Monster Cable HDMI Scam

[Joel]

Also, MILLIONS of people use cheap HDMI cables, if there really was differences they'd be well documented - The opposite is true though, there being no differences IS well documented.

Millions of people think an iPod is hi-fi sound, too. Does that make them right?

The argument here is that digital is digital is digital is digital. Optical is digital and can't carry HD sound sources. Why not? It's digital, after all. Cable medium can't possibly be a difference, according to the 'experts' here. Only the industry had said this is a fact, which could very well have been to push HDMI as a standard.

@Audioboxer: No one has ever seen the difference between the bitrates of HDDVD and BD either. Does that mean BD's bitrates aren't superior for viewing after all?

Edited February 1, 2009 by Joel

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Millions of people think an iPod is hi-fi sound, too. Does that make them right?

The argument here is that digital is digital is digital is digital. Optical is digital and can't carry HD sound sources. Why not? It's digital, after all. Cable medium can't possibly be a difference, according to the 'experts' here. Only the industry had said this is a fact, which could very well have been to push HDMI as a standard.

@Audioboxer: No one has ever seen the difference between the bitrates of HDDVD and BD either. Does that mean BD's bitrates aren't superior for viewing after all?

Joel tests have been carried out on the cables with professional equipment, nullifying your silly ipod remark. When an HDMI cable is working properly, it's working properly, there's no difference in visual quality.

And bitrates of films have nothing to do with digital cables.

I ask you to go find tests or results showing differences in audio/visual quality between HDMI cables. There are countless articles/tests/reports littering the web showing there are no differences between working cables, but I can't say I've ever seen a report or test showing differences unless it's coming from the mouth of a sales rep/monster themselves or someone whos bought a $200+ cable and is adamant there is differences.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Audioboxer

[ahhell]

So is Joel for or against Monster cables???

I'm confused.

[MightyJordan]

Okay so I'm a bit too lazy to read all 11 pages of comments.

So if someone could answer this for me real quick it would be great.

I'm going to be getting an HDMI cable for my PS3; would it be beneficial to grab a cheap less than $10 nGear one? Or would it be better to grab a more expensive MONSTER cable?

My friend says there WILL be a bit of quality loss with the cheaper cable at 1080p (I will be running at 1080)

Go with the cheapest one you can find. HDMI is a digital format, so there's no difference in quality whatsoever. It either works or it doesn't. I've seen many tests from various programs and sites, and they all perform exactly the same.

[Joel]

Joel tests have been carried out on the cables with professional equipment, nullifying your silly ipod remark. When an HDMI cable is working properly, it's working properly, there's no difference in visual quality.

Those same tests show a marked difference in signal between the cables when using testing equipment, as opposed to using your eye. So my iPod comment stands; just because you don't see/hear a difference, don't say it's impossible for there to be one.

And bitrates of films have nothing to do with digital cables.

Bitrates were THE reason to push BD over HDDVD (storage space was not a realistic factor), because higher bitrates OBVIOUSLY meant a better picture. That's not the case in reality; no one could actually ever see the difference.

I ask you to go find tests or results showing differences in audio/visual quality between HDMI cables. There are countless articles/tests/reports littering the web showing there are no differences between working cables, but I can't say I've ever seen a report or test showing differences unless it's coming from the mouth of a sales rep/monster themselves or someone whos bought a $200+ cable and is adamant there is differences.

You've missed what I'm actually saying every single time; I'm NOT saying that Monster cables are worth anything or make any difference to the picture or sound. What I HAVE been saying is that it's a fallacy to say that digital is digital and no cable can ever produce a different result than any other cable. There ARE tests conducted that show huge difference to TESTING equipment using different cables, but the reviewers also say that they saw no difference at all when using the cables for movie and sound tests. Am I clear yet?

So is Joel for or against Monster cables???

I'm confused.

Against their price, also against the fallacy of saying that no digital cable can ever produce different results than any other cable. We still don't have a definitive answer on why an optical cable can't transmit HD sound.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Those same tests show a marked difference in signal between the cables when using testing equipment, as opposed to using your eye. So my iPod comment stands; just because you don't see/hear a difference, don't say it's impossible for there to be one.

Bitrates were THE reason to push BD over HDDVD (storage space was not a realistic factor), because higher bitrates OBVIOUSLY meant a better picture. That's not the case in reality; no one could actually ever see the difference.

You've missed what I'm actually saying every single time; I'm NOT saying that Monster cables are worth anything or make any difference to the picture or sound. What I HAVE been saying is that it's a fallacy to say that digital is digital and no cable can ever produce a different result than any other cable. There ARE tests conducted that show huge difference to TESTING equipment using different cables, but the reviewers also say that they saw no difference at all when using the cables for movie and sound tests. Am I clear yet?

Those same tests show a marked difference in signal between the cables when using testing equipment, as opposed to using your eye. So my iPod comment stands; just because you don't see/hear a difference, don't say it's impossible for there to be one.

I'll go dig up a selection of tests for you and post them here.

Bitrates were THE reason to push BD over HDDVD (storage space was not a realistic factor), because higher bitrates OBVIOUSLY meant a better picture. That's not the case in reality; no one could actually ever see the difference.

Again I have no idea what your point is with this comment, we're talking about HDMI cables and you're going off on one about Blu Ray vs HD-DVD? We're talking digital signals, not bitrates.

You've missed what I'm actually saying every single time; I'm NOT saying that Monster cables are worth anything or make any difference to the picture or sound. What I HAVE been saying is that it's a fallacy to say that digital is digital and no cable can ever produce a different result than any other cable. There ARE tests conducted that show huge difference to TESTING equipment using different cables, but the reviewers also say that they saw no difference at all when using the cables for movie and sound tests. Am I clear yet?

You've been clear all along Joel, you're playing the devils advocate card of "just because people say there's no difference, it doesn't mean there isn't". But for all intents and purposes when a general consumer asks what should I buy they want the answer of buy expensive or buy cheap, and the answers are going to mimic what the best solution is.

[DrCheese]

We still don't have a definitive answer on why an optical cable can't transmit HD sound.

The cable itself is more than capable of the bandwidth required for it, but the S/PDIF protocol it uses isn't, at least this is what I've got from googling.

It was easier and less confusing to move to HDMI and throw in HDCP than it would have been to upgrade the standard and have incompatible equipment using the same plugs.

[Joel]

Again I have no idea what your point is with this comment, we're talking about HDMI cables and you're going off on one about Blu Ray vs HD-DVD? We're talking digital signals, not bitrates.

The point is this; you're saying that there can be no difference between HDMI cables, because they're digital and no one has yet heard or seen a difference. That's the same result as the bitrate difference between a BD and a HDDVD; there was no difference to the viewer/listener, even though the math suggested one was better than the other. IIRC, you yourself used that as an argument for BD over the HDDVD format. If no one can hear or see the difference, is there a difference? You're saying that it matters that no one has for HDMI, but the argument for BD using the same criteria made it a better format to some.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The point is this; you're saying that there can be no difference between HDMI cables, because they're digital and no one has yet heard or seen a difference. That's the same result as the bitrate difference between a BD and a HDDVD; there was no difference to the viewer/listener, even though the math suggested one was better than the other. IIRC, you yourself used that as an argument for BD over the HDDVD format. If no one can hear or see the difference, is there a difference? You're saying that it matters that no one has for HDMI, but the argument for BD using the same criteria made it a better format to some.

You cannot compare digital cables to bitrate!

Everyone knows bitrate can be measured in quality on a scale of low bitrate to high bitrate. Watch a streamed HD movie, then watch one off a disc. There are noticeable differences - What you're throwing the spanner in the works with is "once you get to a certain figure you can't notice the difference".

That cannot be applied to HDMI cables, there is no definable "scale" involved.

[shakey_snake]

The point is this; you're saying that there can be no difference between HDMI cables, because they're digital and no one has yet heard or seen a difference. That's the same result as the bitrate difference between a BD and a HDDVD; there was no difference to the viewer/listener, even though the math suggested one was better than the other.

The "math" of a monoprice HDMI cable is the same as the "math" of a $40,000 idiots-only oxygen-free HDMI cable, because they are both follow the same HDMI spec.

So what is your argument, exactly?

If no one can hear or see the difference, is there a difference? You're saying that it matters that no one has for HDMI, but the argument for BD using the same criteria made it a better format to some.

I don't exactly know what the argument made was that you are referencing, but considering that Blu-ray will eventually be used as a computer storage medium, I'd say that bitrate was still important when picking that spec. Edited February 1, 2009 by shakey_snake

[Joel]

You cannot compare digital cables to bitrate!

Everyone knows bitrate can be measured in quality on a scale of low bitrate to high bitrate. Watch a streamed HD movie, then watch one off a disc. There are noticeable differences - What you're throwing the spanner in the works with is "once you get to a certain figure you can't notice the difference".

That cannot be applied to HDMI cables, there is no definable "scale" involved.

I'm not talking about streamed vs. a disc, I'm talking about disc vs. disc. No one could see or hear any difference between the rates in either format, but an argument was made that that very 'feature' was a format-killer. Now, you're saying that if there's no visible or aural difference, there IS no difference.

As I said, tests also showed huge differences in HDMI cables, but when it came to the visual or aural, none were noticed. Don't say HDMI cables can't be tested.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I'm not talking about streamed vs. a disc, I'm talking about disc vs. disc. No one could see or hear any difference between the rates in either format, but an argument was made that that very 'feature' was a format-killer. Now, you're saying that if there's no visible or aural difference, there IS no difference.

But you're sounding like your real grudge in here now lies with the Blu Ray vs HD DVD war, instead of with HDMI cables...

As shakey_snake said, all these cables are made to the same HDMI spec, the only difference is within the price of materials used to make the cabling. So if reinforced crystal infused platinum cables are needed in your household, of course, go buy the $200 cable. For most people though, the only thing that matters is their picture/audio, not bragging rights about a fancy looking cable.

As I said, tests also showed huge differences in HDMI cables, but when it came to the visual or aural, none were noticed. Don't say HDMI cables can't be tested.

Can you link me to these tests?

And I never said the cables can't be tested, in fact I've said the exact opposite multiple times in here :huh: Tests have shown the signals are the same between cheap and expensive cables if they're working.

[Joel]

The "math" of a monoprice HDMI cable is the same as the "math" of a $40,000 idiots-only oxygen-free HDMI cable, because they are both follow the same HDMI spec.

So what is your argument, exactly?

The same math that said buy a more expensive player and disc for the same result as players and discs for half the price, all other things being equal.

But you're sounding like your real grudge in here now lies with the Blu Ray vs HD DVD war, instead of with HDMI cables...

You keep trying to get this angle going, but I'm only using any similes to show you that what was good for one is good for the other.

As shakey_snake said, all these cables are made to the same HDMI spec, the only difference is within the price of materials used to make the cabling. So if reinforced crystal infused platinum cables are needed in your household, of course, go buy the $200 cable.

The encoding of HD discs (both formats) were made to a spec also, but the BD camp touted the higher bitrates as a major factor. One that no one could see or hear. The same non-difference you're saying is NOT a factor in HDMI cables, that have been tested and sho to have differences in the test-graph world, but not in the real world.

[shakey_snake]

See the 2nd part of my revised post.

Fast thread moves fast.

[Joel]

And I never said the cables can't be tested, in fact I've said the exact opposite multiple times in here :huh: Tests have shown the signals are the same between cheap and expensive cables if they're working.

What does working mean? Showing a movie, or having a signal sent thru them?

I don't exactly know what the argument made was that you are referencing, but considering that Blu-ray will eventually be used as a computer storage medium, I'd say that bitrate was still important when picking that spec.

The argument was about how much better a movie would look/sound with a higher bitrate. Not a factor in real life (but the storage medium point has always been valid. I've always said that BD was a better medium for PCs, but most of the BD camp touted the BD or HDDVD for movies, based on false claims).

[shakey_snake]

What does working mean? Showing a movie, or having a signal sent thru them?

signal after error correction is applied.

The argument was about how much better a movie would look/sound with a higher bitrate. Not a factor in real life (but the storage medium point has always been valid. I've always said that BD was a better medium for PCs, but most of the BD camp touted the BD or HDDVD for movies, based on false claims).

Well, yeah, that's rubbish. But so was a lot of the propaganda during the format war from both sides.

But so what? that doesn't make you right about HDMI cables...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

What does working mean? Showing a movie, or having a signal sent thru them?

Working means the signal successfully going from device to device/TV.

If that's not happening, you return your cable as it's faulty.

You keep trying to get this angle going, but I'm only using any similes to show you that what was good for one is good for the other.

I keep trying the angle?

Your last 3/4 posts keep coming back with you comparing HDMI cables to the HD war...

Joel, watch this video -

(I think it's the right one, Youtube is now saying "This video is not available in your country." when I'm sure it worked before)

or the direct source of the video

Is an expensive HDTV cable really better than a cheap one?

Now that high-definition TVs are really coming down in price, competition among electronics retailers is heating up. Stores no longer enjoy the huge margins they did back in the days of $50,000 plasma screens. Big TVs are not sources of big profits.

Making up some of the difference is the art of "packing the deal." In short, this means adding high-profit extras on to the core purchase. It can mean extended warranties, or home installation, or service calls. Or it can mean expensive accessories such as cables.

In this report, Erica Johnson takes a close look at the HDMI cable. This is the all-in-one cord that carries both sound and video into your HDTV, and you'll need one to get the best picture from your new setup. The most expensive model we found in-store was a Monster cable costing upwards of $250. We found a generic one online for just $12, including shipping. The test? To see whether the extra money was worth it.

Just in case some of your fellow viewers are curious: How much did you pay to hook up your new HDTV?

Video: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/packing_the_deal/

Edited February 1, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Sethos]

S-Video > HDMI

There you go.

[MistaT40]

The branded cables are not worth the price. You don't get any better performance from them.

Just make sure that when you buy the cheaper ones that they are of the right spec and made of good materials. Make sure you check that they are the high-bandwidth ones too cause I noticed that a lot of the cheaper ones are selling them as 1.3b spec but really they have 1.2 specs i.e. 5gb/s TMDS bandwidth instead of 10, 4gb/s video bandwidth instead of 8. So make sure you double check the cables u are getting.

Rocketfish, Monster or any of those ables are a rip off. $60+ for like a short-ass cable.

I got a 10 ft HDMI cable 1.3b specs, from the same factory that makes the psyclone cables for $15.

[hdood]

Are you a crazy person, Joel?

You can't compare cables with video formats. I fail to see the relevance at all.

HDMI cables have one job, and that is to get a digital signal from point A to point B intact. This is something that can be objectively measured, and it's a simple scientific fact that a more expensive cable can do nothing to improve the quality of the picture. It can be physically more robust, have better protection from interference, be coated in diamonds, etc, but it can do nothing to improve an intact signal.

Either the signal gets there intact or it doesn't, regardless of what the cable cost, and any cable that follows the specification is capable of doing this in a normal environment. If it can't, it is a faulty product that you can return.

[XerXis]

look it's simple, suppose a signal is recognized as a 1 when it is between 4 and 6 volts. Which means anything lower than 4 is a zero.

That leaves a lot of room for noise on the cable, hence a digital cable doesn't need to be shielded as much as an analog one to keep the same quality. The signal might be distorted, in fact, the signal of a cheap cable will definitaly contain more noise than a monster cable. But it doesn't matter, it will still be recognized as 1 or 0.

And that is why spending 200 dollars on a cable barely measuring 2 meters is a big waste of money.

And i don't understand what Joel is trying to say about the bitrates.

His argument: bitrate 1 > bitrate 2 but people don't see the difference so cable signal 1 > cable signal 2 there must be a difference but people don't see it

my argument: cable signal 1 > cable signal 2 but digital signal 1 = digital signal 2 hence after DSP processor inside the tv the output is exactly the same

[Joel]

Can you link me to these tests?

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-batt...rt-2-268788.php

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-batt...rt-2-268788.php

Most people buying cables in here are hooking devices up that are under their TV, not 30ft+ away.

And paying $200 for "FUTURE WORLD 1440p" is a bit of a daft investment just now seeing as we're working with 720p/1080p TV sets.

[Coldgunner]

when I need a cable to support 1440p, I'll buy one, My ?15 5m cable is fine for me.

[Joel]

Most people buying cables in here are hooking devices up that are under their TV, not 30ft+ away.

And paying $200 for "FUTURE WORLD 1440p" is a bit of a daft investment just now seeing as we're working with 720p/1080p TV sets.

Sigh.

The point has always been; all cables are not the same. This is proof. There were differences at less than 1440p in those tests, you know.