Confused Over HDMI 1.3 and Monster's Cable

[bd_noob09]

I'm finally buying a Blu-Ray player and need to purchase a HDMI cable. As my Sony LCD only supports 10-bit color and is 60hz, I guess I don't need anything too fancy. However, I'm very confused over HDMI Version 1.3 standards and options.

If a HDMI cord conforms to 1.3 standards, is it required to support 10.2 Gbit/s or is this just an option? I ask because according to Monster:

"Take 1080p video with advanced 12-bit color, also called Deep Color, available right now from the PlayStation® 3. To experience this level of high definition performance, your HDMI cable must exceed the requirements of the HDMI 1.3a, CAT 1 specification, and support an astonishing cable data rate of 6.68 Gbps."

http://www.monstercable.com/HDMI/advanced_for_hdmi.asp

HUH?

Also, what calculations are they making in order to get these figures on this graph?



http://www.monstercable.com/HDMI/the_facts_on_hdmi.asp

As in how does Monster factor that a 12-bit signal @ 120hz requires 14.93Gbit/s?

I'm very confused...

[Another_Dude]

1. Monster's marketing is BS of the highest degree.
2. Save a lot of money and order your HDMI cable from monoprice.com

[MrFattBill]

Originally Posted by Another_Dude

1. Monster's marketing is BS of the highest degree.
2. Save a lot of money and order your HDMI cable from monoprice.com

1. Amen
2. High-Five

Although I do have some monster cables in my collection of "stuff" it is merely due to the fact that "Sun Television" was going out of business YEARS (~10) ago and it was dirt cheap. Now monoprice is the place for cables as far as I'm concerned as well.

Bill

[benricci]

Dude, HDMI sends a digital signal - just 1's and 0's.

What does this mean? Any HDMI cable will do the job, no need to spend more cash on something for no reason. A high priced HDMI cable is gonna pass the same 1's and 0's as a $5 HDMI cable.

Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is blowin' smoke, or working for Monster Cable...

[bd_noob09]

Agreed, agreed - I know Monster is just a lot of hype.

Still, it did get me thinking, are all 1.3a compliant HDMI cords capable of supporting 10.2 Gbit/s?

Also, http://www.monoprice.com/ lists different gauges of HDMI wire: 22AWG/24AWG/28AWG - what are the benefits to getting a larger gauge?

Also, some HDMI cords are listed having "ferrite cores" = iron cores? What does that mean?

I'm assuming silver-plated copper is better than tin-plated copper?

Thanks for the continued help!

[SDon1969]

I just bought three HDMI cables for coworkers (who were going to buy HDMI cables in a B&M store and overpay) on Amazon, one cent each. I have the same cable at home and it works fine.

http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-meter-foo...3219417&sr=8-1

[lobo81865]

Originally Posted by Another_Dude

1. Monster's marketing is BS of the highest degree.
2. Save a lot of money and order your HDMI cable from monoprice.com

What he said.

[My_Two_Cents]

Here's a quote from dobyblue on HDMI speeds/capabilities (the chart from Monster you have listed) that should answer your questions:

Originally Posted by dobyblue

1080p60 8bit colour:

2200 * 1125 = 2475000 number of pixels (Horizontal Resolution + Hblank * Vertical Resolution + VBlank)
2475000 * 30 = 74250000 (8-bit color - travelling in a 10-bit word length x 3 channels)
74250000 * 60 = 4455000000 (60 frames per second)
(4.46 Gbps)

Of course I'd bet $100 that the low-end Monster Cable would capably pass 1080p60 12-bit colour no problem at all and based on Gizmodo, Audioholics, etc., testing I'd be right.

[lobosrul]

I know the maximum frame rate that BD supports is 1080i60 or 1080p24 (not 60p and not 120p). Can anyone point out, if and when, were likely to see 12-bit "deep color"? That I'm not sure about.

I don't see the need to upgrade to an expensive cable for a system that may or may not be available in the future. And when it is available, proper cabling for it will probably be cheaper.

[HD Man]

Looked at the monoprice site, and the 22AWG professional HDMI is designed for extremely long runs 20ft+. The 24AWG premium HDMI cables will work just fine if you aren't running them through walls or have an unusually long run. That's whay I use and have never had any issues.

[izaidi]

I have bought 4 HDMI cables from amazon seller HDMI king and they are working without any issues, they are also eligible for Free shipping from amazon and are highly rated by other people who have used them. My receiver gives me the information about the incoming signal from HDMI and I get 12 bit color, 7.1 LPCM, DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD without any issues. I am using 3 6Ft long cables and 1 15Ft cable without any issues. So save your money and stay away from Monster Cables.

[Canada]

monoprice and save yourself $100's of dollars. The Oppo Blu ray player as well as the PVR my parents bought came with free HDMI cables so that shows you the actual value of them if any.

See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDw2ZSDzlMw

[bd_noob09]

Thanks for all the feedback! So I'll be going with the premium 24AWG HDMI cord from monoprice.com.

Though, I now I realize I asked for an answer I can't really understand, basically, we won't be utilizing 12-bit, 16-bit deep color for some time...if ever.

Still, my curiosity gets the best of me: is Monster really that shady? See, according to hdmi.org and wikipedia.org, 1.3 infers:

"Higher speed: Although all previous versions of HDMI have had more than enough bandwidth to support all current HDTV formats, including full, uncompressed 1080p signals, HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.

Deep Color: HDMI 1.3 supports 10-bit, 12-bit and 16-bit (RGB or YCbCr) color depths, up from the 8-bit depths in previous versions of the HDMI specification, for stunning rendering of over one billion colors in unprecedented detail."

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#112

SO... Does this mean that ALL HDMI cords that are 1.3 compliant both support 10.2Gbps and deep color or that they have the ability to, but necessarily come that way?

If ALL 1.3 compliant cords are supposed to meet these standards, than Monster is doing some shady marketing by making "1.3 compliant" cords that don't support those speeds nor deep color...

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by benricci

Dude, HDMI sends a digital signal - just 1's and 0's.

What does this mean? Any HDMI cable will do the job, no need to spend more cash on something for no reason. A high priced HDMI cable is gonna pass the same 1's and 0's as a $5 HDMI cable.

Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is blowin' smoke, or working for Monster Cable...

While you don't need a $140 Monster cable to get good performance, that old "it's all just 1's and 0's" argument is poop. There is some range in performance. There are some lame cables out there, and there are setups with long runs that I certainly wouldn't trust with a cheapo cable.

Monster marketing isn't lies, they're just overpriced, and you don't need 10.2 gb/sec for any of today's media. I, myself, like a high-bandwidth cable; a little headroom never hurt anything, other than your wallet.

[Pelican170]

You'll be fine with any Category 2 HDMI cable. dont sweat the 1.3 marketing. go monoprice and your set...

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by bd_noob09

Thanks for all the feedback! So I'll be going with the premium 24AWG HDMI cord from monoprice.com.

Though, I now I realize I asked for an answer I can't really understand, basically, we won't be utilizing 12-bit, 16-bit deep color for some time...if ever.

Still, my curiosity gets the best of me: is Monster really that shady? See, according to hdmi.org and wikipedia.org, 1.3 infers:

"Higher speed: Although all previous versions of HDMI have had more than enough bandwidth to support all current HDTV formats, including full, uncompressed 1080p signals, HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.

Deep Color: HDMI 1.3 supports 10-bit, 12-bit and 16-bit (RGB or YCbCr) color depths, up from the 8-bit depths in previous versions of the HDMI specification, for stunning rendering of over one billion colors in unprecedented detail."

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#112

SO... Does this mean that ALL HDMI cords that are 1.3 compliant both support 10.2Gbps and deep color or that they have the ability to, but necessarily come that way?

If ALL 1.3 compliant cords are supposed to meet these standards, than Monster is doing some shady marketing by making "1.3 compliant" cords that don't support those speeds nor deep color...

Just so you know, you'll most likely never use "deep color" as im pretty sure its only used for video camera's, not movies or tv...

[benricci]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

While you don't need a $140 Monster cable to get good performance, that old "it's all just 1's and 0's" argument is poop. There is some range in performance. There are some lame cables out there, and there are setups with long runs that I certainly wouldn't trust with a cheapo cable.

Monster marketing isn't lies, they're just overpriced, and you don't need 10.2 gb/sec for any of today's media. I, myself, like a high-bandwidth cable; a little headroom never hurt anything, other than your wallet.

For your situation (just connecting a blu-ray player to a TV), all cables that carry a digital signal will either work, or not. If you're paying more than $5-$10 for an HDMI cable, you're spending too much.

So long as the physical makeup of the cable is strong, you should encounter no problems, and no difference in quality.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by benricci

All cables that carry a digital signal will either work, or not. This includes long runs. If you're paying more than $5-$10 for an HDMI cable, you're spending too much.

So long as the physical makeup of the cable is strong, you should encounter no problems, and no difference in quality.

yup, the only difference in any quality that ive ever noticed would be the actual part that connects. some fit tighter than others but IMO that doesnt justify a price increase...

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

While you don't need a $140 Monster cable to get good performance, that old "it's all just 1's and 0's" argument is poop. There is some range in performance. There are some lame cables out there, and there are setups with long runs that I certainly wouldn't trust with a cheapo cable.
...
.

Yes, digital will not work over any cable and any length. For example, 3G and ADSL are digital but they do fade with the distance. All digital signals are modulated and transmitted as analogue signals over the cable. Although the digitally modulated signals are robust than generic analogue, surely they do fade. "1" could become "0" and vice versa once digital error correction has failed due to too many bit errors.

So thicker cables (22AWG) are better than thinner (28 AWG) cables. Get a 22AWG cable with good build-quality for long runs.

The best way is to get a reasonable, well constructed cable with an exchange option. So you could test and exchange if needed.

[[1080-p]]

what about hdmi 1.4 ?
http://www.cablewholesale.com/hdmi-1.4-cable
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/index.aspx