Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions HDMI cables

Just to echo what was already implied: try to keep the lengths as short as possible. As long as you don't run more than 10 to 15 feet you should be fine. For longer runs you may need more expensive cables or possibly repeaters. Then you get into some money.

If you are running some serious long lengths up to 50ft+ or even up to 100ft+, the BJC Belden Series-1 Bonded-Pair HDMI Cable can be used up to 125ft without signal loss (unamplified) with certain devices.

HDMI 1.4 CL3.

Check out Partsexpress.com's Daytons.

Sweet, 3 year necro post

I did not read through all 3 pages just skimmed so if this has been stated already my apologies.
There was a website (forget the name/link) off the top of my head but they took an oscilloscope to several hdmi cables and ran test. They posted them online and the result were pretty much just about any cable under 30ft was a good choice regardless of price. The 30' mark seem to be the point were signal loss started to occur. Digital is different than analog. The hdmi cables at monoprice are great espcially for the price. I have used them and I have recommedned them for many clients in the past. Never once had any issues. If you are doing 3d then there is an issue of bandwidth. The cables at monoprice do 10.2GB which alot of reviewers say its plenty for there 3d. Not sure I have not tested this. Some places I have read said you need 15+GB bandwidth. Maybe they want you to purchase the 200$$ cable. The prices are so cheap at monoprice just grab some and if you dont like them your not out of alot of money

The math's not hard. Take the number of pixels on the screen, 1920 * 1080. Multiple that by the bits per pixel, 48, for the deepest color. Then by the frames per second, 48, for 3D. That's 4.8 gigabits/second for video.

Audio is 192,000 samples, at 24 bit, on 8 channels, or 36.9 megabits/second.

That's a total bandwidth requirement of 4,814,438,400 bits per second. Not even close to the 10.2 Gbps for which HDMI 1.3 was rated. The only needed thing the HDMI 1.4 spec really adds, the frame packing formats for the 3D video stream.

Oh, and you should use a small 'b', not a big 'B', because the measurements are in bits not Bytes.

Ken, possibly you might be referring to the tests PC World ran, described here in "The Cable Game" . In any case, as Chris clearly demonstrates, any "not enough bandwidth" claims in this situation are pure BS.

This is an excellent article on HDMI which includes bench tests at various lengths and real-world comparisons.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests

" small 'b', not a big 'B'"

You got me. Just did 12 hour day at work and was tired. I am a network technician/IT ADMin and I am aware of the differences. Thank you for correcting me. I actually didn't know the math behind the video stream and audio. Very good to know. Again thank you .

And to the cable game I do not think it was that test. This test was done strictly on hdmi cables and their lengths. I will see if I can find it I think it was done in 2007

The other thing that the 1.4 spec adds is the 4096×2160p24 frame format. Not something that will be used right away, but that's why the extra bandwidth is built in. I have a feeling we'll see an HDMI 1.5 or higher before we get 4k displays.