Searching for HDMI cable for my PS3

[Agent]

The other obvious issue is the cable construction quality. I've had a few £1 cables and they've not be the best in terms of not falling to bits after being moved a few times.

But otherwise as everyone has said - HDMI logo = job done or it's faulty.

I've found these pretty good construction wise and at a fiver, you can't really go wrong. It's worth factoring in if you unplug cables a lot - I know I do!

[jim]

I've got one of those, only problem is it's not as flexible as normal cables. It's certainly pretty robust though.

[Carper]

just remember if you have a 3d tv you need a 3d hdmi cable

[Agent]

just remember if you have a 3d tv you need a 3d hdmi cable

You need a "High Speed HDMI" or a "High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet". There is no "3D HDMI cable".

Now stop spamming your way to 20 posts with throw away comments.

[Funkstar]

just remember if you have a 3d tv you need a 3d hdmi cable

Well I don't think you get cables that are so flat they would be classed as 2D

According to that Wikipedia article, if the cable is High Speed and can handle 1080p then it can handle 3D. No need to fall for the 3D marketing hype.

[Macadee]

I got some of these http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...ls_o03_s00_i00 a few months ago for my lads XB360, can't fault them for £3.65 delivered.

[Dareos]

Had a cable in the past that wouldnt do 3d, iirc the best cable to get is 1.4a which can handle ethernet over hdmi and 3d to boot.

As far as gold plating is concerned, are the connections on your TV gold plated? no, didnt think so

[fusioned]

There was a topic about HDMI cables on avforums - and how some justify spending £xx/metre on what is basically a collection of digital signals.

It comes down to this: if your cable can transfer at a high enough speed over the distance required, that's fine, regardless of where you brought it from, and what it says on the cable.

If you have a 5m long cable, and it can transfer a Full HD 3D signal which needs approx 6.75Gbps of bandwidth without degradation, that's great.

Now, in most cases, excepting junk, short cables (up to 5m) will show HD quality media without any issues. These cables may pass as category 2 if they had been tested more recently. Of course it is still possible to buy poor quality short HDMI cables that won't transmit your HD signal, just as you can buy cheap USB cables that don't quite charge your phone.

Cables are tested and rated accordingly, and if it happens that you brought a cable before HDMI 1.4 (or even 1.3) was ratified, and it happens that it was of decent enough quality to transmit 3D footage, then these would be the equivalent to cables rated as category 2 (aka High Speed) which are certified for the higher bandwidth when HDMI 1.3 came out. HDMI 1.3 Category 2 cables are certified up to 10Gbps.

Coming back to the first paragraph, how are expensive cables justified?

When you need length. Go hook up a cheap 10 metre cable (or even 30m) - at some point, the stream of 1001011110 will succumb to attenuation and electical crosstalk and become 1000111110 and your TV picture will start to look blocky (or more likely, just go black) as the electrical signals become error prone. What a more expensive higher quality (most importantly) thicker gauge cable will do is lower the electrical resistance, and allow longer distances before signal loss.



So what does this have to do with the topic here? as long as it costs more than a few quid (not so cheap it looks like it's on a diet, not so expensive it hurts), and looks decent, it should be ok. Can't go wrong with even HDMI 1.3 'high speed' / category 2 cables.

Btw. I recommend the cables from Neet (they have an Amazon store) - they've given me great service, and reasonably priced too for the quality. I brought HDMI cables from them when it was still only the 1.3 spec, and they've worked on my 50" Panasonic without any issues - Avatar in 3D looked great!

[csgohan4]

something the op needs to know as he could end up with a useless hdmi

Bringing your point back to you, there is still no 3D HDMI you can buy. Try popping into your local PC world or maplin and ask for a 3d HDMI cable and you'll be a laughing stock. You will need as others have specified a decent transfer rate on your HDMI and currently it's 1.4. See the difference in nomenclature or rather lack of understanding or downright spamming for your 20 posts.

[gino_76ph]

I'm not an expert but i always thought gold has an advantage because it prevents corrosion and a good conductor. Haven't seen any silver-plated HDMI cables around though.

I also heard from a source that the HDMI i should be looking for must be "future proof". Meaning it has to have features such as this ARC, being high-speed, has ethernet, is double (or triple) insulated and the version should be 1.4 at least.

That makes sense isn't it?

I currently have a 5-year old full 1080p HD Sony LCD TV which i plan to replace within 12 months.

[jim]

I'm a bit confused.

Buy a cable for £3, if in 5 years' time it's vital to have one with the latest super-duper feature, buy another one for £3?

Or spend £40 now and possibly in 5 years' time the feature that this cable happened to come with might possibly come in useful. Or, more likely, we won't be using HDMI any more and you'll throw the cable away.

[Agent]

I also heard from a source that the HDMI i should be looking for must be "future proof". Meaning it has to have features such as this ARC, being high-speed, has ethernet, is double (or triple) insulated and the version should be 1.4 at least.

You're making this way more complex than you need to.

Buy a 1.4a HDMI cable for a few quid. If it doesn't work, it's faulty as it's the highest current standard.

If a new HDMI standard comes out that you need a new cable for, then buy another one for a few quid then. There is no "future proofing" as no one knows what features any new versions may implement.
You also need to keep in mind that with any new HDMI version that the devices at both ends need to support it. So if you've got an external amp and a new TV that has some awesome new feature that you need a HDMI 1.5 cable for, how much are those devices going to have knocked you back compared to a fiver for a new cable?

Sadly all this confusion is present for no good reason other than people being ripped off through marketing and stores lying.

[Larkspeed]

I'm not an expert but i always thought gold has an advantage because it prevents corrosion and a good conductor. Haven't seen any silver-plated HDMI cables around though.

if you have enough moisture in the air in your house that you need to worry about connectors corroding then more than likely the device will fail long before a cheap cable will.

As for better conductor that point is moot with digital signals. analog signals like RCA cables yes gold can give you an advantage but on any signal carrying a digital signal it's either connected or not there are no varying levels of connection.

The reason they stick gold on them is because gullible people who do not know better go ooooo it's got gold connectors it must be good.

I have even seen optical cables with gold on the ends and they only carry light

[fusioned]

The HDMI version that a cable supports is really determined by two things:

* is the quality good enough to support the required bandwidth? ('High speed')
* does it have a bi-directional data link (aka HEC)

Cables rated for 1.4a has both, and that's all you need to know - there's no other difference between any other cable rated for any other version else apart from those two criteria.

As a rule, if you're buying a 3m-long cable, you should be able to find a good one for less than 10 quid. Anything over is excessive.
That rules out a lot of the high street!

[gino_76ph]

My flat has not much moisture, its clean, tidy and warm enough. My PS3 is the new 2012 slimmer one and my Sony LCD TV is 5 years old but is capable of full 1080p full HD. My speakers system is also 5 years old but is capable of anything from Dolby to DTS to normal stereo surround. (bit not True Dolby HD surround kinda thing)

I understand that my PS3 might not "need" those features but don't you think some of those features (like double/triple/quad shielding, 24K gold plating, ARC, high speed, etc.) would at least be helpful in some way? (sorry to keep on repeating this)

A £20 cable might be in many ways "better" than a £5 don't you think as such because of these such-and-such features?

[Larkspeed]

I understand that my PS3 might not "need" those features but don't you think some of those features (like double/triple/quad shielding, 24K gold plating, ARC, high speed, etc.) would at least be helpful in some way? (sorry to keep on repeating this)

A £20 cable might be in many ways "better" than a £5 don't you think as such because of these such-and-such features?

Short answer:

No

Long answer:

The only way it may be better is build quality but unless you are frequently moving the items that are plugged in around then that does not matter either.

all the other features you list are just marketing hype to get you to spend more.

HDMI 1.4 is all you need to worry about

But hey everyone is telling you the same thing and you keep wanting to insist that a 20 quid cable must be better because they are described as having totally pointless "features" so you go buy your 20 quid cable and enjoy your nice clear picture and sound........

Just keep in the back of your head that I will be enjoying the same high quality of picture and sound through my 1.99 cables