Thanks Onuris. It makes sense in that arena that you'd run nice everything, including cables, if for nothing more than the eye candy effect. It would be kind of strange to have a generic drug store cable coming out of the back of a Krell, Mcintosh, or similar flavor...lol. It would be like installing a vinyl interior on a Ferrari.
Regarding the HDMI format, I know it has received a lot of criticism by the industry primarily but on the other hand, someone had to decide upon something. I know that component cables, contrary to some popular info, is in capable of carrying a 1080p signal but as I understand it the RCA connector could be the limiting factor. Is it true that RCA could limit the data transfer rate or that it's at least pushing the rate capabilities now? I guess the industry could have gone with component but they might have been forced to change connector types for future proofing. Plus, if component manufacturers were to use optical again for sound some would want the option of digital coax. I guess what I'm saying is that by not going with the HDMI format, manufacturers would be scrambling to get the correct number of component, optical, and digital coax's just like they did ten years ago, where few consumers were ever perfectly happy. The simplicity is a major advantage to 95+% of the consumer market with absolutely no downside for that same percentage. For those rare situations where sparklies and dropouts occur the owner need only to get a new cable.
Lastly, I have to ask if any of the high end HDMI cables you're commonly using have ferrite cores attached and if not, why any manufacturer would be using them on digital signal carriers?
Thanks Onuris.
P.S. Thank you for those links too!
Yes a similar flavor- Lexicon, Legacy, etc. Krell and McIntosh make some really nice stuff, we used a Krell Evo 707 processor and Evo mono amps in the big $1.2 mil install we did. Have seen but not worked with any McIntosh stuff, but I know it is nice. I like their classic retro look as well, we have considered carrying their products.
As far as an RCA connector limiting the data transfer rate I don't believe it would on a cable designed for digital signals. In fact, I believe that having an HD digital coaxial cable using RCA or BNC connectors could be designed to have the same or greater bit rates and pixel clock rates than HDMI and would be far superior to it, esp in the area of carrying a digital signal over longer distances. And while length is also a limiting factor, optical cables are the way to go for true high-end digital signal transmissions between components. I am using HDMI, but the cables b/t the equipment are only 1 meter. The longest run I have is b/t the video processor in my equipment rack and the projector in the ceiling in my theater, and I am using component video for that.
While it is true that an HDMI cable is carrying digital data, it is still using an electrical signal to do so, just instead of a sine wave as with an analog signal, it is a series of pulses that represent the bitstream. So it is susceptible to the same high frequency/radio frequency interference as an analog signal.
Most of the high-end HDMI cables are sufficiently shielded that a ferrite suppressor is probably overkill. Kimber cable is the only high-end manufacturer that I am aware of that uses ferrites in addition to heavy shielding in their cables. Ferrites are mostly used in the lower cost cables b/c they are effective and less costly than heavy shielding.
Oh, and a few hundred bucks for a cable is nothing in the high-end world. Check these out.
http://transparentcable.com/products/pdf/prices/retail_prices_04-2009.pdf
And for the record, LCDs are still inferior to plasmas
Not necessarily, it depends on the viewing environment and the quality of the component.
In a dark room, top of the line plasma vs top of the line LCD, your statement would be true. But in a well-lit room, the LCD will be capable of a superior picture. As far as overall picture quality, plasmas excel in black levels/contrast, color accuracy and vibrancy, depth perception, motion accuracy/stability, and viewing angle. LCDs typically excel in gray scaling accuracy and brightness.
LCDs also produce a much better static image than a plasma. Compare the two with channels such as Weatherscan or one of the music channels for instance. The plasma image will look jagged, while the LCD would be sharp and well-defined. This is one reason why plasmas are not used for computer monitors. But for moving video, plasma is far superior. Plasmas may also be susceptible to image burn in, where static images are eventually etched into the glass element and remain there even when the signal is no longer there. An example would be the station icons used on the lower right corner. While in the past images could burn in in as little as 15 min, plasmas have gotten much better now, with ghosting that can be removed/washed out by displaying a gray screen to take over an hour, and permanent burn in well over 10 hours. But LCD is immune to this completely. Another reason why computer monitors are LCD. Another area where LCDs are superior is in longevity, although plasmas are getting better, esp. the high-end models. An LCD will last as long as its backlight, and most of those can be replaced. And many new sets use LED backlighting that can last over 100,000 hours. Not so with a plasma, which uses electronic currents to excite a combination of noble gases (xenon, neon, argon) which have a limited life span, about 100,000 hours to their half-life, meaning at that time, the phosphors will glow half as bright as they did when new. There is a long period of time where the phosphors will remain as bright as when first new/broken in, but after that will continue to degrade over time. And there is no way to recharge or replace these gases once that starts to happen. Lastly, LCDs are much more energy efficient, typically their power consumption is about half that of a plasma of the same size.
All that said, as the manufactures continue to improve their products, the differences b/t the two formats are becoming incresingly less noticeable, esp. with LCDs.
The true superior TV/monitor format would have to be Mitsubishi's Laser Vue DLP. As with a front DLP projector you simply cannot get a better picture at this time.
