What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for?
I saw this post and wanted to ask the opposite. What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for? Preferably more extreme or unexpected examples.
You are viewing a single comment
Digital cables, like HDMI and USB. If they meet the spec, they should operate identically.
ETA: It's a digital signal: either it works or it doesn't. There's no "higher quality" version of the same image. Sure, if you have a 4K 120hz HDR signal you might need an HDMI 2.1 spec cable, but as long as it meets that spec, it'll either work or need to be returned. The signal won't be washed out, or crackly, or static-y (all the concerns we had with analog video cables back in the day); the signal might not work, or it might drop out from time to time, which means it doesn't meet spec.
Same with USB-C. If it doesn't charge your phone correctly, or have the transfer speeds you want, because you bought it at a Dollar Store and it isn't in spec, the problem isn't USB-C, it's the fact that the manufacturer sold you an out-of-spec cable.
Getting good quality cables can make a difference.
Getting gold-plated cables will not ever. I fucking see you Monster. For $40 a cable that thing better also come with a free handy and an ice cream.
"Quality" just means "in spec." It's a digital signal; it can't be of a higher or lower quality, it just either works or it doesn't.
Build quality does matter though. Especially for a cable that will be plugged in and out frequently.
That was kind of my point with the gold plated cables though; the ads for them will act like they're better in some way and that you'll get ultra high speed super definition picture or whatever. But it's the same damn spec as the Amazon Basics cable.
The specification includes the cable's capabilities, though. And sure, build quality can affect longevity, but if it doesn't meet the minimum capability at time of manufacture, it's not in spec.
But yeah, especially back in the early 2000s/2010s when we were making the jump from analog to digital cables, a lot of companies were trying to convince consumers that digital cables had to be made of premium materials like analog cables did, despite the fact that part of the point of digital cables is that the signal is binary both in composition and in nature: it's made of 1s and 0s, but it also either works or it doesn't.
When I saw someone mentioned HDMI cables I knew I would find Monster reference somewhere, and I was pleasantly surprised it was so high up the chain of replies.
USB -C would like to talk to you. So many bad terrible cables.
"If they meet specs" is the important thing, and unfortunately that's hard to know, though that $0.99 cable at the gas station isn't going to cut it.
Hit the nail on the head there. I still need to find a decent retailer for cables I don't need a tester to confirm are in spec.
Those bad terrible cables don't meet spec, I guarantee it.
HDMI, yes. Not so much for USB cables.
USB cables are (commonly) subject to more stress; they're often moved, plugged, unplugged, and can often have lifespans far longer than the devices they're using to connect. There are other, non-spec-related factors that impact durability, such as nylon wrapping, more robust connectors, and so on. Durability isn't as much a factor for HDMI, ethernet, or optical cables, but for USB, sometimes durability is worth extra money, if only to reduce e-waste.
That isn't as true with HDMI as it used to be. Now that we are pushing 4k120hz across the cables, the signal integrity matters more than it did when HDMI was commonly used for 1080p60.
This is even moreso the case if you have longer HDMI runs.
But you're still not going to get appreciably different performance or longevity from a $50 USB-C cable than from a $10 USB-C cable.
And I recognize that it's not exactly the same thing, but as a decent rule of thumb, if the company is willing to actually build the thing in spec, they're probably doing a good enough job that it's going to last a reasonable amount of time, so the spec is still useful for that purpose. To wit: I've never had an in-spec USB-C cable or connector fail.
I have, but your probably right in the general.
Most recently, I had a plug housing (aluminium) seperate from the guts when I tugged on it. It's not like it happens frequently; Apple lightning cables are far more fragile, but that's probably by design.
Not unless you're on the bleeding edge of tech. You need a specific cable to get the full bandwidth of 4K 144Hz in HDR via HDMI, and the ultra cheap ones just won't cut it, even if they claim to meet spec. You still don't have to spend more than ~$15, though.
Yeah, you're basically saying the same thing. For that purpose, you need something that meets the HDMI 2.1 spec. It's not a specific cable, you just need the one that meets spec, and they cost about $15.
In 99% of cases you'd be correct. There are other considerations you might want to consider when buying a cable other than just meeting spec. For example, if you have a pet, getting a cable with a durable nylon sleeve might be a good idea.
Another thing that might be worth in some unique situations would be getting a more flexible cable so it could squeeze in a tight space, or a 45β°/90β° connector...
Note that it doesn't always means that it will be expensive to get, and I do agree with you that the important thing is to stay away from the snake oil cables who promise better image/sound quality or whatever.
The same goes for OTC medicine. If it has the active ingredients, you don't need a name brand.
In theory, but sadly the market is flooded with crappy usb C cables.