|
|
|
|
|
by ostensible
449 days ago
|
|
Well, there is now some truth to it. For example, low quality HDMI cable will may be only good enough for low bandwidth, that would limit refresh rate, and/or color fidelity (e.g. chroma subsampling) and/or resolution. So yea, “digital” cables are not immune to signal integrity issues, and better cables do perform better. I understand that monster takes this to the next level of bullshit — but in principle, yes, more expensive cable cable can yield better quality. Or should I say — crappy cable can result in quality degradation |
|
Better cables perform better, but not at all in the way that Monster suggests.
Gold plating and oxygen-free copper doesn't matter.
Any certified HDMI cable will operate at least to its certification, whether or not it is gold plated with triple shielded conductors.
I wish the HDMI forum would officially deprecate all older HDMI standards, so that companies like Monster couldn't advertise that their cables provide "better color, higher resolution, better sound", etc. All the cables in the store would be 8k HDMI 2.2 cables, or they wouldn't be allowed to use the HDMI trademark.