Monster Cable HDMI Scam

[+Fahim S. MVC]

Heh, while I do think that Monster probably does make good cables, the price they charge isn't justified, and I would never be able to tell the difference between a $100 Monster cable and $10-20 HDMI cable from someone else.

But lying on those demo setups is par for the course with Monster, I remember when they've played around with gauges of speaker wire, in order to make the Monster cable appear better.

I can't comment on HDMI cables - as well as not really rating Monster for their cables.

I once ran an experiment with a couple of people who didn't think there was a difference between one cable and another on my system. So we ran the test between 3 digital co-axial cable connecting a cd player to a amplifier.

The system was:

Denon AVC-A1D Amplifier

Naim CD5

Mission 753 Freedom speaker

Van Den Hul The Clearwater speaker cable bi-wiring

Not exactly reference, but not sonically restricted.

The cables on test were:

?10 generic cable.

?35 Ixos cable

?65 Van Den Hul cable.

With three people, wearing blindfolds, all three independant of one-another told me that the Van Den Hul sounded best followed by the Ixos and then the generic cable.

Again a completely digital signal, lower bandwidth than the one sent over HDMI so in theory less that can go wrong.

I'm not saying it was very scientific, but it surprised them...

[capr]

sony did the same thing with bluerays... but sony just pays the store to put up the demo and the store has to put up the right demo... if the store messes up for one reason or another, it's no reason to bash on the brand.

my friend was buying me esata cables from bestbuy cause he works there and it cost him $2 to buy them while it would cost me 20.... so bestbuy over prices the hell out of their cables.... just compare their prices with amazon prices, it's ridicules how much they charge you just because you are ignorant of the web.

[shihchiun]

There should be something in fair trade laws about this, thats just not right.

I wish there was an easier way to communicate this to non techies so that they dont waster their money

At the same time, there's nothing preventing people from doing their own research, so if you fall for the sales guy you've really got no one to blame but yourself.

[Joel]

Joel CDs have nothing to do with HDMI cabling.

And I don't even know what argument you're making in regards to CDs anyway.

You're showing your age here. All of the pro-digital arguments you're making were made when people bought CD players and said they did or did not need DA converters, optical or coax cables, etc.

Yes, the guy who buys the Vizio will not see the difference between the $10 and the $100 cable, but there ARE differences when used with better displays and/or players. Don't just reiterate what digital should be, deal with what it is.

[hdood]

Yes, the guy who buys the Vizio will not see the difference between the $10 and the $100 cable, but there ARE differences when used with better displays and/or players. Don't just reiterate what digital should be, deal with what it is.

Assuming both cables are capable of getting the data stream from A to B without interference (and most cheaper cables are under normal circumstances), there is absolutely no additional benefit to be had from a more expensive cable. None at all. It's physically impossible for there to be a difference.

[Joel]

It's physically impossible for there to be a difference.

No, it's not.

[Unto Darkness]

Just let the people who don't educate themselves lose out on money, at the end of the day they think they're getting some sort of nasa approved super duper advanced cable that makes their picture 10x better, and know nothing otherwise.

Its not fair to say that everybody should know everything about what they are doing. There tend to be people who are not into those things.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You're showing your age here. All of the pro-digital arguments you're making were made when people bought CD players and said they did or did not need DA converters, optical or coax cables, etc.

Yes, the guy who buys the Vizio will not see the difference between the $10 and the $100 cable, but there ARE differences when used with better displays and/or players. Don't just reiterate what digital should be, deal with what it is.

My point still stands, what you're talking about is the transition of hardware dealing with analog -> digital.

Of course there are differences in quality.

What we're talking about is two digital cables, both manufactured to do exactly the same thing.

I'm not arguing anymore with you, the evidence is ALL over the internet to show there are no quality differences between a $5 cable and a $100 if both are working as they should be.

Only difference comes into the equation if one of the cables are faulty.

I ask you this then Joel, it's of no surprise there must be MILLIONS of HDMI cables in households, why is there not many topics sprouting up over the web with comparison pictures of picture quality between these cables?

Or why is there not lots and lots of people saying their $5 cable doesn't work/provides a poor picture?

Fact is there wouldn't be, if the cable is made properly regardless of price it will deliver the digital signal from your device to your TV. The majority of the households above also have 1-5m cables no doubt, seeing as most devices requiring HDMI are under your TV - Which is why you don't hear about many people complaining about any sort of degrading over length.

And another one to ponder, when you bought your graphics card I'm sure ATi/Nvidia provided you with a DVI cable, yeah? Now that DVI cable (a digital cable to carry video), will not be a $100 cable when the graphics card itself may only have cost that.

And a DVI cable is practically identical to an HDMI cable, only difference being DVI can't carry sound, it's video only.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Audioboxer

[John S. Veteran]

No, it's not.

If there is a difference, why all the deception in sales? Why not just show the actual difference? And why are there so many tech articles showing the difference is undetectable?

Or did someone plunk down a nice chunk of change on Monster cables? :pinch:

[ToneKnee]

Yeah, Monster cables are really good quality, but it doesn't warrant the price tag that they sell them at. What the employee did (and we know this is a company wide issue) was wrong, and it's not the first time that companies try to do stuff like this. They'll get even more desperate since it's Christmas and the current economic climate at the moment. People need to be cautious and read up anything they are planning on buying.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Its not fair to say that everybody should know everything about what they are doing. There tend to be people who are not into those things.

That actually is my point to the OP.

There's no point in getting all uptight and flustered over people who know no better buying these cables because they just don't know. They'll be happy with their purchase at the end of the day, until the day may arise where they find out they've paid far too much.

Which is why the best thing you can do is help out if you overhear conversations, but apart from that just deal with it and take happiness from the fact you know you haven't wasted your money.

Plus you probably couldn't beat the facial expression of the Best Buy employee trying to pawn off a $100 cable to someone when you step in and say, just buy a $5 cable from Monoprice, it does the same thing :p

[Rob2687]

Where does the difference come from if there is no error or loss in transmission through the cable?

[ATLien_0]

im not necessarily getting all uptight and I probably should have interjected, but its a 2 sided problem. Companies are trying to profit big on peoples lack of knowledge in the tech world AND people just dont know better.

If anyone has heard of Clark Howard hear in the States, he is a money saving guru and has a sindicated radio broadcast as well as many guides on the web on how to save money. This is one of those situations where I wish there was a techie version of him

[hdood]

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

It's not like, say, a CD player where the signal has to be converted to analog at some stage and an external DAC might produce a better (og different) analog signal than an ultra-cheap one built into an ultra-cheap CD player.

The onus is on you to tell us how there can possibly be any difference.

[Joel]

Yes it is.

It's not like, say, a CD player where the signal has to be converted to analog at some stage and an external DAC might produce a better (og different) analog signal than an ultra-cheap one built into an ultra-cheap CD player.

The onus is on you to tell us how there can possibly be any difference.

How so? All you're saying is that there can be none, without any other backup than, "it's digital".

When DACs came out to replace the shoddy builtin ones found in CD players, you could change the sound of the music by MOVING the optical cable connecting the player to the DAC. Don't tell me digital is always the same, no matter what. It's just not true. These are witnessed and corroborated events, made in my life, that you cannot possibly dispute without having been there.

As I said; they may not be worth the difference in price (as large as it is), but don't spread nonsense by saying it can make NO difference at all, just because "it's digital".

If there is a difference, why all the deception in sales?

Why not just show the actual difference?

And why are there so many tech articles showing the difference is undetectable?:

It's not easily demonstrated on lesser equipment.

It's not that easy, for the reason above.

Tech articles look at specs and bandwidth, not actual sound or picture.

[shihchiun]

Its not fair to say that everybody should know everything about what they are doing. There tend to be people who are not into those things.

It's a tradeoff. Either you educate yourself (time cost) or you pay more (financial cost).

[Coldgunner]

If there were visual differences, I doubt its noticable on modestly sized screens. If you have an unusually large screen then you may be happier to fork out for the premium stuff.

Monster are rip off merchants anyway.

[DrCheese]

When it comes to picture quality, using a ?5 cable will give no difference than a ?1000 cable. It's that simple. Anyone who says otherwise is plain wrong and I simply can not be bothered to argue about it. The evidence is all over the internet. Any so called quality increase is simply the placebo effect

The only issues you may run into using a cheaper cable is HDMI handshake issues or you may hit the digital cliff and get nothing at all.

[shakey_snake]

When DACs came out to replace the shoddy builtin ones found in CD players, you could change the sound of the music by MOVING the optical cable connecting the player to the DAC. Don't tell me digital is always the same, no matter what. It's just not true. These are witnessed and corroborated events, made in my life, that you cannot possibly dispute without having been there.

lol.

If you witnessed someone moving an optical cable then you were in no position to be be judging whether the music changed at all. You've left yourself open to Placebo effect, Observer bias and experimenter's bias. Such experiments must be done double-blind, or at the very least, blind.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

When it comes to picture quality, using a ?5 cable will give no difference than a ?1000 cable. It's that simple. Anyone who says otherwise is plain wrong and I simply can not be bothered to argue about it. The evidence is all over the internet. Any so called quality increase is simply the placebo effect

The only issues you may run into using a cheaper cable is HDMI handshake issues or you may hit the digital cliff and get nothing at all.

Have you actually done a blind comparison between two such cables yourself and found this?

[shakey_snake]

Have you actually done a blind comparison between two such cables yourself and found this?

Blind (and double blind) tests cannot prove that there isn't a difference.

Blind (and double blind) tests can only prove that there is a difference.

[hdood]

How so? All you're saying is that there can be none, without any other backup than, "it's digital".

Because, genius, if the signal gets there 100% intact, it gets there 100% intact.

The cable cannot in any way, shape, or form change the properties of an intact digital signal, and there are no mysterious properties that can't be measured.

If it did then the signal would no longer be intact (and the receiving end knows, because it checks).

A cable can, like I've said before, introduce errors in the digital stream which means the receiving end has to discard the packet and replace it with an estimate of what it thinks it should have been based on interpolating the packets that come before and after it.

This would degrade the picture quality, but like I've said, even cheap cables are perfectly capable of delivering the signal.

Blind (and double blind) tests cannot prove that there isn't a difference.

Blind (and double blind) tests can only prove that there is a difference.

Bringing up blind tests is pointless anyway! It doesn't even need any "blind testing," as it can easily be measured electronically!

[Coldgunner]

[TEX4S]

It's a tradeoff. Either you educate yourself (time cost) or you pay more (financial cost).

DING DING DING DING - WE HAVE A WINNER !

Thank You !, its nice to see someone actually went to a college level econ course and learned "opportunity cost"

[Sethos]

2 Minute google search vs spending 100-150$ more ...

No nerds time is worth that much