VGA supports 1920x1080 (and higher) and any lower resolution in between no problem..

but digital would be a better signal path from source to display.. especially LCD monitorss (which have to convert analog VGA back to digital and introduce much rounding errors during signal conversion)

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 19 2008, 11:46 PM

yeah it can go really high, but the caveat it that its valid for shorter lengths probably 1-2 meters is best... at ultra high rez it's pretty prone to signal sync problems at long foot runs say 3-5meters.... not very good solution for projectors..unless you use a VGA signal booster...

it's always good to get decent cables.. if only for it's decent materials used and construction and physical ruggedness/long lastingness.
as mention before, digital cables do not have the ability to change the color/video characteristics of the video digital signal, only the ability to corrupt it in very abrupt manner flashes of white frames/sparklies purple video etc....
but of coz, this is engineering point of view,
subjectively people feel differently.. even blind A/B test with the same audio or video material can produce different remarks or choices...

agreed, and it's also good to know that all the components including cables in the AV chain is decently built and good quality. since already paid 5 figures (for example for bd source/display/av amp speakers etc) no point not to spend few hundred on nice decent interconnects..

if data is lost while transfering via USB, then the file becomes corrupted..

if you have a letter in word file transfered via corrupted USB link, I don't think suddenly a few new meaningful sentences or words will appear in your letter right?

most likely you get garbled ascii text or the word document refuse to open.

same with HDMI, if signal doesn't go thro properly then you get abrupt video frames error.. not suddenly it become "less" sharp picture or less contrast or reduced resolution... how come people still have those "analog Audio cable" mentality ar?

hehe! patience is a virtue mah..

---

Added on December 22, 2008, 9:53 amfew pages back, there is a link on thereview of cables using super expensive tektronix equipment lent to by Monster cable to test the eye pattern...

interesting fact is all cheapo HDMI1.3 cables at below 3meter passes the test..

above that maybe 5-10meter range, maybe 1-2 cables begin to show the eye pattern collapsing (but still valid pattern) and still data integrity is intact (pass the test)... and this is with 1080p deep color signal.

and when the cables fail at higher test, the video show abrupt video symptoms not minor loss of detail or reduced contrast/sharpness etc..

so if HDMI cable not meet the spec then it should fail the video transmisson totally.. it's either you got a major problem which can notice immediately or not have any visible video problem. this is the Digital transmission characteristic..

---

Added on December 22, 2008, 9:57 amyes, but if it's slower speed, then it's not rated at readyboost compliant 6MBps or it will just state as 3MBps write /rewrite etc..

if it's already compliant then it'll reach that speed.. unless it's fake.

so maybe the only logic for cheapo HDMI cables not performing is that maybe it's just a cheap 1st gen HDMI rebadged to 1.3 spec..

hehe!

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 22 2008, 09:57 AM

you really sound like you don't know what you are talking about.. the output is measured with a Tektronix Signal analyser and the output is in the form of "eye pattern"..
if a USD10.00 cable passes the HDMI 1080p bandwidth test using this 6figure machine (which the article few pages back confirmed), all your reasoning about 5v/high.low resistance/copper prices etc doesn't matter.

---

Added on December 22, 2008, 6:58 pmalamak.. no wonder la.. UK mag reader.. (analog audio cable mentality)

UK mags are good for audio reviews and such.. but when it comes to AV (especially the "V" as in video..), best leave the reviews to USA AV mags..

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 22 2008, 06:58 PM

just for clarity,.. accept what? that expensive cables does or doesn't make a difference compared to good but cost effective cables?

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 22 2008, 07:33 PM

yes, if it improves 10% of the quality then I would even buy them even if it costs 1k.. then that's where the reasoning breaks down, how can a digital cable improve anything? it's just a copper cable not a Hidef Video Processor.. (unlike analog AV cables which can degrade a analog audio/video signal)

still you don't get the gist of what I'm trying to say from a technical point of view.. the USD10 cable and the USD300 cable all pass the HDMI1.3 test.. using super precise testing equipment loaned by monster cable themselves.

if you say, people want to spend on 1k cable just because they got money, go ahead, that's nothing wrong with that, just don't tell me that a lesser good quality cable won't pass the data thro properly. cos at the end of the day,
it's whether if the digital data goes thro 100% or it doesn't and if it doesn't, you will know it cos it will be abrupt.

it cant make it 5% better or 10% less from it's source to the TV..

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 22 2008, 10:01 PM

I wonder if it improves the visual quality as much as a USD250 BD-35 player.. since they are in the same price range..

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 23 2008, 12:28 AM

why need to write? they can't proof it themselves from a scientific and engineering point of view, that theirs is better than those OEM 1.3 spec good quality but way way cheaper cables.

just don't tell me their 1k cable is gonna transfer digital data meeting the 1.3 spec while other OEM freebies doesnt?.

if people want to buy expensive cables because it looks good and have good thick cable construction and use good quality materials by all means go ahead.. no arguement here.

the discussion here is that people think only expensive cables meets the HDMI 1.3 spec while cheap cables doesn't meet HDMI 1.3 spec.. because that's all you need to care about as far as digital cables are concern whether it meets the spec or not...

hence why we don't care about monster cable 2.0 USB cables if there is such a thing compared to normal freebie 2.0 cables. only the analog audio/video community will fall for these $$$ traps cos they don't understand digital concept at all...

seriously I dun mind getting those branded cables.. it makes my setup looks nice and complete...

but I never for 1second will accept the argument that any lesser priced good quality (no bells and whistles) plain 1.3 spec cable will not be able to pass thro HDMI 1.3 data properly and will result in data corruption of the video.

OMG from me also.. HTPC with Monster?? wah...

as for me since 1990 already started using monster 300 and 400 series interconnects and also S-video 3meter cable to connect my LD player to my Yamaha DSP AV amp/TV.. so surely I know the importance of good analog signal interconnects.. but when it comes to digital cables that's another ballgame all together..


wah you got so many branded cables..
if got freebie you know who to pass to...

This post has been edited by ar188: Dec 23 2008, 11:24 PM

the final word on HDMI is that whether the cable is good enough to meet the "minimum" bandwidth to transfer digital Data at Full rated speed of HDMI 1.3 spec.

video/audio signals doesn't matter.. as far as the HDMI interface is concern, they don't "See" or know that they are transmitting analog audio/video. just transmitting pure digital data.
so why say it "slightly" improves sound or video?

I think these people better not study engineering cos sure fail wan.. sorry but that's the truth...

if you got money to buy expensive cables, we just take it as that, it's your money you can do anything you like with it.. fine by me. not gonna argue, I like branded nice things as well.

Just don't try to convince other people about otherwise, especially about electronics theory and suchs.. even monster cable can't shoot down or disprove other cheaper but good quality brands. how you expect lay person "so called audiophiles" to argue from engineering point of view that 1k HDMI cables do make a difference compared to good quality 200 bucks HDMI cable?

merry christmas and hepi new year.. hohoho! hehehe!

yeah could be that local prices are super marked up..

so its normal for local 'audiophiles' to pay twice the internet or us/uk price?

better you say some people spend more on HDMI cables than even a good video source like BD35 ..

our "deal" considered cheapskate or not?