HDMI Cables

[sweatermeatluv]

Is one better than another? (PQ,SQ). I paid 55. for each. (needed three). Have seen them much higher! I'm I missing anything? (PQ,SQ).

[MarkG]

A digital signal going through a $5 hdmi cable is the same as going through a $100 hdmi cable. You probably overpaid on your cables. The Monster HDMI cables ( and other brands) that they sell in places like Best Buy are major rip offs. Go to monoprice.com and you'll find the same quality HDMI cables for as low as $5.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by sweatermeatluv

Is one better than another? (PQ,SQ). I paid 55. for each. (needed three). Have seen them much higher! I'm I missing anything? (PQ,SQ).

$55 each? So $165 total?

I hope you haven't opened them and you can take them back.

Monoprice has excellent HDMI 1.3 cables for around $5 each. I just ordered 2 more today.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2

[sweatermeatluv]

I got screwed!!!!!!!!!!

[MarkG]

You should be able to take them back opened or not. At least I have before.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by MarkG

A digital signal going through a $5 hdmi cable is the same as going through a $100 hdmi cable. You probably overpaid on your cables. The Monster HDMI cables ( and other brands) that they sell in places like Best Buy are major rip offs. Go to monoprice.com and you'll find the same quality HDMI cables for as low as $5.

I am not convinced. I have a Monster cable. It works great and looks pretty too. The packaging sad it carries more signal strength than the low-budget (aka CHEAP!) alternative HDMI wires.

If you can PROVE that Monster ripped me off I can sue them for FALSE advertising.

[syncguy]

(This is from a post that I posted in another forum)
It is true that HDMI is digital, however, all electrical signals (both analogue and digital) propagate in cable as analogue electrical signals. These electrical signals attenuate when propagate through the cable. The amount of attenuation depends on the length, diameter of the conductor and construction of the cable. When the signal is attenuated beyond the noise level then the receiver cannot detect the signal and this contributes to bit errors (in case of a digital signal). The noise could be external or internal cross talk (HDMI has more than one pair of cable). Shielding of each cable will assist to keep noise out of the inner conductor, so that signal could propagate over longer length of the cable without getting buried in noise.

When the signal is marginal, some bits may get through and others may not. Since there is no retransmission mechanism in HDMI (this is my understanding) as opposed to Internet TCP protocol, there is no way of recovering excessive bit errors. HDMI may use FEC (forward error correction) technology to reduce bit errors (as in ADSL), however, it cannot recover excessive bit errors. These bit errors generally manifest as white noise or even as blocks on the screen.

So cables could be different. There could be good cables and not so good cables, however, the quality of the cable may or may not reflect in the price.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by nycomet

I am not convinced. I have a Monster cable. It works great and looks pretty too. The packaging sad it carries more signal strength than the low-budget (aka CHEAP!) alternative HDMI wires.

Well, if the package says so, it must be true.

Monster has been ripping off the public for years with their overpriced cables.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by nycomet

I am not convinced. I have a Monster cable. It works great and looks pretty too. The packaging sad it carries more signal strength than the low-budget (aka CHEAP!) alternative HDMI wires.

If you can PROVE that Monster ripped me off I can sue them for FALSE advertising.

Monster adds all those bells and whistles to justify the price. In the end, from my understanding, it's all the same. I don't really know how to prove they are not better just that I know they are no different. ( I'm talking about hdmi cables less than 8 feet long)

You should try to buy a cheap hdmi cable and see if you can see the difference. Try this cable from monoprice. http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...t=1#largeimage
also, read the reviews for it on that page. The cable is only $5.24 plus a couple bucks to ship. It's a pretty cheap investment.


Check out this link too:
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/show...ight=monoprice

and this: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/show...ight=monoprice

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by syncguy

(This is from a post that I posted in another forum)
It is true that HDMI is digital, however, all electrical signals (both analogue and digital) propagate in cable as analogue electrical signals. These electrical signals attenuate when propagate through the cable. The amount of attenuation depends on the length, diameter of the conductor and construction of the cable. When the signal is attenuated beyond the noise level then the receiver cannot detect the signal and this contributes to bit errors (in case of a digital signal). The noise could be external or internal cross talk (HDMI has more than one pair of cable). Shielding of each cable will assist to keep noise out of the inner conductor, so that signal could propagate over longer length of the cable without getting buried in noise.

When the signal is marginal, some bits may get through and others may not. Since there is no retransmission mechanism in HDMI (this is my understanding) as opposed to Internet TCP protocol, there is no way of recovering excessive bit errors. HDMI may use FEC (forward error correction) technology to reduce bit errors (as in ADSL), however, it cannot recover excessive bit errors. These bit errors generally manifest as white noise or even as blocks on the screen.

So cables could be different. There could be good cables and not so good cables, however, the quality of the cable may or may not reflect in the price.

While literally true, the problem with what you're saying is that none of it is relevant in the context of an HDMI cable a few feet long.

Signal attenuation over a few feet of copper wire is effectively zero. It's a non-issue when talking about sending an electrical signal over a copper wire from your Blu-ray player to your TV. Over a distance that short you could literally use the underwire pulled out of a bra and get the same results in terms of HDTV signal quality as a superconducting wire.

As for noise along the line, it is either so high that the TV can't tell a 1 from a 0, or it isn't. If it is the picture is instantly rendered total crap; if it isn't the picture is effectively 100% accurate. That's the beauty of digital, there is effectively no gray area with anything - either it works or it's total crap.

And unless your neighbor is setting of EMP weapons in their back yard, or their kid's science project involves creating a pulsar in their basement then fancy cable shielding really does nothing at all for you.

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by nycomet

I am not convinced. I have a Monster cable. It works great and looks pretty too. The packaging sad it carries more signal strength than the low-budget (aka CHEAP!) alternative HDMI wires.

If you can PROVE that Monster ripped me off I can sue them for FALSE advertising.

Boy are you ever naive.

Monster isn't literally lying. That's the beauty of a good scam. A $5 cable gives a 100% accurate digital picture. Their $55 cable gives a 100% accurate digital picture. Since you can't get over 100% accuracy, they can claim to be the "best possible" and be telling the truth.

Of course, you can also get the "best possible" for $5 instead of $55. Double-blind tests show that nobody can tell the difference between premium cables and coathangers. Therein lies the ripoff.

What's really funny is when they claim their cable can carry higher bandwidth signals than other cables. That may be true, but since no HDMI device will actually use the extra bandwidth it's irrelevant to anything...any HDMI 1.3 compliant cable has all the bandwith any HDMI 1.3 device will actually use. It's all standardized, so making a cable that goes over that is pointless except as a gimmick to overcharge for.

[euro3b]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Monster adds all those bells and whistles to justify the price. In the end, from my understanding, it's all the same. I don't really know how to prove they are not better just that I know they are no different. ( I'm talking about hdmi cables less than 8 feet long)

You should try to buy a cheap hdmi cable and see if you can see the difference. Try this cable from monoprice. http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...t=1#largeimage
also, read the reviews for it on that page. The cable is only $5.24 plus a couple bucks to ship. It's a pretty cheap investment.


Check out this link too:
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/show...ight=monoprice

and this: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/show...ight=monoprice

The best way to prove it (although it would be almost impossible to do in house) would be to sit side by side two of the EXACT same TV's with two of the EXACT same Blu ray players although ONE TV has a Monster HDMI cable from player to TV and the other has a Monoprice HDMI cable from player to TV and play the EXACT same blu ray movie in both and compare...

Thats the best way I can think of to see whether Monster IS as good as they say they are...

Rich

[ryoohki]

Well my 45$, 35feet HDMI cable from Monoprice.com seem to transport the 1080p 60 or 24fps to my Projector just fine

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by euro3b

The best way to prove it (although it would be almost impossible to do in house) would be to sit side by side two of the EXACT same TV's with two of the EXACT same Blu ray players although ONE TV has a Monster HDMI cable from player to TV and the other has a Monoprice HDMI cable from player to TV and play the EXACT same blu ray movie in both and compare...

Thats the best way I can think of to see whether Monster IS as good as they say they are...

Rich

You know that 2 identical TV , with identical setting will look different. You have to take 2 tv that were produce the same day, on the same Ramp, with the same LCD Panel and material otherwise it will always have a little difference..

[euro3b]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

You know that 2 identical TV , with identical setting will look different. You have to take 2 tv that were produce the same day, on the same Ramp, with the same LCD Panel and material otherwise it will always have a little difference..

even better BTW I did not know that and thanks

But you know what I mean by that kind of demo though

Rich

[Shadowself]

What is this? Seems like the 10th (or greater) thread on this topic.

As some of the more prolific posters say, "The search function is your friend!"

Originally Posted by sean10mm

<snip>
Signal attenuation over a few feet of copper wire is effectively zero. It's a non-issue when talking about sending an electrical signal over a copper wire from your Blu-ray player to your TV. Over a distance that short you could literally use the underwire pulled out of a bra and get the same results in terms of HDTV signal quality as a superconducting wire.

As for noise along the line, it is either so high that the TV can't tell a 1 from a 0, or it isn't. If it is the picture is instantly rendered total crap; if it isn't the picture is effectively 100% accurate. That's the beauty of digital, there is effectively no gray area with anything - either it works or it's total crap.
<snip>

If this were true there would be no difference between a 1 meter Cat3 patch cord and a 1 meter Cat6 patch cord. Clearly this is not 100% of the answer. There are many other things involved: near end cross talk, far end cross talk, skew, etc., etc. Also with the FECs used certainly you don't mean the BER is either 10^-16 or 1 with nothing in between.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by euro3b

The best way to prove it (although it would be almost impossible to do in house) would be to sit side by side two of the EXACT same TV's with two of the EXACT same Blu ray players although ONE TV has a Monster HDMI cable from player to TV and the other has a Monoprice HDMI cable from player to TV and play the EXACT same blu ray movie in both and compare...

Thats the best way I can think of to see whether Monster IS as good as they say they are...

Rich

Small variations (occasional overruns of the FEC) may, or may not, be noticeable. The only thing the above set up will tell you is if the differences are noticeable to *you*, the observer. -- Which, I'd guess is all that matters for 99.99% of the population.

Actually, the only way to do it accurately is with a multichannel time domain reflectometer with the ability to measure channel cross talk at the pulse widths and frequencies involved. Then take that information and compare it to the specs of the two devices being connected.

[syncguy]

Cable transmission theory is a complex subject. You cannot talk about the attenuation without considering the signal frequency. For example, the attenuation of a 10M Cable (RG58, 20 AWG) could be nearly zero for a low frequency signal, say ~30 MHz Ham signal, however, the same 10m cable could attenuate the signal by about half for a signal at 350 MHz. I think HDMI1.3 runs at about this frequency to support data rates up to about 10 Gbit/s. So the cable attenuation is significant at HDMI frequencies over shorter distances like 10 meters for 20 AWG cable. I think most HDMI cables are 28-32 AWG (which is thinner than 20) and the impact of attenuation is significant for moderate lengths, say above 10 meters.

If your cable length is short say less than 5 meters, the impact of cable quality will not be great. If it is above 10 meters, cable quality will be important. However, it should be noted that quality always does not reflects in the price. I normally use low cost but seems to be high quality cables which I purchase from a local store. I chose this option as I can test the cable myself (just by watching the picture on the screen) and return if not good as they have 7 day money back return policy.

Also, wish to say that digital protocol systems are complex. For example, Internet TCP has a robust retransmission protocol and video transmissions that use UDP has application based retransmission and buffering to compensate for digital transmission errors. The amount of retransmission and error correction (e.g. FEC) has a direct impact on the transmission speed and delay which is more important at very high transmission rates. For example, as most of us know, TCP automatically reduces the download speed if it detects bit/packet errors.

However, it is very difficult to do this type of retransmission and/or heavy duty FEC at HDMI1.3 Gbit speeds (without reducing the speed) which is nearly impossible for a real-time video system if the errors are consistent. Hence I do not think that there is a robust retransmission system built in to HDMI other than FEC which would fail in case of excessive bit errors. Therefore such bit errors will manifest as white dots/sparkles or white/coloured blocks on the screen. It is not black and white such as picture or no-picture on the screen.

The best recommendation I wish to give is to purchase the cheapest cable (with reasonable construction) from a place that you could return. Test it and if satisfied keep it. If you are installing a cable during a construction stage, best is to use a known good quality cable or install a duct system with pull strings, so that you could change the cables at a later stage if that is necessary.

[crackinhedz]

syncguy, well said.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

If this were true there would be no difference between a 1 meter Cat3 patch cord and a 1 meter Cat6 patch cord. Clearly this is not 100% of the answer. There are many other things involved: near end cross talk, far end cross talk, skew, etc., etc. Also with the FECs used certainly you don't mean the BER is either 10^-16 or 1 with nothing in between.

yup - cables that need to transmit high frequency signals suffer from skin effect.

So indeed there are differences in cables when it comes to high frequency signal transmission....