how noticeable is the quality drop of long HDMI cables?
is it noticeable at all?
like a 30 feet cable would i notice it? i'm not a quality whore
If it works, there is no quality drop. HDMI cables are not analog video cables.
It's digital, not analog. If it's too long, it simply wouldn't work. If it does work, it will be the same quality as a shorter cable, albeit with more latency
>>51791589
1 and 0s mate it will make it there or it wont, so no you will not notice any quality difference at all
>>51791589
You apparently do not understand the concept of a digital signal.
>>51791622
Why would cable length affect latency? Unless there's some kind of repeater in it.
>>51791589
you should be under 30, but you can go 50 or so and be fine with QUALITY cables. always use good cables, even for short runs.
>>51791681
Yeah get diamond-infused apple approved cables.
>>51791600
>>51791622
>>51791626
>>51791635
No, that's wrong :) Only if you buy proper audiophile grade cable you'll be able to enjoy vibrant clear sound and crisp picture :) The ones who say otherwise are just poor and cannot afford the true quality ;)
http://aphroditecu29.com/ViaBlue/DigitalHDMI.aspx
so its just a myth, fantastic, thanks guys.
i was thinking of buying a 32 feet cable to connect my monitor to a HDMI splitter and the splitter to my cable box , and another way shorter cable to connect my pc.
>>51791696
You're a faggot OP
>>51791681
>pay 50$ for a HDMI cable
>>51791696
This guy gets it
by the way, i'm going from have a 90s tv connect by those color cables to a modern pc monitor with HDMI.
i'm guessing even the worse hdmi cable is better right?
>>51791707
i wouldnt exactly say myth, but dont give into the jews.
i've had lots of $2 cables just randomly break, and they were never disconnected once hooked up.
I make it a principle not to spend less than $10 on a HDMI cable
MASTER RACE
>>51791589
>2k+15
>Not understanding the benefits of digital transmission over analog.
Please leave
>>51791696
Nice ropes to hang yourself with.
>>51791589
I have a 10 meter cable. The screen goes black for a second from time to time. Once or twice per day, sometimes not at all.
>>51792169
I paid 15 bucks for it by the way
>>51792169
Probably has something more to do with the monitor/tv rather than the cable.
>>51792208
I was thinking it was a buffering problem on the TV. It doesn't happen with a short cable.
>>51791589
At length, you'll eventually see artifacting, then eventually it just won't work. Latency won't increase, the signal moves at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
If there's no artifacting, you are fine.
I don't understand why everybody says that digital is all or nothing. It doesn't seem impossible that some bits get flipped during transit. There's obviously some kind of error correction, but given enough error you won't be able to transmit the signal fast enough, no?
Or would the signal just fail completely in that case?
>>51792433
Given enough error the signal is just ignored.
The amount of bandwidth you need is fixed, if error means you're utilizing less than you need then the connection plain fails.
![61f06+mKvjL._SL1200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TSa4Qdi.jpg "61f06+mKvjL._SL1200_[1].jpg")
50 feet is the max length, anything longer and you'll need to buy a signal booster like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-Equalizer-1920x1200-B122-000/dp/B000N5YF9Y
>>51791600
>>51791622
>>51791626
>>51791635
Not understanding a basic electricity concept
more lenght you have higher the resistance to the signal you ll have
So you ll need a boster or a high end cable with low resistance like gold or cooper ...
