That was until this this month.
Tone have apparently done their homework and asked a few techy audiophile people to talk about cheap vs expensive HDMI cables. If you've ever read Gizmodo or done a Google search on the topic you'll realise this is a very hot topic with varying opinions on the matter. Typically however there are numerous tests available online that do show that there is no real difference in the quality of a signal transmitted over cheap or expensive HDMI cable unless you're talking about cable lengths in excess of probably 10 metres. HDMI is a digital signal and the quality of cable is nowhere near as relevant as with an analogue signal such as component.
So why then did Tone get a whole pile of "experts" to write on the topic and all write about how essential an expensive HDMI cable is and that buying a cheap one is a waste of money? There were a couple of people who said that picture degredation was very obvious with the cheap cables, how about providing us some proof or some research?
The whole issue of expensive cables has been a hot topic with years, lead by Monster who sell very expensive cables, give great commission to stores to sell their products, and use deceptive marketing* to sell their products. There is a little more about Monster here on Gizmodo.
If you're in the market for a HDMI cable I suggest following some basic advice. Buy a $20 cable. Buy a $200 cable. Keep your receipts and try them both. If you can't tell the difference then take the $200 one back for a refund. It's as simple as that. Don't get sucked into wasting your money on a piece of wire that's supposed to have magical properties.
*Monster have a stand that is typically on display at various Harvey Norman stores showing 2 LCD screens playing the same DVD. One shows a monster cable in bright crisp colours, the other shows the same picture looking quite pale on cheap cable. This display is used by salespeople to push people into buying $200 cables to hook their Sky box up to their new flat screen TV to ensure the best picture quality (completely ignoring the fact Sky TV have an extremely low bitrate and poor picture quality anyway). Look at the back of this display and you'll see the Monster screen uses the component output, the other screen uses a composite signal. Hardly a fair test is it?
Other related posts:
Fairfax takes journalism ethics and integrity to a whole new low with Stuff fibre
Why are airport taxes and service charges so high on Trans Tasman flights between New Zealand and Australia?
Flight reviews – Air New Zealand NZ87 Auckland (AKL) to Hong Kong (HKG) in Premium Economy and Air New Zealand NZ 80 Hong Kong (HKG) to Auckland (AKL) in Business Premier on the 777-200ER
Comment by nate, on 25-Nov-2007 21:36
Monster's advertising tactics there are blatantly deceptive, maybe a quick heads up to the Commerce Commission would sort that out?
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and shown in this blog post.