MONSTER HDMI CABLES... Are they really as good as they say? Opinions please..

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › MONSTER HDMI CABLES... Are they really as good as they say? Opinions please..

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

1889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 44

Trusted

#323545 27-Apr-2010 12:33

freitasm: Get the $25 HDMI cable and it ill do the same.

Why splash out on $25 when you can get away with $7.95 for a brand spanking new gold plated HDMI cable:

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/TVs/Cables-aerials/auction-286114498.htm

Then again, if I paid $5,000 for a tv, i would feel slightly cheap getting an $8 cable - psychological reasons i guess.

samwooff

219 posts

Master Geek

#323547 27-Apr-2010 12:35

I agree with everyone else here. All that is being sent through the cable is 1's and 0's being a digital cable. If your cable is able to send all those 1's and 0's through to the other end then your picture will be perfect. If for some reason your cable isn't able to, you will see definite distortion and break up in the picture. Anyone who claims they see a better picture with a "insert brand" cable is wrong.

As for your 100hz tv that is an effect applied by the tv after it has gotten the signal from the cable already and so would have nothing to do with what cable you're using.

"Better" cables come into their own at long distances due to HDMI being quite a poorly designed cable and being based off DVI, there are several good articles on blue jeans cable for all the various technical reasons if you're interested http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm

Some cables might handle longer lengths better (and not because they have 2% silver or gold connectors or fancy plugs) but by no means should you have to spend monster money to get this performance. Further more if you have a project where you intend to go over 10m for your hdmi run you'll need a booster no matter what brand of cable you buy.

I don't doubt that monster may make some very pretty and well made HDMI cables that may carry a signal longer than that cable you bought online for $10 but they are by no means the only ones who make fully capable cables. Check out rapallo AV if you want to see what a perfectly fine HDMI cable should cost.

Desktop: i7 920, GTX 275, asus P6T, antec 1200, 6gb ram, 1tb spinpoint f1, 1tb spinpoint f3, Logitech Z2300, Zero DAC, Shure SRH440
Laptop: Toshiba satellite, T5300, Go 7300
Home Theatre: 32" loewe CRT, Harmon kardon amp, dvd player, image 418 speakers, rega planar 25 turntable :)

pageweon

393 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#323563 27-Apr-2010 12:51

well i feel vindicated!

this is where a signature goes

samwooff

219 posts

Master Geek

#323566 27-Apr-2010 12:52

cgrew:

I'm not the only one that agrees there is a noticable difference with the Monster cables against the cheap ones. And absolutely not, I'm carefull in what I buy and I prefer to get a cable of better build qualty - speaker and video.

What's better an HD ready TV or a FULL HD 1080p TV? Some will ague they both look the same.. they are both outputting a digital signal aren't they? But there is a difference in the digital reproduction of the picture.

Read this mate: http://gizmodo.com/266616/the-truth-about-monster-cable

No ones saying that monster make poor quality cables but there are plenty of others who do just as good a job for far less.

Sorry but that is not really a suitable analogy, Full HD is better and you can see the difference if your tv is large enough and you are close enough this chart has made an appearance on these forums more than once.
http://www.lowtek.ca/roo/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/resolution_chart.png
They are both digital signals but one has twice as much information as the other leading to a more detailed picture at the other end.
Monster's cables do not increase or change the digital information being sent out by your source unless they've somehow managed to sneakily fit an upscaling chip in their cables.

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 159

#323572 27-Apr-2010 12:55

Interesting reads:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/field-notes/the-truth-about-monster-cable-266616.php (EDIT: already posted earlier by cgrew)

http://gizmodo.com/268788/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-verdict-cheap-cables-keep-upusually

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#323593 27-Apr-2010 13:28

samwooff: I agree with everyone else here. All that is being sent through the cable is 1's and 0's being a digital cable. If your cable is able to send all those 1's and 0's through to the other end then your picture will be perfect. If for some reason your cable isn't able to, you will see definite distortion and break up in the picture. Anyone who claims they see a better picture with a "insert brand" cable is wrong.

As for your 100hz tv that is an effect applied by the tv after it has gotten the signal from the cable already and so would have nothing to do with what cable you're using.

"Better" cables come into their own at long distances due to HDMI being quite a poorly designed cable and being based off DVI, there are several good articles on blue jeans cable for all the various technical reasons if you're interested http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm

Some cables might handle longer lengths better (and not because they have 2% silver or gold connectors or fancy plugs) but by no means should you have to spend monster money to get this performance. Further more if you have a project where you intend to go over 10m for your hdmi run you'll need a booster no matter what brand of cable you buy.

I don't doubt that monster may make some very pretty and well made HDMI cables that may carry a signal longer than that cable you bought online for $10 but they are by no means the only ones who make fully capable cables. Check out rapallo AV if you want to see what a perfectly fine HDMI cable should cost.

I still disagree with what you say about the speed, it's done by the cable not the TV. In this example what would get water to a damn faster, a big thick pipe? Or a skinny thin one. Water is going to flow faster to the damn through the thick pipe over the skinny one.. So the cable that is built thicker will have a lower resistance therefore a faster picture reproduction and overall it makes the 100hz picture run better than a poor cheaply made cable.

I have proven this test myself and seen the difference NOT in picture quality but in the speed - both cables looked the same it is how they handled the 100hz.

That's my explanation if you can think of why it runs faster by all means explain your theory to me.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#323597 27-Apr-2010 13:32

cgrew:
pageweon: yesyesyes the cable is well shielded and well built and "certified" with a low resistance

but in the end at 1 metre long there will be no noticable difference at all

....none

Nooo pageweon! There is a difference - have you not heard of build quality? Obviously a cable that has better build quality is going to be far better off in the long run against any 'cheap' cables.

Picture will still be the same but what about the support of 120hz..

If you can see a difference then good for you - because there won't be one. If you're so confident I'll put the $$ on the table now and come around to your place with the pizza, beer and 30 friends to conduct a true blind test.

I also have no idea what you mean by 120Hz support - there is no such thing and a cable can't make any difference. I guess that's another thing dreamed up by Monster to sell overpriced cables. 120Hz (which is American anyway since we are a 50Hz PAL country) is an interpolation process inside the TV. It's also something many people turn off because it can make a lot of content look worse.

There is nothing wrong with Monster cables. They just aren't worth the money you pay for them, which in part is because of the *massive* margin for retailers.

The bandwidth thing is also another moot point and ironically the Monster distributors and Harvey Norman got own3d big time when they started putting Monster speed rated stickers on their TV's a couple of years ago. They used standard speed Monster stickers on small TV's right up to Ulta High Speed on 50" + TV's. A 1080p signal uses exactly the same bandwidth going into the 32" TV as it does going to a 50" TV!

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#323603 27-Apr-2010 13:40

cgrew: I still disagree with what you say about the speed, it's done by the cable not the TV. In this example what would get water to a damn faster, a big thick pipe? Or a skinny thin one. Water is going to flow faster to the damn through the thick pipe over the skinny one.. So the cable that is built thicker will have a lower resistance therefore a faster picture reproduction and overall it makes the 100hz picture run better than a poor cheaply made cable.

I have proven this test myself and seen the difference NOT in picture quality but in the speed - both cables looked the same it is how they handled the 100hz.

That's my explanation if you can think of why it runs faster by all means explain your theory to me.

The problem with your analogy is that there's only enough water at the source to utilise the thin pipe. Sure, the thick pipe may handle more one day in the future when there's more water available to fill the dam but at the moment the thin pipe fills the dam as quickly as possible.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#323606 27-Apr-2010 13:47

This was my favourite one:
http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger

That was testing monster speaker cables vs coat hangers.....
That's even analogue and not digital, yet the audiophiles couldn't detect a different.

Also, I'm guessing your "Monster" cable is going from either your Receiver to TV or Blu-ray to TV?
Meaning it won't matter, 100hz won't be transferred at all across the cable. It'll be done by the TV processing the signal. So the cable between the two won't matter at all?

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#323612 27-Apr-2010 13:53

sbiddle:

The bandwidth thing is also another moot point and ironically the Monster distributors and Harvey Norman got own3d big time when they started putting Monster speed rated stickers on their TV's a couple of years ago. They used standard speed Monster stickers on small TV's right up to Ulta High Speed on 50" + TV's. A 1080p signal uses exactly the same bandwidth going into the 32" TV as it does going to a 50" TV!

Exactly!!! Even a cheap v1.3 cable will support upto 10.2gbps. We are coming no where close to that at the moment. V1.3, v1.3a, v1.3b, v1.3c are almost all the same cables,

Q. What is the difference between HDMI 1.3 and HDMI 1.3a, or 1.3b?
For consumers, there is no difference between HDMI version 1.3 and 1.3a or 1.3b. These minor revisions to the specification typically relate to manufacturing or testing issues and do not impact features or functionality. In addition, HDMI Licensing, LLC is actively working with manufacturers to reduce confusion for consumers by de-emphasizing version numbers and focusing instead on product features and functionality.

www.hdmi.org

Also the listing for the v1.4 standard is there and that increases the res to 4k x 2k, which your TV won't support, so no need to even look past a cheap Trademe or Acquire cable

just get a cheap one, get some vinyl or rubber paint and paint it blue. Sorted :)

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#323616 27-Apr-2010 13:55

I think monster/more expensive cables are better, however only better in physical ways. By that I mean they do have some very good quality connections on the ends, gold plated terminals, often thicker shielding, inbuilt rf chokes etc. Given the option between expensive vs cheapest possible, I'd definitely want a monster equivalent on my system.

Would I pay monster prices for them though? No way. I got my last ones off trademe though, for about $15 for 4m hdmi with inbuilt chokes, gold connectors and V1.3b as well. From an installer point of view I would not use the cheapest possible cables necessarily, as the difference is usually in the quality of the end connectors. So whilst a cheap one might work now, it may not work so well in the future, especially if you're taking the plugs in and out a bit for whatever reason. When you set something up, you don't want to be going back later to fix it.

Content wise though, as has been mentioned, a bluray HD device is outputting a fixed amount of info to convey 24 frames per second off a 1080 video, plus the audio. This may change in the future with the requirements for 3D data transfer. Any 100Hz modification is being done in the TV/display device. Most cables can handle 1080p over short runs. The V1.3b spec is very important with splitters etc to ensure they will pass 1080p and do a proper hdcp handshake, but for cables it's often just marketing.

As the distance grows, so does the need to start taking steps to ensure the data gets there correctly. This is where you need to look at shielding, amplification etc, which is where a better quality cable will start to be important, especially if you're watching a bluray in an industrial plant room etc with lots of interference etc.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#323618 27-Apr-2010 13:58

sbiddle:
cgrew:
pageweon: yesyesyes the cable is well shielded and well built and "certified" with a low resistance

but in the end at 1 metre long there will be no noticable difference at all

....none

Nooo pageweon! There is a difference - have you not heard of build quality? Obviously a cable that has better build quality is going to be far better off in the long run against any 'cheap' cables.

Picture will still be the same but what about the support of 120hz..

If you can see a difference then good for you - because there won't be one. If you're so confident I'll put the $$ on the table now and come around to your place with the pizza, beer and 30 friends to conduct a true blind test.

I also have no idea what you mean by 120Hz support - there is no such thing and a cable can't make any difference. I guess that's another thing dreamed up by Monster to sell overpriced cables. 120Hz (which is American anyway since we are a 50Hz PAL country) is an interpolation process inside the TV. It's also something many people turn off because it can make a lot of content look worse.

There is nothing wrong with Monster cables. They just aren't worth the money you pay for them, which in part is because of the *massive* margin for retailers.

The bandwidth thing is also another moot point and ironically the Monster distributors and Harvey Norman got own3d big time when they started putting Monster speed rated stickers on their TV's a couple of years ago. They used standard speed Monster stickers on small TV's right up to Ulta High Speed on 50" + TV's. A 1080p signal uses exactly the same bandwidth going into the 32" TV as it does going to a 50" TV!

Well than my theory is unexplained then, because I originally bought a cheap cable going from my PS3 to my TV but since upgrading to what I thought would be a better HDMI cable going by my theory it runs faster - wasn't jittery as the cheap HDMI cable.

Explain please?

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#323620 27-Apr-2010 14:00

Jaxson: I think monster/more expensive cables are better, however only better in physical ways. By that I mean they do have some very good quality connections on the ends, gold plated terminals, often thicker shielding, inbuilt rf chokes etc. Given the option between expensive vs cheapest possible, I'd definitely want a monster equivalent on my system.

Would I pay those prices for them though? No way. From an installer point of view I would not use the cheapest possible cables as the difference is usually in the quality of the end connectors. So whilst a cheap one might work now, it may not work so well in the future, especially if you're taking the plugs in and out a bit for whatever reason.

Content wise though, as has been mentioned, a bluray HD device is outputting a fixed amount of info to convey 24 frames per second off a 1080 video, plus the audio. This may change in the future with the requirements for 3D data transfer. Any 100Hz modification is being done in the TV/display device. Most cables can handle 1080p over short runs.

As the distance grows, so does the need to start taking steps to ensure the data gets there correctly. This is where you need to look at shielding, amplification etc, which is where a better quality cable will start to be important, especially if you're watching a bluray in an industrial plant room etc with lots of interference etc.

I totally agree.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#323625 27-Apr-2010 14:07

cgrew: Well than my theory is unexplained then, because I originally bought a cheap cable going from my PS3 to my TV but since upgrading to what I thought would be a better HDMI cable going by my theory it runs faster - wasn't jittery as the cheap HDMI cable.

Explain please?

Could be a shielding thing perhaps? This has happened before where people have had problems sorted going to more expensive cables. Each case is different though, as the results could just as easicly be a faulty physical connection with the first cable though as well.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#323632 27-Apr-2010 14:10

cgrew:
Well than my theory is unexplained then, because I originally bought a cheap cable going from my PS3 to my TV but since upgrading to what I thought would be a better HDMI cable going by my theory it runs faster - wasn't jittery as the cheap HDMI cable.

Explain please?

If you could explain what's actually happening then I can probably tell you why it happens. Right now I have no idea what you mean.

Running 100Hz mode or 120Hz mode WILL cause jittery pictures, judder and a speed up look on some content. The goal of 100/200/300/400Hz motion interpolation is to improve the picture quality of standard interlaced TV which is either 25 or 30 frames. My doubling this and interpolating new frames you can improve the picture on some fast action stuff.

On a lot of content however interpolation can make things look worse. There is no hard and fast rule and it's the reason manufactuers let you turn this feature on and off.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7