HDMI cable 60 Hz versus 120 Hz

Gizmodo did a review of this and the deal is that if your cable is going to be over on the order of ~30-40 feet or so then the cable might show some visible differences.. other than that it will pretty much work or not work.

Stick with the cheaper one.

For analogue signals interconnects can have a profound effect on sound quality, but theoretically for digital bits are bits and they just need to travel from one end to the other.

I have no doubt that some HDMI cables will be better made, with better conductors/connectors and may have a marginal effect on output quality but frankly I'd try the one you have first - if you feel the image is lacking somehow try something else but yuo may be pleasantly surprised with what you've got.

The appleTV can only output a signal at 50Hz or 60Hz so there is really no point in spending extra on a 120Hz cable. Also I`d be very suprised if your cable box outputs higher than 60Hz as well.

Exactly, 120Hz is the refresh rate of the TV.. has nothing to do with the signal being sent from the appleTV. but as far as cables go unless you have really long runs of cable.. like 40 feet... you are not going to see any difference. Don't believe the snake oil. these are not analog cables.. as long as they can handle the data rate, digital cables will work or not.

Message was edited by: tmartine

Don't waste your money. I get all my cables from monoprice.com and never have any issues with quality. Hard to beat this one for less then $10 shipped http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?cid=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024003&pid=3991&seq=1&format=2

Having a 120 Hz tv will not create any addition requirements in terms of cabling. However if you are watching in 1080p you do technically require a category 2 HDMI cable, your picture may begin to break up without one.

I doubt it'd make a blind bit of difference. Cabling has been the biggest con in the business for years. When I was at Uni we did a little test with expensive interconnects versus cheapo ones. The expensive ones were 40 times the price of the cheap ones and from a very reputable supplier *no names will be mentioned here*. They had lovely tactile rubbery sheaths and gold connectors. But when we analysed them they performed identically to the cheapo wire. And when we pulled 'em apart, the wire was made of the same metal. And I seriously doubt that the situation is any different for HDMI.

I believe the 120 Hz refresh rate on the tv is only for extremely fast action anyhow.

but that 120Hz never goes through the cable.. your TV is taking a 60Hz signal that DOES go through the cable to the TV but doubling (to 120Hz) is happening on the TV itself..

again, the cable is only carrying 60Hz NOT 120Hz.. if the salesman is telling you that you need a 120Hz cable.. at best he just doesn't know what he's talking about and at worst he's straight up scamming you.

the HDMI 1.3 spec. specifies two categories 1 and 2... you'll need category 2 for 1080p, category 1 is only guaranteed for (720p/1080i) which is like what your Comcast box is spits out.

but that said HDMI cable that are spec'd as HDMI 1 and/or 1.2 will almost all work for 1080p (i.e. will work as HDMI 1.3 category 2 cables)... the 1.3 spec just adds a test that guarantees this.. HDMI 1.3 guarantees up to 1600p (which there is no media for and no TVs that can display on the market)

WHOA! Holy 120Hz misconceptions batman...
120 is divisible by 24 without a remainder which means that films shot at 24 fps will not need any 3:2 pull-down processing. Every frame of your dvd or Bluray disk will get 5 refreshes of the LCD. At 60Hz obviously some frames would get 2 and some 3; people didn't like that idea even though it's barely perceivable. What people don't like about the 120 Hz is the "Soap-Opera" effect, just burn a flick at any HD resolution and you'll see what I mean. It's extrememly similar since TV shows are shot at 30 fps, and viewed at 60 fps.

So why would I want a 120Hz TV that needa an expensive 120Hz cable to watch 24fps content when most new LCDs accept a 24Hz signal anyway. My samsung accepts 24Hz, 50Hz and 60Hz which covers all the content your ever going to play so whats the point of 120Hz?

Roidy wrote:
So why would I want a 120Hz TV that needa an expensive 120Hz cable to watch 24fps content when most new LCDs accept a 24Hz signal anyway. My samsung accepts 24Hz, 50Hz and 60Hz which covers all the content your ever going to play so whats the point of 120Hz?

There are but a handful of tv's that currently accept 24 Hz input, out of those that do some may accept it but still display it at 50/60 Hz which defeats the whole purpose of it.

Additionally having a 120 Hz tv does not require you have a different cable at all, I think this has been adequately stated already. What you do need a different cable for is 1080p and this applies to all tv's whether they are 120 Hz or not.

off topic but..

there are a few reasons..

1) as Ron Ellis has stated 120 is evenly divisible by 24 (films are shot at 24fps) so 120Hz TV can do 5:5 pull down rather than 3:2 pull down. 3:2 pull down will look slightly different (jerkier) and slightly more eye fatiguing than the original 24fps film).. in order to show the 24fps on an flat panel with a native refresh rate is 60Hz you need to repeat frames.. 3x for frame 1st frame and 2x for second (uneven)and repeat and repeat every second.. for 120Hz TV you repeat 5 frames for 1st frame and 5 for the second (even).. so 5:5 pull down will look smoother and more film like than 3:2 pull down.

2)supposedly helps with motion blur that had been associated with much older gen LCDs.. new LCDs don't suffer from this as much... this is supposed to be a solution fixing a perception problem rather than a real one.

3) this one is one of a matter of taste.. most of the sets have an anti-judder/ smoothing feature. since film is shot at 24fps, when panning or when things are move accross screen they move jerkily on film and you get motion blur.. so frames aren't just repeated, some processing goes on to remove the motion blur and to fill in the intervening frames with what probably should be there. the video takes on the look more like if it was shot with an HD video camera rather than on film. and in certain instances you see more detail and clarity than anticipated by the director.. i watched Spiderman at the BestBuy on a 120Hz TV and you could see some of the cheap set elements in the background that i'm sure the director anticipated would be blurred out and not that visible.. anyway the picture looks rock solid and not film like anymore.. it's a matter of taste what you like (i personally don't like it) but it is definitely not what the director intended or anticipated the movie would look like