No, I'm not trying to start another great debate. Who got the most recent newsletter though. Alan suggested replacing the cables to fix some video issues on a TV. Thought that was interesting, since we often see debates about cables on here, although usually those debates relate to audio and not video cables.
Video is a much more demanding medium than audio. It stands to reason that using higher-quality cables will make a difference that is within a human's ability to detect.
Especially when capacitance is concerned....
Not as important with audio??
You just don't have to go overboard with the video cables. I usually buy the cheapest ones I can find for the length desired with the best shielding I can find. Video signals are low voltage so the cabling does make more of a difference than for audio, much like interconnects. There is just no reason to spend hundreds of dollars for a cable that does the same thing a $20 one will do, without a big brand name stuck all over it.
For example, with my recent TV and DVD player purchase I bought a $79 12' HDMI cable and a $29 12' HDMI cable, I can see no difference in the PQ or hear a difference in the audio between the 2, so I took the more expensive one back.
Has anyone tried rusty fence wire for video?
Has anyone tried rusty fence wire for video?
Not since I relocated my TV from the backyard. . .
Has anyone tried rusty fence wire for video?
Yes, but it gave a slightly red hue to everything.
I actually just switched out a video cable today with fantastic results. I have a rather old LCD monitor attached to my computer. The signal path before today, from computer to monitor, was:
1. DVI out on video card
2. DVI to D-Sub adapter
3. VGA cable
4. Base of monitor
5. analog to digital converter built-in to base
6. DFP cable (used before DVI became an accepted standard) from base to actual display panel
With the purchase of a single DVI to DFP computer, my signal path is now:
1. DVI out on video card
2. DVI to DFP cable
3. LCD panel
Everything is now noticeably crisper, and the screen seems to be a touch brighter, as well. After recalibrating the monitor, I am now feel I have a new screen for the price of an $18 cable.
I had been meaning to make the change for a really long time, but never felt a need since the old connection worked just fine.
I actually just switched out a video cable today with fantastic results. I have a rather old LCD monitor attached to my computer. The signal path before today, from computer to monitor, was:
1. DVI out on video card
2. DVI to D-Sub adapter
3. VGA cable
4. Base of monitor
5. analog to digital converter built-in to base
6. DFP cable (used before DVI became an accepted standard) from base to actual display panel
With the purchase of a single DVI to DFP computer, my signal path is now:
1. DVI out on video card
2. DVI to DFP cable
3. LCD panel
Everything is now noticeably crisper, and the screen seems to be a touch brighter, as well. After recalibrating the monitor, I am now feel I have a new screen for the price of an $18 cable.
I had been meaning to make the change for a really long time, but never felt a need since the old connection worked just fine.
A perfect example of what happens with too many connections, everything still works but a little loss at each connection affects the outcome.
Well, probably not a great a/d converter in the monitor at least.
Now I don't have to hit the auto-adjust button every few hours to make text crisper. That was definitely the fault of the a/d converter.
I have been running my HDTV, Panny S77 DVD and Moto 6412 STB for over a year now with the cheap HDMI cable that Panasonic included and a $10 HDMI cable from Monoprice. It all works great.
No Mon$ter or other premium cables required here.
HDMI, Optical and Coax all send digital signals, 0's and 1's folks. As long the connections on eather end are in good shape you can't convince me that a $220 cable will sound / look beter than a $20 cable. As long as the 0's and 1's get to the device in the correct order at the right time, it doesnt matter how.
Paul
