Wireworld introduces new HDMI cable...for just $1000

[BrianKonarsMac]

lol i can get an hdmi at bestbuy for $40

You should shop around. Despite how well that salesman is able to convince you the nitrogen injected gold cabling improves the picture quality 10 fold and is worth every penny - it's not. You can get these cables for pennies on the dollar off the internet.

I rigged up an old VCR I found at the Salvation Army with one of these, and played back some VHS movies I picked up at the flea market, and now they look better than HD!

 

[JoEw]

Don't HDMI cables just take 1's and 0's from one device and take them to another device? I don't see how a $1000 dollar cable does anything different then a $4 dollar cable does.

 

[dmw007]

$1,000, that is just absurd!

 

[yg17]

one thing i wonder...what kind of people do they target? what do they think while making this cable?

The kind of people they're targeting are the filthy rich people who have already invested tens of thousands of dollars into a home theater and will buy a $1,000 HDMI cable because it's pocket change to them, and they're under the belief that if it's more expensive, it must be better.

I think digital signals tend to behave in quite an analogue manner when 'the signal doesn't arrive'. Sparkles from poorly manufactured cables and long runs are pretty common - there's all sorts of silly technical posts on why hdmi/etc isn't really the best way of transmitting a/v. Obviously it works pretty well for most people, but us consumers still need something else to buy into in the future
You're right about the $2 cable being able to match the performance though.

Gizmodo did some tests with professional monitoring equipment to monitor actual signals going across HDMI cables. They compared a cheap Monoprice cable to a Monster cable. The conclusion was that a 1080p signal transmitted across either cable was basically identical, the much more expensive Monster cable provided absolutely no benefit. Both cables are more than capable of carrying anything our equipment today can put out, and probably for the next several years. However, the test determined that if we were ever going to go beyond 1080p (and I don't see home theater going beyond 1080p anytime soon), to even higher resolutions with more bandwidth, more amount of data could be shoved across a Monster cable than the Monoprice one (so perhaps there's some merit in the claim that Monster cables are built better, but it's irrelevant). So the more expensive Monster cable is future proof, correct? No, not really. If home theater ever goes beyond 1080p, there will likely be a new cable. Perhaps a newer revision of HDMI, perhaps a completely new kind of cable. Your expensive Monster cable, while it may physically be capable of carrying that extra data, will still be the current revision and the device won't even attempt the higher resolution. In fact, I think the connectors will be physically different, yet backwards compatible like USB 3.0. So you'll still have to replace that Monster cable with a newer one. Not really future proofing.

 

[notjustjay]

I think digital signals tend to behave in quite an analogue manner when 'the signal doesn't arrive'. Sparkles from poorly manufactured cables and long runs are pretty common - there's all sorts of silly technical posts on why hdmi/etc

The truth may be somewhere in the middle depending on the format of the digital data being translated. A text file download, you would agree, is all-digital, and therefore the file either arrives intact or it doesn't, but even if the download is corrupted, it's still mostly intelligible. Video signals can work like this -- if the digital transfer isn't 100% accurate, then depending on the format, you'll see glitches, pixelization, white blobs, but you might still see some intelligible picture.

If this happened with an HDMI cable, though, then it would be immediately obvious that 100% of the signal isn't getting through, and you'd just replace the cable. It's not a matter of cable A resolves a fuzzy 700 lines of the original 1080p picture while pricier cable B resolves all 1080, like how it worked with analog video.

 

[sushi]

Ah but do you have a webpage and a review for it?

Snort!

Good point.

However, somewhere in my old film picture collection, I have pictures.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Silver conductors are a decent idea, but silver connectors? I can pretty much guarantee you that tarnish is going to ruin it quick.

 

[RedTomato]

Silver conductors are a decent idea, but silver connectors? I can pretty much guarantee you that tarnish is going to ruin it quick.

You'll just have to buy a new one then. In-built obsolescence is the latest technology fad, yeah?

 

[hmmfe]

Silver conductors are a decent idea, but silver connectors? I can pretty much guarantee you that tarnish is going to ruin it quick.

I'd withdraw that guarantee quick. Among the other outstanding qualities of silver is that the tarnish is very electrically conductive. Hence, when you are serious about conductivity, silver is the clear choice.

 

[RedTomato]

Snort!

Good point.

However, somewhere in my old film picture collection, I have pictures.

You took pictures of a 12-inch cable with a $13,000 price tag? As proof of what? Bet your wife was utterly fascinated when you showed her

 

[GSMiller]

I'd buy one...

If it came with a TV.

 

[pukifloyd]

I'd buy one...

If it came with a TV.

haha

i now remember bose came out with a similar scheme 2-3 (maybe more) years back...they were offering a free discman( cd version of walkman) with every sound isolating headphones(i dont know about US but in my country they were)...and in those days discmans were very expensive...it was fun to see ads : Free discmans with Bose new headphones

this cable is fail...i doubt they'll even sell 10...

 

[paddy]

this cable is fail...i doubt they'll even sell 10...

Oh they will! Have no fear of that.

 

[obeygiant]

Just got 4- 6 foot hdmi cables with shielding off mwave.com for $5.99 a piece.