HDMI Cables - Page 8 - Blu-ray Forum

Big Daddy · 01-19-2008, 09:17 AM

A lot of your questions about HDMI cables are answered below:

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

crackinhedz · 01-19-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetJock

I suggest you read the 11 articles in the January issue of "Widescreen Review" that I cited in my prior posting, plus the 5 articles to follow in the February issue. No, Widescreen Review is not paying me either. Most of the articles were submitted by different HDMI cable manufacturers. They certainly have a bias, but they back up their claims with specifications and documented test results.

You should have read this thread before you read those articles.

Digital signal does not behave in the same fashion as an analog signal.

'01100010' going in will be exactly '01100010' coming out at the end of the digital tunnel. If not, then the device's HDMI Transmitter/Reciever chip is not performing up to par.

and I don't think we'll ever see deep color being used anytime soon, except from the occasional camcorder.

crackinhedz · 01-19-2008, 05:47 PM

Understanding HDMI cables and why cheap ones work perfectly

Sponge14 · 01-19-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetJock

I was not paid a cent by Monster or anyone else for my prior posting. Furthermore, I do not sell Monster or anything else for a living. For the past 28 years, I've been flying jet aircraft for a living. So, I have no incentive to mislead anyone with my postings.

First, let me say, I didn't mean to come off like an ******* by what I said, it was sarcastic humor. Second, who do you fly for??

Quote:

If you think you've found a magic cable for $12.52, by all means buy it! I spend a great deal of time reading and researching technology products before I buy. It's a very rare treat when I go into an electronics store and find a salesperson that knows more about the technology he's selling than I do. The vast majority of electronics salespeople don't have a clue about what they're selling.

I am the same way you are. I read reveiws and tech specs like most people read the daily newspaper. I am just as informed and educated on the subject of electronics. I also received my hdmi cables from Mono in the mail today. They look and feel EXACTLY like the monster 1000 series that I sell everyday to stupid consumers that don't know about the interwebs. I have to get to work now, but I will be comparing them directly to a set of Monsters that I will borrow from work today. But if the build wuality "feel" means anything (and if you ask Monster's marketing department, it means almost everything) then these cables are built with the same quality as Monsters.

I am not saying Monster doesn't make a great cable, my only point (and the point of everyone else on here as far as I can tell) is that you can get the SAME quality for nearly 90% less cost. Monster's profit margins are absolutly ginormous (yes thats my word I made up) and I don't believe that in any way shape or form are you getting a $150.00 cable when you pay $150.00 At the very best you are getting a $15.00 cable with a HUGE marketing team behind them, driving the cost to $150.00. I totally respect your opinion on loving Monster, I think they are great cables, just WAY WAY overpriced. Give me that $150.00 HDMI for $50.00 in a retail store and I would have them in my house right now. Unfortunatly I don't get that good of an employee discount, so I only get 30% off retail (unlike Bestbuy that gets 5-10% over COST) so even then the $150.00 cable is still $105.00 for me, still not worth it with all the great reviews these $12.52 cables have gotten from some real big audio/video-phile reviews.

Quote:

I suggest you read the 11 articles in the January issue of "Widescreen Review" that I cited in my prior posting, plus the 5 articles to follow in the February issue. No, Widescreen Review is not paying me either. Most of the articles were submitted by different HDMI cable manufacturers. They certainly have a bias, but they back up their claims with specifications and documented test results.

Unfortunalty, I don't have a subscription nor a bookstore within 40 miles of me that would carry that particular magazine.

Edh63 · 01-19-2008, 08:12 PM

Someone needs to take a $150.00 Monster cable and a $12.00 Monoprice cable, do a little surgery on a table, and take some pictures of the internal makings of each side by side. Post the pics here and then, piece by piece, go through and explain why Monster is better and I should pay more.

Words won't convince me why I should pay so much more for a Monster cable. Let's see some actual internal pics of each cable posted here and have it explained.

JasonR · 01-19-2008, 08:15 PM

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

gearyt · 01-19-2008, 08:18 PM

In the great HDMI Cable debate..
my two 1/2 cents

It doesn't matter ( much ) how well a cable is made
for our consumer use, or protected in a wall
as long as the signal gets there, the old 1/0 thing

Commercial use is different. If you are going to plug / unplug
every day, etc. then Manufacturing is a concern, you want
your investment to last and not cause problems during use

Edh63 · 01-19-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonR

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

... And there you have it. Case closed.

gearyt · 01-19-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edh63

... And there you have it. Case closed.

Bottom Line: Though the analog cables varied slightly in our instrument tests, they did not produce distinguishable differences in transmitting real video content.

Yep. there it is....

JasonR · 01-21-2008, 11:27 PM

Just wanted to post this.

I am well aware cable specs change all the time. The price tag of Monster does not make it handle the specs any better. Even though it is a "two and a half year old article" it is still great reference and I believe still holds true with all HDMI versions.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

Quote:

HDMI Cables

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason,

The "HDMI Cables" thread is now closed, so I couldn't make a new post on this thread. Did you know the PC World article about HDMI cables was two and a half years old? Below is the post I would have made to the "HDMI Cables" thread if it weren't closed.

If this were the summer of 2005, I'd agree "Case Closed." But this is January 2008. HD technology has advanced considerably in the past two and a half years, and it will continue to advance considerably beyond what we have today.

I read the article that supposedly "closes" the HDMI debate, but I got suspicious when it refers to "1080 progressive, a possible format for future high-definition DVD discs and HD broadcasts". So, I did a search for this article on PC World's web site. I found out it was posted on their web site on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 at 10:00 AM PDT. At the time this article was written, HDMI was only up to version 1.1. Version 1.2 was released after this article was written in August of 2005, version 1.2a was released in December of 2005, and version 1.3 was released in June of 2006. See the links below.

"The Cable Game" from About.com without dateline
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

"The Cable Game" from PC World with dateline
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,121777/article.html

Release dates for HDMI versions
http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx
select "HDMI Versions" in the category window

As you all have noticed by now, HDTV technology is now progressing at a pace similar to that of computers. Just 12 years ago a screaming fast computer had a 133MHz processor, 32GB of RAM, and an 8 GB graphics card in a PCI slot. As computers got faster, and graphics got better, the graphics card moved to the AGP slot, then to the PCI Express 16X slot, and now to multiple cards in multiple PCI-E 16X slots in an SLI configuration with 768GB of memory on each card. As the graphics got better, the amount of data and the speed of the data transfers increased dramatically.

I contend that HDTV is now going through its own generational changes with increasing demands for more and more data being transferred at faster and faster speeds. The HDTV's of 2 1/2 years ago are not nearly as "High-Def" as the HDTV's of today. In another 2 1/2 years, my new Pioneer Elite 60" Kuro Plasma and Pioneer Elite BD Player won't seem nearly as "High-Def" as they are today.

So, the case of cable technology will never be "closed." Advancing HDTV technology will create greater demands for faster and faster data transfers with better and better cables to handle the increasing data speed requirements. Yes, it's still just 1's and 0's in the digital data, and that's not a big deal for any wire. But when billions of 1's and 0's per second are being transmitted on multiple channels in two directions, not just any wire will do.

JetJock · 01-23-2008, 06:07 AM

Now that this thread is open again, here's some more information with a few typo corrections to change GB to MB.

If this were the summer of 2005, I'd agree "Case Closed." But this is January 2008. HD technology has advanced considerably in the past two and a half years, and it will continue to advance considerably beyond what we have today.

I read the article that supposedly "closes" the HDMI debate, but I got suspicious when it refers to "1080 progressive, a possible format for future high-definition DVD discs and HD broadcasts". So, I did a search for this article on PC World's web site. I found out it was posted on their web site on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 at 10:00 AM PDT. At the time this article was written, HDMI was only up to version 1.1. Version 1.2 was released after this article was written in August of 2005, version 1.2a was released in December of 2005, and version 1.3 was released in June of 2006. See the links below.

"The Cable Game" from About.com without dateline
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

"The Cable Game" from PC World with dateline
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,121777/article.html

Release dates for HDMI versions
http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx
select "HDMI Versions" in the category window

As you all have noticed by now, HDTV technology is now progressing at a pace similar to that of computers. Just 12 years ago a screaming fast computer had a 133MHz processor, 32MB of RAM, and an 8MB graphics card in a PCI slot. As computers got faster, and graphics got better, the graphics card moved to the AGP slot, then to the PCI Express 16X slot, and now to multiple cards in multiple PCI-E 16X slots in an SLI configuration with 768MB of memory on each card. As the graphics got better, the amount of data and the speed of the data transfers increased dramatically.

I contend that HDTV is now going through its own generational changes with increasing demands for more and more data being transferred at faster and faster speeds. The HDTV's of 2 1/2 years ago are not nearly as "High-Def" as the HDTV's of today. In another 2 1/2 years, my new Pioneer Elite 60" Kuro Plasma and Pioneer Elite BD Player won't seem nearly as "High-Def" as they are today.

So, the case of cable technology will never be "closed." Advancing HDTV technology will create greater demands for faster and faster data transfers with better and better cables to handle the increasing data speed requirements. Yes, it's still just 1's and 0's in the digital data, and that's not a big deal for any wire. But when billions of 1's and 0's per second are being transmitted on multiple channels in two directions, not just any wire will do.

Another forum member sent an email to me saying, "OK, agreed bandwidth counts.
BUT is there any television today, that will not work with an inexpensive cable ??"

Here's my answer:

I don't know anyone personally who has had trouble with low bandwidth HDMI cables. I did visit three local, non big box, home theater stores that do their own installations and ask them about the HDMI cables they use.

Store #1 said they only use low cost HDMI cables because they think very few customers would be willing to pay for the more expensive high bandwidth cables. The highest quality HDMI cable they sell is the Monster 400 cable. This cable is about half the price of the M1000 cable that I use. Monster HDMI cables come in the following grades which are determined primarily by the bandwidth of each grade.

Monster HDMI: 300, 400, 500, 700, 800, 1000.
Monster M Series HDMI: 650, 850, 1000.

I asked if they had any problems using the low cost cables. They said "not yet." They said that for current 1080p bandwidth requirements, the low cost medium bandwidth HDMI cables work just fine. They did acknowledge however, that if Deep Color and/or xvColor (xvYCC) content becomes available, the low cost HDMI cables might not work.

Store #2 said they strongly urge their customers to use high bandwidth HDMI cables, and when they do installations with medium to long cable lengths, they insist on using high bandwidth cables. They don't use just one brand of cable. They select the HDMI cable based on the length of the run, whether the installation is in-wall, and the orientation of the HDMI ports on the equipment.

Store #3 said they sell a variety of HDMI cables from low to high bandwidth. They recommend the high bandwidth cables to their customers, and even do A/B comparisons between low and high bandwidth cables in the customer's home. They said the A/B comparisons almost always result in the customer selecting the high bandwidth cable, because the difference in picture quality can be seen if you know what to look for. They also said there's likely to be problems with low bandwidth cables when content with Deep Color and xvColor become available.

I stopped back at Store #3 today to talk more about the HDMI A/B comparison they do for their customers. I asked what to look for in the comparison. First, they said they actually do an A/B/C comparison with 3 cables, not two. When they install a satellite receiver, the receiver comes with a low bandwidth HDMI cable in the box. They do the comparison with:

1) The HDMI cable that comes with the receiver (low bandwidth).
2) An extra cost Medium Bandwidth HDMI cable.
3) A premium High Bandwidth HDMI cable.

They said you cannot see any difference between the Low Bandwidth and the Medium Bandwidth HDMI cables, but you can see a difference with the High Bandwidth HDMI cable. The difference is in the flesh tones of people's faces. With the Low and Medium bandwidth cables, the flesh tones color gradient, from one shade to another, is not as smooth as it should be. The flesh tones have a "digital look" to them. With the premium high bandwidth cable, the flesh tones color gradient is a smooth transition from one color shade to another. The flesh tones look more "analog" or natural.

crackinhedz · 01-23-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetJock

The difference is in the flesh tones of people's faces. With the Low and Medium bandwidth cables, the flesh tones color gradient, from one shade to another, is not as smooth as it should be. The flesh tones have a "digital look" to them. With the premium high bandwidth cable, the flesh tones color gradient is a smooth transition from one color shade to another. The flesh tones look more "analog" or natural.

wow.

crackinhedz · 01-23-2008, 10:57 AM

so monoprice relases newer hdmi 1.3 cables to appease the masses who still fall prey to this fud.

its high bandwidth rated at 340mHz...not that it even matters today because deep color will not become standard or even in common use for a very long time.

anyways, its a $10 cable so no more need to play the "expensive is better" bs.

digital is digital and a cheap cable is all you need.

Big Daddy · 01-23-2008, 12:11 PM

Check also VasterCables. Their prices are very reasonable even for HDMI 1.3.

Company Address:
http://www.vastercable.com/index.php...7fa30954ff2acb

Ebay Store:
http://stores.ebay.com/VasterCables_...4Q2em158QQtZkm

Big Daddy · 01-23-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blujacket

Where is the pricing? Terrible layout.

Check the ebay store for the prices.

JetJock · 01-24-2008, 07:24 AM

HDMI performance is so important for the proper functioning of today's HDTV's and new lossless audio formats, that a new testing and rating system is in the works for HDMI products. The new rating system will cover both HDMI component performance and HDMI cable performance. Cable performance is so important that cables will be tested first. Ratings will be on a scale of 1 to 5. A rating of 1 means the product just meets the minimum performance requirement. A rating 5 means the product far exceeds the minimum performance requirements. This new testing and rating system is called "DPL" for Digital Performance Level. Look for DPL Ratings on HDMI products and cables in the near future. You can read about it at the link below.

DPL - Digital Performance Level
http://www.dplrating.org/

crackinhedz · 01-24-2008, 01:29 PM

Jet,

buy all the expensive cables you like. Your HDTV will have the same exact picture quality as anyone else. Your Lossless audio will sound exactly the same as anyone else. Why? because we don't even use 340Mhz. Why? because we're as close to "deep color" as HD-DVD is to 51GB discs. And Lossless audio would require more bandwidth if it was sampled at 192/24 multichannel. Most likely we will never see the day. 96/24 8 channel has plenty of room.

No one is trying to argue that standards evolve and change and that over time speed and bandwidth play a part...

but this day in age, a simple $10 cable will achieve the same as $100 cable. And when the day comes where a faster cable is needed, then another $10 cable will be made and sold, and the all digital signal will be passed along just fine.

Monoprice.com HDMI 1.3

Gauge: 24AWG
# of conductors: 19
Conductor Plating: Tin
Shielding level: Triple
Shielding type: EMI
Ferrite Cores: No
Net Jacket: Yes
Built-in Equalizer: No
Supported Resolutions: 480i to 1080p
Bandwidth: up to 340 Mhz
HDMI Certified: Yes
HDMI Spec: 1.3a
Category 2 Certified: Yes
HDCP Compliant: Yes
CEC Compliant: Yes
ROHS Compliant: Yes
1.3 Device Compatible: Yes
Supports DVD Audio: Yes
Supports SACD: Yes
Supports TrueHD & DTS-HD: Yes

UL Specs

UL File #: E139956
UL Style #: 20276
CL2 (In-Wall): Yes
VW-1: Yes
Voltage Rating: 30V
Temperature Rating: 80° C

$12.52

Stratus5ss · 01-24-2008, 02:58 PM

I had 4 of the Monoprice 6 foot cables (Product ID# 3992) delivered to my door for about $25. I bought a 6 foot $99 Monster cable when I first got my player but I took it back to Best Buy unopened the next day. The Monster cable cost more than the upscaling player I had bought! I have Blu-ray now.

I am perfectly satisfied with Monoprice cables.

At the very least try the cheaper alternative first. It is your money.

BluMonster · 01-24-2008, 07:43 PM

question... I have 2 HDMI cables at home. I bought one of them from the Sony store and the cable itself is very skinny. And the other one I bought from Monoprice and it's actually really thick. Do you guys know what the difference is between the two? And does it make any difference in terms of PQ? Let me know.

jd13 · 01-24-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluMonster

question... I have 2 HDMI cables at home. I bought one of them from the Sony store and the cable itself is very skinny. And the other one I bought from Monoprice and it's actually really thick. Do you guys know what the difference is between the two? And does it make any difference in terms of PQ? Let me know.

Sheilding. If the outside of the Monoprice is that rough, thick coating, you bought a HDMI cable that is certified for in-wall installation.

Should be fine.

01-19-2008, 09:17 AM	#141
Big Daddy Blu-ray Champion Top ranked HT gallery Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Southern California Home Theater Gallery:79 Blu-ray collection:122 Trading Score:1	HDMI Cables FAQ A lot of your questions about HDMI cables are answered below: http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx

01-24-2008, 02:58 PM	#158
Stratus5ss New Member Member since:Nov 2007 Blu-ray reviews:4	Monoprice was the answer for me I had 4 of the Monoprice 6 foot cables (Product ID# 3992) delivered to my door for about $25. I bought a 6 foot $99 Monster cable when I first got my player but I took it back to Best Buy unopened the next day. The Monster cable cost more than the upscaling player I had bought! I have Blu-ray now. I am perfectly satisfied with Monoprice cables. At the very least try the cheaper alternative first. It is your money.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
HDMI Cables - What to do now?	Home Theater General Discussion	Doughoef	15	05-27-2014 10:31 AM
will hdmi 1.3 cables fit any/all hdmi inputs?	Home Theater General Discussion	zoon_ii	3	10-23-2007 05:46 PM
Hdmi Cables	Home Theater General Discussion	BOBBY	1	07-07-2007 10:13 PM

01-19-2008, 05:47 PM	#143
crackinhedz Super Moderator Member since:Feb 2007 Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:19	Understanding HDMI cables and why cheap ones work perfectly

01-19-2008, 08:12 PM	#145
Edh63 Senior Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Wimberley, TX	Someone needs to take a $150.00 Monster cable and a $12.00 Monoprice cable, do a little surgery on a table, and take some pictures of the internal makings of each side by side. Post the pics here and then, piece by piece, go through and explain why Monster is better and I should pay more. Words won't convince me why I should pay so much more for a Monster cable. Let's see some actual internal pics of each cable posted here and have it explained.

01-19-2008, 08:15 PM	#146
JasonR Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Nov 2007 Trading Score:12	http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

01-19-2008, 08:18 PM	#147
gearyt Power Member Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Henderson, NV Home Theater Gallery:8 Blu-ray collection:33	In the great HDMI Cable debate.. my two 1/2 cents It doesn't matter ( much ) how well a cable is made for our consumer use, or protected in a wall as long as the signal gets there, the old 1/0 thing Commercial use is different. If you are going to plug / unplug every day, etc. then Manufacturing is a concern, you want your investment to last and not cause problems during use

01-23-2008, 06:07 AM	#151
JetJock Junior Member Member since:Nov 2007	Now that this thread is open again, here's some more information with a few typo corrections to change GB to MB. If this were the summer of 2005, I'd agree "Case Closed." But this is January 2008. HD technology has advanced considerably in the past two and a half years, and it will continue to advance considerably beyond what we have today. I read the article that supposedly "closes" the HDMI debate, but I got suspicious when it refers to "1080 progressive, a possible format for future high-definition DVD discs and HD broadcasts". So, I did a search for this article on PC World's web site. I found out it was posted on their web site on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 at 10:00 AM PDT. At the time this article was written, HDMI was only up to version 1.1. Version 1.2 was released after this article was written in August of 2005, version 1.2a was released in December of 2005, and version 1.3 was released in June of 2006. See the links below. "The Cable Game" from About.com without dateline http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm "The Cable Game" from PC World with dateline http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,121777/article.html Release dates for HDMI versions http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx select "HDMI Versions" in the category window As you all have noticed by now, HDTV technology is now progressing at a pace similar to that of computers. Just 12 years ago a screaming fast computer had a 133MHz processor, 32MB of RAM, and an 8MB graphics card in a PCI slot. As computers got faster, and graphics got better, the graphics card moved to the AGP slot, then to the PCI Express 16X slot, and now to multiple cards in multiple PCI-E 16X slots in an SLI configuration with 768MB of memory on each card. As the graphics got better, the amount of data and the speed of the data transfers increased dramatically. I contend that HDTV is now going through its own generational changes with increasing demands for more and more data being transferred at faster and faster speeds. The HDTV's of 2 1/2 years ago are not nearly as "High-Def" as the HDTV's of today. In another 2 1/2 years, my new Pioneer Elite 60" Kuro Plasma and Pioneer Elite BD Player won't seem nearly as "High-Def" as they are today. So, the case of cable technology will never be "closed." Advancing HDTV technology will create greater demands for faster and faster data transfers with better and better cables to handle the increasing data speed requirements. Yes, it's still just 1's and 0's in the digital data, and that's not a big deal for any wire. But when billions of 1's and 0's per second are being transmitted on multiple channels in two directions, not just any wire will do. Another forum member sent an email to me saying, "OK, agreed bandwidth counts. BUT is there any television today, that will not work with an inexpensive cable ??" Here's my answer: I don't know anyone personally who has had trouble with low bandwidth HDMI cables. I did visit three local, non big box, home theater stores that do their own installations and ask them about the HDMI cables they use. Store #1 said they only use low cost HDMI cables because they think very few customers would be willing to pay for the more expensive high bandwidth cables. The highest quality HDMI cable they sell is the Monster 400 cable. This cable is about half the price of the M1000 cable that I use. Monster HDMI cables come in the following grades which are determined primarily by the bandwidth of each grade. Monster HDMI: 300, 400, 500, 700, 800, 1000. Monster M Series HDMI: 650, 850, 1000. I asked if they had any problems using the low cost cables. They said "not yet." They said that for current 1080p bandwidth requirements, the low cost medium bandwidth HDMI cables work just fine. They did acknowledge however, that if Deep Color and/or xvColor (xvYCC) content becomes available, the low cost HDMI cables might not work. Store #2 said they strongly urge their customers to use high bandwidth HDMI cables, and when they do installations with medium to long cable lengths, they insist on using high bandwidth cables. They don't use just one brand of cable. They select the HDMI cable based on the length of the run, whether the installation is in-wall, and the orientation of the HDMI ports on the equipment. Store #3 said they sell a variety of HDMI cables from low to high bandwidth. They recommend the high bandwidth cables to their customers, and even do A/B comparisons between low and high bandwidth cables in the customer's home. They said the A/B comparisons almost always result in the customer selecting the high bandwidth cable, because the difference in picture quality can be seen if you know what to look for. They also said there's likely to be problems with low bandwidth cables when content with Deep Color and xvColor become available. I stopped back at Store #3 today to talk more about the HDMI A/B comparison they do for their customers. I asked what to look for in the comparison. First, they said they actually do an A/B/C comparison with 3 cables, not two. When they install a satellite receiver, the receiver comes with a low bandwidth HDMI cable in the box. They do the comparison with: 1) The HDMI cable that comes with the receiver (low bandwidth). 2) An extra cost Medium Bandwidth HDMI cable. 3) A premium High Bandwidth HDMI cable. They said you cannot see any difference between the Low Bandwidth and the Medium Bandwidth HDMI cables, but you can see a difference with the High Bandwidth HDMI cable. The difference is in the flesh tones of people's faces. With the Low and Medium bandwidth cables, the flesh tones color gradient, from one shade to another, is not as smooth as it should be. The flesh tones have a "digital look" to them. With the premium high bandwidth cable, the flesh tones color gradient is a smooth transition from one color shade to another. The flesh tones look more "analog" or natural.

01-23-2008, 10:57 AM	#153
crackinhedz Super Moderator Member since:Feb 2007 Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:19	so monoprice relases newer hdmi 1.3 cables to appease the masses who still fall prey to this fud. its high bandwidth rated at 340mHz...not that it even matters today because deep color will not become standard or even in common use for a very long time. anyways, its a $10 cable so no more need to play the "expensive is better" bs. digital is digital and a cheap cable is all you need.

01-23-2008, 12:11 PM	#154
Big Daddy Blu-ray Champion Top ranked HT gallery Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Southern California Home Theater Gallery:79 Blu-ray collection:122 Trading Score:1	Check also VasterCables. Their prices are very reasonable even for HDMI 1.3. Company Address: http://www.vastercable.com/index.php...7fa30954ff2acb Ebay Store: http://stores.ebay.com/VasterCables_...4Q2em158QQtZkm

01-24-2008, 07:24 AM	#156
JetJock Junior Member Member since:Nov 2007	HDMI performance is so important for the proper functioning of today's HDTV's and new lossless audio formats, that a new testing and rating system is in the works for HDMI products. The new rating system will cover both HDMI component performance and HDMI cable performance. Cable performance is so important that cables will be tested first. Ratings will be on a scale of 1 to 5. A rating of 1 means the product just meets the minimum performance requirement. A rating 5 means the product far exceeds the minimum performance requirements. This new testing and rating system is called "DPL" for Digital Performance Level. Look for DPL Ratings on HDMI products and cables in the near future. You can read about it at the link below. DPL - Digital Performance Level http://www.dplrating.org/

01-24-2008, 01:29 PM	#157
crackinhedz Super Moderator Member since:Feb 2007 Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:19	Jet, buy all the expensive cables you like. Your HDTV will have the same exact picture quality as anyone else. Your Lossless audio will sound exactly the same as anyone else. Why? because we don't even use 340Mhz. Why? because we're as close to "deep color" as HD-DVD is to 51GB discs. And Lossless audio would require more bandwidth if it was sampled at 192/24 multichannel. Most likely we will never see the day. 96/24 8 channel has plenty of room. No one is trying to argue that standards evolve and change and that over time speed and bandwidth play a part... but this day in age, a simple $10 cable will achieve the same as $100 cable. And when the day comes where a faster cable is needed, then another $10 cable will be made and sold, and the all digital signal will be passed along just fine. Monoprice.com HDMI 1.3 Gauge: 24AWG # of conductors: 19 Conductor Plating: Tin Shielding level: Triple Shielding type: EMI Ferrite Cores: No Net Jacket: Yes Built-in Equalizer: No Supported Resolutions: 480i to 1080p Bandwidth: up to 340 Mhz HDMI Certified: Yes HDMI Spec: 1.3a Category 2 Certified: Yes HDCP Compliant: Yes CEC Compliant: Yes ROHS Compliant: Yes 1.3 Device Compatible: Yes Supports DVD Audio: Yes Supports SACD: Yes Supports TrueHD & DTS-HD: Yes UL Specs UL File #: E139956 UL Style #: 20276 CL2 (In-Wall): Yes VW-1: Yes Voltage Rating: 30V Temperature Rating: 80° C $12.52

01-24-2008, 07:43 PM	#159
BluMonster Member Member since:Nov 2007	question... I have 2 HDMI cables at home. I bought one of them from the Sony store and the cable itself is very skinny. And the other one I bought from Monoprice and it's actually really thick. Do you guys know what the difference is between the two? And does it make any difference in terms of PQ? Let me know.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals