HDMI Cables

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › HDMI Cables

1 | 2 | 3

webup

545 posts

Ultimate Geek

#250102 24-Aug-2009 14:58

magu: Bought a Monster HDMI cable for $299 (part of a 'deal' to get my HT set), then bought another (different brand) cable off TradeMe for $20. Difference? Just the hole in my pocket.

Digital cables are either working or not. There's no difference in the quality from the brand of cable. Just make sure you get good connectors (no gold-plating needed) so that the cable stays put in place.

Yes indeed.

I almost fell over laughing when I came back from living in the UK and walked into a Harvey Norman store here and saw HDMI cables for $80+

It makes me mad because those crooks will be giving the whole sales pitch full of lies to some poor chump who has just shelled out on a new flatscreen 'oh you will be wanting this extra high quality HDMI cable to get the most out of your HDTV.'

I have almost as many HDMI cables laying around as I do cable ties.
They are a $10 item. End of.

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

BitSignal

Lifetime subscriber

#250111 24-Aug-2009 15:17

webup: It makes me mad because those crooks will be giving the whole sales pitch full of lies to some poor chump who has just shelled out on a new flatscreen 'oh you will be wanting this extra high quality HDMI cable to get the most out of your HDTV.'

I sometimes have to contain myself really hard with some stuff that comes out of the mouth of a few 'salesmen' at Harvey Norman. Sometimes you can find some very knowledgeable people in there, but there are times that they say stuff that just cracks me up.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#250115 24-Aug-2009 15:24

Harvey Norman stores used to have a Monster display that ran (from memory) Monster's Inc on a DVD player into 2 screens side by side. One was a Monster cable, the other a "regular" cable.

The quality of the picture on the screen that had the Monster cable was a lot better than the one that had the regular cable.

The difference? The Monster cable was using component, the regular cable was a composite from the same DVD player.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#250129 24-Aug-2009 16:11

sbiddle: Harvey Norman stores used to have a Monster display that ran (from memory) Monster's Inc on a DVD player into 2 screens side by side. One was a Monster cable, the other a "regular" cable.

The quality of the picture on the screen that had the Monster cable was a lot better than the one that had the regular cable.

The difference? The Monster cable was using component, the regular cable was a composite from the same DVD player.

This is an often used example, but I don't see the problem. This is what your DVD player looks like now (using the cheapie shoestring composite included) and this is what it could look like if you bought monster component cables. They are not obliged to tell you there are also other similar (or better) performing cables available for much cheaper. The display is not comparing their component cables to other component cables, so what's the issue?

RustyGonad

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#250137 24-Aug-2009 16:36

Its using deception to misrepresent a product - thats the issue.

That is, it is implying by direct comparison that by buying a monster brand cable you can expect a significant gain in picture quality over an "non" monster cable.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#250190 24-Aug-2009 19:35

bazzer:
sbiddle:
The difference? The Monster cable was using component, the regular cable was a composite from the same DVD player.

This is an often used example, but I don't see the problem.

Wow how can you NOT see a problem with that? They are trying to convince you that the difference is due to it being monster cable. NOT that is it different because it is a different technology being used ie. Composite verses Component.
For any comparison between product A verses product B the example must in very other way be the same. In this case either both TV's should be using composite or both using component. Just how well do you think that display would work if your had a no name component connection on the non monster side and composite on the monster?

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#250194 24-Aug-2009 19:49

most tv's and dvd players come with a cheapie component (or hdmi) cable anyway so there should be no reason for a component vs composite comparison

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#250245 24-Aug-2009 22:06

Nety:
bazzer:
sbiddle:
The difference? The Monster cable was using component, the regular cable was a composite from the same DVD player.

This is an often used example, but I don't see the problem.

Wow how can you NOT see a problem with that? They are trying to convince you that the difference is due to it being monster cable. NOT that is it different because it is a different technology being used ie. Composite verses Component.
For any comparison between product A verses product B the example must in very other way be the same. In this case either both TV's should be using composite or both using component. Just how well do you think that display would work if your had a no name component connection on the non monster side and composite on the monster?

I guess I haven't seen the display, so I can't know for sure but aren't they just trying to get you to buy their monster component cable? It used to be that you'd never get anything better than a cheap composite cable with things you bought (maybe that's changed), but in that case how is that not a fair comparison? Old cable vs potential new cable.

Where's the deception? Do they say they're comparing like with like? Maybe the display says something to that effect, but I doubt it, there are laws against deceptive advertising, right? How's it any different to any number of outlandish claims made in advertising. Do you believe everything you see?

I didn't know there were such rules for comparing products ("For any comparison between product A verses product B the example must in very other way be the same") in advertising. Sure, if you're trying to be scientific you might follow such rules, but it's not a scientific experiment, it's an ad! Now, I'm not trying to defend Monster's quality (meh) or value for money (bad!) but I just don't see it's that big a deal, and it's always bandied about. Caveat emptor.

1 | 2 | 3