Cable wars

[DavePS3]

Generally, Mosnter are no better no worse than Radio Shack cables - unless you need more sheilding from AC lines running parallel to the interconnects but that's rare.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by kiddtigger

Are Monster cables really not good?

Monster cables are just like Bose: They can be pretty good but they're obscenely overpriced.

[Valore]

I don't think it's a question of weather or not monster cables are good....I think what astonishes people are their outlandish prices. I'll admit I use an 8' M series monster cable that was expensive as hell...and I realize I could have prolly bought a cheaper one that does just the same thing...nonetheless, it works great and I already look at it as money I no longer have

[MrBogey]

With a digital medium you either have the info transmitted or it's dropped. If it's dropped it needs to be resent or skipped over. That's where jitter comes into play.

If you are going a short distance with little interference then a cheap cable can be good enough. The goal is transparency across the bits. For digital transmission a lot of the cheaper cables still transmit just as good.

If I was running a 30' HDMI cable I'd pay for a good quality one but for 3ft I'll get the cheapest I can find.

[Ashplisken]

Originally Posted by HDJK

You should consider doing some more research then (if you actually make a living selling CE stuff). There is a thing called jitter, it is a very real problem of digital audio and it has been observed by many that a better cable can make a difference. You can't hear one? Fine, but don't go claiming it doesn't matter if you don't have the facts.

Yes, I know about jitter and I understand what you are saying, but the cables still top out. Sure, if you want longer lengths and want to avoid attenuation you want a higher quality cable. For shorter lengths and average use, however, the cables can only get so good. Sure, I would spend a few bucks on a high quality cable (such as monster) but I would not spend the extra cash on say monster M series cables... that is just rediculousness. And yes, I understand jitter and I also understand that if you have decent cables jitter will still occur but jitter correction is mostly going to occur at the devices and not at the cable. And thus the theory of your entire system only being good as your weakest link. If you don't have a jitter buffer (or a de-jitter buffer) you are going to have more problems... The cable can only prevent additional jitter from occurring. If the cable being purchased is manufactured under any decent level of quality control you shouldn't have too much trouble with the cable causing jitter that cannot be corrected.

So to rephrase in order to make this a more friendly statement: Cables only get so good. After a certain point, the cable is not going to increase sound quality. So, yes, go and buy a decent brand and a decent cable, but "top-of-the-line" HDMI cables are nothing more than clever marketing.

[BOSS10L]

Originally Posted by Valore

I don't think it's a question of weather or not monster cables are good....I think what astonishes people are their outlandish prices. I'll admit I use an 8' M series monster cable that was expensive as hell...and I realize I could have prolly bought a cheaper one that does just the same thing...nonetheless, it works great and I already look at it as money I no longer have

Agreed. My first cable was a Monster 6' DVI to DVI I spent $100 on back in '04. I'll be darned if my $20 Monoprice ones don't offer the same quality at a fraction of the cost.

[Rup_Muk]

I've probably forgotten all my communications engineering stuff - and I'm sure there are folks here that will "rectify" my lack of knowledge. This is what I remember:

Cable properties - i.e. resistance, capacitance, inductance - become a major factor as a function of distance (or length). Put together, these 3 contribute to a length-dependent deterioration of signal amplitude and may even influence slew rate, thus causing a widening of the pulse. How does this modulate signals:

1. Analog signals - such as transmission from the receiver to the speakers, or video over composite, component lines - can be very, very bad - dependent on length. In this case, it is better to get good cables - ones with very low stray capacitance and as low a resistance as possible.

2. Digital signals - most devices that accept digital signals have built-in thresholding. Therefore, even if the amplitude is degraded in transmission, the digital signal is "reconstructed" based on threshold crossings. In this case, cable quality is not as important as that required for analog transmission.

If you put 1 and 2 together, it summarizes what other folks have stated in the thread - that audio is cable-dependent (more silver, better shielding, etc)and video (HDMI) is not. Based on my limited recollection of transmission parameters above, I would concur. Therefore, unless you're running 100s of feet of cable, a decent quality HDMI cable should suffice.

Rup.

[jermwhl]

Well put RUP, well put!

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Ashplisken

YSo to rephrase in order to make this a more friendly statement: Cables only get so good. After a certain point, the cable is not going to increase sound quality. So, yes, go and buy a decent brand and a decent cable, but "top-of-the-line" HDMI cables are nothing more than clever marketing.

This I can agree with

[SVTCobra_71]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Tell me about it. My Electra Glide cables list for $7000 each (not that I paid even 20% of that) and use solid silver conductors...little things do matter, especially when they all work together to give you a big thing like audio or video.

It's nice to see others that know the value of a good cable.
-Audioquest HDMI-3 2M $375
-Audioquest KE-4 (PSS) 8ft $2,800

Congrats to all those that are aware of what good cables are to those that pay for the better quality cables.

[JTK]

Ijustboughtcrapitis- The disease that makes a person delude themself into believing the crap they just bought is the best because they spent too much on it. ...

^^
That's what $7000 (?!?!) cables are about. Thank God that one poster didn't pay near that much but even 20 percent of that figure is pretty high.

I realize you get what you pay for and there's good cables vs. garbage cables, but c'mon, let's get real here, folks.

"Law of diminishing returns" doesn't even begin to cover the likes of something like this.

[Ashplisken]

It's amazing that even in the face of Scientific explanation and logical reasoning that people still insist on endorsing these rip-off artists...

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Ashplisken

It's amazing that even in the face of Scientific explanation and logical reasoning that people still insist on endorsing these rip-off artists...

Usually it's because they're probably selling the stuff themselves, more often than not.

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by Rup_Muk

If you put 1 and 2 together, it summarizes what other folks have stated in the thread - that audio is cable-dependent (more silver, better shielding, etc)and video (HDMI) is not.

I think you mean analog is cable dependent. Anything digitally transmitted will have a certain immunity whether it's a video or audio signal.

With digital signals, as long as the receiving end can tell the difference between ones and zeros, the source material will be received perfectly. It doesn't matter how many people say they can tell a difference or believe their expensive cables are better, a digital signal is the same if the ones and zeros are sent without error.

That being said, if a cable receives enough interference or it's own lossy characteristics cause a one to be mistaken for a zero, you will have signal corruption and all bets are off. It just comes down to how far a cheap cable can be run before this happens.

[buckshot]

i have these tiny "home theater in a box" speaker cables but have started upgrading my speakers in preparation for the new receiver i'm getting, once i decide which one i want.

but i want to know about speaker cables. what is a good brand/good things to look for? so i don't drop a lot of money on features that don't make any difference.