Friday, October 1st 2021
Many HDMI and Coaxial Antenna Cables in the Market Don't Meet EU EMC Regulations
The German Federal Network Agency, together with Agentschap Telecom Netherlands, BAKOM Switzerland and Elsäkerhetsverket Sweden have tested consumer HDMI and coaxial antenna cables and come to the conclusion that many of them don't meet regulations when it comes to Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC). The four groups tested 30 coaxial antenna cables and 30 HDMI cables, of which only 11 percent of the antenna cables met the manufacturers declared attenuation and and only 10 percent of the HDMI cables met an acceptable EMC quality of at least 50 dB coupling attenuation.
Usually EMI, or electromagnetic interference is what's being discussed, but EMC is about how a device works and interacts in an environment so it doesn't cause EMI. In terms of cables, the normal cause for EMI tends to be because the cable ends up working like an antenna and starts to simplify the signal being transmitted inside the cable. This can cause all sorts of problems, with the most obvious example being poorly shielded USB 3.0 cables, which can interfere with 2.4 GHz radios, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, wireless mice and headphones etc.
One of the main issues that was pointed out in the briefing is that if poor quality antenna cables are being used to connect set-top boxes or TVs to cable TV networks can cause system wide problems. A somewhat unexpected side effect from this is that it can also cause problems with radio reception in an unspecified area near the poor quality antenna cable, due to interference coming from the cable.
HDMI cables are said to potentially cause radio interference as well, but no further details were provided into specific issues here. Sadly there's no record of which cables were tested, but the report points out that there was no real difference between cheap and expensive cables. It should be noted that all cables tested were of quite short lengths of between 1.5 to 3 meters, so longer cables could perform even worse.
The four groups that did the testing made a list of suggestions to the EU Commission to look into, as well as suggesting that standards organisations need to step up their certification programs. Furthermore they want to test other types of cables, such as USB-C and even Ethernet cables, to make sure they meet the required standards. The sad news here is that according to a similar test done in 2012, the overall quality of coaxial antenna cables, the quality has actually gotten worse.
Sources:
European Commission, via Sweclockers
Usually EMI, or electromagnetic interference is what's being discussed, but EMC is about how a device works and interacts in an environment so it doesn't cause EMI. In terms of cables, the normal cause for EMI tends to be because the cable ends up working like an antenna and starts to simplify the signal being transmitted inside the cable. This can cause all sorts of problems, with the most obvious example being poorly shielded USB 3.0 cables, which can interfere with 2.4 GHz radios, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, wireless mice and headphones etc.
HDMI cables are said to potentially cause radio interference as well, but no further details were provided into specific issues here. Sadly there's no record of which cables were tested, but the report points out that there was no real difference between cheap and expensive cables. It should be noted that all cables tested were of quite short lengths of between 1.5 to 3 meters, so longer cables could perform even worse.
The four groups that did the testing made a list of suggestions to the EU Commission to look into, as well as suggesting that standards organisations need to step up their certification programs. Furthermore they want to test other types of cables, such as USB-C and even Ethernet cables, to make sure they meet the required standards. The sad news here is that according to a similar test done in 2012, the overall quality of coaxial antenna cables, the quality has actually gotten worse.
30 Comments on Many HDMI and Coaxial Antenna Cables in the Market Don't Meet EU EMC Regulations
It would be quite useful for finding actual quality cables that can replace the cheap chinese cables that I'm currently using.
Instead of using F-type screw-in connectors, European antenna cables use Belling-Lee connectors, which are simple push-in connectors.
There was no significant difference when it comes to how interference prone or not the cables were based on price.
The test was performed on retail cables and not cables that were supplied with TVs or monitors.
And I hope that you're aware that you're legally responsible for electrical devices you sell in the EU, which means if someone's home burns down due to a dodgy power adapter you sold them, their insurance company will take you for everything you have.
Never sell uncertified products.
Mine/wreck the planet to get raw materials only to manufacture a product to go straight to landfill.
Maybe 3 of the cables that are very short, can handle 4k.
HDMI cables are often very cheap, and very crap.
Cable in question:
www.amazon.com/Monster-Ultra-High-Speed-Cobalt-Cable/dp/B08KWJ7THV
Not as bad as it sounds, 12ft of true hdmi 2.1 is hard to find. In the past these cables were garbage money sinks though, hence my comment.
It's not like the good old days where that was a $500 cable
How many of your USB 2.0 can do USB 3.0? My guess is zero. Obviously a bit of an unfair comparison, but still.Yet it's not HDMI Ultra certified...
The cable ends are often exposed. Soldered on PCB, then glue and then the shell. Good gables encapsulate the PCB and cable with copper foil and the cable shield is worn very high up, leaving no exposed places and then the case(metal same that goes in to the end device, I don't mention the rubber plastic) comes over. It applies to USB3 cabling also.
The cable core itself often is made from who ever knows. It is starting to show marks of oxidation while being kinda new. But The data wires ain't the problem usually itself.
The main culprits of causing problems are the connectors itself and their design. I've seen receivers start to whine and the whine crawled in the analog audio section, while suspecting the usual lack of proper ground changing to another floating device(groundless) is a good test ie battery powered device like laptop. The HDMI capture devices also exhibit that to a certain degree, but mostly because of the camera end there is a microHDMI. Latest cameras cut the crap and started to use a proper sized HDMI. The actual flaw you see is crackling HDMI audio.
I bet most of the problems can be solved making a loop or two through a ferrite ring or using the clamp on ones. Guys living near radio amateur towers have no other means but do like that, otherwise they got all sort of trouble.
At least it does what it claims. I hardly advise paying for it over a cert'd cable though. And their advertising is still a cringefest.
Also makes you appreciate outlets with prober reviews.
I would assume it would have more to do with the place of manufacture, standards, testing, and qa/qc. Odds are probably good that a $5 cable or a $75 cable are manufactured in the same area.I would guess a lot of the issues come from, either not following the standards, or there is too many standards/overlapping standards.
I would not be surprised if there was iso, ansi, ieee, and a bunch of others involved in some part of construction, testing, etc. at some point in the production of a cable.
End result is it's unfortunate that the earths resources are basically wasted.
There was also no functional test done to see if the cables delivered in terms of meeting the actual specs the cables were designed to from what I could tell, beyond the fact that they were not meeting the standard for interference with other things. So it's obviously just a partial test that suggest that there may or may not be other issues with these cables. Sadly we live in a capitalism, where money is the only thing that matters, be it to cut two cents off the production cost of something so the manufacturer can pocket the difference, or selling this with an unreasonable markup, because of the brand selling the product. Personally, I never understood luxury goods, but then again, I'm not from a rich family so...