I'm sorry but not including HD cables = weaksauce on MS (and Sony's part)

I have to disagree not all TVs have hdmi's....so would you rather have no video at all. Furthermore HD quality depends on the fibres in the cable, so if they gave you low quality cables then your screen quality wouldn't be as good as your friend with a monster cable. This is why they range from $29.99 to $129.99. HDMI cables are usually included with TVs, are they not?

I have to disagree not all TVs have hdmi's....so would you rather have no video at all. Furthermore HD quality depends on the fibres in the cable, so if they gave you low quality cables then your screen quality wouldn't be as good as your friend with a monster cable. This is why they range from $29.99 to $129.99. HDMI cables are usually included with TVs, are they not?

Adrian_Cloud

I have 20/10 vision and the diffrence between 3 and 150 buck cables is not that significant.

[QUOTE="gago-gago"]

The 360 didn't even start with a HDMI port to begin with, so meh.

charomid

yes your right and im one that doesnt have the HDMI port. but now they took out the hdmi and component cables all together, so its basically taking a step back when they had a 1 up on sony for that one!

I would'nt have ever found monoprice if Sony included HDMI cables with their systems so some good has come out of this...

Well, MS is at it again. Instead of dropping the price and making the 360 a great value they go and add an additional $40 to the cost of the system by making people who want HD go out and buy the HD cables (of an HDMI if your TV has one - thankfully mine does). It's like...all these companies have the chance to swoop in and bury their competition, yet they're just too spineless to pull the trigger even if it cost them a little more on the bottom line. If Ms had dropped the price, left the cables and tossed in a really great bundle (like the Halo/FAble bundle) they would have a chance against the PS3 slim. I mean, you have to be dense to say that the 360 elite is a better value than the PS3 in terms of hardware. I can admit this and the PS3 is the only console I don't own at the moment (I did own it before however). Also, don't get me started on Nintendo. $250 for three years (even after the end of the shortages)? Dumb....XanaduTheBand

I have to disagree not all TVs have hdmi's....so would you rather have no video at all. Furthermore HD quality depends on the fibres in the cable, so if they gave you low quality cables then your screen quality wouldn't be as good as your friend with a monster cable. This is why they range from $29.99 to $129.99. HDMI cables are usually included with TVs, are they not?

Adrian_Cloud

you need to read this

furthermore, all hdmi cables are the same in that they deliver a digital signal. unlike analog signals, digital signals are not effected by the quality of the cable being used. the reason anyone would use an expensive hdmi cable is if you're going to run it over long distances. the added shielding used in the expensive cable prevent radio waves and other outside interference from screwing up the signal.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]

I have to disagree not all TVs have hdmi's....so would you rather have no video at all. Furthermore HD quality depends on the fibres in the cable, so if they gave you low quality cables then your screen quality wouldn't be as good as your friend with a monster cable. This is why they range from $29.99 to $129.99. HDMI cables are usually included with TVs, are they not?

ChiChiMonKilla

I have 20/10 vision and the diffrence between 3 and 150 buck cables is not that significant.

[QUOTE="XanaduTheBand"]Well, MS is at it again. Instead of dropping the price and making the 360 a great value they go and add an additional $40 to the cost of the system by making people who want HD go out and buy the HD cables (of an HDMI if your TV has one - thankfully mine does). It's like...all these companies have the chance to swoop in and bury their competition, yet they're just too spineless to pull the trigger even if it cost them a little more on the bottom line. If Ms had dropped the price, left the cables and tossed in a really great bundle (like the Halo/FAble bundle) they would have a chance against the PS3 slim. I mean, you have to be dense to say that the 360 elite is a better value than the PS3 in terms of hardware. I can admit this and the PS3 is the only console I don't own at the moment (I did own it before however). Also, don't get me started on Nintendo. $250 for three years (even after the end of the shortages)? Dumb....planbfreak4eva

maybe, maybe not. hdtv's have been around since 1997 and have only recently (5 years ago) started becoming popular in the mainstream. some electronic brands (panasonic, lg, samsung, sony) are looking at the next big thing in tv: 3d. though they look to start selling them in 2011, no single standard in 3d delivery or viewing exists meaning that you could buy panasonics 3d and have it be useless in 2 years because a 3d standard came about that doesn't utilize panasonics technology. think of it like a 3d format war.

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]

I have to disagree not all TVs have hdmi's....so would you rather have no video at all. Furthermore HD quality depends on the fibres in the cable, so if they gave you low quality cables then your screen quality wouldn't be as good as your friend with a monster cable. This is why they range from $29.99 to $129.99. HDMI cables are usually included with TVs, are they not?

Adrian_Cloud

I have 20/10 vision and the diffrence between 3 and 150 buck cables is not that significant.

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

PCWORLD

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

Yeah, they should also include 15 video games, and a 40" HDTV, and a 5.1 surround sound speaker system with A/V receiver.

Find something better to whine about. Cables are cheap. People always yelled at Sony for including features they didn't need. "Why should I have to pay for things that I'm not going to use? Atleast Microsoft gives us the option to add on" Now Microsoft is dropping HDMI and component from their Eliotes and people complain about it no longer being in there, but hey now you are no longer paying for cables not everyone needs.

My friend, if you dropped 40 for HDMI cables... Well, you make a mistake.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

I have 20/10 vision and the diffrence between 3 and 150 buck cables is not that significant.

cowgriller

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

PCWORLD

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

Well, MS is at it again. Instead of dropping the price and making the 360 a great value they go and add an additional $40 to the cost of the system by making people who want HD go out and buy the HD cables (of an HDMI if your TV has one - thankfully mine does). It's like...all these companies have the chance to swoop in and bury their competition, yet they're just too spineless to pull the trigger even if it cost them a little more on the bottom line. If Ms had dropped the price, left the cables and tossed in a really great bundle (like the Halo/FAble bundle) they would have a chance against the PS3 slim. I mean, you have to be dense to say that the 360 elite is a better value than the PS3 in terms of hardware. I can admit this and the PS3 is the only console I don't own at the moment (I did own it before however). Also, don't get me started on Nintendo. $250 for three years (even after the end of the shortages)? Dumb....XanaduTheBand

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] thats either because A) your T.V isn't 1080p or everything is upscaled B)The games aren't 1080p/720p C)Your settings aren't changed or suitable for your T.V. D)You got an amazing deal on those $3 HDMI cables E)Most' HD" channels from the box aren't Full HD F) Your vision is worse than you thinkAdrian_Cloud

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

PCWORLD

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

most tv's and dvd/blu-ray players don't come with any.

[QUOTE="XanaduTheBand"]Well, MS is at it again. Instead of dropping the price and making the 360 a great value they go and add an additional $40 to the cost of the system by making people who want HD go out and buy the HD cables (of an HDMI if your TV has one - thankfully mine does). It's like...all these companies have the chance to swoop in and bury their competition, yet they're just too spineless to pull the trigger even if it cost them a little more on the bottom line. If Ms had dropped the price, left the cables and tossed in a really great bundle (like the Halo/FAble bundle) they would have a chance against the PS3 slim. I mean, you have to be dense to say that the 360 elite is a better value than the PS3 in terms of hardware. I can admit this and the PS3 is the only console I don't own at the moment (I did own it before however). Also, don't get me started on Nintendo. $250 for three years (even after the end of the shortages)? Dumb....MortalDecay

fixed ;)

That report is misleading. It's actually the exact opposite of "digital cables are more dependable than analog ones", analog is much more robust in regards to cable quality. Thats why most people prefer it for any cabling solutions that require long distances.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

I have 20/10 vision and the diffrence between 3 and 150 buck cables is not that significant.

cowgriller

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

PCWORLD

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

What doesn't make a lick of sense is that MS always included at least a component HD cable with all Premium/Pro/Elite 360 models. It was standard for the last 3.5 years why change that now? And the cheap HDMI cable that they included with the newer systems was probably about a $10 item. Shame on Sony for not including it. But bigger shame on MS for taking it out when it used to be included. Dumb.

I think they should have kept the Pro, made it $200, and phased out the Arcade model. And for those complaining about the cable visit monoprice.com

:? So...people don't care about them not including a $10 cable, which they obviously should since both companies ALWAYS brag about HD, but everyone has a fit over Live costing $50 a year, which obviously should be free because there are ADs and no servers? :roll: System wars... I think it's very dumb of them to include crap SD cables. -_- Even 480p is a noticeable difference over 480i. Cheap asses...

Enjoy

prety sure MS just took out the HDMI cable...not HD altogether. am i wrong, show me a link that says otherwisedarkspineslayer

Enjoy

prety sure MS just took out the HDMI cable...not HD altogether. am i wrong, show me a link that says otherwisedarkspineslayer

Ya its stupid.. how do they expect people to experience hd when the cables arent included? Your definately not gonna get hd by using av cables!

Don't most HD Tv's come with an HDMI cable? Mine did and that's what my 360 is hooked up too.

That report is misleading. It's actually the exact opposite of "digital cables are more dependable than analog ones", analog is much more robust in regards to cable quality. Thats why most people prefer it for any cabling solutions that require long distances.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] thats either because A) your T.V isn't 1080p or everything is upscaled B)The games aren't 1080p/720p C)Your settings aren't changed or suitable for your T.V. D)You got an amazing deal on those $3 HDMI cables E)Most' HD" channels from the box aren't Full HD F) Your vision is worse than you thinktopgunmv

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

PCWORLD

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

that's not true at all. analog cables pass the signal as electrical frequencies where each piece of data has it's own frequency. over longer runs, the data degrades unless it's boosted/amplified. this is why digital cables are used for long runs rather than analog. think fiber optic cables instead of copper. copper does surround the fiber optic cable in larger cables (think the wires that connect servers/mainframes/cable tv) but they are used to send electricity to amplification modules. yes just like analog cables, digital signals also need to be boosted. the difference is the length at which they need to be boosted/amplified. analog cables require amplification modules more frequently than fiber optic cables do. there is also the fact that analog cables, because they send information via electric frequencies, are susceptible to outside interference like radio waves. digital cables, like fiber optics, are not. digital cables like hdmi cables are but not nearly as frequently as analog but this is minimized greatly by shielding materials like nickel and tin.

Don't most HD Tv's come with an HDMI cable? Mine did and that's what my 360 is hooked up too.

sxdx89

i guess it depends on the brand and year. i have a 2008 samsung 32a450 and a 2009 toshiba 32"-er (can't remember the model number) and neither one came with one.

I recommend reading this article.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

That report is misleading. It's actually the exact opposite of "digital cables are more dependable than analog ones", analog is much more robust in regards to cable quality. Thats why most people prefer it for any cabling solutions that require long distances.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

or, in his defense, you got suckered into buying $130 cables and are deluding yourslef into believe there is actually a difference. did you not read the link i provided?

edit:

hell here's another link and a couple of excerpts.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

[quote="PCWORLD"]

Once you get a good HDMI connection, our tests indicate, you can expect flawless performance from any 4-meter cable, regardless of price. "That is what I would expect from the HDMI cables," says Maxim's Nelson. "It is not too difficult to make them work perfectly at 4 meters."

Digital cables are inherently more dependable than analog ones. Both transmit data by controlling the voltage levels in an electrical signal. With analog, slight shifts in voltage correspond to precise values in the final picture. Thus, if the signal carrying blue color information loses voltage as it travels down the cable, the blue objects on screen will appear weaker than intended. (Think faded skies.)

For its part, digital carries just ones and zeros. In HDMI, if the signal voltage is high, it encodes a one; if low, a zero. The voltage encoded as a one can drop a fair amount and still be distinguishable from voltage encoded as a zero. After a certain point, however, the signal voltage drops so low that ones and zeros look alike, and the TV's receiver chip attempts to guess their value. So rather than gradually diminishing in accuracy, the way an analog signal does, a digital signal may remain perfect up to a critical level and then fail catastrophically. According to the experts, such problems are likelier to occur with an 8- to 12-meter copper cable (which is significantly longer than most users need) than with a 4-meter cable of the same type.

cowgriller

Whether you hook up your TV via digital connections, analog connections, or both, you are unlikely to detect any difference in picture quality between a cable with a moderate price and a luxury brand. The only difference you're likely to notice is how the cable looks behind your TV.PCWORLD

that's not true at all. analog cables pass the signal as electrical frequencies where each piece of data has it's own frequency. over longer runs, the data degrades unless it's boosted/amplified. this is why digital cables are used for long runs rather than analog. think fiber optic cables instead of copper. copper does surround the fiber optic cable in larger cables (think the wires that connect servers/mainframes/cable tv) but they are used to send electricity to amplification modules. yes just like analog cables, digital signals also need to be boosted. the difference is the length at which they need to be boosted/amplified. analog cables require amplification modules more frequently than fiber optic cables do. there is also the fact that analog cables, because they send information via electric frequencies, are susceptible to outside interference like radio waves. digital cables, like fiber optics, are not. digital cables like hdmi cables are but not nearly as frequently as analog but this is minimized greatly by shielding materials like nickel and tin.

I don't get why people are complaining now about HDMI and component cables since xbox is going to stop giving them but didnt complain like ever with the ps3 cause they haven't given them out in like years. Plus, if you want hdmi, you could buy better cables for like $15 at almost any store online or not.

meh.. $10 cables or $50+ price drops.

falconclan

:? So...people don't care about them not including a $10 cable, which they obviously should since both companies ALWAYS brag about HD, but everyone has a fit over Live costing $50 a year, which obviously should be free because there are ADs and no servers? :roll: System wars... I think it's very dumb of them to include crap SD cables. -_- Even 480p is a noticeable difference over 480i. Cheap asses...

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="sxdx89"]

Don't most HD Tv's come with an HDMI cable? Mine did and that's what my 360 is hooked up too.

cowgriller

i guess it depends on the brand and year. i have a 2008 samsung 32a450 and a 2009 toshiba 32"-er (can't remember the model number) and neither one came with one.

Oh guess it is the brand then. I have 42'' Vizio (no idea the model number) and it came with one.

[QUOTE="XanaduTheBand"]Well, MS is at it again. Instead of dropping the price and making the 360 a great value they go and add an additional $40 to the cost of the system by making people who want HD go out and buy the HD cables (of an HDMI if your TV has one - thankfully mine does). It's like...all these companies have the chance to swoop in and bury their competition, yet they're just too spineless to pull the trigger even if it cost them a little more on the bottom line. If Ms had dropped the price, left the cables and tossed in a really great bundle (like the Halo/FAble bundle) they would have a chance against the PS3 slim. I mean, you have to be dense to say that the 360 elite is a better value than the PS3 in terms of hardware. I can admit this and the PS3 is the only console I don't own at the moment (I did own it before however). Also, don't get me started on Nintendo. $250 for three years (even after the end of the shortages)? Dumb....XanderZane

I think you mean Component, not composite. But everyone here mixes those up...

You mean I should cry because I don't have another set of HDMI cables?

You mean I should cry because I don't have another set of HDMI cables?

MizFitAwesome

The Miz cry?

Its obvious anyone comparing an Elite and the new PS3 will choose PS3. This is for people replacing their 360 hence no need for another cable.EmperorSupreme

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

You mean I should cry because I don't have another set of HDMI cables?

The__Havoc

The Miz cry?

Man, I need to save that for the next debate gone bad thread in here

I'm glad they don't, seriously. Because if they did they'd act as if they were including some 50 dollar value and then act as if they would be allowed to charge up to 50 dollars more. Anyone in the know can buy cheap 2 dollar HDMI cables from monoprice and move on with their life. Anyone without an HDTV isn't getting something they don't need in the box.

Give me a break, they are like $5 / £3..

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]Its obvious anyone comparing an Elite and the new PS3 will choose PS3. This is for people replacing their 360 hence no need for another cable.thequietguy

There banking in on the casuals. $100 dollar differance, if anyone buys the arcade or the Pro now....:?. They are the customers that would buy anything with MS name on it. That includes the wifi and HDMI cables. That's not stupid for MS.