kindergarten maths time:
50Gbyte = 400Gbit + framing bit overhead

at 1.65Gbps, it would take 4 minutes to do a complete transfer
but why do you want to watch a whole movie in 4 minutes?

by the way, the actual specs for HDMI 1.2 are:
Maximum signal bandwidth (MHz) 165
Maximum TMDS bandwidth (Gbit/s) 4.95
Maximum video bandwidth (Gbit/s) 3.96

so 4.95Gbps should be the correct spec, not 1.65Gbps

This post has been edited by neb: Dec 4 2009, 01:16 AM

So presume those "Good quality, expensive and branded" HDMI do really transfer data tat fast.. but do we really need that kind of muscle?

GB and Gb are 2 different things..

and 1000MB and 1GB are 2 different things also..

anyway, one BD may store 50GB but bottle neck at Optical transport transfer speed (not at peak interface bandwidth) (and interface i.e. SATA, HDMI is just video connection without error correction)



This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 4 2009, 01:56 AM

wat bottle neck? isn't light travel faster than electron?

just kidding
So wat is a transfer rate of a typical 1080p60 + LPCM 7.1 signal?

what is all the fuss? u want to buy cheap HDMI buy la. I NEVER said it wont work. but there is no gurantee it will work. If it work, just enjoy ur saving

Again you are confusing the issues. Understandably as a Monster reseller you want to push your Monster cables, but please get your facts straight and know the difference between the theoretical and practical.

So what if your Monster Ultra 800 HDMI cable is called "Advanced High Speed" and can achieve greater than 6.68 Gbps and exceeds 1080p resolution requirements? Please explain the practical benefits of this.

This post has been edited by jchong: Dec 4 2009, 09:28 AM

No fuss. As you are the 1st real expert in the industry to voice you opinions here, I would like to know your opinion on cables at lengths shorter than 10ft.

I believe that people can buy any cable at any price, it their money and they can decide. I am only looking for data.

Also could you pls recommend a decently built cable that would work for most people.

Thanks

Cable length

Although no maximum length for an HDMI cable is specified, signal attenuation—dependent on the cable's construction quality and conducting materials—limits usable lengths in practice.[56] HDMI 1.3 defines two cable categories: Category 1-certified cables, which have been tested at 74.5 MHz (720p60 and 1080i60), and Category 2-certified cables, which have been tested at 340 MHz (1080p60 and 2160p30).[53][57][58] Category 1 HDMI cables are to be marketed as "Standard" and Category 2 HDMI cables as "High Speed".[1] This labeling guideline for HDMI cables went into effect on October 17, 2008.[59][60] Category 1 and 2 cables can either meet the required parameter specifications for interpair skew, far-end crosstalk, attenuation, and differential impedance, or they can meet the required nonequalized/equalized eye diagram requirements.[57] A cable of about 5 meters (16 ft.) can be manufactured to Category 1 specifications easily and inexpensively by using 28 AWG (0.081 mm²) conductors.[56] With better quality construction and materials, including 24 AWG (0.205 mm²) conductors, an HDMI cable can reach lengths of up to 15 meters (49 ft.).[56] Many HDMI cables under 5 meters of length that were made before the HDMI 1.3 specification can work as Category 2 cables, but only Category 2-tested cables are guaranteed to work.[61]

Eager to know also . I have too many HDMI cables with me that could probably have 'affected' my eyesight to determine which is better . I did pass some to ar188. For audio, I can safely say that no noticable difference between a non-branded well-built HDMI cable with Audioquest, Giraffe, Panasonic as well as Wireworld. Probably the branded cable aint expensive enough. No pun intended.

The fuss is simply about whether expensive or high-end HDMI cables offer any improvements/benefits over cheaper HDMI cables?

looks like according to monster the standard speed only can support DVD and HD broadcast



High speed for 1080p and HD sound



Advance high speed can get ultra high definition 1080p, i dont know there is actually a ultra-high version of 1080p. and theater quality sound? is it better that the HD audio provided by high speed cable???



Ultra high speed is where the claim get even more insane, are they saying 120HZ tv dont work with their other cable, the HD loseless audio only work on this "ultra high speed" cable

why is it my low end cable able to support all these feature ?



This post has been edited by robertngo: Dec 4 2009, 09:58 AM

I totally agree with you.

If you think you are happy with whatever cable you are using. Then be it.

It's a free world. Nobody pointing a gun at your head to buy any cable if you don't want to.

Monster or not Monster, if it's good enough for you, you are good.

The topic on cheap or expensive HDMI cable is an endless debate, because everybody has a different budget and expectation.

This post has been edited by DigitalTech: Dec 4 2009, 09:58 AM

LOL..... i dont see any difference with the more expensive HDMI cable.

somehow the "expert" comment is too ambiguous for me..

cheap is how cheap, expensive cables means how much?
branded type is which brand, please state model and brand..
certified cat 1 and cat 2 is tested at what length..??

as the blue jeans article stated, certification done at 2meter length for Cat2 doesnt mean it's certified at 5mtr or 10mtr or 50 feet etc...

and as the audioholics article stated, even if fail eye test at 720/1080i but still able to pass thro perfectly good 1080p video with no visible artifacts...

Please don't take all these overwhelming inquiry here too offensive.
As anfieldude point out, u r the expert of this industry. perhaps u can share with us your insight.

networking cable can be used for extended HDMI cable run, very interesting
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=36686210

got error correction between this 2 dongle..??

I have no idea, check out the description



get the white paper on "hdmi over networking cable" for free, hot off the press, 2009 edition:
http://www.dplrating.org/dpl/article/using...tenders-go-long


alternative to hdmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort


This post has been edited by neb: Dec 4 2009, 05:32 PM

OT a bit...

Is there any debate on expensive VGA cables performs better than cheap VGA cables? or DVI-D ?

vga is analog maybe got subtle difference at longer cable lengths. But then not many buy branded vga anyway. As for dvi-d thats digital.