re: Should I replace HDMI Cable?

Went ahead and ordered the cable Joshnrn recommended. Will be in by Friday. Thanks for all the input and info

Ordered a new 2.1 HDMI 6' from Amazon and it's worked out well. I cant notice a huge difference in normal programming but I find there is a difference in watching sporting events.

quote:

---

I'm looking to get a new 4k OLED TV this year and want to also replace my existing HDMI cord (~35 ft run, in wall, and ~15 yrs old).

I'm looking at these cables from Monoprice LINK. They are in wall rated and HDCP 2.2 compliant. I'm interested in others thoughts (who are more knowledgeable than me) on these cables and if they should be sufficient for the next several years.

---

If you're genuinely only interested in "the next several years", that cable is fine. With that said, if I'm running a cable through a wall right now, I would prefer something that can handle 4k at 120hz instead of that cable which is limited to 4k at 60hz. With that said, how price sensitive are you? A 35' run is pretty damned long, and a 48gbps wall rated cable at that length isn't going to be cheap. Monoprice's version is over $150. Then you have cables like this that are going to be too short for you: LINK

Punch line: if you're price sensitive, that cable is fine. If you're not, and you want to make sure you're not running a new cable when you buy a 4k 120hz tv, then spend a bit more for a cable rated for 48gbps instead of the 18gbps cable you're currently looking at.

Put very simply, wall ratings pertain to how hot the cable will get under certain circumstances (particularly voltage spikes), which could potentially cause a risk of fire if the cable is physically insulated by drywall, insulation, etc. So yeah, if the cable is running anywhere you won't be able to readily see it, wall rating is worth the money.

At the length you're trying to run, this looks to be about the cheapest I can find this morning on short notice: LINK

Now, as a point of clarification, nothing currently can run 8k at 120hz. But that's not something you'll care about for, if I'm throwing a dart, another 15 years or so. The difference between the cable you were looking at and the 48gbps cables is the ability to run 4k at 120hz instead of just 60hz.

Now, this is where your usage case comes in, as well as your timeline. If you primarily just watch TV and movies, you aren't going to really care about 120hz. If you watch a lot of sports, particularly fast moving ones, 120hz is incredible. But I don't know what's important to you.

And then timeline: I don't know your install, so I don't know if this is a quick 10 minute fishtape pull, or a half a day detailed install. If the former, frick it, put in the cheap cable and worry about upgrading it later. If the latter, I think I would spend the money on a 48gbps cable, just to save myself some aggravation later.

And final thoughts on price: The reason you're seeing this huge price jump is that at this length, standard copper can't really do the job at this bandwidth. Which is why all the 48gbps cables you're looking at are actually fiber optic cables. So they aren't just gouging you for "new". But this does raise a concern about whether you have any super tight hairpin turns on your run, because theoretically, you can snap the fiber line inside. I actually watched the ATT tech installing my fiber internet do just that a few months ago

So, sorry for the info dump, as I know none of this actually answers your question about what you should do. But hopefully this gives you a quick run of the pros and cons of going in either direction. But if I'm you, if the run is super easy, I probably go with the cheaper cable for now and upgrade later. If the run is hard, I probably go with the more expensive cable. But, that's all your call