of digital it is either high or low) degrades beyond a certain level you won’t get a picture …… but it’s true to say that all cables have a physical resistance and will attenuate. If the wave form can still be ‘read’ at the receiving end, the picture will be no different regardless what digital cable you use.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wise men say........
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 57741
|
 |
« Reply #39 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 09:56:42 » |
|
If the wave form can still be ‘read’ at the receiving end, the picture will be no different regardless what digital cable you use.
Yes, a cheap cable exhibiting no loss/errors will be as good as an expensive cable exhibiting no errors. The issue is the edge cases, where degradation isn't total loss. The picture will degrade and you will probably see artifacting/sparkle effects. As long as the cable meets the spec 10m shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sheepshagger
Suburban Capitalist........
Offline
Posts: 920
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:15:19 » |
|
blimey - look at us getting all technical and sounding like we actually know what we are talking about 
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wise men say........
|
|
|
suttonred
Offline
Posts: 12510
|
 |
« Reply #41 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:28:35 » |
|
This is very handy now, as my tv was doing some odd things last night, just need it to replicate over the next few days and i might have a domestic business case to go HD, and i can confirm there was no spilled tea involved!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
 |
« Reply #42 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 13:17:30 » |
|
This is very handy now, as my tv was doing some odd things last night, just need it to replicate over the next few days and i might have a domestic business case to go HD, and i can confirm there was no spilled tea involved!
soapy tit wank! My missus can't believe that she's got away with us keeping the same telly for 15 years - what she doesn't realise is that when it does go wrong (or when I drop it ;-) ) I'll use it's lifespan as part of the ROI calculation i.e. perceived value having a TV per day = 50p (£181 per year) x Life expectancy (15 Years) = £2715 = Panasonic Kuro 50" 
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
suttonred
Offline
Posts: 12510
|
 |
« Reply #43 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 13:18:29 » |
|
I like your business model, i'll be plagiarising that thanks!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
 |
« Reply #44 on: Friday, April 3, 2009, 13:27:31 » |
|
Don't forget to factor in the time value of money. I think your model is flawed 
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|