HDMI Cables

[crackinhedz]

try em both out asnd tell us what you come up with.

[gearyt]

Hey Crack... How about we try an "opinion" poll on cables
Monster vs the "cheap" ones. and sticky that for new readers ??
it should be about 16,000 to 2

[blindcat87]

People fall victim to the expensive cable myth for video cables for the same reasons they do for audio cables and for that matter a lot of other audio equipment.

Visual recall is only slightly less transitory than audio recall. You remember what you saw, but the nuances fade in mere moments just like they do with audio. This is biology and there is nothing that can change it and nobody, no matter how super they think their brains, eyes and ears are have more than a second or so of true recall for these things. The only valid way to compare video is with split screen simultaneous images on the same display, or instant A/B switching on the same display. If the gap in switching is any longer than that, it is too long and invalidates the test. Of course, for the test to remove the placebo effect, it needs to be a blind test or expectations will color the results.

People have way too much faith in their own senses. One neuropsychology or sense and perception class will change that tune forever. You can't change physics, you can't change biology, a $20 sheet of little foil stickers will not improve the audio and video of your digital media, storing them in the freezer will not improve your audio, and hundreds to thousands of dollars in little magic rocks and magic wooden sculptures will not improve your equipments performance just by their presence on or around said equipment.

There are differences in the realm of analog cables, but even there once a certain level of performance is achieved going beyond that is voodoo. That is the area where you really have to research your choice to see if the additional cost is based on real benefit or marketing hype. Digital cables, if they can handle the bandwidth and have proper shielding against interference, they will do the job and all the extra things a company can come up with to add to the price won't make the data get there faster, better, or magically improve how many pores or old acne scars you can see on the actors' faces.

Chris

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

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

[JetJock]

Has anybody besides me gone to the DPL web site? If there's no performance difference between HDMI 1.3 Cat 2 cables, then why go to all the trouble of creating an organization to test HDMI products and cables and give them ratings? Check out the DPL web site and give us your opinions on the new rating system.

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

[blindcat87]

Did you read the information? What have we been trying to get across to you? With digital data, you get all the data, signifigant artifacts, or no image/sound. This rating system is there to allow manufacturers to get independent verification that their product meets spec. What do they say about what happens when something is out of spec? Here:

Typical video data transmissions deficiencies can produce a snow like appearance
or random sparkles over the entire screen, predominantly in dark areas. An increase
of data loss can even result with total video failure. The specific artifact as
seen on the screen varies from monitor to monitor and is dependent on the nature
of the failure.
Control Data Transmission deficiencies usually manifest themselves as a loss of
sound, erratic color schemes, intermittent operation, loss of picture or a loss of
both picture and sound. Again, the specific artifact can vary from manufacturer to
manufacturer.

Sound familiar? You either get the whole package, serious artifacts, or nothing. Sounds like what we've been saying. Nothing there about subtle improvements in skin tones and ethereal improvements in audio transience.

Also nothing about why a cable must cost you a certain percentage of the cost of a player in order to be up to spec.

If the cable is capable of carrying the digital signal for the required length and is shielded against interference that could corrupt the data, it will work. That is all a digital cable needs to do. It cannot improve the data, and if it degrades the data you get the artifacts described above, digital snow, sparkles, blocking, major color shifts, or dropouts.

The fact is that most HDMI cables are made in a limited number of factories in China. Again, this does not make them bad. What it means is that the primary differences between most HDMI cables is the sheath they are wrapped in and the brand name on the sheath. The inexpensibe monoprice cables use the same type of shielding as Monster cables and they have cables rated for HDMI 1.3A. If you buy an HDMI cable and get a picture free of artifacts, you are getting all of the data that is there and it does not matter one bit how much you paid for the cable. The cable cannot color the pixels better or create pixels that are not there. Unless someone has used the testing methodology I described previously, there is no validity to their tests. Transience of visual recall, expectations, and placebo effect creat the outcome one expects. A/V fans have been trained for decades now to look at things from the analog perspective. These criteria no longer apply. Digital simply works differently. Yes it is complex, but when components are not up to the complexity, the penalties are not the subtle nuances that can appear in the analog realm, they are drastic, brutal, and in your face. If you don't have those, you've got it all.

People persist in comparing equipment by playing material, switching components and then playing the material again and searching for the differences. The fact is that humans cannot change the fact that both audio and video recall require instant A/B switching in order to make a valid comparison. That is biology and nothing can change that fact. The placebo effect and the effect of expectations are also a fact of human perception and nothing can change that, this makes a blind test the only valid test.

If you need to buy expensive cables to feel that you have the best, it is your perrogative. But nothing changes the facts of the digital realm, of physics or of biology.

Chris

Originally Posted by JetJock

Has anybody besides me gone to the DPL web site? If there's no performance difference between HDMI 1.3 Cat 2 cables, then why go to all the trouble of creating an organization to test HDMI products and cables and give them ratings? Check out the DPL web site and give us your opinions on the new rating system.

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

[gearyt]

Originally Posted by blindcat87

Did you read the information? What have we been trying to get across to you? With digital data, you get all the data, signifigant artifacts, or no image/sound.

Typical video data transmissions deficiencies can produce a snow like appearance
or random sparkles over the entire screen, predominantly in dark areas. An increase
of data loss can even result with total video failure. The specific artifact as
seen on the screen varies from monitor to monitor and is dependent on the nature
of the failure.

Control Data Transmission deficiencies usually manifest themselves as a loss of
sound, erratic color schemes, intermittent operation, loss of picture or a loss of
both picture and sound. Again, the specific artifact can vary from manufacturer to
manufacturer.

Sound familiar? You either get the whole package, serious artifacts, or nothing. Sounds like what we've been saying. Nothing there about subtle improvements in skin tones and ethereal improvements in audio transience.

If the cable is capable of carrying the digital signal for the required length and is shielded against interference that could corrupt the data, it will work. That is all a digital cable needs to do. It cannot improve the data, and if it degrades the data you get the artifacts described above, digital snow, sparkles, blocking, major color shifts, or dropouts.

If you need to buy expensive cables to feel that you have the best, it is your perrogative. But nothing changes the facts of the digital realm, of physics or of biology.

Chris

Thanks Chris.... WE could not have said it better...

[TenEightyP]

I too have always been sceptical as to the differences in audio or video quality of differently priced interconnects. My thinking was "digital is digital is digital, as long as there is no problems with the cable itself and there is no interference the cheap should perform as well as the expensive".

So I have done a bit more searching and come across the following discussion on a Hi-fi forum (see the link below). Admittedly the discussion is concerned with audio, but I think it makes for interesting reading. Have a read, I would like to know if your opinions are changed or remain the same.

http://www.hififorum.co.uk/modules/n...d=1301&forum=9

...

[blindcat87]

No new news to me. Jitter is a tricky critter. I am not saying that it cannot have an effect on quality, but it is very hard even with toslink and digital coaxial connections to isolate jitter as the sole cause of problems let alone that the interconnect causes the jitter. As long as the digital cable matches the spec, hardware is much more likely to have an effect on how much jitter is present. The effects of jitter can be much more subtle with audio than with video, when video errors go beyond the ability of error correction to deal with them, you get the snow, sparklies, blocking and so on.

While HDMI can be vulnerable to jitter, the developers of the spec are aware of this and the compliance tests for certification include tests for jitter problems. I don't know how intensive these requirements were for previous versions, but the basic spec tests for v1.3 are pretty intensive.

http://www.embedded.com/design/202803690

One thing to keep in mind is that these tests push the interconnects and other equipment tested to the limits of the spec and using really tough and flawed material to see what the tolerances are. If a vendor lists a product as meeting the spec and it does not, they are in violation and could face penalties including the loss of ability to use the HDMI label. So, this does not change my opinion one bit. My opinion is still that one should always go for cables certified for v1.3, that are rated for the length of run, and that are rated for the intended use (in wall, etc). I do not think that price is a determining factor in whether or not a cable will give you what you need.

My favorite companies are still monoprice.com who give great bargains on high quality cables, markertek.com who sell cables for commercial use which allows home users to pick up some seriously shielded quality cables at really good prices the downside is that their site is a bear to search and navigate in, and bluejeanscable.com who carry really good cables without a lot of snake oil. Parts Express also carries Dayton interconnects which I think are of very good quality.

My objections to Monster has nothing to do with the quality of their cables, but rather their business model and tactics. They do not manufacture the majority of their products in house but imply that they do, their markup is just vile, and their legal division, well, I can give a link on that and let people judge for themselves.

The persons at this site definitely have an axe to grind and are pretty extreme, but there is no false information on the page (which is why Monster legal hasn't been able to force the page to be taken down) and some of the links contain some really good information about the reality of interconnects in general.

www.monstergreed.com

In the end, people should buy the cable they want and feel they need. My 12 ga bluejeans speaker wire is definite overkill, but I like it and love their adjustable banana plugs. A lot of people would probably feel that I wasted money by having them terminate the cable for me, but I like the finished look and solid feel of their termination and am much happier than I would have been if I had to do it myself or get someone I know to do it for me. I have nothing aginst anyone who chooses any particular cable, including the IMO insane $100+ per inch super cables. It is their money and their perrogative. I just think it is important to get the differing points of view and both the hard facts and the more subjective side out there so that newbies can see all of the sides to the issue and decide which path they wish to follow without having any of those paths obscured from them.

When we debate these things and have disagreements, we should keep in mind that, at least on this site, we all have something in common, the love of Blu-Ray movies. Other sites where you can debate this and other topics do not offer this wide common ground to their members.

Chris

Originally Posted by TenEightyP

I too have always been sceptical as to the differences in audio or video quality of differently priced interconnects. My thinking was "digital is digital is digital, as long as there is no problems with the cable itself and there is no interference the cheap should perform as well as the expensive".

So I have done a bit more searching and come across the following discussion on a Hi-fi forum (see the link below). Admittedly the discussion is concerned with audio, but I think it makes for interesting reading. Have a read, I would like to know if your opinions are changed or remain the same.

http://www.hififorum.co.uk/modules/n...d=1301&forum=9

...

[wafi]

I have the phillips $30 [from walmart] one set up with comcast and the monster's $100 one [from bestbuy] set up with my blu-ray player. I have noticed that on occasion the motion gets pixelated when Im watching comcast HD whereas I have no such problem when watching blu-rays. Any ideas?

[blindcat87]

You cannot use content from two different sources to make a valid comparison. The issue is the sources not the cables. The only valid way to compare cables is same source, same content, same display, all other factors compensated for, with A/B switching or simultaneous splitscreen display, and the test must be blind. Until you do that you do not have a valid comparison. In the case of digital satellite or cable, you are going to get artifacts no matter what cable or display you have. It is the nature of the source. Digital artifacts are digital broadcast's version of static and all of the other little annoyances that came when analog broadcast had problems. The artifacts you are getting have to do with the greater compression and lower bandwidth of digital cable and the fact that broadcast pipelines will always be vulnerable to signal problems before it even gets to your system.

Chris

Originally Posted by wafi

I have the phillips $30 [from walmart] one set up with comcast and the monster's $100 one [from bestbuy] set up with my blu-ray player. I have noticed that on occasion the motion gets pixelated when Im watching comcast HD whereas I have no such problem when watching blu-rays. Any ideas?

[gearyt]

Originally Posted by wafi

I have the phillips $30 [from walmart] one set up with comcast and the monster's $100 one [from bestbuy] set up with my blu-ray player. I have noticed that on occasion the motion gets pixelated when Im watching comcast HD whereas I have no such problem when watching blu-rays. Any ideas?

swap cables and see if problem follows ??

[JetJock]

Chris,

You're saying any cable rated for HDMI 1.3a is good enough because it will transmit all the data there is to be had. Any additional bandwidth, and the money spent to obtain that additional bandwidth, is just going to waste. If your components and cables are transmitting and receiving all the 1's and 0's there are to be had, there's no possible improvement to be obtained by spending money on a faster, better cable (more bandwidth). In this case, I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, there's variations in the production quality of both components and cables. There's also variations in installation environments, deterioration over the years and advancements over the years. By using cables that outperform the minimum specifications for HDMI 1.3a, I have a built-in performance reserve to insure that I always get all the 1's and 0's over the years. When Deep Color and xvColor (xvYCC) content become available, my cables will be ready to handle the extra data. Over the years, I may upgrade my components for new capabilities, but I won't have to rewire.

The HDTV, receiver, BD player, and HD-DVD player in my home theater system cost a total of $10,400 plus tax. The 3 HDMI cables to connect these 4 components cost a total of $500. That equals 4.8% of the component cost. I call that cheap insurance. The sales tax cost much more!

The waste in my system? I used a $150 HDMI cable to connect the cable company's Motorola DCH6416 Tuner/DVR to my receiver. It's capable of only 1080i and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Any HDMI 1.3 cable is overkill for this component. Maybe some day the cable company will go wild and upgrade to 1080p, lossless audio and deep color, but I'll probably be too old, blind and deaf to notice. But then on the other hand, technology has a way of advancing when you least expect it. Especially digital technology.

The people working on DPL (Digital Performance Level) aren't as cavalier about the quality of HDMI cables as are 88.80% of those who have responded so far to the "HDMI Cable Shoot Off" on this forum. They believe strongly enough about the need to have a performance reserve above and beyond the minimum HDMI specifications as to create DPL. Below are two "eye pattern test" images. Both images represent a level of performance that passes the HDMI specification. However, the image on the left indicates performance that exceeds the specification by 48% while the image on the right shows performance that exceeds the specification by only 1%. Personally, I prefer the kind of performance indicated by the left image. I've spent a great deal of time and money to remodel my home and install a quality home theater system. I'm not about to settle for cables and components that just barely pass the HDMI 1.3 specification. It will be interesting to see what the DPL Rating for inexpensive monoprice cables will be if they submit their cables for testing.

Some people seek the best possible performance they can get from their home theater and want that performance to last. Others just want to watch TV. I'm a performance seeker, and performance overkill suits me just fine. With computers, there's no such thing as a processor that's too fast, a graphics card that's too fast, too much RAM or a hard drive too big. With home theater, there's no such thing as HDMI cables too fast.

Another way to look at cable selection is with an automobile analogy. Chevrolet sells both the Aveo and the Corvette. Both cars will get you from point A to point B. But the cars have completely different levels of performance capability. A Corvette owner is not likely to use the full performance capability of his car without getting arrested, but it's there none the less. When it comes time to buy tires, it doesn't make sense to buy economy passenger tires for the Corvette, or high performance speed rated tires for the Aveo.

For those who use economy HDMI cables and are happy with the result, they made the right choice. For those who use high performance cables that exceed the HDMI 1.3 specification and they have or plan to have high performance components, they made the right choice too. And, for those who use high performance cables that exceed the HDMI 1.3 specification just because they want to, they made the right choice too!

Chris, a later post of yours seems to indicate you feel the same way too.

"In the end, people should buy the cable they want and feel they need. My 12 ga bluejeans speaker wire is definite overkill, but I like it and love their adjustable banana plugs. A lot of people would probably feel that I wasted money by having them terminate the cable for me, but I like the finished look and solid feel of their termination and am much happier than I would have been if I had to do it myself or get someone I know to do it for me. I have nothing against anyone who chooses any particular cable, including the IMO insane $100+ per inch super cables. It is their money and their prerogative. I just think it is important to get the differing points of view and both the hard facts and the more subjective side out there so that newbies can see all of the sides to the issue and decide which path they wish to follow without having any of those paths obscured from them.

When we debate these things and have disagreements, we should keep in mind that, at least on this site, we all have something in common, the love of Blu-Ray movies. Other sites where you can debate this and other topics do not offer this wide common ground to their members".

Chris, I couldn't agree with you more!

Below are "eye pattern test" images and information obtained from the DPL web site. Everything about their testing and rating program contradicts the conventional wisdom of this forum's members. The purpose of the DPL rating program is not to confirm the notion that any cable that meets the HDMI 1.3 specification is good enough. It's an effort to educate and promote the need for performance superior to the HDMI 1.3 specification.

Terry

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






Remember, the integrity of the entire interface is accumulative in nature. Having a cable with headroom ABOVE the minimum specification can make up for some types of deficiencies in the other components of the system (SOURCE and SINK).

The eye patterns to the upper right illustrates just one of many situations there are out in the field.
The eye pattern to the left is a near perfect eye. The dark blue area in the middle is called the eye mask. Its purpose is to define the specification limits for each kind of transmission one may be testing for. HDMI has its own sets of specifications. This near perfect eye will earn points toward a higher DPL Rank
The white area between the mask and the eye pattern itself is the safe area with no noise, robust symmetry, and maximum distance between the pattern and the mask.
The pattern to the right is an eye pattern that is on the edge or lab name "almost in the dirt". This does pass compliance due to the fact that the mask does not hit any part of the mask. However, allow for just one abnormality to occur and system failure can occur. Just the pure nature of cable tolerance can put this system in jeopardy. With this poor response this device will loose points and will yield a lower DPL Rank.

[blindcat87]

I don't disagree with you that having extra bandwidth available is a good thing. The problem that most seem to be missing is that there are a limited number of lines capable of producing HDMI cable stock. Monster does not manufacture their own cable in house, they contract it out to China like all of the other interconnect distributors except for blujeanscable. Most of the actual wire under the jackets of the 1.3 certified cables are the exact same wire from the exact same line. The difference comes in on the terminations and the cable jackets and shielding. I need to see if I can find the link that shows how to track which particular line a cable comes from, but the fact is that it is a distinct possibility that beneath the sheath, the Monoprice and Monster cables came from the same line.

The 1.3A spec has more than enough headroom to spare for all current applications including Deep Color. Given the way digital technology is advancing, it is entirely likely that by the time that Deep Color is actually a reality and not just vaporware, that a completely new interface will be needed. At the moment, Deep Color is pure marketing hype. We are literally looking at 10 or more years before it is likely to emerge. ATSC is not capable of carrying it, Blu-Ray is not capable of carrying it. That does not mean that firmware upgrades and a little spec tinkering will someday add it. This means that an entirely new media format and broadcast format will have to be developed and brought to market. Frankly, by this time the standard may well be 1440p and the current lot of cables may not have the bandwidth even if they are supposed to be HDMI v1.8 ready.

I agree that being prepared for the future is the better way to go, what most fail to understand is that you do not have to pay a huge premium in order to get that. I like Monoprice and believe that people with their 1.3A cables are getting the exact same quality. As I said, it is entirely possible that they are literally getting the exact same wire beneath the sheath.

I am not suggesting to people that they go buy the cheapest, bottom of the heap POS cable they can find. I am suggesting that they research beyond marketing hype and advice from sources with a vested interest in selling them something and realize that often the most popular choice is the most popular choice because of marketing rather than real benefit.

Read the www.monstergreed.com site and the links from it that have not been shut down by corporate threats and harassment. Instead of researching in magazines whose ad revenue depends on certain companies and stores that have their own vested interests, check out discussions of interconnects at forums such as www.avsforum.com (don't moan guys, the non HD forums there still have some great folks and great discussions), www.audioholics.com , www.audioasylum.com , www.audiocircle.com , and www.hometheaterhifi.com . There is a lot of discussion out there, often heated, but it can be a real eye opener about Monster and many other brands for that matter. There is a lot of information out there, and a llot of it can lead you to much better bang for buck, and not just in the area of interconnects. The nice thing about these forums is that, even though they have advertisers and sponsors, the discussion is independent and when paid shills rear their ugly heads, it is not too hard to spot them.

Here is another good general audio theory discussion link:

http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm#intro

While some of my cables have come from Monoprice and Parts Express, right now most of my cabling, including my HDMI cables, are from bluejeanscable.com . I like their build quality, their connectors, and the amount of information they disclose about their products. They have a lot of information on their page, and while they certainly are out to sell their products, they have a lot of good general information on their pages. As I've said before, one should never depend solely on those with a vested interest in a topic as an information source, but they have gathered a lot of information that is easily verified independently, and they openly invite corrections if something is found to be inaccurate on their site. You don't see that on a lot of commercial sites. This link is to their HDMI information center:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...n.htm?hdmidept

This link is direct to their discussion of the origin of HDMI cables sold in the US:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...m.htm?hdmiinfo

In the end, everyone has to make their own choice in every area of their home theater or audio setup. What I have come to believe is that there is rarely a single best choice in any category of equipment, but rather options of greater or lesser value for the price and options that are better or worse for the individual. Interconnects are one of the most complex areas because of the sheer magnitude of choice and the difficulty in determining which elements lead to a perceptual difference or just a measureable difference. While the former does not often appear without the latter, the reverse is often not the case. In a perfect world, the most popular choice would be the best choice, but this is not a perfect world, and consumers should always remember that, while there are still plenty of good and honest folks in business, there are also more than a few P.T. Barnums at large in the world.

Chris

Originally Posted by JetJock

Ch

You're saying any cable rated for HDMI 1.3a is good enough because it will transmit all the data there is to be had. Any additional bandwidth, and the money spent to obtain that additional bandwidth, is just going to waste. If your components and cables are transmitting and receiving all the 1's and 0's there are to be had, there's no possible improvement to be obtained by spending money on a faster, better cable (more bandwidth). In this case, I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, there's variations in the production quality of both components and cables. There's also variations in installation environments, deterioration over the years and advancements over the years. By using cables that outperform the minimum specifications for HDMI 1.3a, I have a built-in performance reserve to insure that I always get all the 1's and 0's over the years. When Deep Color and xvColor (xvYCC) content become available, my cables will be ready to handle the extra data. Over the years, I may upgrade my components for new capabilities, but I won't have to rewire.

The HDTV, receiver, BD player, and HD-DVD player in my home theater system cost a total of $10,400 plus tax. The 3 HDMI cables to connect these 4 components cost a total of $500. That equals 4.8% of the component cost. I call that cheap insurance. The sales tax cost much more!

The waste in my system? I used a $150 HDMI cable to connect the cable company's Motorola DCH6416 Tuner/DVR to my receiver. It's capable of only 1080i and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Any HDMI 1.3 cable is overkill for this component. Maybe some day the cable company will go wild and upgrade to 1080p, lossless audio and deep color, but I'll probably be too old, blind and deaf to notice. But then on the other hand, technology has a way of advancing when you least expect it. Especially digital technology.

The people working on DPL (Digital Performance Level) aren't as cavalier about the quality of HDMI cables as are 88.80% of those who have responded so far to the "HDMI Cable Shoot Off" on this forum. They believe strongly enough about the need to have a performance reserve above and beyond the minimum HDMI specifications as to create DPL. Below are two "eye pattern test" images. Both images represent a level of performance that passes the HDMI specification. However, the image on the left indicates performance that exceeds the specification by 48% while the image on the right shows performance that exceeds the specification by only 1%. Personally, I prefer the kind of performance indicated by the left image. I've spent a great deal of time and money to remodel my home and install a quality home theater system. I'm not about to settle for cables and components that just barely pass the HDMI 1.3 specification. It will be interesting to see what the DPL Rating for inexpensive monoprice cables will be if they submit their cables for testing.

Some people seek the best possible performance they can get from their home theater and want that performance to last. Others just want to watch TV. I'm a performance seeker, and performance overkill suits me just fine. With computers, there's no such thing as a processor that's too fast, a graphics card that's too fast, too much RAM or a hard drive too big. With home theater, there's no such thing as HDMI cables too fast.

Another way to look at cable selection is with an automobile analogy. Chevrolet sells both the Aveo and the Corvette. Both cars will get you from point A to point B. But the cars have completely different levels of performance capability. A Corvette owner is not likely to use the full performance capability of his car without getting arrested, but it's there none the less. When it comes time to buy tires, it doesn't make sense to buy economy passenger tires for the Corvette, or high performance speed rated tires for the Aveo.

For those who use economy HDMI cables and are happy with the result, they made the right choice. For those who use high performance cables that exceed the HDMI 1.3 specification and they have or plan to have high performance components, they made the right choice too. And, for those who use high performance cables that exceed the HDMI 1.3 specification just because they want to, they made the right choice too!

Chris, a later post of yours seems to indicate you feel the same way too.

"In the end, people should buy the cable they want and feel they need. My 12 ga bluejeans speaker wire is definite overkill, but I like it and love their adjustable banana plugs. A lot of people would probably feel that I wasted money by having them terminate the cable for me, but I like the finished look and solid feel of their termination and am much happier than I would have been if I had to do it myself or get someone I know to do it for me. I have nothing against anyone who chooses any particular cable, including the IMO insane $100+ per inch super cables. It is their money and their prerogative. I just think it is important to get the differing points of view and both the hard facts and the more subjective side out there so that newbies can see all of the sides to the issue and decide which path they wish to follow without having any of those paths obscured from them.

When we debate these things and have disagreements, we should keep in mind that, at least on this site, we all have something in common, the love of Blu-Ray movies. Other sites where you can debate this and other topics do not offer this wide common ground to their members".

Chris, I couldn't agree with you more!

Below are "eye pattern test" images and information obtained from the DPL web site. Everything about their testing and rating program contradicts the conventional wisdom of this forum's members. The purpose of the DPL rating program is not to confirm the notion that any cable that meets the HDMI 1.3 specification is good enough. It's an effort to educate and promote the need for performance superior to the HDMI 1.3 specification.

Terry

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






Remember, the integrity of the entire interface is accumulative in nature. Having a cable with headroom ABOVE the minimum specification can make up for some types of deficiencies in the other components of the system (SOURCE and SINK).

The eye patterns to the upper right illustrates just one of many situations there are out in the field.
The eye pattern to the left is a near perfect eye. The dark blue area in the middle is called the eye mask. Its purpose is to define the specification limits for each kind of transmission one may be testing for. HDMI has its own sets of specifications. This near perfect eye will earn points toward a higher DPL Rank
The white area between the mask and the eye pattern itself is the safe area with no noise, robust symmetry, and maximum distance between the pattern and the mask.
The pattern to the right is an eye pattern that is on the edge or lab name "almost in the dirt". This does pass compliance due to the fact that the mask does not hit any part of the mask. However, allow for just one abnormality to occur and system failure can occur. Just the pure nature of cable tolerance can put this system in jeopardy. With this poor response this device will loose points and will yield a lower DPL Rank.

[JetJock]

Chris,

Thanks for all the good information and the links to so many informative sites. There's enough in all these sites to keep me busy reading for quite a while.

Terry

[ATD]

Originally Posted by DJ Scotty

Thank you for the assistance; OK, so ANY HDMI cable can pass 1080p VIDEO....yes? As for the AUDIO, I DO have a receiver that is 1.3 capable -- the Onkyo TX-SR605, so while I am not using the RECEIVER'S decoding capabilities with its internal decoding yet because my player cannot output bitstream high res signals, I AM sending the receiver PCM signals for high res audio....DO I NEED SPECIAL CABLES FOR THIS TRANSFER? I have a Monster HDMI link between receiver and Blu-ray player now, and audio all transfers over fine from what I can hear.

Scotty me ole mate read this

would you buy a Lambo and put cheap remould tyres on it
i think not ! most probably P Zeros

the point if you have thousands of pounds or dollars worth of AV stuff example

the ratio of spend for cables is 10% of your system

yes i agree with everyone else that cheap HDMI cables will pass 1080p and HD audio and PCM uncompressed

but hears the thing! i have installed over 600 screens personally in 6 years
i installed HDMI cables upto 20m meters long before screens had HDMI in the UK so customers would come back and upgrade at some point

i have used HDMI cables from £1000 to £3 each i currently use monster
as in my option they are the best

if you set up to 50 inch 1080p Plasma's side by side as i have in my demo room, using a £30 HDMI and a £249.00 HDMI

the difference is outstanding ! the plasma's are identical and the settings the same just differerent HDMI cables.

result: Monster cable colour depth black levels almost 3D like images from my Pioneer LX70a Blu Ray player trust me guys! no sales bullshit the results are amazing.

i did the same with component when there was no HDMI
and again IXOS cables at that time were much better.

also if ever considering a new screen here is a suggestion
i have tried them all form Sony's to Panos LG Samsung Fujistu (RIP) as they have stopped making screens now, but the best by a 100 miles at least two years ahead of the rest is Pioneer

Pioneer LX508D is the model in the UK yes it is expensive but my GOD is it worth it put the PS3 or Blu ray player through it and stand back and be amazed

also Pioneer are currently making Slim and Light plasma they showed them at CES Vegas will be available in the next 12 mths

now when i say thin 30mm 20KG 1080p with an external media box
sizes from 42 to 112 inch / dont tell anyone its a secret!

so i hope that clears up the confusion but remember its only my opinion
but as i say to my customers ( i do for a living )

ATD

[Vlad44]

Originally Posted by ATD

would you buy a Lambo and put cheap...

Man, did monster and pioneer pay u something for that post? LOL

just kidn

[bobh33]

Thanks everyone! I just bought two 3'-HDMI's from MonoPrice for $12.00 including S & H. I will take back the two I bought at Walmart which were the cheapest (most economical) in town @ $27.00 each. I also found out after the order that the Onkyo HT-S894 system even included one HDMI cable!!! So now I'm set in case one of these "economical" cables goes out on me!!

[TenEightyP]

ATD, I have to challenge (in a nice way) a couple of comments made by you in your post.

"the ratio of spend for cables is 10% of your system"
Who says this should be the case? Given some of the technical explanations previously posted on this thread, do you have some technical information to support your statement?



"i have used HDMI cables from £1000 to £3 each i currently use monster
as in my option they are the best

if you set up to 50 inch 1080p Plasma's side by side as i have in my demo room, using a £30 HDMI and a £249.00 HDMI

the difference is outstanding ! the plasma's are identical and the settings the same just differerent HDMI cables.

result: Monster cable colour depth black levels almost 3D like images from my Pioneer LX70a Blu Ray player trust me guys! no sales bullshit the results are amazing.

i did the same with component when there was no HDMI
and again IXOS cables at that time were much better."

Interestingly you do seem to describe your impressions of the differences in cables in a similar way to review magazines. I wonder if you are not experiencing some form of "placebo" effect as described previously, and it's always difficult to quantify the differences you describe unlike technical info. I do accept that you are giving your opinions. I have just done a check of the review magazines and Monster cables do not come out as the best (five stars if you like). A recent review in What Hi-Fi lists cables:

Techlink Wires 1st (1m) (£15) - Five Stars
Supra HF100 (1m) (£50) - Five Stars
Audioquest HDMI-X (1m) (£63) - Five Stars
Chrod Company Silver Plus 1.3 (1m) (£83) - Five Stars

Also I have never know IXOS to fair well against brands like QED here in the UK, although it is interesting that you find what is considered by many to be a middle tier cable manufacturer (IXOS) to be one of the better ones.

In the HDMI cable review the IXOS Studio XHT288 (1M) (£45) did gain a creditable four stars in the review.

I would tend to agree that the Pioneer is highly regarded, but as for the secret information (if you are being a bit tongue in cheek I apologise) that information is not secret and has been circulating on the net for quite a while now.


"so i hope that clears up the confusion but remember its only my opinion
but as i say to my customers ( i do for a living )"

With due respect you have not actually cleared any confusion, you have only presented your opinions and not hard fact. Personally I think this debate is going to run and run. I do think that as an outcome of this I have decided to try and find a retailer who will set up an A/B test so I can see it for myself. Maybe the Bristol Hi-Fi and Video show would have been a good venue.

I am still to be convinced.

...

[prerich]

Originally Posted by d_rob1031

Monster cables tout GB/sec speeds on their packages and people feel safe that their cable has so much bandwidth. Don't be suckered in by a salesmen or fancy packages. Looking on monsters website they claim only their 1000 series is capable for the 120hz screens, x.v. color, HD audio, among other things.

When you boil it down... 1's and 0's are just that, 1's and 0's

Excellent post that tells the truth - I get all of my HDMI cables from Amazon for pennies - haven't had a problem yet.

[blindcat87]

The fact that they claim you need a special cable for 120 Hz displays should be all you need to know about their FUD based tactics. There is not a special, higher bandwidth image stored on the disc for 120 Hz displays. It is the same damn signal no matter whether the display is a SD TV using composite video or a 120 or, say a mythical 1200 Hz TV using HDMI. The display's refresh rate concerns the display and nothing else. It concerns what the display does with the signal once it gets it and nothing else.

That has to be one of the stupidest marketing moves they have made. They may sucker in some who are totally ignorant, but anyone with any real knowledge will see that claim and know exactly what it says about their credibility.

Chris

Originally Posted by prerich

Excellent post that tells the truth - I get all of my HDMI cables from Amazon for pennies - haven't had a problem yet.