This was posted 10 months 1 day ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Belkin Ultra HD High Speed HDMI Cable 4K/8K 2m $36.55 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $49 Spend) @ Amazon JP via AU

140
Belkin Ultra HD High Speed HDMI Cable 4K/8K 2m $36.55 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $49 Spend) @ Amazon JP via AUAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
Sunnyoz on 01/07/2023 - 17:14 amazon.com.au (332 clicks)
Last edited 01/07/2023 - 17:25 by 1 other user
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

was looking for a new 4K HDMI and went to local JB HI-FI to buy one and came across this one Belkin Ultra HD High Speed HDMI Cable 4K/8K 2m . JB HI-FI were selling this one for $99 , did a google search and find this one to be in Apple Store for $49 and Amazon Japan was selling this one for $36.55, but they couldn’t price match to Amazon as they said the item was coming from Japan so ordered through Amazon app and the total price was coming to $36.55 plus free shipping if you have prime membership

Links for Amazon

Belkin Ultra High Speed HDMI 2.1 Cable https://amzn.asia/d/hiuAKn8

Links for JB HI-FI

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/belkin-ultra-hd-high-spee…

Apple link

Belkin UltraHD High Speed 4K / 8K HDMI Cable (2m)

https://store.apple.com/au/xc/product/HLL52ZM/A

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Electrical & Electronics Belkin HDMI Cable

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Amazon Japan Store
Amazon Japan Store

closed Comments

  • Hybroid on 01/07/2023 - 17:18
    +11

    But it's no different to any other $15-20 HDMI certified cable. There's no need to pay double and wait for it to arrive from Japan.

    • notme53 on 01/07/2023 - 17:24
      +2

      While that should be true, and maybe is today, when I got an Apple TV a couple of years ago I went through 2 certified hdmi 2.0 cable & 2 certified hdmi 2.1 cables that just wouldn’t work (or worked sporadically) until I ended up buying the Belkin cable and it’s been fine since. I don’t know if it’s bad QC or some dodginess around certification or what but that was my experience. I have no doubt that there are much cheaper cables out there that are just as good but I gave up looking.

      • Hybroid on 01/07/2023 - 17:32
        +9

        Interestingly enough, this very same Belkin HDMI cable was one of the few that FAILED the cable testing LTT undertook. Link to XLSX results file.

        Tested Belkin cable from Amazon Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07GVVJPLM/

        There are many well known and respected secondary brands without the markup premium to choose from. UGREEN, Proxima, Cable Creations, Tersley etc. Can't go wrong with those. Even if they're dud (all hardware fails), easy free Amazon return.

        • notme53 on 01/07/2023 - 17:52

          🤷 I understand and agree but that was just my experience. Cable creations & ugreen were two that didn’t work - but they worked fine driving my 27” 4K desktop monitor, it was just the Apple TV that didn’t work with those cables (but the Apple TV was running 4K HDR). I probably just got unlucky with the others & lucky with the belkin. I’ll give it another try when a ugreen or cable matters deal comes up next

          • deadpoet on 01/07/2023 - 19:43
            +1

            @notme53: Yeah that's really strange, I've used CableCreation, UGREEN and Baseus 8K HDMI 2.1 cables and all of them have worked flawlessly for me. These are the "budget" cable brands that I trust. I own two Apple TV 4K units and have never had troubles with any cables as long as it's one that is clearly marked as 8K capable (4K/120Hz).

            The cables that haven't worked for me in the past are the unbranded or obscure brand ones.

        • whitepuma on 03/07/2023 - 09:53
          +1

          Ugreen FTW, have so many ugreen products and haven't had a single one fail on me

    • justtoreply on 01/07/2023 - 19:30

      At 2m I agree. At longer runs (or short ones if there are switches in the mix), despite being a digital signal, it's possible to get artifacting without having total signal loss.

      Having experienced the green fuzz on my Dells (I had a switch in the mix with 2 short cables) I was shocked to learn this occurs.

  • SBOB on 01/07/2023 - 17:19
    +13

    Or a 3 pack of "cable matters" branded equivalent HDMI cables from Amazon au for the same price/cheaper.
    I know which ones I'd pick…

    Eg
    https://amzn.asia/d/8xVvdWp

  • Yamun121 on 01/07/2023 - 17:21
    +11

    Def recommend some Japanese HDMI cable, it's amazing, it's boosted my soundbar from 3.1 to at least 11.1 sound, I appreciate the ultra quality

    • corgi-runner on 01/07/2023 - 21:08

      “This one goes to 11”

  • neofelis on 01/07/2023 - 17:25
    +6

    If this cable was 10m long I could understand.. but HDMI cables are about $15-$18 from ugreen. HDMI 8k/4k and HDMI 2.1
    Ugreen is way better than belkin

    Can also confirm these are a legit cable and probably better than ugreen.
    Proxima Direct 8K HDMI Cable HDMI 2.1 Cord 8K 60Hz Ultra HD,High Speed 48Gbps Support,Dynamic HDR,Dolby Vision,3M/10FT Nylon Braided Compatible with Xbox One, Switch, Samsung TV, Roku, Projector,PS5 https://amzn.asia/d/am15s5p

  • Brakus on 01/07/2023 - 18:15

    Any belkin 2.1 at 3m long?

  • Lesco Brandon on 01/07/2023 - 18:46

    Ugreen over Belkin. Cheaper too

  • easternculture on 01/07/2023 - 19:28
    +5

    $200 monster cable or GTFO

    Source: Jerry Harvey

  • Russ on 01/07/2023 - 21:43
    +2

    As an electronics engineer with some experience in microwave radio signals, I can tell you that the signals for 48Gbps HDMI 2.1 are indeed at microwave frequencies, and that HDMI cables and connectors are not designed in a way conducive to good signal transmission at those frequencies.

    I think HDMI cables and connectors were fine when they were introduced, back when the signals were much lower in frequency. But as time went by and resolutions and frame rates got higher and higher, they became inadequate. But the industry didn't want to change to a different connector, so they kept the cable and connector the same and started to build more "smarts" into HDMI devices to get around the limitations of the cable and connector, and it sounds like HDMI 2.1 is a step too far.

    Perhaps it is worth considering a technology that can easily handle 48Gbps - fiber optics. Although I have no personal experience with them, I see there are fiber-optic cables for HDMI, and I suspect these are your best bet for getting a good signal between devices. Particularly as you can buy fiber-optic cables for HDMI 2.1 that are 20m long, there's no way you'd achieve that data rate over that distance with a conventional HDMI cable.

    The fiber-optic cables even look to be comparable in price, does anyone have experience with this 2m fiber-optic cable for $32?
    https://www.amazon.com.au/FIBBR-Fiber-48Gbps-Support-Compati…

    • SBOB on 02/07/2023 - 06:45
      +1

      and I suspect these are your best bet for getting a good signal between devices.

      As an "electronics engineer", why would you think adding in an addition 2 media converters to a cable would make it better.
      Rather than shielded copper over 2m, which is perfectly capable of carrying the required signal rate, you think adding in two cheap optical converters at that price point is somehow better?

      The limitation you raise regarding the connectors remains so all you've done is add additional complexity with two cheap media converters (likely reducing the likelihood of the maximum signal throughput)

      Re connectors which clearly isn't an issue as the HDMI 2.1/a standard is well defined and that required throughput is not an issue. Cat7 ethernet has similar throughput (with less cable pins, but it's not carrying the other transport info the HDMI cable does) and it can do it over ~50m.

      I'm unsure why you think the signal being in 'microwave frequency ' is an issue or a point of comparison..it's a digital signal (across multiple cores,19 pins) and as such is not directly comparable to an analogue signal with frequency and wavelength.

      Can you provide any supporting reference to show the HDMI connector standard is unsuitable for such data rates or "good signal" at the hmdi 2.1 standard specificed throughput? Seems pretty suitable considering it works :)
      (Plus unlikely anyone is actually using the maximum rated capacity either)

      In summary, google and Wikipedia (and my engineering brain bored at 6am in the morning) would seem to disagree with your assumptions.

      • Russ on 02/07/2023 - 10:54

        shielded copper over 2m, which is perfectly capable of carrying the required signal rate

        You're conveniently ignoring the connectors, which are in no way designed as constant-impedance connectors. Without a constant impedance, you'll have signal reflections (like echoes) as the signal goes through the connectors, which makes it difficult for the receiver to discern the correct signal. In technical terms, if you know what an eye pattern is, the "eye" will close due to the reflections.

        And the cable isn't great either, the smaller the cable diameter, the higher the dB/m loss. HDMI cables have four high-speed shielded balanced pairs in that skinny cable, each of those cables is on the order of 1mm diameter. Three of those are for data, so each data pair must be carrying 16Gbps, which places the signal in the Ku band. You wouldn't normally use balanced pairs for any microwave signal, it's much more lossy than coax.

        Cat7 ethernet has similar throughput

        Cat7 uses multi-level signalling, so the frequency is much lower. And the cable diameter is larger, and the separation between the cables reduces crosstalk, another source of signal corruption.

        Copper shielding cables does not stop the signal from coupling between adjacent cables. There is still magnetic coupling, the rule of thumb for coax is 99% reduction happens at a distance of five cable diameters. I don't know the rule of thumb for shielded twisted pairs.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join