# Monster cabling questions...



## mjferguson (Feb 3, 2004)

I am considering buying some EXPENSIVE Monster Cable to run from the wall to my Hughes HD reciever. 

My question is this, how can this help when I don't have this high end cable running from my dish to the wall? Won't the picture only be as good as that cable can provide anyway? If I use that same cable to the receiver isn't that the best picture I am going to get?


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Remember, digital is not the same as analog in this regard. Since your source is a satellite dish (as you indicate), this means that the data is an encoded digital signal being received from space. For digital signals, there are essentially three levels of "ability to receive the signal":

1) Signal is received with no errors.
2) Signal is received, but some bit errors are encountered.
3) Signal is not received.

For analog, one is often trying to get as undistorted a waveform as possible, so a waveform which is "not quite right" winds up being perceived as "reduced quality". For digital, there are only two "states" (0 and 1). A 1 is always a 1 and a 0 is always a 0 up until the point where the two can no longer be determined. For example, on a 5 volt line, 3.3 volts - 5 volts might be sensed as a 1, and 0 - 1.7 volts might be sensed as a 0. Unless noise or degradation confuses 0s into 1s and vice versa, there is no reduced quality up until this point (e.g. if a blip raises the voltage for one bit-length from 0 volts to 1 volt, this is still treated as a logical 0).

For condition #1 above, the picture will appear perfect. For condition #2, if there are enough bit errors, artifacts may start to be observed in the picture. These will look like blocks of color which suddenly appear, pieces of the video which stop moving, or random chunks of pixelation. For condition #3, no satellite signal will be detected and hence no tuning will be possible.

Regardless, the bottom line of all of this discussion is that, while you should be concerned about making sure the signal gets from its source to its destination, the impact of "extra expensive" cable is extremely small, and even more so on digital, since if you are already receiving the digital signal correctly, there will be absolutely no difference. More important things to do:

A) Make sure the dish is aimed properly.
B) Make sure the wiring lengths are not excessively long.
C) Make sure the wiring is reasonable quality RG-6 cabling.

For the purposes of this discussion, "quality" means just a standard spool of RG-6 cable rated for satellite frequencies (not Monster Cable).


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

You'll find that many people here will highly recommend against buying "EXPENSIVE" cables for most things. You can better spend your money on many other things...

- John...


----------



## mjferguson (Feb 3, 2004)

Slordak said:


> Remember, digital is not the same as analog in this regard. Since your source is a satellite dish (as you indicate), this means that the data is an encoded digital signal being received from space. For digital signals, there are essentially three levels of "ability to receive the signal":
> 
> 1) Signal is received with no errors.
> 2) Signal is received, but some bit errors are encountered.
> ...


I am actually getting a GREAT analog signal from my antenna. I do get some artifacts/pixelation in low light scenes on standard digital channels. Not sure what would be causing this? Maybe just overly compressed video?


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

If you want to get some good cables at decent prices, try Parts Express . I picked up six 3' cables for less than the cost of going to RadioShack. It's a hell of an improvement over the 6' cables since it no longer looks like a rat's nest.


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

Monster Cables would be good for long runs from the receiver to the lnb, since both the center conductor and the shield are solid copper. I use them personally for connecting cables between components, because they are very flexible. They are nicest, when used with a special "indoor" Snap-N-Seal fitting called an SNS6ID. These have a round knurl end that allows for easy finger tightening, while still havng a small hex area, if the fitting need to be removed with a wrench. You don't see these much, but they are wonderful, along with Monster Cable for tight spaces in AV wall units.

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/technicalconnectionsinc/thbesnrg6inc.html


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2004)

Snake oil. Don't waste your money.


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

eric5 said:


> Snake oil. Don't waste your money.


This is the same kind of person who uses RG59 for DishPro installs.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

I don't think he is. I think he is one of the many people here that tend to think that, in general, Monster Cables are way overpriced -- especially when it comes to component connections -- and even moreso when it comes to digital component connections. See the many threads around where people talk about buying $100+ or even $200+ Component and/or DVI cables. It's a waste of money to do so...

- John...


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

I can agree that a lot of Monster Cable is over hyped. I don't ever use them. However, as I stated, their coax is quite good for specific applications. I don't use their twist on connectors. They are way overpriced. I wouldn't use their coax for in wall "fished" installs, either, because they are quite fragile, since the center conductor is solid copper. When stretched, the center conductor will thin out or break. In this case, a copper plated steel center wire is much better. For jumper cable in tight places, their standard RG6 (36-50 cents a foot) is quite reasonable and very very flexible. Great for tight places, where it might be hard to get a stiff coax into. As with all things, nothing is totally good or bad. Forget buying $20-50 cables. I would never recommend them.


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

If you need a long run for component, build your own with RG-6 and screw on RCA connectors from Rat Shack & save yourself a bundle.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I bought some higher end RG-6 cable to run from my dish to my receiver and it did make a difference over the generic cable that runs to my other receiver. I got mine at Radio Shack.

I use Monster for almost all of my system and the performance has been great. I do have AR S-video cable going to one of the inputs on my DVD recorder and it's not bad; not as good as a higher-priced MonsterVideo3, but ok. People say you can save money by getting other brands and that may be true. From what I've been able to research, the difference in cabling comes from the quality of the wire, the quality of the solder, and the quality of the sheilding. My "high-end" AV store (that builds systems for pro football, pro hockey, and big-wig music executives) carries 2 brands of cable: Monster and Transparent. (Transparent S-Video cable will cost around $200 for one foot if I recall correctly)


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Of course they only carry those -- because people going shopping in a home town "high-end AV store" will buy what they are offered. Offer them $200 Transparent cables and $100 Monster Cables -- and no other choices -- and you can make a lot of money selling those Monsters to the ill-informed. 

- John...


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

You might also checkout Outlawaudio.com , they have very reasonable prices and excellent quality.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Please show me some hard evidence that Monster Cable is better than Radio Shack cable or even the cables that I picked up from Parts Express. And, no, I don't want anecdotal evidence that it "sounds better" or "looks better", I was hard solid evidence with measurements.

The markups on the Monster Cable is quite high, and, along with the Extended Warranty Plan, is designed to extract more money from you.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Whenever I see this cable "discussions" it makes me think of a test _Stereo Review_ did back in the mid '70's. (Sorry, that's as specific as I can get.) They got a group of audiophiles with "golden ears" and had them listen as they switched between Monster Cable and some 16 g. zip cord. When they knew which they were listening to, they were able to state definitely that the Monster Cable was immensely better. Then they did the blind test. Suddenly their golden ears became unable to determine any real difference. In fact, their ability to decide between the two cables reached about the same level as pure chance. SR recommended people save their money, or spend it on better components, not on cable.

Now I realize that this test was audio only, and today in dealing with the bandwidth of some video signals some cables are definitely better than the cheapies you get with some components. But my opinion is that what was true for audio in the '70's (and today) is also true for video to the same extent.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

And to chime in further.... 

There is not an inch of Monster(R) Cable in any television production facility in the country. That should tell you something...the people who *produce what we watch* simply use a good grade of Belden(R) cable or equivalent.


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

mnassour said:


> And to chime in further....
> 
> There is not an inch of Monster(R) Cable in any television production facility in the country. That should tell you something...the people who *produce what we watch* simply use a good grade of Belden(R) cable or equivalent.


That's because they can't afford the premium prices. They use a lot of cables.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2004)

No, it's because there isn't a difference in picture or sound quality.

Monster is still pretty low compared to other "premium" cable brands. There are companies that will gladly sell suckers cable for much more.


----------



## BarryO (Dec 16, 2003)

This reminds me when I went coax cable shopping for my HT a while back. The local Home Depot had 500 ft. rolls of Carol brand RG-6QS. Now, the Carol brand is owned by General Cable, one of the largest cable manufacturers in the world. They're a reputable company and produce good stuff.

Home Depot had two types of Carol RG-6QS, the standard black stuff, and "studio grade" cable. I copied down the part numbers for both, went home, and looked up the complete specifications for both on the General Cable website.

Guess what? The performance specifications for both were identical. So was the construction; same materials, same specs, with one exception: the "standard" RG-6QS had a black plastic outer jacket. The "studio grade" had a cool-looking, translucent blue outer jacket.

The standard RG-6QS was $59 for a 500 ft. roll. 

The "studio grade" was $154 for a 500 ft. roll. 

P.T. Barnum was right - there's a sucker born every minute.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Mike500 said:


> That's because they can't afford the premium prices. They use a lot of cables.


No sir. That's wrong. :nono2:

They simply know what it takes to get a video signal from A to B and will not spend any more than is necessary.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

There is a definate difference between RG-6 and RG-59. RG is a cable specification, not a cable brand. RG-6 can handle a longer run than RG-59 irregardless of cable brand.

_Edited: Remind me not to post anything too technical when tired. It's easy to get them flopped around._


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

mnassour said:


> No sir. That's wrong. :nono2:
> 
> They simply know what it takes to get a video signal from A to B and will not spend any more than is necessary.


In engineering terms, there is a cost benefit analysis. They figure that the resturn is not worth the extra costs. That does not mean that there are no benefits from building using better materials and better techniques. This affordability factor comes into play when they need lots of cables. For the home theater owner, cost may not be prohibitive.

For example, in many countries, without strong building codes, one hears of massive death numbers in natural disasters such as earthquake due to lax building standards.

This kind of situation happens a lot in technology. Given equal costs, they too would choose a higher quality cable like Monster. Companies often go out of business, because another comes out with a superior product at the same or less cost.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Mike500 said:


> In engineering terms, there is a cost benefit analysis. They figure that the resturn is not worth the extra costs. That does not mean that there are no benefits from building using better materials and better techniques.


You are implying some things that aren't necessarily the case:

1. It does not mean that there is a better return -- regardless of the extra costs. What was asked for above was some research that shows that there is actually better performance out of specific cables. So far, you seem to be saying that they are more expensive, so they must be better -- and anyone not buying them does it simply due to lack of funds.

2. We didn't say that there was no benefit to "using better materials and better techniques." You are implying that a $100+ set of Monster component cables "use better materials and better techniques" than, say, my $25 set of component cables. That hasn't been proven by any stretch.



> This affordability factor comes into play when they need lots of cables. For the home theater owner, cost may not be prohibitive.


Again, cost does not necessarily mean quality. And, in this situation, we've come to learn that higher cost commonly does NOT necessarily mean better quality. That's the whole point.



> For example, in many countries, without strong building codes, one hears of massive death numbers in natural disasters such as earthquake due to lax building standards.


Linking the "quality" of video cables to the deaths of hundreds or thousands killed in earthquakes due to lax building standards is pretty lame. Just FYI.



> This kind of situation happens a lot in technology. Given equal costs, they too would choose a higher quality cable like Monster. Companies often go out of business, because another comes out with a superior product at the same or less cost.


Again -- the whole point is that you seem to be equating cost to quality in some direct relationship. It just isn't the case here.

- John...


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

I wholeheartedly agree. I never use Monster Cables generally, except for the ones that I make up, myself. For connections made inside the home, the Monster Cable coax sold in bulk, not the ready made cables, is superior. Thomas and Betts SNS6ID "F" connectors are superior to the connectors that Monster uses.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Well, I can agree with that -- or, at least, admit that I don't know enough about Monster's bulk stuff to argue either way. 

My point was simply that people going out spending $100+ on Monster component cables or $200+ on Transparent or other such cables -- are generally throwing their money away.

- John...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> Mark, that's bass-ackwards wrong. You should edit your post so as not to confuse us oldtimers or mislead our noobie-boobies. :lol:


You're right, I'm wrong, I just have them flopped them, and have since edited my post.

Besides, what difference does the manufacturer of the RG-6 make when doing a cable run from the switch to the dish. It's all a digital signal anyways.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

jgoggan said:


> Of course they only carry those -- because people going shopping in a home town "high-end AV store" will buy what they are offered. Offer them $200 Transparent cables and $100 Monster Cables -- and no other choices -- and you can make a lot of money selling those Monsters to the ill-informed.
> 
> - John...


My point was that a "high-end" store would tend not to carry products that couldn't do the job well. People can go down the street to Radio Shack or Best Buy so there are alternatives. When they sell a $25,000 projector then they're going to put the high-end cables on it, but when you buy a $3,000 TV, you'll probably put Monster on there. The last thing a store that sells much more expensive equipment wants is to have a customer complain about lousy picture when the cables are to blame. I know the point is that Monster does the job well, but just costs more, but the fact is that it does work well.

My question would be: what's the top brand of cable that is comparable to Monster in quality? And if it's better (or just as good for a much lower price) then why don't they market their product as strongly as Monster? (Serious question, no sarcasm intended.)


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

The big hype in the industry is Gold Plating. Gold has only 71.2% of the conductivity of copper. People think that, because gold is expensive, it must be a better conductor than copper, as copper is a better conductor than aluminum (69.4% of copper). Better than gold, is silver at 106% the conductivity of copper. The 4-5 micron of gold costs almost nothing, less than 1/10 of one cent, if that much. But, it sounds impressive and expensive. Most expensive milatary electrical RF connectors are plated with a layer of pure silver over copper.

Monster Cable is better is because it has no aluminum in it except the vacuum deposited aluminum on the mylar shield layer. The shield wire and the central conductors are solid copper.

Monster Cable assembled connectors are crimped or screwed on. A lot of them are also RG59. Compression connectors, like Snap-N-Seal are superior.

Accordingly, I am convinced that the best cables are custom made cables comprising of Monster Cable bulk RG6 cable terminated with Snap-N-Seal connectors.

The assemble units cost less than 20% of the price of assembled Monster Cables.

That is why I make my own.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Gold is popular because unlike copper it will not oxidize or tarnish.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

durl said:


> My point was that a "high-end" store would tend not to carry products that couldn't do the job well.


I know that is your point -- I just think it is wrong. You are assuming that a store that sell expensive things and expensive cables must have those cables because they are "better." That is a big assumption -- that I think is often incorrect.

They sell Monster cables at a "high-end" store because people that walk into a "high-end" store to buy expensive TVs will pay too much for cables. That's sales and marketing. They also get huge kickbacks/incentives from Monster -- which bothers me. Sales people shouldn't be selling me things just based on how much extra crap they can earn from a company...



> My question would be: what's the top brand of cable that is comparable to Monster in quality?


Almost any! That's the point! We're talking a digital signal in most cases -- it either works or it doesn't! If you are buying, say, an optical cable for connection between a receiver and DVD player... You can pay $100 for one from Monster or someone else -- or you can pay $20 for one from almost anyone. While there are a few exceptions for REALLY bad quality -- almost ANY of those $20 cables will function identical in quality to the $100+ cable. It's a digital signal -- it either works or it doesn't -- it doesn't "sound different" or "sound better" through one or the other.



> And if it's better (or just as good for a much lower price) then why don't they market their product as strongly as Monster? (Serious question, no sarcasm intended.)


Well, there is likely no way to explain it to you. It's like people arguing about the quality of a t-shirt sold at Neiman Marcus or WalMart. Some people are going to argue that the one at N.M. is of better quality (and, in some cases, they MAY be the case) -- while others will know that, in many cases, it's the same dang t-shirt but N.M. is seen as a "high-end" clothing store, so they charge more -- and also might advertise significantly differently.

That's just the way it is. We see it ALL THE TIME with marketing and advertising. People commonly pay more money for the one that advertises more/better -- regardless of quality.

- John...


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

Mike123abc said:


> Gold is popular because unlike copper it will not oxidize or tarnish.


Looks do not equate function. Copper with small amount of discoloration on copper will still be a better conductor than gold. If you want conductivity, go for silver, even though it does tarnish. Unless used in a corrosive atmosphere, copper will always be a better conductor than gold.

Image is not directly proportional to performance, Costs insn't always either.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Mark Holtz said:


> Please show me some hard evidence that Monster Cable is better than Radio Shack cable or even the cables that I picked up from Parts Express. And, no, I don't want anecdotal evidence that it "sounds better" or "looks better", I was hard solid evidence with measurements.


And I'm still waiting for hard evidence.

I have a buddy who works at a TV station and also does A/V work. He also strongly believes that Monster Cables are over priced. So, why do the stores carry them? Because of the huge margins that can be made up in exchange for a lower price of a piece of A/V equipment. Feature a product predominately, and someone will buy it.

If I'm wiring up speakers, I'll go and get a spool of copper cable from the local hardware store. Yes, that same spool that is used to wire up doorbells.

Sure, TV stations tend to cut corners. But, they tend to buy the cables in bulk and make their own. I was about to go the "build my own" route, but the cables that Parts Express had fit my needs cheaply.


----------

