Ken Shimabukuro,
following your advice,
In the past two days, I conducted interference tests on the cables I currently have in order to gain a clearer understanding of the problem. Here are the details of the testing:
Environment Information: Mac mini Pro m2, approximately 3 meters straight-line distance from the Wi-Fi.
Four cable specifications were tested, with the left side representing the Mac mini interface specification and the right side representing the monitor interface specification:
Cable-1: HDMI to DVI
Cable-2: HDMI to MDMI (no specific mention of electromagnetic interference resistance)
Cable-3: HDMI to HDMI (product description emphasizes passing EMI testing, but no built-in ferrite core )
Cable-4: Type C to HDMI
Testing Method A:
After connecting the cables in the normal manner, I used the "ping google.com" command to obtain response time statistics and packet loss ratio.
Testing Method B:
This part of the testing focused only on the cables that experienced packet loss. I connected them in the normal manner, but I placed a loop made of a paperclip around the HDMI port on the Mac mini, making contact with the Mac mini's casing.
Results of Testing Method A:
Cable-1:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
647 packets transmitted, 493 packets received, 23.8% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 7.789/497.955/3202.940/399.555 ms
Cable-2:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
643 packets transmitted, 642 packets received, 0.2% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.586/45.693/418.921/62.881 ms
Cable-3:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
655 packets transmitted, 655 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.409/25.787/387.142/37.545 ms
Cable-4:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
3451 packets transmitted, 3451 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.420/13.269/421.740/17.034 ms
After conducting Testing Method A, it was found that Cable-3 and Cable-4 did not experience any packet loss. Therefore, only Cable-1 and Cable-2 were subjected to Testing Method B.
============================================================================
Results of Testing Method B:
Cable-1:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
72 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 80.6% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 7.306/20.203/56.552/12.645 ms
For some reason, after starting Testing Method B, the entire network almost became unresponsive with no response. Therefore, the testing for Cable-1 had to be abandoned.
Cable-2:
--- google.com ping statistics ---
761 packets transmitted, 761 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.430/12.367/180.786/14.893 ms
After two rounds of testing:
Cable-1: It was directly abandoned and no longer used on the Mac mini, as the network quality deteriorated almost every time it was used.
Cable-2: After Testing Method B, the packet loss disappeared, and the Ping statistics were similar to Cable-3 and Cable-4. However, since it requires a temporary grounding device, a longer duration of testing is needed to determine if the problem is truly resolved.
Cable-3: Similarly, it is an HDMI cable and performs normally without the need for an additional temporary grounding device. Does passing the EMI test truly achieve effective electromagnetic interference resistance?
Cable-4: It consistently performed well and helped narrow down the problem to the HDMI interface.
Currently, I am using Cable-4 and will wait until I have a longer period of free time to switch to Cable-3 or Cable-2 with the temporary grounding device and conduct extended testing (approximately half a day to a full day of normal operation).
The above information is provided for reference.