# Monster HDMI "Speed Rated" Cables vs. Monoprice



## reincarnate

Here are the new Monster HDMI cables:

"Standard Speed"

2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 500HD-2M 127663-00 *$69.95 ea.*


"High Speed"

2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 700HD-2M 127659-00 *$79.95 ea.*


"Ultra-High Speed"

2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 1000HD-2M 127655-00 *$129.95 ea.*


Monster claims "the payoff is a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts, such as streaks and flashing pixels." Monster is also providing training to the Best Buy sales teenagers. One was taught that there would be less ghosting for sports action scenes (which is the basis for this thread).
http://monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3831 


Here are the new Monoprice HDMI cables:

Monoprice HDMI 1.3a Category 2 Certified Cable 28AWG - 6ft w/Ferrite Cores 3992 *$6.43 ea.*


Monoprice claims:

"Monoprice HDMI 1.3a cables have been designed to meet the high bandwidth performance standards set by HDMI 1.3a. Monoprice cables are constructed to the highest quality with full triple layer shielding from end to end, strong, solid wire welds and the highest quality materials including high purity copper, gold plated connectors and tin plated conduits."
http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2 


So like should we consumers be paying $6 or $130 for a HDMI cable? Since the Monster cable claim to prevent common cable-induced artifacts then maybe they are worth it? Is this "speed rating" meaningful or just marketing?


----------



## ccotenj

you should be paying 6 dollars...


----------



## Coolwater7795

No ifs and or buts about it---- $6


----------



## reincarnate

Monster Technical Quote:

"Featuring exclusive connector technologies and precision-wound conductors, 700HD maximizes digital signal transfer. *The payoff: a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts*, such as streaks and flashing pixels. Step up to 700HD and experience a level of high definition that's beyond expectations."
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3832 


Who thinks these Monster Cables are "free of common cable-induced artifacts"?

As most cable subscribers have undoubtedly seen, cable company induced artifacts are from programs which have been downsampled from their original data rates. This is _the_ major source of artifacts in cable broadcasts. (Shame on the industry here too)









So how can any cable claim to restore the missing data and eliminate these artifacts? Is it like an mp3 restorer?

Inquiring minds want to know!











update: fixed typos with added good humor


----------



## penngray




> Quote:
> So how can a any cable claim to restore the missing data and eliminate the artifacts?



Its called marketing







Lucky for Monster that 99% of the population doesnt "waste" time on forums like this







Monster would change their pricing, marketing and in the end may actually go under if their customers where educated on the truth!!


----------



## reincarnate

Notice in the above Monster referenced link there is a URL which takes potential Monster customers to an embarrassingly tacky page:

"Get all your HDMI questions answered at *Monser* Cable.com/HDMI ".


Lets see how long it takes to fix this blooper!


----------



## reincarnate

HDMI at 120Hz?

---------------

What is the optimal refresh rate to send high definition film based movies to today's 1920*1080p projectors and displays?

I thought it was 24p or 24Hz


From an HDMI perspective, the 24Hz data rate puts less strain on the cable than even common 1080i/interlaced broadcasts.









I mention it because Monster is advertising HDMI at 120Hz to justify their most expensive cables here:
http://monstercable.com/hdmi/advancedhdmi.asp 


Is it ridiculous to imply HDMI video data rates of 120Hz?

Is Monster's ad writer confused?

Is there any display which accepts HDMI based data at 1920*[email protected]?

Don't _all_ HDMI cables have trouble transmitting high data rates at extended lengths?

Does Monster advertise or guarantee the lengths their cables will transmit data at, especially this imaginary 120Hz?


Smooth Video Refresh Rate™

----------------------------

What is this new "Smooth Video Refresh Rate" as trademarked by Monster? Is it part of the HDMI specification?

How can Monster HDMI cables alone perform this miraculous feat to generate 120Hz smooth video that no one else can do?

Is there something here that I didn't even realize I needed?


----------



## thebland

I bought some short Ultra Speed Monster cables ... THey have a tight fit and look far better constructed than the Monoprice. THe 1 Monoprice cable I had experience was loose fitting and failed (sent back). But for $7, what do you expect? THe Monster cables are surely overpriced but they give you no worries re: performance, handshaking and a good fit. This was a piece of mind purchase ad I have had so many HDMI / handshake issues..


----------



## almostinsane

Do they have any that work at Ludicrous Speed?


----------



## CCONKLIN1

LOL! Although I doubt many will get that one..

Best,

Chris



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *almostinsane* /forum/post/12516832
> 
> 
> Do they have any that work at Ludicrous Speed?


----------



## LessisNevermore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CCONKLIN1* /forum/post/12526782
> 
> 
> LOL! Although I doubt many will get that one..
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris



Nope, too fast.


----------



## penngray




> Quote:
> THey have a tight fit and look far better constructed than the Monoprice. THe 1 Monoprice cable I had experience was loose fitting and failed (sent back).



IMO, all HDMI cables have crappy connectors and all come loose unless we dont touch anything or breathe on them. I have both Monster and monopriced cables, both have connection issues


----------



## westgate





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/12439746
> 
> 
> Here are the new Monster HDMI cables:
> 
> "Standard Speed"
> 
> 2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 500HD-2M 127663-00 *$69.95 ea.*
> 
> 
> "High Speed"
> 
> 2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 700HD-2M 127659-00 *$79.95 ea.*
> 
> 
> "Ultra-High Speed"
> 
> 2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 1000HD-2M 127655-00 *$129.95 ea.*
> 
> 
> Monster claims "the payoff is a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts, such as streaks and flashing pixels." Monster is also providing training to the Best Buy sales teenagers. One was taught that there would be less ghosting for sports action scenes (which is the basis for this thread).
> http://monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3831
> 
> 
> Here are the new Monoprice HDMI cables:
> 
> Monoprice HDMI 1.3a Category 2 Certified Cable 28AWG - 6ft w/Ferrite Cores 3992 *$6.43 ea.*
> 
> 
> Monoprice claims:
> 
> "Monoprice HDMI 1.3a cables have been designed to meet the high bandwidth performance standards set by HDMI 1.3a. Monoprice cables are constructed to the highest quality with full triple layer shielding from end to end, strong, solid wire welds and the highest quality materials including high purity copper, gold plated connectors and tin plated conduits."
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2
> 
> 
> So like should we consumers be paying $6 or $130 for a HDMI cable? Since the Monster cable claim to prevent common cable-induced artifacts then maybe they are worth it? Is this "speed rating" meaningful or just marketing?



jan '08 issue, widescreen review mag is dedicated to hdmi 1.3 and why peeps should buy the 'faster''expensive spread'.


see page 16 for editorial mention of 'internet culture' (thats us'ns, folks!) ; apparently, we consider expensive hdmi cables to be a "marketing scam".


----------



## westgate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *westgate* /forum/post/12566828
> 
> 
> jan '08 issue, widescreen review mag is dedicated to hdmi 1.3 and why peeps should buy the 'faster''expensive spread'.
> 
> 
> see page 16 for editorial mention of 'internet culture' (thats us'ns, folks!) ; apparently, we consider expensive hdmi cables to be a "marketing scam".



bump


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *westgate* /forum/post/12566828
> 
> 
> jan '08 issue, widescreen review mag is dedicated to hdmi 1.3 and why peeps should buy the 'faster''expensive spread'.



Just to give a bit of back story Widescreen Review in their November 2007 issue had a 5 page "article" with Noel Lee from Monster Cable which sounded like an advertisement in which he repeatedly encouraged people to buy the most expensive HDMI cable they could afford. In their January 2008 issue they had a 2 page "article" once again with Noel Lee in which he promoted HDMI cables from Monster Cable. As westgate mentions that issue of Widescreen Review also has several other high end cable companies promoting their HDMI cables. I notice that almost every one of those cable companies happens to be advertising in Widescreen Review (AudioQuest, DVIGear, Kimber Kable, Monster Cable, Straight Wire, Tributaries, and Ultralink).


----------



## ShangChi

You're talking about a digital signal not analog. Either you have the bandwidth or you don't.


Go with Monoprice.


----------



## westgate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/12571635
> 
> 
> Just to give a bit of back story Widescreen Review in their November 2007 issue had a 5 page "article" with Noel Lee from Monster Cable which sounded like an advertisement in which he repeatedly encouraged people to buy the most expensive HDMI cable they could afford. In their January 2008 issue they had a 2 page "article" once again with Noel Lee in which he promoted HDMI cables from Monster Cable. As westgate mentions that issue of Widescreen Review also has several other high end cable companies promoting their HDMI cables. I notice that almost every one of those cable companies happens to be advertising in Widescreen Review (AudioQuest, DVIGear, Kimber Kable, Monster Cable, Straight Wire, Tributaries, and Ultralink).



i saw the nov article also. 'kudos' to n. lee, and the rest, for living the 'american dream' and trying to make it big, but it wont be at my expense.


----------



## Richard Paul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/12503335
> 
> 
> I mention it because Monster is advertising HDMI at 120Hz to justify their most expensive cables here:
> http://monstercable.com/hdmi/advancedhdmi.asp



They also use lossless audio and xvYCC as features for their most expensive cables even though both features would work just fine using their "Standard Speed" cable. Only Monster Cable could take a two category standard for HDMI cables (75 MHz and 340 MHz) and turn it into four different grades of cable.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/12503335
> 
> 
> Is it ridiculous to imply HDMI video data rates of 120Hz?



Technically speaking it is possible but it is very unlikely to happen since there isn't any need for 1080p120. Also from what I have heard all of the current HDMI 1.3 chips have a maximum bandwidth of 225 Mhz which is just enough for 1080p60 at 12-bit color (Deep Color).


----------



## Richard Paul

Just looked at Monster Cable's "Ultra High Speed" HDMI cables and noticed something rather amusing when I reached the bottom of the page:



> Quote:
> 12-Bit Color**
> 
> Smoothest Gradation of Colors
> 
> Greater cable capacity for support of 12-bit color, also called Deep Color, available from advanced HD sources and displays. Greater color depth, from 8-bit to 12-bit, allows more detailed gradations of individual colors for the display of billions of colors.
> 
> ...
> 
> ** Available at lengths up to 35 ft, 50 ft and 75 ft are 8-Bit color


----------



## westgate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Richard Paul* /forum/post/12572031
> 
> 
> Just looked at Monster Cable's "Ultra High Speed" HDMI cables and noticed something rather amusing when I reached the bottom of the page:



LOL! so, the longer the cable, the smaller the bit rate? sounds like a plan! 100'=4 bit? etc?


im waiting for the 'lightspeed' version, cant be too many things faster than that.










maybe 'multi-warp' speed?


----------



## reincarnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *westgate* /forum/post/12567097
> 
> 
> bump



No need to bump, as others are finding out too, there is a large amount of infomercial marketing interspersed with some good technical information. The Monster stuff is the least defensible and is coincidently (







), a major Wide Screen Review advertiser.


Why not take our sweet time (like a cat playing with a mouse) and relish pursuing the objective truth in a responsible manner. The January 2008 WSR* is the best issue in recent memory and is recommended if you have the discernment to separate fact from marketing. So let us test the claims to see if our advice to the consumer differs from the manufactures of expensive HMDI cables.


One goal is to not let the rather tawdry cable history repeat itself. That is the egregious excesses of the analog era which culminated with the multi-channel inputs should be avoided. Manufactures, publications, installers and retailers simply loved the rats nest of 7.1 analog connections** as this meant eight cable purchases







per component. All at the expense of the uninformed consumer. Toward the end of the analog era the consumer realized that he had been duped and the backlash was considerable. Now, after the flames have died down a bit (remember consumers have a short memory) the marketeers are obviously planning for a repeat performance.


Custer's Last Stand

-------------=-----

But now with HDMI, we are down to just one cable per component. So the battle to sway and convince is intense. Should anyone be spending over a $100 per cable? Is a cable more important than the gear itself? Does the cable lead the horse?


Do we spend $100 per Ethernet or any other cable? What, if anything makes HDMI cables special? It can't be in the inferior design which does not even keep the impedance constant.


HDMI Design is Something of a Mess

----------------------------------
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...bles/index.htm 
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...nformation.htm 


HDMI and the Chinese Connection

--------------------------------
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...dmi-cables.htm 
http://www.electroniccomponents.glob...0000082766.htm 




*WSR is a relatively tiny publication with a dwindling circulation of 11,672. Owned by The Ruber Family Trust (Gary and Mary). These folks are rather paranoid about any direct quotes so its best to paraphrase here.


** Its ironic that the content providers first allowed only analog connections. Now they prohibit them.


----------



## reincarnate

One glaring fault with the HDMI articles in the January 2008 WSR magazine is they largely focus and emphasize on just the cables.


Should not we, the informed consumer, be concerned with making sure our entire system will operate in a reliably manner?

Is not a system only as good as its weakest link?









Is HDMI Organization certification sufficient to make a prudent purchasing decision?


Should we spend most of our budget on high-markup cables?

Will buying expensive cable guarantee that our system will function once connected?


Or would a better strategy be to concentrate on each component which makes up our HDMI system and then shop for the least expensive HDMI certified CL2 cables? (Similar to how we purchase a PC with its inexpensive Gigi-bit Ethernet cables)


----------



## reincarnate

Here is an excellent statement from _the_ HDMI expert himself:

"First off, *the vast majority of image quality* or interoperability issues with HDMI devices are related to the software used for device communication and content protection, *and have nothing to do with the HDMI cable*. In particular, these issues are often caused by the software related to HDCP handshaking, or from devices improperly handling the device capability information read through HDMI (e.g. the device has an incorrect EDID, or an inability to properly read an EDID). *It is fairly uncommon for the cable to be the cause of HDMI compatibility problems, or for non-compliant cables to be found in the market. In fact, the robustness of the HDMI specification has been verified by the fact that we have not found a compliant HDMI cable that is the root cause of HDMI playback issues with compliant devices.*


All HDMI cables are required to support, at minimum, a standard HDTV video signal (i.e. 720p or 1080i) by virtue of being tested to verify that they meet the HDMI spec requirements. This is referred to as a Category 1 test. *More recently, the HDMI Authorized Testing Centers (ATCs) have added equipment to be able to test the cable's ability to support 1080p (which is 2x the 720p/1080i video rates) and higher rates up to the maximum HDMI speeds. These higher speeds are called Category 2...*


"It is most important to note that *the quality of the HDMI receiver chip (in the TV, for example) has a large effect on the ability to cleanly recover and display the HDMI signal*.

Personally, I have seen demonstrations by HDMI semiconductor companies showing a 1080p signal run on a 50 ft cable with a clean image, and a 720p signal run on a >75ft cable also with a clean image. It's likely that these cables would not even pass the Category 2 cable test, but this seems to indicate that a high quality receiver chip (particularly those with equalizer electronics built in) can have a significant impact on the signal margins, and thus the ability to have clean image with a lower quality and/or long cable."


----------



## reincarnate

Correct me if I’m wrong but the HDMI Licensing Organization’s compliance testing appears be legally binding, objective and most importantly independent. This independence eliminates the potential for any favoritism or bias. It sounds like a great way to ensure that the cables from all manufactures are tested and treated equally.


Its all the assurance I need to sleep at night!


----------



## reincarnate

Sometimes buying expensive cables can be dangerous to your equipments health. That is, they can break the input connectors of the equipment they connect to. There is long history of incompetent designs (especially for the legacy RCA type) in the cable world as marketers attempt to add perceived value.










HDMI cables are no exception. Here's an example of a very stiff and heavy cable:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...943149#reviews 


Of course there are exceptions to ever rule: Very long cables tend to be thicker and less flexible. But this special case can be planned for. The bottom line is any stiff and heavy HDMI cable must be supported externally from the equipment they are connected to. If not then budget for some very expensive repairs.


----------



## Darkstarmenace

I am a current BB employee. I agree that there is a huge markup on HDMI cables, I'm not one to complain. Like said earlier, one rule in physics is your equipment/item/product is only as strong as its weakest link, why on earth would you put cheap cables. If you could afford the product, you should be able to afford the best cables possible. This is all relative to your equipment. I won't say you need Monster cables for your cable/sat HD box. But I can argue that there is a noticeable difference between a cheap cable and a Monster. A good analogy would be someone who buys a Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar and has an oil change done. Either sacrifices on the oil or just complains about. Seriously, these type of people should just buy a new Corvette or Ferrari and run the lowest grade fuel and cheapest oil. BTW, I am also a mechanic. I have had experience in the store with our HDMI cables. Never once have I seen a Monster returned because it broke or it didn't work. If the customer just didn't need it, that's different. The cheaper cables we sell I get at least a cable a day (overall cables). Even when we have product that goes on display, any of them with Monster never have issues. I have felt cheap cables, and have felt Monster. To me, it's like getting a standard wrench and then comparing it to a Snap-on wrench. I am curious about these monoprice cables, never heard and I can definitely afford. I got money to burn, just to cut one up and see its construction. From the looks online though, I am not impressed one bit. They look similar to cheap cable that comes with boxed product. Just for the record, I am not necessarily sticking up for BB. Just don't ridicule someone for doing there job, a job they are getting paid for. If each and everyone of you owned your business, how much would you mark product up? BTW, every cable I have connected in my setup is a M-series from Monster. I have no issue spending over $100 bucks on cables. I stick to the physics rule. But I will test this monoprice cable in my system, take some photos and then cut the cable up to check it out. I will give results on this thread at a later date.


----------



## ccotenj

1) the car analogy doesn't work, we've been through that several times before.


2) hmmm... "feeling cables".... please don't tell the snake oil salesmen about that new "test"...











3) your assumption that an "inexpensive" cable is a "weak link" is an incorrect assumption.


4) if you are sticking to the "physics rule", you must live in a world that has different physical laws than the rest of us...


5) first you say "i agree there is a huge markup on monster cables" and then you say "why would you use cheap cables?"... ummm... a huge markup somehow makes your system better?










6) you are confusing "costs more" with "better"... a common confusion...


sorry dude...


----------



## tokerblue

As other have posted, it's HDMI carries a digital signal. It either gets there or it doesn't. Read the following several times if need be.

_HDMI Licensing, which oversees the HDMI spec and ensures that companies comply with it, requires that no more than one pixel per billion be lost in transmission. "Even if you lost one out of a thousand pixels, you wouldn't notice it," says Leslie Chard, HDMI Licensing president._

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.html


----------



## rwestley

I hope the BB tester also tests the Monster cable by cutting it and comparing it to the Monoprice cable. Others might want to read how PC Mag tested cables in the link above. They discovered that many of the inexpensve cables work fine. In digital the signal either gets there or does not as many others have stated.


----------



## ricky_rocket




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rwestley* /forum/post/12940107
> 
> 
> Others might want to read how PC Mag tested cables in the link above. They discovered that many of the inexpensve cables work fine. In digital the signal either gets there or does not as many others have stated.



Yes the PC Mag article states what many on this forum have said...*Our conclusion: You don't need to spend a fortune on cables. The HDMI cables performed comparably in both our instrument tests and our visual tests*


It makes sense too if you think about it. A purely digital signal (HDMI) means it's a stream of bits or 0's and 1's. The stream of 0's and 1's either make it to the source or they don't. You won't be dropping a 0 or a 1 somewhere along the line with a different brand cable, the signal wouldn't make any sense if that happened and you'd see/hear nothing.


EXAMPLE: if your HDTV is expecting to get 00001111 to show a red pixel and it gets sent 0000111 because your cheap cable dropped a 1 from the end, the TV wouldn't show a lighter shade of red, it would be confused and not show anything. (In Spinal Tap terms, the 1 at the end doesn't make it 1 louder).


As long as it's a clean connection (i.e. the wire is not split, crimped, knotted. etc) then Wire is Wire and HDMI cable is HDMI cable.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricky_rocket* /forum/post/12944622
> 
> 
> It makes sense too if you think about it. A purely digital signal (HDMI) means it's a stream of bits or 0's and 1's. The stream of 0's and 1's either make it to the source or they don't. You won't be dropping a 0 or a 1 somewhere along the line with a different brand cable, the signal wouldn't make any sense if that happened and you'd see/hear nothing.



Well, not quite. What ordinarily happens when there's a bit error is that a pixel gets messed up, and this is why a cable will start to cause "sparkles" when it is up around the failure threshold. You won't see "nothing," but will see conspicuous image degradation. If there get to be a lot of bit errors, eventually you will get to a nonrecoverable signal, and see nothing.


What we see, when we test for this sort of thing by using progressively longer and longer cables, is initially a few sparkles; then, more sparkles as the cable gets longer; then, usually, flashing or jumping as the sync signal starts to become erratic; and then total loss of picture. What lengths these various problems will start at will depend on the source and the display, and upon cable quality. Cable quality plays a role in it because the cable's electrical characteristics determine things like attenuation, rise time, skew, return loss, crosstalk, and the like, which affect how much the signal will be altered over any given run; the less degradation of the signal in the cable, the less difficult the task of recovering the bitstream at the display end becomes.


Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## rwestley

KurtBJC, I agree that sparkles can be an issue for long cable runs. A few years ago I had an issue using a DVI-HDMI 25' cable. As soon as I got everything connected I immediately saw sparkles. Changing the cable resolved the issue. I have not had many issues at 25' going HDMI-HDMI. The best thing to do is test the cable when you get it hooked up. Check for sparkles on a dark scene. If you see them you might want try another cable. The biggest issue is that many manufactures did not follow the HDMI specs correctly and that has been the reason for so many handshake issues and other HDMI problems.


----------



## swifty7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darkstarmenace* /forum/post/12936758
> 
> 
> I am a current BB employee. I agree that there is a huge markup on HDMI cables, I'm not one to complain. Like said earlier, one rule in physics is your equipment/item/product is only as strong as its weakest link, why on earth would you put cheap cables. If you could afford the product, you should be able to afford the best cables possible. This is all relative to your equipment. I won't say you need Monster cables for your cable/sat HD box. But I can argue that there is a noticeable difference between a cheap cable and a Monster. A good analogy would be someone who buys a Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar and has an oil change done. Either sacrifices on the oil or just complains about. Seriously, these type of people should just buy a new Corvette or Ferrari and run the lowest grade fuel and cheapest oil. BTW, I am also a mechanic. I have had experience in the store with our HDMI cables. Never once have I seen a Monster returned because it broke or it didn't work. If the customer just didn't need it, that's different. The cheaper cables we sell I get at least a cable a day (overall cables). Even when we have product that goes on display, any of them with Monster never have issues. I have felt cheap cables, and have felt Monster. To me, it's like getting a standard wrench and then comparing it to a Snap-on wrench. I am curious about these monoprice cables, never heard and I can definitely afford. I got money to burn, just to cut one up and see its construction. From the looks online though, I am not impressed one bit. They look similar to cheap cable that comes with boxed product. Just for the record, I am not necessarily sticking up for BB. Just don't ridicule someone for doing there job, a job they are getting paid for. If each and everyone of you owned your business, how much would you mark product up? BTW, every cable I have connected in my setup is a M-series from Monster. I have no issue spending over $100 bucks on cables. I stick to the physics rule. But I will test this monoprice cable in my system, take some photos and then cut the cable up to check it out. I will give results on this thread at a later date.



I will be waiting in anticipation for your monoprice dissection, please post as many pics as you can. I'm curious as well to see how are these monoprice cables put together and what kind of materials used.


----------



## himey

The guy at CC told my boss he needed a special 120hz HDMI cable for his new 120hz LCD...


----------



## ccotenj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *himey* /forum/post/12945884
> 
> 
> The guy at CC told my boss he needed a special 120hz HDMI cable for his new 120hz LCD...



did your boss ask him how the framerate of the tv could possibly be affected by the cable?










kurt (as usual) gives a good clear explanation...


----------



## ricky_rocket




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KurtBJC* /forum/post/12944865
> 
> 
> Cable quality plays a role in it because the cable's electrical characteristics determine things like attenuation, rise time, skew, return loss, crosstalk, and the like, which affect how much the signal will be altered over any given run; the less degradation of the signal in the cable, the less difficult the task of recovering the bitstream at the display end becomes.
> 
> 
> Kurt
> Blue Jeans Cable



Sounds reasonable. But can we can conclude that a $6 HDMI cable can do all of that just as well as a $100 cable. Or is the Mon$ter $100 cable doing it better ?


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricky_rocket* /forum/post/12946698
> 
> 
> Sounds reasonable. But can we can conclude that a $6 HDMI cable can do all of that just as well as a $100 cable. Or is the Mon$ter $100 cable doing it better ?



Well, that, of course, is the heart of the question. And the answer, very simply, is that if the $6 cable seems to be doing the job well, it is almost certainly doing the job as perfectly as can be done, and no amount of money spent on cabling will make the picture any better. If, on the other hand, the $6 cable is resulting in sparkles, it is quite possible that spending more on a higher-quality cable will fix the problem.


On that note of spending more money for a higher-quality cable, though: I think that it is a mistake, albeit a common and easily understandable one, for people to assume that the $100 price is necessarily indicative of higher quality. It may be, or it may not be; but product quality and product price don't correlate well in the consumer a/v cable market. It's important to make sure that when a product is being represented as higher quality, you have some real, objective basis for believing that claim.


Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## brol

With the phasing out of analog, expect more disinformation from the news media. An article ran in todays' Atlanta Journal Constitution about the move to HD:


"Cables


You can make do with the cables that come with your TV or your HD cable or satellite receiver. But you should probably invest in a new HDMI cable that carries audio and video signals. This will make hooking up your system much simpler. HDMI cables come in a variety of prices, from $20 to $200. Retailers say the $80 to $100 cables provide clearer pictures."


----------



## am4966




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darkstarmenace* /forum/post/12936758
> 
> *I am a current BB employee*. I agree that there is a huge markup on HDMI cables, I'm not one to complain. Like said earlier, one rule in physics is your equipment/item/product is only as strong as its weakest link, why on earth would you put cheap cables. If you could afford the product, you should be able to afford the best cables possible. This is all relative to your equipment. I won't say you need Monster cables for your cable/sat HD box. But I can argue that there is a noticeable difference between a cheap cable and a Monster. A good analogy would be someone who buys a Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar and has an oil change done. Either sacrifices on the oil or just complains about. Seriously, these type of people should just buy a new Corvette or Ferrari and run the lowest grade fuel and cheapest oil. BTW, I am also a mechanic. I have had experience in the store with our HDMI cables. Never once have I seen a Monster returned because it broke or it didn't work. If the customer just didn't need it, that's different. The cheaper cables we sell I get at least a cable a day (overall cables). Even when we have product that goes on display, any of them with Monster never have issues. I have felt cheap cables, and have felt Monster. To me, it's like getting a standard wrench and then comparing it to a Snap-on wrench. I am curious about these monoprice cables, never heard and I can definitely afford. I got money to burn, just to cut one up and see its construction. From the looks online though, I am not impressed one bit. They look similar to cheap cable that comes with boxed product. Just for the record, I am not necessarily sticking up for BB. Just don't ridicule someone for doing there job, a job they are getting paid for. If each and everyone of you owned your business, how much would you mark product up? BTW, every cable I have connected in my setup is a M-series from Monster. *I have no issue spending over $100 bucks on cables.* I stick to the physics rule. But I will test this monoprice cable in my system, take some photos and then cut the cable up to check it out. I will give results on this thread at a later date.



Well, BB employee's get discounts on products and I am sure that your price on a M Series cable is no where near 100.00!


BB is going to keep on selling Monster, since there is a huge mark up on those items and thats where they can make up profit margin on other items. But the point of some I believe is that the BB employee's push Monster..I can see if there was proven evidence out there that suggested that pricey cables, help with PQ and Sound.


----------



## himey

I know of two CC's that strait out lied to a couple of people I know (boss and girlfriend of buddy). One store employee told my boss that the Monster hdmi cable was the only one that was 120hz compatible. Luckily he wasn't taking the LCD home with him so he waited and asked me about it...I ordered the Monoprice cable for him ($7.10 shipped).


So my question is can this be legal? I am no lawyer just angry they can get away with this.


----------



## FMW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *himey* /forum/post/13041738
> 
> 
> I know of two CC's that strait out lied to a couple of people I know (boss and girlfriend of buddy). One store employee told my boss that the Monster hdmi cable was the only one that was 120hz compatible. Luckily he wasn't taking the LCD home with him so he waited and asked me about it...I ordered the Monoprice cable for him ($7.10 shipped).
> 
> 
> So my question is can this be legal? I am no lawyer just angry they can get away with this.



Legal, yes. They are expressing an opinion or information provided by the manufacturer. Personally, I think the manufacturer should be run out of business but I wouldn't blame the CC employees. They simply do what they are trained to do and, for the most part, probably believe what they say.


Read any high end audio magazine review about high end interconnect or speaker cables and you will get exactly the same thing - opinion that flies in the face of all objective evidence. People continue to read the magazines and buy the cables. They also continue to buy products claiming to provide weight loss without life style changes. If it makes them happy then that's OK with me.


We still need to be intelligent, informed consumers even in this day and age.


----------



## RafaelSmith

I have lost track of the number of times I have been in Best Buy or CC and overhead the "sales" people flat out lieing to customers. "You need this $150.00 HDMI cable to get True HD", etc.


One time I could not resist when I saw a BB sales dude (probably 18 years old) telling this older couple that had just bought a HD LCD as a Xmas present for their grandson that he would not be able to get HD without the $150.00 cable....I jumped in a told them the truth....i thought the sales dude was gonna burst a pimple.


----------



## reincarnate

Reasonably Priced Monster Cables

--------------------------------

"Super-High Performance" Monster DVI to HDMI cables for up to 92%







off:
http://www.accessories4less.com/inde...r+hdmi&x=0&y=0


----------



## RafaelSmith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/13051961
> 
> 
> Reasonably Priced Monster Cables
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> "Super-High Performance" Monster DVI to HDMI cables for up to 92%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off:
> http://www.accessories4less.com/cgi-...chfields=brand



Cheaper than retail erhaps but still quite abit more expensive than Monoprice.


----------



## MitsuDude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/13051961
> 
> 
> Reasonably Priced Monster Cables
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> "Super-High Performance" Monster DVI to HDMI cables for up to 92%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off:
> http://www.accessories4less.com/inde...r+hdmi&x=0&y=0



Linky no worky...


----------



## reincarnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MitsuDude* /forum/post/13121780
> 
> 
> Linky no worky...



Like I said above for every action (here) there is a reaction there (Accessories4less). Hopefully they will put the site back up


----------



## Bob Fosse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/13051961
> 
> 
> Reasonably Priced Monster Cables
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> "Super-High Performance" Monster DVI to HDMI cables for up to 92%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off:
> http://www.accessories4less.com/inde...r+hdmi&x=0&y=0



This says it all!


----------



## evhtone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/13051961
> 
> 
> Reasonably Priced Monster Cables
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> "Super-High Performance" Monster DVI to HDMI cables for up to 92%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> off:
> http://www.accessories4less.com/inde...r+hdmi&x=0&y=0





Looks like they've decided they need to cash-in on the lower-priced market now, too.


----------



## creatine64

what sealed the deal for me was a few things:


1. was engadgets article on "Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers"

2. I don't like spending alot of money on cables (even though I can but disagree 100% with the BB employee who thinks "if you've got it why not" theory)

3. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, if you feel that monoprice does the job and are happy with it then good, you are the one that has to watch the TV not the CC or the BB employee when you get home, if you feel you get a better picture with Monster cables they hey that's your business at the end of the day you are the one that has to deal with it as far as I'm concerned Monoprice and bluejeans are fantastic and until proven other wise with "beyond a shadow of a doubt" testing I refuse to spend tons of $$ on cables.


that's my 2 cents.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/a...ter-cable-and/


----------



## campb292

I noticed darkstarmenace the BB employee/mechanic never came back with his MONSTER vs MonoPrice comparison. He predicted the monoprice was sub-par and the MONSTER was great. Imagine that... he never responded.




Monster = take advantage of ppls fear cable EXAMPLE: I buy a 50 pack of CD-R. I take the top CD and I burn Metallica - The Black Album and write "THE BLACK ALBUM, STANDARD EDITION" on it. I take the next one off the top and burn Metallica - The Black Album and write "THE ULTRA HIGH SPEED BETTER SOUNDING SCRATCHPROOF THE BLACK ALBUM on it. I bet they still sound the same.


----------



## reincarnate

Its become quite common throughout the many AVS forums for those in the industry to rave about high priced products when they offer no improved performance. The home theater and audio magazines are leading the charge.

A few key battleground areas are:

a) HDMI cables - with the 240Hz (new sticker on package) compatible cables expected,









b) staying with standard definition HDMI based DVD playback at 24p vs. expensive Blu-ray discs and $2,000 obsolete analog output players,

c) proprietary $10,000 music based servers when 1TB hard drives have dropped to $119


----------



## dholmes54

Wel what about the Honeywell hdmi with leds,anyone have one is it considered high speed? I noticed its not too money at 57.00 for 1.5 ft 63.00 3 ft.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dholmes54* /forum/post/14755726
> 
> 
> Wel what about the Honeywell hdmi with leds,anyone have one is it considered high speed? I noticed its not too money at 57.00 for 1.5 ft 63.00 3 ft.



I couldn't find any technical description of what their "chip" does. "cure problems" is hand waving. If it does help things, it would only be needed at lengths greater than 30 feet or so depending on the intended use. There are amplified cables that are fairly reasonable in price that can be used for long runs.


larry


----------



## fuzailt

I work at Best Buy also, and for sure we do push monster. Supervisor gets mad if we don't push monster b/c Monster gives BB alot of perks and so. We even have a column for Monster Cable% in our sales along with gross margin and so. I hate lying and I can probably understand that car mechanic BB employee, its a psychological thing because he is getting payed to lie, so subconciously he believes it to be true(there were studies done for this behaviour). When I sell the 1000's, which is rarely, I tell the customer that this cable is 120Hz capable, esentially I guess every HDMI cable is. If the customer asks me about the difference between the cables, I usually tell them its all digital, but monster uses more expensive material...never say it necessarily gives better quality. I usually push for the monster 750's, and I do feel bad sometimes, but customer never really asks questions. In my opinion the average customer is lazy and has a lack of knowledge. A customer should realize that as good as BB service can "seem" at times, we have our bias because we are a business with an agenda to maximize profit and reduce costs. I always encourage customers to research and go to avsforums and cnet because we do have a huge bias, like any business because the goal is to make money. BB is a successful store which makes good money and at the end of the day they are a very profitable business.


One thing I was curious about was the amount bandwidth monster claims to offer. In the monster cable they have about 8 pairs of copper conducters, is it not possible for the signal transfer for the Mosnter to be faster than Monoprice or Rocketfish? It doesn't improve quality or refresh rate or response time, but can it generally be more conductive and faster? I was having a huge discussion with a Monster employee the other day, but did not have enough knowledge to prove him wrong. Can you guys shed some light on this.


Alot of respect to all of you guys, especially Kurt, I learned alot from this forum. I usually buy Rocketfish, costs BB employees about 6 bux for a 1m vs. 750 monster 1m is about $36 at staff purchase.


----------



## jeffrey92

that's why I never shop at best buy. Plus I can almost always save a few bucks online. I dont know if best buy works on commission at all, but Sears and Circuit city ( I think ) do. My friend works at sears and I asked him (because I'm in the market for a 50" HDTV) what kind of tv I should get. He said I should get an LCD at first, but when i started listing all the benefits of plasmas he seemed to come to his senses lol. Apparently he gets 5% commission for LCDs vs 1% for plasmas.


hopefully the internet remains a reliable place for people to learn the truth about products. Although I was just reading an article in the paper about how more and more companies are infiltrating review sites and what not.


When I get my tv + blu ray player.... I think im going with monoprice. Thats not to say I don't like monster. I like some of their guitar cables!


----------



## Jinjuku




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/12503566
> 
> 
> I bought some short Ultra Speed Monster cables ... THey have a tight fit and look far better constructed than the Monoprice. THe 1 Monoprice cable I had experience was loose fitting and failed (sent back). But for $7, what do you expect? THe Monster cables are surely overpriced but they give you no worries re: performance, handshaking and a good fit. This was a piece of mind purchase ad I have had so many HDMI / handshake issues..



I have a 2 meter Mono-Price HDMI cable and it fits very snug... Did you thing about trying another cable?


Been using it for two years almost and no problems.


----------



## yankeeman

This coming weekend (Dec 20-21) I am having delivered a 61" LED DLP Samsung tv, a Panny BD-30 blu ray, and a Yamaha RX-V663 receiver. I agonized for a long time trying to decide whether to spend big bucks or not on cables.


I finally wound up buying 3 cables from monoprice, HDMI 1.3a, 6' long each, and they were about four bucks each. I still have second thoughts, I hope I did okay, when I decided on the cheaper cables, I asked Monoprice what cables they recommended for this equipment, and these are the wires, so thats what I am going to use. Do you guys think I made the right choice? Most here seem to think the cheaper wires are fine, I hope you guys are right, I am using your knowledge and opinions!


By the way, the cables are the only part of this system that I did NOT buy at Best Buy. I even bought my surround sound system which I have had for about 5 years at Best Buy, but not the cables!


----------



## Bob Fosse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *yankeeman* /forum/post/15324529
> 
> 
> This coming weekend (Dec 20-21) I am having delivered a 61" LED DLP Samsung tv, a Panny BD-30 blu ray, and a Yamaha RX-V663 receiver. I agonized for a long time trying to decide whether to spend big bucks or not on cables.
> 
> 
> I finally wound up buying 3 cables from monoprice, HDMI 1.3a, 6' long each, and they were about four bucks each. I still have second thoughts, I hope I did okay, when I decided on the cheaper cables, I asked Monoprice what cables they recommended for this equipment, and these are the wires, so thats what I am going to use. Do you guys think I made the right choice? Most here seem to think the cheaper wires are fine, I hope you guys are right, I am using your knowledge and opinions!
> 
> 
> By the way, the cables are the only part of this system that I did NOT buy at Best Buy. I even bought my surround sound system which I have had for about 5 years at Best Buy, but not the cables!



I just bought a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite 151 Plasma from Magnolia but use Monoprice HDMI cables exclusively. FYI: The November 2008 "Widescreen Review" magazine reviews the 50" Kuro Elite 111 plasma and the reviewer stated, "Changing HDMI cables made absolutely no difference to image quality, whether the cable was free, $6, $100 or much more than $100, the image quality never changed (cable lengths were 1 to 3 meters):" (Widescreen Review Issue 136, page 35).


----------



## mr.hidef




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reincarnate* /forum/post/12449768
> 
> 
> Monster Technical Quote:
> 
> "Featuring exclusive connector technologies and precision-wound conductors, 700HD maximizes digital signal transfer. *The payoff: a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts*, such as streaks and flashing pixels. Step up to 700HD and experience a level of high definition that’s beyond expectations."
> http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3832
> 
> 
> Who thinks these Monster Cables are "free of common cable-induced artifacts"?
> 
> As most cable subscribers have undoubtedly seen, cable company induced artifacts are from programs which have been downsampled from their original data rates. This is _the_ major source of artifacts in cable broadcasts. (Shame on the industry here too)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can any cable claim to restore the missing data and eliminate these artifacts? Is it like an mp3 restorer?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> update: fixed typos with added good humor



You totally hit it right on the head....It's all marketing......Besides, isn't it funny how you really only find Monster cables in Best Buy's, and Ultimate electronics stores? Who wants a teenager to tell them about what they came to look at........I had a "teenage electronics wiz-kid" at Best-Buy tell me the other day that PIONEER ELITE series T.V.'s were the best because if the glass panels have any bubbles or imperfections in them......they use them in the KURO's.....so according to him KURO's are the budget line.....???? Hah! what a joke.......High school help.......Isn't that why Circuit City is going under?


----------



## Dexter850

I recently went to some Audioquest training and they had some good info on their HDMI cables.


www audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf 

Another good tidbit of info, Monster's 1000 HDMI is rated at 10.2 Gbps, Audioquests A series (their cheap ones) are rated at 15 Gbps. I think HDMI 1.3 will only support up to 20 Gbps


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dexter850* /forum/post/15766905
> 
> www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf



Wow, that is one very long advertisement.


I guess it's up to you to decide whether or not you're going to spend $350 on a boutique 2 metre HDMI cable. I personally would rather spend under $20 for a good quality Blue Jeans or Monoprice cable.


----------



## yankeeman

My whole home theater has been set up for a month and a half now, and its fantastic. Great picture, great sound, and its all connected with 3 six-foot monoprice cables that cost about $20 TOTAL INCLUDING SHIPPING. I cant imagine expensive cables making the system better, what a great thing, to have saved $300 or more on cables!


----------



## rwestley

Yankeeman, you are correct the picture will not be any better with the expensive cables.


----------



## GunDom

I see Monoprice coming up all the time, and I've ordered from them not too long ago. However, I just noticed that there is a link for Tartan Cables. Same makers as Monoprice. I know that Monoprice has more products and Tartan carries nothing but cables. So how come I don't see Tartan coming up from posters?


----------



## turbo3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tokerblue* /forum/post/12938214
> 
> 
> As other have posted, it's HDMI carries a digital signal.



Although the signal is digital, the transmission is not. I strongly recommend taking a class on electromagnetic waves and waveguides.


----------



## HDMI Guy

You just responded to a post that was made in January of 2008


----------



## Norem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turbo3* /forum/post/17134036
> 
> 
> Although the signal is digital, the transmission is not. I strongly recommend taking a class on electromagnetic waves and waveguides.



A class on the distinction between theory and application seems more imperative for you at this point...


----------



## turbo3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Norem* /forum/post/17139198
> 
> 
> A class on the distinction between theory and application seems more imperative for you at this point...



Electromagnetic wave propogation is not theory. It's how your cables and pretty much all of modern communication systems work.


----------



## Norem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turbo3* /forum/post/17144284
> 
> 
> Electromagnetic wave propogation is not theory. It's how your cables and pretty much all of modern communication systems work.



I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that pampered "electromagnetic wave propagation" doesn't amount to anything with digital cables. There are three extremes with no undistributed middle: The cable will either work perfectly, or there will be visible digital artifacts, or the cable will not function at all.


Considering I've seen you post in and bump two 6+ month old Monster cable threads, I can only assume you're trying to justify a high-dollar cable purchase. That's why I suggest you research HDMI cables more carefully so you can save some money in the future.


----------



## turbo3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Norem* /forum/post/17145583
> 
> 
> I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that pampered "electromagnetic wave propagation" doesn't amount to anything with digital cables.



Are you sure you understand? There is no such thing as a "digital cable", unless you are referring to something virtual.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Norem* /forum/post/17145583
> 
> 
> There are three extremes with no undistributed middle: The cable will either work perfectly, or there will be visible digital artifacts, or the cable will not function at all.



No offense, but do you even know what digital is? Have you ever taken a class on signal processing?


----------



## tweeksound

Hello,


I have a 3 ft Monster HDMI cable that is crapping out on me.

Best Buy seems hesitant to replace it as I thought was promised by Monster's "lifetime warranty".


If I'd knows that they wouldn't honor the exchange, I wouldn't have paid $70 for it! It's been 10 months but I cannot find the reciept.

They say I have a year to excahnge it if I have the recipt.


Well, I just ordered two 4 ft HDMI cables from Monoprice for $15 shipped and from what I read all around the web I will not be dissapointed (besides with Monster of course).


However, I am a full time professional audio engineer and quality is a very important and personal thing that I don't take lightly. and I don't take other people's opinions on it.


When I recieve the Monoprice cables I will compare them to the Monster.

I'm not expecting any difference but if the Monster does perform better I will try more adimently to get mine replaced.


I'll post my results with 8 Mega Pixel pictures of the screen for others to compare.


Matt


----------



## yankeeman

Love to see your pictures and have you tell us what you think. When I bought my system, i was going to spend a lot of money on high priced cables, but people on this forum convinced me to go with Monoprice, and i have been so happy, i cant imagine another wire doing better. I saved a fortune, as i spent a little over $20 total for three 6' HDMI 1.3a wires, imagine what Monster would have cost for that!


----------



## tweeksound




> Quote:
> When I bought my system, i was going to spend a lot of money on high priced cables, but people on this forum convinced me to go with Monoprice, and i have been so happy, i cant imagine another wire doing better. I saved a fortune, as i spent a little over $20 total for three 6' HDMI 1.3a wires, imagine what Monster would have cost for that!



Oh, I know. And since the Monoprice (that I got for $6 a peice) are 24 AWG compared to Monster's "standard speed" 30AWG, to get the same cable from Monster at 6 feet X 3 I'm guessing would have cost you around $350+.


As far as I have read from people who seem to know, Monster has no advantage unless you're running some futuristic singnal such as internet HDMI, over 1080P, over 12 bit color, over 7.1 Surround , or you are running very long lengths of 35' +.


And even then Monster may not actually have an advantage over cheaper cables.


Luckily Monster them selves have honored the lifetime warranty on my 4' Standard Speed HDMI.

I'm sending it out today and should recive a new one shortly.


Now I will have no trouble comparing the Monster 4' with a Monoprice 4'.


My guess is there will be absolutely no difference. Especially at that length.

But My guess is that if I had a 50 foot version of each, the Monoprice would out perform the Monster as it is a much thicker guage.


----------



## Norem




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turbo3* /forum/post/17146809
> 
> 
> Are you sure you understand? There is no such thing as a "digital cable", unless you are referring to something virtual.
> 
> 
> No offense, but do you even know what digital is? Have you ever taken a class on signal processing?



You are using semantics to avoid my point. Replace "digital" in my post and try again. Here:


"I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that pampered "electromagnetic wave propagation" doesn't amount to anything with HDMI cables. There are three extremes with no undistributed middle: The cable will either work perfectly, or there will be visible digital artifacts, or the cable will not function at all.


Considering I've seen you post in and bump two 6+ month old Monster cable threads, I can only assume you're trying to justify a high-dollar cable purchase. That's why I suggest you research HDMI cables more carefully so you can save some money in the future."


That should help, since you seem so hung up on a specific word.


----------



## turbo3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Norem* /forum/post/17159020
> 
> 
> You are using semantics to avoid my point. Replace "digital" in my post and try again. Here:
> 
> 
> "I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that pampered "electromagnetic wave propagation" doesn't amount to anything with HDMI cables. There are three extremes with no undistributed middle: The cable will either work perfectly, or there will be visible digital artifacts, or the cable will not function at all.
> 
> 
> Considering I've seen you post in and bump two 6+ month old Monster cable threads, I can only assume you're trying to justify a high-dollar cable purchase. That's why I suggest you research HDMI cables more carefully so you can save some money in the future."
> 
> 
> That should help, since you seem so hung up on a specific word.



No I wasn't picking on the word digital. I'm just trying to say understanding (digital) signal processing is key to understanding how HDMI works. Once you understand that then you will understand the role the cable plays. That's all.


----------



## Eddie Horton

People can argue back and forth all they want. Doesn't faze me a bit and WILL NOT change the fact that I have 4 flat panels that are fed from a 4x4 cheap Monoprice matrix switch, two at 25ft. and two at 50ft. All 4 cables are Monoprice and everything works perfectly. Don't spend boutique money on cables.


----------



## ABEMCDONALD

I'm an average Joe in all of this...and I have the Vizio HDMI cables for like $20.00







I think they are breath taking at that


----------



## HardBat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tweeksound* /forum/post/17148641
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I have a 3 ft Monster HDMI cable that is crapping out on me.
> 
> Best Buy seems hesitant to replace it as I thought was promised by Monster's "lifetime warranty".
> 
> 
> If I'd knows that they wouldn't honor the exchange, I wouldn't have paid $70 for it! It's been 10 months but I cannot find the reciept.
> 
> They say I have a year to excahnge it if I have the recipt.
> 
> 
> Well, I just ordered two 4 ft HDMI cables from Monoprice for $15 shipped and from what I read all around the web I will not be dissapointed (besides with Monster of course).
> 
> 
> However, I am a full time professional audio engineer and quality is a very important and personal thing that I don't take lightly. and I don't take other people's opinions on it.
> 
> 
> When I recieve the Monoprice cables I will compare them to the Monster.
> 
> I'm not expecting any difference but if the Monster does perform better I will try more adimently to get mine replaced.
> 
> 
> I'll post my results with 8 Mega Pixel pictures of the screen for others to compare.
> 
> 
> Matt



Best Buy is supposed to exchange any, and all Monster Cables without a receipt. You come in, say your cable doesn't work, and bam, they will exchange it for you on the spot. You should call Monster, and tell them what's up.


BTW, Monoprice FTW!!!!


----------



## tweeksound

Thanks, HardBat.

Ya, BB was quite anoying. They didn't care what Monster says. They just said that without a recipt they don't do exchanges. I talked with 3 people there. One girl was particularly rude.


I called Monster and they were great. I sent them the cable and they will Fed Ex me a new one.


I recieved the 2 monoprice cables yesterday.

So far, so good.


When I get the replacement Monster I will compare them and report.


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turbo3* /forum/post/17160593
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to say understanding (digital) signal processing is key to understanding how HDMI works. Once you understand that then you will understand the role the cable plays.



What's this dude's problem?


If I had to guess, seeing as it is the time of year where all the college freshmen have finally figured out where each of their classes are located It's a fair wager that we have a young engineer or comp sci wannabe on our hands. Phys 101 has finally progressed on from explaining which way the electrons go and now he is feeling kinda cocky.


The average person doesn't need to know anything about signal processing to know if their HDMI cable is working. Either the picture looks right or it looks wrong, no advanced learn'en needed.


-Suntan


----------



## BIG ED

I went w/Belkin-BlueJean; as Belkin is the only US made core.

(and I like saying : "Belkin"!)

My first HDMI purchase (I don't count the 'freebies'), hooray!

Got 3 for half the price I'd pay for 1 digital coaxial cable back-in-the-day (yesterday! ;-) ).


Hope they arrive B4 or the same day as my (um, refurb; so I guess it was someone else's :-0) 886.


----------



## tweeksound

It's been several days (6 or 7) and Monster still hasn't shipped back my replacement cable.


Once I get it in I will compare it with the Monoprice.


My first gripes with Monoprice are how bulky the connectors are. They are huge and it's a logistical issue just to fit 2 connectors in the 2 HDMI ins on my TV.


The weight seems like it could damage the connectors overtime or at least casue the connector to sit in at an angle in the verticle ports.

The Monoprice is also much thicker which I guess is good but it's very very inflexible.


Also, I'm pretty sure when I had the Monster cable hooked up I was able to have the sound come stright from the DVD player to a speaker system and have sound come through the TV at the same time without any latency (delay).


I know this is just a test measure and of course I would not want to actually watch the TV with both sources but with the Monoprice, there seems to be quite a delay. Perhaps 10 ms between the two. This might actaully be a sync issue between the video and audio. Not good at all if that's the case.


Of course I will have to confirm this when I get the Monster back as it could be a DVD player internal feature that was set or reset recently...?


I will be using a Pannasonic Up sampling DVD player, Sony Playstation 3, and a 32" Sanyo LCD HD.


So the Monorpice 4' vs Monster 1000 4' test will include:


Structure: how well the two cables fit and if they seem to strain the ports and reach from port to port.


Time difference in sound: I will have to check to see if the latency is found in both the Monster and the Monoprice. And if there is a delay difference, what it is.


Picture quality: I will use my 8.1 MP digi on a tripod to take identical pictures of pristine and detailed Blu Ray pictures. I will then compare the images and allow anyone here to do the same.


----------



## crutschow

The cable has absolutely nothing to do with audio delay. That's a function of the digital processing in the display and/or A/V receiver.


----------



## crutschow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turbo3* /forum/post/17160593
> 
> 
> No I wasn't picking on the word digital. I'm just trying to say understanding (digital) signal processing is key to understanding how HDMI works. Once you understand that then you will understand the role the cable plays. That's all.



You don't need to understand digital signal processing or even electromagnetic wave propagation to understand the basics of digital signal transmission in a cable.


It's quite simple. All cables have a given analog bandwidth which varies with cable type and length. When the bandwidth of a cable becomes so low that the digital one's and zero's are smeared so they can not be be distinguished at the receive end, (the digital "eye" closes) then the digital transmission will fail. This failure tends to be rather abrupt, since the difference between receiving a perfect signal and a bad signal can result from only a slight change in the cable bandwidth. Thus the saying that an HDMI cable will either work perfectly or very badly.


HDMI extender/equalizers operate at the receive end of the HDMI cable to compensate for the cable frequency rolloff and re-open the digital eye so that the digital signal can be recovered at a longer cable distance then would otherwise be possible.


----------



## KurtBJC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BIG ED* /forum/post/17193072
> 
> 
> I went w/Belkin-BlueJean; as Belkin is the only US made core.
> 
> (and I like saying : "Belkin"!)



First: thanks for the business! And I hope they did arrive on time...


One quibble, though: it's actually Belden...Belkin is somebody else entirely, though obviously with a rather similar name and line of work. As far as I know, Belkin doesn't manufacture anything here in the US.


Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## tweeksound




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crutschow* /forum/post/17244459
> 
> 
> The cable has absolutely nothing to do with audio delay. That's a function of the digital processing in the display and/or A/V receiver.



Thank you, crutschow.


I thought it seemed strange.

I'm sure that my findings will confirm your statement.


I am too involved with audio production to get into video stuff all that much, therefore the HDMI protocol is a bit mysterious to me.


----------



## tweeksound

Just to paint a more precise picture however,


The scenario is this.


A Philips HDMI upconvert DVD player hooked to the TV via HDMI.

The RCA outs on that Panasonic are connected to a small subwoofer/satelite system.


(this is my bedroom system until I get some extra change for an upgrade)


I usually use the satelite system for sound when using the DVD player (to save on usage hours on the PS3) and sometimes the sound on the TV is up. My wife will sometimes just use the TV sound (not an audiofile).


So, before when I had this setup (Philips DVD, TV via HDMI, and Sub/Sat sound via RCA) with the Monster cable there was no time difference between the Sub/Satelite sound and the HDMI recieved TV speakers.


The very first time I used the Monoprice cables I noticed a large delay. Possilby 12ms or more!


I didn't change any setting or anything.


Also, why would the DVD player allow for seperate delay compensation (as your seggestion infers) for HDMI and RCA out?


Wouldn't one expect the delay to be the same on both outputs of the same unit?


As I said, this is my simple bedroom set up so there is no fancy reciever involved.


Just one DVD player, one TV, and 2 audio signals being monitored at the same time.


Of course, like I said, until I get that Monster back I cannot confirm that the delay in unrealted to the cable.


But your post does state that there cannot be.


I personally require proof rather than someone's statement.


Both of wich I will post once I test it myself.


Thanks.


----------



## KurtBJC

Audio/video synchronization can't be affected by the cable. The synchronization is controlled by the player, and the audio is embedded directly into the video stream. Now, there could be some other reason why the synchronization was off from the one setup to the other--sometimes devices initialize differently from powerup, sometimes odd handshake errors happen, that sort of thing--but the cable itself really can't do anything to cause audio latency because the audio and video are, from the cable's standpoint, indistinguishable from one another. They are simply separately-extractable components of a single bitstream, and if the cable could deliver one of them late, it would have to deliver the other just as late.


Interesting mystery, though; let us know how it turns out.


Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable


----------



## tweeksound

You were right, KurtBJC.


The delay is the same with the Monster 1m 10.2 Gb 700HD cable.

I got it in today. They even gave me the next model up! the 700HD. Very cool.


I havn't taken the pictures yet but just by pausing on high res scenes of several Blu Rays, and switching the cables back and forth quickly, I notice no difference between the $70 Monster cable and the $5 Monorprice.


I will do a more thorough comparison soon with the 8.1 MP pix of the screen.

Not sure how reliable those will be though so I'll do several.


----------



## kasabe23

I want to test my understanding on th HDMI 1.3 Category 1 vs Category 2 differences. Moreso to make sure I am explaining it correctly.


HDMI 1.3 Category 1 certifies that a cable "At minimum" passes 75Mhz(2.25Gbps). That is not to say it cannot pass a 1.65MHz(4.95Gbps) signal needed for the bandwith of Bluray. Just that "at minimum" it is certified to pass 75Mhz.


HDMI 1.3 Category 2 CERTIFIES that a cable "At minimum" passes 340Mhz(10.2Gbps). THis is way pass what is needed for Blu-ray. Obviously, Category 2 are undisputed to pass the 1080p of bluray.


So somewhere in-between this two certified standards are Category 1 cables that don't quite hit the 340Mhz mark, to be Category 2, but easily just as good for bluray.


Also, How best to explain the connection on 120V 60Hz on the back of the Bluray device as it maximum fps is 60. How do I relate the the 60Hz elctrical ac cycle rate to the max output of fps? I tried to say that IF their were 120Hz source equipment out their, then the bluray player would say 120V 120Hz on the back of it?


Thanks,


----------



## ccotenj




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kasabe23* /forum/post/17277708
> 
> 
> 
> Also, How best to explain the connection on 120V 60Hz on the back of the Bluray device as it maximum fps is 60. How do I relate the the 60Hz elctrical ac cycle rate to the max output of fps? I tried to say that IF their were 120Hz source equipment out their, then the bluray player would say 120V 120Hz on the back of it?
> 
> 
> Thanks,



you don't.


no. it wouldn't say "120hz" on the back of it...


think about it for a second... IF (big if) someone does come out with 120 hz (frame rate) source equipment, it's unlikely that the entire power grid will switch over to 120hz (a/c cycle rate) in order to accomodate them...


----------



## FiberOpticDude

The power connection on a video component has absolutely nothing to do with the frame or field rate of that component. The frequency in Hertz at the power connection tells you what kind of electrical source you may plug in to. For example in the US, 60Hz is the frequency of the electrical grid. In the UK it is 50Hz. Modern digital televisions and computers can operate at frame/field/refresh rates independent of the frequency of the electrical grid.


----------



## kasabe23

Ok, I understand now. I didn't think there was a connection, but I just wasn't sure. I not sure where I began connecting the 60Hz cycle to the frame rate/refresh rate of the video output. Both your comments make it clear there is no connection. Thanks for clarifying.


Regards to my wording/understanding of HDMI Cat1vsCat2 do I have that wording/explanation right?


----------



## tweeksound

Hey all, sorry I never took those pics. The more I thought about it, the more holes I found in my method. I would really need some sort of pixel for pixel still shot screen capture or something. The camera idea just doesn't work. Oh well. Happy holidays to you!


----------

