Monster Cable HDMI Scam

[+Fahim S. MVC]

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.

But they can suggest that there is no discernible difference between a cheaper cable and an expensive one...

Edited December 21, 2008 by .fahim

[HawkMan]

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".

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.

You can't use CD's and DAC's as a comparison, I'm not sure why you see that, and for one the CD thing had nothgin to do with the cable.

in your CD example the signal is handled like this

Digitial source(CD) -Digital-> Optical cable -digital-> DAC\Amp -Analog> [Amp -Analog>] Analog Speakers

What changes the sound quality here is the quality of the DAC. as the signal is stored on the CD. but the DAC will enhance the sound, add mising data and do some sound handling, and it's analog components may very well be of better quality too.

Now let's look at HDMI in an example

Digital Source(xbox360/PS3/BD player/mediaCenter) -digital-> HDMI Cable -digital-> Digital Flat screen TV.

it's digital all the effing way. there's no conversion going on where the signal can be improved in the conversion process. sure you may do some up or down scaling in there somwhere wich requires quality components, or rather processors, but this has nothing to do with the cable.

as has been said. at anything 3 meter an below at the very least, any cbale of good enough quality (i.e not faulty) will give the same signal out as you put in. Yes, when you go for 10, 15 meter and more cables, then yesm you need higher quality, however there are cables of good enough quality that aren't monster. A good 15 meter cable that is capable of giving a 100% pictures would cost as much as a 1-3 meter Monster cable. And then you'd still get all the fany stuff like gold plated connectors and ****.

Yes, there are times when you need to buy a good high quality cable, however, I don't see any situations where you need to actually buy a Monster cable

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

Dude, I would of ran up to the guy before check out, and told him to just drop everything and walk out.

He actually got HDMI cables with a DVD player.. he probably paid as much for the cables as he did the player.

[TEX4S]

I try to educate myself in matters before buying. My father on the other hand, whose bank account has many many more digits in it than mine does - wouldnt care if there is a difference or not - and wouldnt care about the price difference -

again - everything is relative - I guess....

But this is just outrageous:

Best Buy Geek Squad DVI cables - $99

[+Fahim S. MVC]

You can't use CD's and DAC's as a comparison, I'm not sure why you see that, and for one the CD thing had nothgin to do with the cable.

<snip>

I think you missed the point - he said physically moving the optical cable changed the sound - not changing where it was in the chain but leaving it in the same place in the chain but actually physically moving it.

[Tuffgong4]

Best Buy makes more money off of these cables and accessories then they do on the large price items. So they push the cables, the warranties, the at home installations more than anything else.

The best thing about this is that avg joe public will fall for it a lot of the time. A fool and his money are easily parted.

[shakey_snake]

But they can suggest that there is no discernible difference between a cheaper cable and an expensive one...

No. They cannot make such a suggestion.

They can find that there was no discernible difference found at that particular time for that particular subject, under those particular circumstances, but blind tests cannot objectify such a finding.

[TEX4S]

No. They cannot make such a suggestion.

They can find that there was no discernible difference found at that particular time for that particular subject, under those particular circumstances, but blind tests cannot objectify such a finding.

Thank You, I was about to say that but am too lazy -

There is always the premise (a latin term which means - 'all other things being equal') - but those tests only show what exactly is tested....

[+Fahim S. MVC]

No. They cannot make such a suggestion.

They can find that there was no discernible difference found at that particular time for that particular subject, under those particular circumstances, but blind tests cannot objectify such a finding.

Right - so how do you prove it either way when you are discussing the perception of sound and picture - there is no such thing as objective in the case.

If I feel I get a better picture from the ?40 cable over the ?10 cable, having chosen the ?40 cable not knowing that it was ?40 cable - then isn't that the cable I should be buying?

[Joel]

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.

Um, no.

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.

Believe what you like. If you've never heard of error-correction technology, there is no discussion to be had between us.

You can't use CD's and DAC's as a comparison, I'm not sure why you see that, and for one the CD thing had nothgin to do with the cable.

I bring up CDs because of all the same arguments that arose because of them are coming up again now. I bring up the CD because there were no other machines, besides Laserdisc players, that had DAC converter capability.

You can all believe what you like about the properties of digital, that's fine. I'm not the one suffering if you do. I should have known this would be the case, trying to debate this with the generation that thinks MP3s are the epitome of sound reproduction and that PC speaker systems are hi-fi.

I think you missed the point - he said physically moving the optical cable changed the sound - not changing where it was in the chain but leaving it in the same place in the chain but actually physically moving it.

Thank you.

[TEX4S]

Um, no.

???

Thats all you have ?

He is correct in what he says - if you dont agree - it cant be about the Placebo effect skewing the validity - thats justa given...

Edited December 21, 2008 by Joel

[Incast]

I find it astonishing that even in this community that people seriously believe you can get 'better' quality from some digital cables over others.

Digital cables take the input digital data and then output the very same data. Any cable which fails to achieve this is instantly classified as faulty, and it is fairly easy to spot as due to the nature of digital video small corruption will result in massive video playback corruption.

If you seriously believe that different digital cables can improve video quality, then I only hope you are using some extremely expensive SATA cables. These operate on the same principle and it's far more important for these to have absolute accuracy in the data they transfer.

[hdood]

Believe what you like. If you've never heard of error-correction technology, there is no discussion to be had between us.

There is no error-correction in a cable, and all error correction can do anyway is attempt to restore the packet to 100%. If it fails, it has to be discarded and an approximation of whatever was in it created -- usually by interpolation. This is of course ignoring the fact that the HDMI video signal has no meaningful error correction at all, but whatever.

This is just turning into paranormal crap now.

[Joel]

There is no error-correction in a cable, and all error correction can do anyway is attempt to restore the packet to 100%.

Sigh. Thank you, Captain Obvious. I know where the EC is.

So if the cable has faults and the error correction is engaged fulltime, you think it's the same thing as a perfect transfer?

???

Thats all you have ?

He is correct in what he says - if you dont agree - it cant be about the Placebo effect skewing the validity - thats justa given...

Like I said, believe what you want. I know all about the placebo effect, and I also know when the difference is not even up to the subjectivity of the listeners. This was not debatable; the difference was immediate and extremely discernible.

[hdood]

Sigh. Thank you, Captain Obvious. I know where the EC is.

So if the cable has faults and the error correction is engaged fulltime, you think it's the same thing as a perfect transfer?

I don't "think" it is.. IT IS. If error correction works, it recreates the original with 100% accuracy. It's all or nothing. So, yes, it amounts to a perfect transfer.

Of course, if there is too much noise you would end up with errors that could not be corrected, which leads to the scenario I've described several times.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

[Joel]

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Yes, I feel the same way.

I don't "think" it is.. IT IS. If error correction works, it recreates the original with 100% accuracy. It's all or nothing. So, yes, it amounts to a perfect transfer.

Right. Sure. One machine makes assumptions about what the other machine was sending, but you say it's perfect in the end.

[Srugie Veteran]

I have had many experiences at Best Buy where they have tried to convince me to buy the "better" (and more expensive) Monster Cables instead of buying the ones from the other companies.

[hdood]

Right. Sure. One machine makes assumptions about what the other machine was sending, but you say it's perfect in the end.

No, it does not make "assumptions," it uses math to verify the integrity of the data.

And I officially give up. It's like talking to someone who's been brainwashed by a cult.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

No, it does not make "assumptions," it uses math to verify the integrity of the data.

And I officially give up. It's like talking to someone who's been brainwashed by a cult.

So it uses math - but according to you it also does interpolation...

If it fails, it has to be discarded and an approximation of whatever was in it created -- usually by interpolation.

What is interpolation if not an assumption?

[Beastage]

Dude, I would of ran up to the guy before check out, and told him to just drop everything and walk out.

He actually got HDMI cables with a DVD player.. he probably paid as much for the cables as he did the player.

Yea I agree.

I try to protect a fellow customer when I get chance from being deceived because when one gets deceived like this, we all lose.

Hell I would have taken a picture of the scam bestbuy are doing with monster and send it to the local newspaper.

[shakey_snake]

Right - so how do you prove it either way when you are discussing the perception of sound and picture - there is no such thing as objective in the case.

Blind (and double blind) ABX tests do objectively prove claims of differences.

They can't objectively prove there are no differences. It is a one way street.

Is that not clear? I feel like you're ****ing with me at this point. I already said:

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.

If I feel I get a better picture from the ?40 cable over the ?10 cable, having chosen the ?40 cable not knowing that it was ?40 cable - then isn't that the cable I should be buying?

Objectively, not necessarily.

Subjectively, do whatever you want, as long as you're don't claim objectivity.

[ATLien_0]

Also if you look at it. Monster is trying what they have always tried doing especially back when we still used analog video. Take for instance the cheapo rca video cable versus a premium monster or radio shack cable, you will notice a difference because of signal loss.

A digital cable on the other hand just sends 1s and 0s so there should be no loss or errors if there are errors that either is a faulty cable which can happen even with Monsters or a bad stream sent

plain and simple

You can also use this logic with usb and firewire cables and other digital cables

Im using with my monitor a $5 DVI cable and the picture works and looks fine

[+Fahim S. MVC]

Blind (and double blind) ABX tests do objectively prove claims of differences.

They can't objectively prove there are no differences. It is a one way street.

Is that not clear? I feel like you're ****ing with me at this point. I already said:

Objectively, not necessarily.

Subjectively, do whatever you want, as long as you're don't claim objectivity.

I'm not f***ing with you at all - when a test is trying to define the subjective perception of something, how can it ever objectively prove the difference between any two things...?

[hdood]

What is interpolation if not an assumption?

No, measures like interpolation come later, after error correction has failed and the device is still left with invalid data.

[teriba]

Right. Sure. One machine makes assumptions about what the other machine was sending, but you say it's perfect in the end.

By definition that's exactly what error correction does. You will either get silence or a bit perfect representation of what was sent. There is absolutely nothing in between on an error corrected digital transmission.