# Monster Cables (Yes or No)



## kcolg30

Monster Cables (Yes or No)


----------



## STEVEN-H

NO


----------



## jsmuga

I would not spend the extra money........


----------



## hockey_puck

kcolg30 said:


> Monster Cables (Yes or No)


Don't be a sucker! Waste of money.

Watch this consumer report on cables 
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/packing_the_deal/

Online source I have used.
http://www.monoprice.com/home/index.asp


----------



## wmj5

Anybody that would pay the difference in monster cables must have not tried the cheaper one's, I bought a box of 5 4ft ones gold plated from monoprice.com and my friend got a 6' monster from BB and paid $120.00 for it and you can not tell the difference, If you get a picture a cable is a cable, period!


----------



## bidger

Mo*no*(to Monster)price.


----------



## webby_s

No, and like others have said;

monoprice.com


----------



## dpeters11

Even if their cables weren't way overpriced, I wouldn't buy them if they sued like they do.


----------



## pfp

kcolg30 said:


> Monster Cables (Yes or No)


The answer to that question is the same as this one:

Do you have more money than brains?


----------



## Chris Blount

No but don't buy the cheapest cable you can find either. Some cables aren't made well and could cause issues.


----------



## kcolg30

Thanks for the advice


----------



## Mark Holtz

Monsters are good cables. They are also extremely overpriced cables.

Check out monoprice. They have good cables at excellent prices. Bonus points if you live in California, as one of their cheapest shipping options happens to be a in-California (plus a little of the surrounding states) overnight company.


----------



## jazzyd971fm

Not for me, I like saving money too much


----------



## scooper

In fairness to Monster - at least Monster cables work - you can't always say that about TERK antennas...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Strangely, the only Terk antenna I've ever tried has worked fine for me 

But just say no to Monster !


----------



## elaclair

The only thing Monster brings to the table are their attorneys. And attorneys do nothing to improve the quality of a signal......


----------



## Richard King

The Monsters are bullies and thugs. Don't do business with them, *EVER*. http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1258/monster-cable-playing-with-fire


----------



## dpeters11

Richard King said:


> The Monsters are bullies and thugs. Don't do business with them, *EVER*. http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1258/monster-cable-playing-with-fire


I was almost hoping Monster would pursue the lawsuit with him, just to see them taken down. But better that he didn't have to spend time and money to defend it. Though would be funny if they had to pay his legal costs at the end.


----------



## -Draino-

No. Check out firefold.com


----------



## Carl Spock

I've used Blue Jean Cables for years and I like them a lot.

I also used Monster when I was selling them, but then I bought them for at least 50% off, often more. At that price, they make a good cable. I've used a pair of 40' long Monster interconnects for over 25 years that sound excellent and, outside of being relatively inflexible, compare favorably with their best, current technology. They were also remarkably cheap way back when.


----------



## doorknob60

Get the cheapest one you can find on Newegg. Just make sure it has a good rating by other users. You can get them cheap there. Everywhere else is overpriced IMO (unless you can find a good sale at the right time). With digital signals like HDMI, either it works 100% or it doesn't (pretty much), so don't worry about cheap cables. I have cheap cables from Newegg and they work just fine. And if they don't Newegg has good customer service and will let you return it if you need


----------



## Richard King

> With digital signals like HDMI, either it works 100% or it doesn't (pretty much), so don't worry about cheap cables.


I have a customer here who had a 40' long HDMI cable installed by a local electrician (pulled up a wall, over the ceiling and down a wall). It was a near $100 cable purchased from Best Buy. It didn't work. If I recall correctly the signal was intermittant and only filled a part of the screen. I replaced the cable with one from Monoprice.com at about 1/3 the cost and it has been working just fine since.


----------



## rynorama

No
Monoprice


----------



## matt

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

monoprice.com


----------



## ffemtreed

Never Never Never!!!! Way too overpriced and no gain in quality.


----------



## BetterThanMost

-Draino- said:


> No. Check out firefold.com


+1 for Firefold. They are local here in the Charlotte area, and always have good talent working at their counter


----------



## jfeheley

This has nothing to do with TV cables but for information. I can notice a better clean sound from my speakers in my home music studio by using Mogami cables.


----------



## MysteryMan

I use Monster Cable. When you invest in quality electronic gear why compromise it with cheap cable. As for their price, it pales in compairison to some of the other high end cable I've seen.


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> I use Monster Cable. When you invest in quality electronic gear why compromise it with cheap cable.


Because you're getting suckered into hype. There's no better PQ or audio quality on your $100+ HDMI cables vs. $5 monoprice cables.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MysteryMan said:


> I use Monster Cable. When you invest in quality electronic gear why compromise it with cheap cable. As for their price, it pales in compairison to some of the other high end cable I've seen.


Monster Cable is perfectly fine.

....of course....you can get the same or better quality for *a fraction *of the price.... 

But hey...its your money to spend as you wish.


----------



## spartanstew

Three things the pros wouldn't be caught dead with:

Monster Cables
Bose Audio Gear
Behr Paint


----------



## MysteryMan

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Monster Cable is perfectly fine.
> 
> ....of course....you can get the same or better quality for *a fraction *of the price....
> 
> But hey...its your money to spend as you wish.


Agrees with hdtvfan0001. But it's not my money. It's yours! Your tax dollars pay my Army retirement which I use for entertainment!


----------



## mattpex

Check out this link. Very clear monster cable's are a waste http://gizmodo.com/5506527/the-great-cable-rip+off-for-visual-learners


----------



## julesism

scooper said:


> In fairness to Monster - at least Monster cables work - you can't always say that about TERK antennas...


Just say NO to Monster.

My 3 Terk HDTVa's have worked great for me since 2005 in several locations around Dallas and Austin TX.


----------



## bluemoon737

kcolg30 said:


> Monster Cables (Yes or No)


That depends...if you like to look AT your cables then an argument can be made for them...otherwise, I wouldn't touch them with a 10' pole!


----------



## bluemoon737

MysteryMan said:


> Agrees with hdtvfan0001. But it's not my money. It's yours! Your tax dollars pay my Army retirement which I use for entertainment!


Don't forget...you pay yourself as well :hurah:


----------



## kevinturcotte

Back when I bought my first DVD player (2002 or so I think) I paid $125 for a 3 foot Monster component cable (Their top to the line at the time). I still have them, and use them (Or did before I went HDMI), but I've learned my lesson. For normal, short runs (I can't testify to anything over 10 feet or so), the cheap composite cables that usually come with stuff work just as well (Still use component output). And digital? Digital is digital. It either gets there or it doesn't. Again, I can't speak for longer cable runs though.


----------



## Grentz

No, always overpriced.

I have a few I found on deep deep discounts, but that is rare 



spartanstew said:


> Three things the pros wouldn't be caught dead with:
> 
> Monster Cables
> Bose Audio Gear
> Behr Paint


Never heard the Behr paint one before....always has worked well for me and I have done plenty of painting with many different brands


----------



## Piratefan98

P.T. Barnum was right.

And because of that, companies like Monster can actually find people to buy their $100 HDMI cables. The more things change .... , well, you know. :lol:

Jeff


----------



## Davenlr

Sort of reminds me of a friend of mine, who spent close to $100 for a custom 6 gauge power cord for his high dollar tube type amplifier, and swore it sounded better than when he was using the $1.98 cent line cord. Until I reminded him that the socket he was plugging it into was connected to the breaker box using unshielded 14 gauge wire strung through the walls...


----------



## spartanstew

Grentz said:


> Never heard the Behr paint one before....always has worked well for me and I have done plenty of painting with many different brands


Much like Monster, Behr is overpriced. It generally takes more coats than other brands as well. If you want great paint, Sherwin Williams and Benjamin Moore are much better. If you want big box paint, Glidden is better and cheaper than Behr.


----------



## Grentz

spartanstew said:


> Much like Monster, Behr is overpriced. It generally takes more coats than other brands as well. If you want great paint, Sherwin Williams and Benjamin Moore are much better. If you want big box paint, Glidden is better and cheaper than Behr.


Interesting, I have used all those brands as well as Valspar. All have seemed to worked pretty well but they all have their own feel. It seems like you can find lovers and haters of just about all the main brands of paints. Behr has never been one of the more expensive ones either.

Personally I really liked the Ralph Lauren line at HD (which now has switched over to Martha Stewart Paints...not as good as the RL, but still pretty good) and Benjamin Moore (but its expensive). Sherwin Williams Duration is also excellent outdoor paint.


----------



## Richard King

If you like buying a product that is terribly overpriced from a company with ZERO business ethics, then Monster is the product for you. I feel that they have two strikes against them right there and I won't give them a third.


----------



## dmspen

I bought Behr paint yesterday and it was cheaper than the Glidden. I recently painted my kitchen with Behr and it went on with one coat. Looks great.

I buy my cables from Monoprice. (that was to put this back on topic):lol:



spartanstew said:


> Much like Monster, Behr is overpriced. It generally takes more coats than other brands as well. If you want great paint, Sherwin Williams and Benjamin Moore are much better. If you want big box paint, Glidden is better and cheaper than Behr.


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> I use Monster Cable. When you invest in quality electronic gear why compromise it with cheap cable. As for their price, it pales in compairison to some of the other high end cable I've seen.


Wow. You've been ripped off. Digital is digital. Either you get a signal or you don't. There is no good excuse to buy any sort of Monster brand cable.


----------



## Bigg

bidger said:


> Mo*no*(to Monster)price.


 Love them, they use quality wires and thick insulation, to make quality cables, not those goofy Monster Cables.


----------



## Bigg

kevinturcotte said:


> Back when I bought my first DVD player (2002 or so I think) I paid $125 for a 3 foot Monster component cable (Their top to the line at the time). I still have them, and use them (Or did before I went HDMI), but I've learned my lesson. For normal, short runs (I can't testify to anything over 10 feet or so), the cheap composite cables that usually come with stuff work just as well (Still use component output). And digital? Digital is digital. It either gets there or it doesn't. Again, I can't speak for longer cable runs though.


Component is tricky. I wouldn't use composite cables, although I've seen it done. I've even had component cables that didn't work. Personally, I would pay more ($8-$10) for the top of the line RG-6 component cables from Monoprice for situations where HDMI can't be used.


----------



## MysteryMan

Flack...Waiting for the flack Bigg is going to get because like me he likes and uses Monster Cable.


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> Flack...Waiting for the flack Bigg is going to get because like me he likes and uses Monster Cable.


Did you misread? 
The only people who believe Monster is great, like you do, is idiots at electronic stores who work on commission & sell them.


Bigg said:


> Love them, they use quality wires and thick insulation, to make quality cables, *not those goofy Monster Cables.*


----------



## MysteryMan

Misread


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> Did you misread?
> The only people who believe Monster is great, like you do, is idiots at electronic stores who work on commission & sell them.


I'm a educated man but I fail to come up with a intelligent answer for the hostility here. As for your grammer you should have said "are idiots" when you refered to those who work in electronic stores. In today's job market I'm sure they are glad to be employed. Shame on your english teacher!


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> I'm *a educated* man but I fail to come up with *a intelligent* answer for the hostility here. As for your *grammer* you should have said "are idiots" when you *refered *to those who work in electronic stores. In today's job market I'm sure they are glad to be employed. Shame on your *english *teacher!


I wasn't hostile. Also, thank you for the correction. While we're at it, we can point out your misspellings and non-capitalization. Are you "a educated" or "an educated man?" I'll ignore your punctuation errors, such as, missing commas.

grammer? grammar
refered? referred
english? English

Go watch some HD through Monster cables and don't play "Forum English Professor" when your own posts are riddled with errors.


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> I wasn't hostile. Also, thank you for the correction. While we're at it, we can point out your misspellings and non-capitalization. Are you "a educated" or "an educated man?" I'll ignore your punctuation errors, such as, missing commas.
> 
> grammer? grammar
> refered? referred
> english? English
> 
> Go watch some HD through Monster cables and don't play "Forum English Professor" when your own posts are riddled with errors.


Yawns...How boring


----------



## Hoosier205

Those who purchase Monster brand cables = the lowest common denominator that electronics stores feed off of


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Attacking each other instead of the topic is the fastest way to get a thread closed. Please get back to topic._


----------



## Bigg

It's not only Monster cables that are the problem. I've seen a LOT of overpriced cables at Bestbuy, and even, to a lesser extent, as Wal-Mart and Staples with $25 Ethernet cables that should be $1-$2 (Monoprice price).


----------



## toofastgtp

I use THX Ultra1000 speaker cables and thx fiber cables.
Only reason is i got them for almost 70% off.

All my current HDMI cables and future cables will come from bluejeanscables.com


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> _Attacking each other instead of the topic is the fastest way to get a thread closed. Please get back to topic._


Agrees with you. This isn't the only thread where pro Monster Cable members are bashed. Riminds me of our congressional leaders who act like little children fighting over the toys in the sand box!


----------



## TBlazer07

C'mon people ..... Monster ... absolutely the best at any cost. Wassamatayouall?


----------



## TBlazer07

MysteryMan said:


> Agrees with hdtvfan0001. But it's not my money. It's yours! Your tax dollars pay my Army retirement which I use for entertainment!


If you were in the army long enough to retire you absolutely have earned my tax dollars no matter how you spend them.


----------



## MysteryMan

TBlazer07 said:


> If you were in the army long enough to retire you absolutely have earned my tax dollars no matter how you spend them.


Thank You...I served 25 years 1967-1992.


----------



## MysteryMan

Serious Conversion...Now that the spanking has been administered can we get on with some serious conversation? Like it or not Monster does produce a quality product. All of my cable is Monster (speakers, input, output, ect.) and has served me well for years. I recently upgraded my home entertainment system (Sony ES equipment complemented with Polk speakers). With the exception of additional cable needed I am still using the same cables from my old system. Not bad for a product that some think is over priced and over rated!


----------



## koji68

No, because of the price.

:beatdeadhorse:

Any cable that meets the specs for the application is fine regardless of price. So why pay more for a cable that is not going to provide better performance?

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#48


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> Serious Conversion...Now that the spanking has been administered can we get on with some serious conversation? Like it or not Monster does produce a quality product. All of my cable is Monster (speakers, input, output, ect.) and has served me well for years. I recently upgraded my home entertainment system (Sony ES equipment complemented with Polk speakers). With the exception of additional cable needed I am still using the same cables from my old system. Not bad for a product that some think is over priced and over rated!


...and you would have been served just as well with a lower price cable from another source. Instead, you paid far more for an identical product. It's digital. Either you get a signal...or you don't. Monster brand cables are a ripoff. There are absolutely no advantages whatsoever to substantially overpaying for their products....none...zero...zilch.


----------



## pfp

Monster is garbage! This is the only way to go.


----------



## Upstream

MysteryMan;2472835 Like it or not Monster does produce a quality product.[/QUOTE said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees that Monster produces a quality product. I think the point is that you can get cable just as good for a fraction of the price.
> 
> With analog signals, you could argue that there was an added benefit to Monster cable, because it provided additional shielding against interference, which could degrade your signal.
> 
> But with digital signals, interference is meaningless (unless it is so severe that you cross the digital cliff and get no signal). With digital signals, you either get the signal or you don't. There is no additional benefit to things like gold plated connectors.
> 
> Especially with digital signals, Monster doesn't deliver anything extra to make them worth the premium price.


----------



## pfp

Hoosier205 said:


> ...and you would have been served just as well with a lower price cable from another source. Instead, you paid far more for an identical product. It's digital. Either you get a signal...or you don't. Monster brand cables are a ripoff. There are absolutely no advantages whatsoever to substantially overpaying for their products....none...zero...zilch.


Look, some people think there is a difference and they have the money to spend on the cable. Just let them be. There is no way you are going to convince someone who has invested thousands of dollars in cables that they could have gotten the same quality for a fraction of the price.


----------



## MysteryMan

CNN...When I recently visited a friend of mine who is employed by CNN in Atlanta I was given a tour of the studio. Those are high def monitors behind the broadcasters. I can assure you they are not wired with cable purchased only for it's low price.


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> CNN...When I recently visited a friend of mine who is employed by CNN in Atlanta I was given a tour of the studio. Those are high def monitors behind the broadcasters. I can assure you they are not wired with cable purchased only for it's low price.


Great comparison! A top notch studio and a home system. 

If they're HDMI cables under 10', then a $4.00 cable from monoprice will have the same exact PQ.


----------



## Hoosier205

pfp said:


> Look, some people think there is a difference and they have the money to spend on the cable. Just let them be. There is no way you are going to convince someone who has invested thousands of dollars in cables that they could have gotten the same quality for a fraction of the price.


Well, those people are wrong. I'm happy to remind them of that.


----------



## MysteryMan

Price...Gentlemen, I agree you can get a quality cable for less then Monster's pricing and you can also get a cable from another brand for much more. My brother-inlaw tried to save money and bought RadioShack's high end audio cable. When he tried to hook them up to his receiver they were difficult to incert into the audio input jack. He almost damaged the jack removing the cable. Quality cables but obviously defective in the manufacturing process. No money saved there. Bottom line: It's all about personal preference and what your willing to spend.


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> Great comparison! A top notch studio and a home system.
> 
> If they're HDMI cables under 10', then a $4.00 cable from monoprice will have the same exact PQ.


If what you just said is true, then what is wrong with the comparision?


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> If what you just said is true, then what is wrong with the comparision?


I have no experience in studio A/V wiring, but I'm sure that there is a bit more to the wiring than a simple 10' HDMI plug.


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> CNN...When I recently visited a friend of mine who is employed by CNN in Atlanta I was given a tour of the studio. Those are high def monitors behind the broadcasters. I can assure you they are not wired with cable purchased only for it's low price.


You would be surprised. They know better and will do what they can to keep costs down. If two equal products are available...they will choose the less costly option.


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> I have no experience in studio A/V wiring, but I'm sure that there is a bit more to the wiring than a simple 10' HDMI plug.


Take a look at a CNN broadcast. Some of the HD monitors are hugh and yes have runs over ten feet. The smaller ones have much smaller runs. But the cable is of high quality.


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> Take a look at a CNN broadcast. Some of the HD monitors are hugh and yes have runs over ten feet. The smaller ones have much smaller runs. But the cable is of high quality.


Are they Monster?


----------



## MysteryMan

Question...Some of you are saying there is no difference in picture quality with cable other than Monster's and sells for much less. Given that would your purchase cable from Big Lots or Dollar General? I have seen their audio video cables and doubt if you would.


----------



## MysteryMan

sigma1914 said:


> Are they Monster?


Not sure. Could not tell from my point of view but I could see they were high end.


----------



## sigma1914

MysteryMan said:


> Question...Some of you are saying there is no difference in picture quality with cable other than Monster's and sells for much less. Given that would your purchase cable from Big Lots or Dollar General? I have seen their audio video cables and doubt if you would.


Yes. Digital is digital.

Do you work for Monster? It seems you can't accept facts that show how there is no difference with typical short runs.


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> Take a look at a CNN broadcast. Some of the HD monitors are hugh and yes have runs over ten feet. The smaller ones have much smaller runs. But the cable is of high quality.


...and? High quality (and lengthy) cables can be purchased for a fraction of the price of Monster brand cables.


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> Question...Some of you are saying there is no difference in picture quality with cable other than Monster's and sells for much less. Given that would your purchase cable from Big Lots or Dollar General? I have seen their audio video cables and doubt if you would.


Digital...is digital...once again. They either work or they don't. More expensive cables do absolutely nothing to improve picture quality.


----------



## MysteryMan

Not trying to change anyone's mind here nor am I pitching Monster. When I chose them years ago it was for their reputation for quality and as I stated before they have given me years of service and continue to do so. One man's candy can be another man's poison. I think we can all agree on that.


----------



## TBoneit

Digital is Digital, of course. However....

What if the signal is marginal though? Then it may work some of the time and not work some of the time. Then you'll need a better quality cable. The cheapest cable may not always be the best. 

RE: Monster cables I've always been of the opinion that the reason stores stock & push them is the high profit margins on them.
It's much easier to make a $50 profit on a $100 cable then on a $10 cable.


----------



## Hoosier205

TBoneit said:


> Digital is Digital, of course. However....
> 
> What if the signal is marginal though? Then it may work some of the time and not work some of the time. Then you'll need a better quality cable. The cheapest cable may not always be the best.


:nono:
More expensive does not mean better/higher quality. Monster cables are of no better quality than less expensive options. (such as Monoprice or Blue Jeans Cable)


----------



## bidger

koji68 said:


> No, because of the price.


Coupled with the fact that they're a aggressively litigious company that seems to feel the name "Monster" didn't exist prior to them choosing it.

I used to work retail in consumer electronics and the day our store opened, a black shirt (management) came up to a group of the sales people and asked our opinions of Monster Cable. Everyone else lavished praise, though I'm certain none of them owned any of their products, while I stated my honest opinion: "Nice stuff, but they're like Bose in that they severely mark up their prices". Black shirt nodded and said, "Well, you don't have to buy it, you just have to sell it". Little did I know that the same person would head up our first Monster orientation two months later. Background: those orientations were a twice annual event which tied up your whole day and bored the crap out of me.

What irked me was Monster "tiered" their HDMI cable at our chain: 600 series for 720p/1080i. 800 for 1080p, and 1000 for 1080p/120Hz. Yeah, I need to spend proportionally for resolution.  I use the 12' DVI-to-HDMI cable that came with my HR10-250 for my W7 HTPC and it displays 1080/24p for Blu-ray playback. Honestly though, some for my fellow salespeople felt the only way to display 1080p was with the Monster cable. Propaganda is a strong thing.

I do get a chuckle now seeing Monster HDMI @ Walmart now. Still, I know where the better value is. Bought some 90 degree sata cables from Monoprice recently. It really is my one stop cable shop.


----------



## pfp

MysteryMan said:


> Not sure. Could not tell from my point of view but I could see they were high end.


Ok, I'm curious. How can you tell a cable is high quality just by looking at it?


----------



## pfp

TBoneit said:


> RE: Monster cables I've always been of the opinion that the reason stores stock & push them is the high profit margins on them.
> It's much easier to make a $50 profit on a $100 cable then on a $10 cable.


We have a winner!


----------



## tbranan

The only Monster cable I have ever bought was a 20 foot HDMI when Circuit City went out of business. 90% off. That's the only way I could afford one!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

My vote is purely about the cost. I actually did buy one Monster-brand cable long ago... for my Playstation 2 (the component cable for connecting to my HDTV).

Despite the digital on-or-off nature of many of the signals we are talking about here... there is some truth to their being a range of quality of cables. The guage of the wire, the material, the shielding, the connector, and the manufacturing process all factor in.

That said... I would never buy the cheapest bargain-basement cables. I also no longer buy Monster because often times they cost almost as much as the accessory I am wanting to connect! :eek2: (You could spend $100 on an HDMI cable to connect a $100 Blu ray player).


----------



## Bigg

MysteryMan said:


> Question...Some of you are saying there is no difference in picture quality with cable other than Monster's and sells for much less. Given that would your purchase cable from Big Lots or Dollar General? I have seen their audio video cables and doubt if you would.


No. Not even Wal-Mart, as some of their cables are junk. I'd buy premium cables from Monoprice, which perform electrically the same as Monster, and are like $5 where Monster would be $80. Monster does a lot of stuff to the cables that broadcast engineers would just laugh at because it has nothing to do with signal connectivity. Good, solid, well-insulated cables like Monoprice sells are just as good, if not better.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> Question...Some of you are saying there is no difference in picture quality with cable other than Monster's and sells for much less. Given that would your purchase cable from Big Lots or Dollar General? I have seen their audio video cables and doubt if you would.


In 2007 Gizmodo ran tests on HDMI cable at Monster Headquarters, using Monster's testing equipment in Monster's labs. The one thing that stood out to me was that for lengths less than three meters there was absolutely no difference in the quality. They not only looked at a picture on a screen but actually measured the output signal from a known source. They used the current 720p & 1080p specs as well as anticipated future 1080p/1440p specs, and again no difference at these lengths.

When they got to lengths above thirty feet the monoprice cable passed the current specs but not the "future" specs. The Monster cable, while it did marginally better, also didn't pass the "future" specs. These results are based on direct measurement and not on subjective observations.

Further, I've read other direct measurement comparisons, and in every signal case there was no discernable difference between cables in the lengths we normally use for our HDTVs.

Based on a lot of reading and research I determined that there was no need to spend hundreds of dollars for HDMI cables. AAMOF, I'm currently use three six foot cables for which I paid $3.27 each. The picture on my 50" Panasonic is as perfect as it can get. After all the research, the engineer in me tells me that paying more will not get me better PQ or better audio.

If I could boil down what I've learned, it would be that things like inter-pair skew, shielding, and EM interference (all effected by construction of the cable) are not an issue unless you're pushing thirty plus feet, and that under the current 720p/1080p HDRV specs you don't have to spend $100+ to get the best PQ from a given source...all of which is verifiable to anyone who wishes to do the research.

The predominant advice I've read has always been to go with the lower priced option first. If that doesn't work for you then upgrade. 99% of the time, for typical home use, you'll stay with the lower priced cable.

Based on all this, the answer to your question is yes. I would have no problem buying a six foot HDMI cable from the dollar store. 

Mike


----------



## MysteryMan

MicroBeta said:


> In 2007 Gizmodo ran tests on HDMI cable at Monster Headquarters, using Monster's testing equipment in Monster's labs. The one thing that stood out to me was that for lengths less than three meters there was absolutely no difference in the quality. They not only looked at a picture on a screen but actually measured the output signal from a known source. They used the current 720p & 1080p specs as well as anticipated future 1080p/1440p specs, and again no difference at these lengths.
> 
> When they got to lengths above thirty feet the monoprice cable passed the current specs but not the "future" specs. The Monster cable, while it did marginally better, also didn't pass the "future" specs. These results are based on direct measurement and not on subjective observations.
> 
> Further, I've read other direct measurement comparisons, and in every signal case there was no discernable difference between cables in the lengths we normally use for our HDTVs.
> 
> Based on a lot of reading and research I determined that there was no need to spend hundreds of dollars for HDMI cables. AAMOF, I'm currently use three six foot cables for which I paid $3.27 each. The picture on my 50" Panasonic is as perfect as it can get. After all the research, the engineer in me tells me that paying more will not get me better PQ or better audio.
> 
> If I could boil down what I've learned, it would be that things like inter-pair skew, shielding, and EM interference (all effected by construction of the cable) are not an issue unless you're pushing thirty plus feet, and that under the current 720p/1080p HDRV specs you don't have to spend $100+ to get the best PQ from a given source...all of which is verifiable to anyone who wishes to do the research.
> 
> The predominant advice I've read has always been to go with the lower priced option first. If that doesn't work for you then upgrade. 99% of the time, for typical home use, you'll stay with the lower priced cable.
> 
> Based on all this, the answer to your question is yes. I would have no problem buying a six foot HDMI cable from the dollar store.
> 
> Mike


I respect your opinion and views on the subject. There are pros and cons for every topic and as I have stated before one man's candy can be another man's poison. Monster does produce a quality product and their prices pale in compairsion with other high end brands. For some reason here on DBSTALK.com there is a anti Monster attitude. Why I don't know and don't care. To alter a quote from a J.G. Wentworth commercial 'It's my money and I'll use it the way I want to!".


----------



## Johnnie5000

From what I've always understood, there are industry standards on HDMI cables, thus the HDMI v1.1, v1.4, ect. So logically if there is a industry wide standard on the cable, the inside of the cable in question should be near identical regardless who makes it.
Gold plated connectors and a nice fancy braid around the outside just don't justify a $116 price difference between monster and monoprice for me. If you want to blow your money on Monster cables go for it, but I wouldn't.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> I respect your opinion and views on the subject. There are pros and cons for every topic and as I have stated before one man's candy can be another man's poison. Monster does produce a quality product and their prices pale in compairsion with other high end brands. For some reason here on DBSTALK.com there is a anti Monster attitude. Why I don't know and don't care. To alter a quote from a J.G. Wentworth commercial 'It's my money and I'll use it the way I want to!".


Fair Enough. 

I was just answering your question while providing objective reasons, and trying to leave out price as the motivating factor. :grin:

BTW, if my research had gone the other way, I would be paying the cost of a Monster cable. I do have a pair of Monster speaker wires I bought with a pair of JBLs I purchased in '85. At the time, I thought $29 was a lot for a 20' pair of wires. 

Mike


----------



## makaiguy

I can't believe this discussion is still going on after 4 pages.

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Hoosier205

MysteryMan said:


> I respect your opinion and views on the subject. There are pros and cons for every topic and as I have stated before one man's candy can be another man's poison. Monster does produce a quality product and their prices pale in compairsion with other high end brands. For some reason here on DBSTALK.com there is a anti Monster attitude. Why I don't know and don't care. To alter a quote from a J.G. Wentworth commercial 'It's my money and I'll use it the way I want to!".


There are not both pros and cons when it comes to Monster brand cables...only cons. The reason for the anti-Monster attitude is rather simple: They ripoff unsuspecting consumers and make false claims about the superiority of their product.

When you buy Monster products, you aren't paying more for better quality. You simply paying more for a brand...and a bad one at that. The following products are of the same quality, yet the prices are dramatically different:

35' Monster in-wall HDMI cable: $249.99
*35' Monoprice in-wall HDMI cable: $31.98
*
35' Monster HDMI cable: $199.99
*35' Monoprice HDMI cable: $31.98
*
12' Monster HDMI cable: $149.99
*12' Monoprice HDMI cable: $5.74
*
8' Monster HDMI cable: $129.99
*8' Monoprice HDMI cable: $4.62
*
4' Monster HDMI cable: $99.99
*4' Monoprice HDMI cable: $3.68
*
3' Monster HDMI cable: $49.99
*3' Monoprice HDMI cable: $3.56*

Buying Monster brand HDMI cables is beyond insane. Let's compare a few others:

8' Monster digital (optical) audio cable: $64.99
*6' Monoprice digital (optical) audio cable: $4.90
10' Monoprice digital (optical) audio cable: $6.16*

8' Monster digital (coaxial) audio cable: $49.99
*6' Monoprice digital (coaxial) audio cable: $1.22
10' Monoprice digital (coaxial) audio cable: $1.8*0

100' Monster speaker wire: $87.99
*100' Monoprice (12AWG) speaker wire: $25.40
100' Monoprice (14AWG) speaker wire: $17.34
100' Monoprice (16AWG) speaker wire: $12.40
100' Monoprice (18AWG) speaker wire: $9.53*


----------



## pfp

Hoosier205 said:


> There are not both pros and cons when it comes to Monster brand cables...only cons. The reason for the anti-Monster attitude is rather simple: They ripoff unsuspecting consumers and make false claims about the superiority of their product.
> 
> When you buy Monster products, you aren't paying more for better quality. You simply paying more for a brand...and a bad one at that.


Hold on here. Are you really claiming Monster cables are bad quality. You will get no argument from me that they are grossly overpriced but their quality is just fine.

If someone thinks Monster cables are better than other cables and are willing to pay the price - fine. I only feel bad for these people if they are unaware of the other equally good products available for a fraction of the price. There is nothing wrong with Monster cables other than their inflated price.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> There are not both pros and cons when it comes to Monster brand cables...only cons.
> <snip>


 Actually that's not really true. In those tests I quoted a couple of posts back (link), the Monster HDMI cables were clearly better at lengths above ten meters and marginally better between three and ten meters.

If I had to do an install of HDMI through the wall at greater then thirty feet, I would have to seriously consider something other then monoprice or bluejeans. Especially considering the potential "future" 1080p/1440p specs (as used by Gizmodo in their testing and analysis).

I understand you believe that Monster HDMI is a waste of money. You could at least pretend to be objective about it and discuss something other than price, because in certain situations there are other things to consider...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## dpeters11

MicroBeta said:


> Actually that's not really true. In those tests I quoted a couple of posts back (link), the Monster HDMI cables were clearly better at lengths above ten meters and marginally better between three and ten meters.
> 
> If I had to do an install of HDMI through the wall at greater then thirty feet, I would have to seriously consider something other then monoprice or bluejeans. Especially considering the potential "future" 1080p/1440p specs (as used by Gizmodo in their testing and analysis).
> 
> I understand you believe that Monster HDMI is a waste of money. You could at least pretend to be objective about it and discuss something other than price, because in certain situations there are other things to consider...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> Mike


Is a, say 50 foot Monster HDMI really that much better than a BJC Belden-1, which is about 23AWG and shielded? The BJC is still a $130 cable (just not $280.)

Plus, I just like the fact that their cable stock is made in the US, it's currently terminated in China. Monster, though I'm not positive, is likely from China throughout.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dpeters11 said:


> Is a, say 50 foot Monster HDMI really that much better than a BJC Belden-1, which is about 23AWG and shielded? The BJC is still a $130 cable (just not $280.)
> 
> Plus, I just like the fact that their cable stock is made in the US, it's currently terminated in China. Monster, though I'm not positive, is likely from China throughout.


You'll have to read the Gizmodo article, but it only compared the Monster to Monoprice cables.

The point was to see just how much of a difference $140+ will make in the quality of the output based on a common source. AAMOF, the other comparisons I've read were based on Monster vs lower priced cables. I don't remember seeing anything about similarly priced cables. :shrug:

There's a lot out there on cable comparisons. If you can get past all the hand waving, table thumping, rants based solely on price and junk science, you may be able to find the useful, objective, and science based info you need.

Mike


----------



## roadrunner1782

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Monster's price on everything is a joke!


----------



## Bigg

MicroBeta said:


> You'll have to read the Gizmodo article, but it only compared the Monster to Monoprice cables.
> 
> The point was to see just how much of a difference $140+ will make in the quality of the output based on a common source. AAMOF, the other comparisons I've read were based on Monster vs lower priced cables. I don't remember seeing anything about similarly priced cables. :shrug:
> 
> There's a lot out there on cable comparisons. If you can get past all the hand waving, table thumping, rants based solely on price and junk science, you may be able to find the useful, objective, and science based info you need.
> 
> Mike


The signal either locks or it doesn't. Monoprice cables lock on to the signal just fine. Taking electrical measurements about what % of the signal is getting there is utterly meaningless until the signal falls below the level that the receiving end can render into an image on screen.

The % is a lot more relevant with a Dish, as you want to know how much headroom you have for rain, snow, and various atmospheric conditions to come in and weaken the signal, and still be above the cutoff where the box errors out on the signal.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Bigg said:


> The signal either locks or it doesn't. Monoprice cables lock on to the signal just fine. Taking electrical measurements about what % of the signal is getting there is utterly meaningless until the signal falls below the level that the receiving end can render into an image on screen.
> 
> The % is a lot more relevant with a Dish, as you want to know how much headroom you have for rain, snow, and various atmospheric conditions to come in and weaken the signal, and still be above the cutoff where the box errors out on the signal.


I am only relating the info as it's presented by the testers. With that said, if digital were just digital then all we would need is right number on conductors connected to the correct pins and voilà, we have pristine HDTV.

Keep in mind I'm a Mechanical Engineer, with the emphasis on mechanical, but if I understand correctly it's more complicated than simply assembling a series of digital information packets. The following is from one of the Gizmodo articles.

"_Just because digital information is made up of ones and zeros it can still degrade, especially over distances._
I get this now, because it's not about the digital info just getting there, like packet data. It's video, so it's about the digital info getting there at the right time to make sense. It's also audio, and over distances, there's a greater chance that audio and video will get out of sync. The following pictures show a test that they run that measures data throughput. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that the more those lines crowd the center, the greater the risk of having crappy video."​
According to those who say "digital is digital" this is a complete and total lie. Well, it's a "lie" that's I've run into many times when researching HDMI cables. In the Gizmodo article they didn't seem to be measuring signal percentages but rather wave forms, their positions, and separations. Honestly, I don't have a clue what I'm looking at in those pictures but from all the various write ups I've read signal degradation has an effect on picture/audio quality. Yet, you and others maintain there is ZERO change in PQ until the TV can no longer "render into an image on screen"; IOW, pristine or nothing. :shrug:

Am I incorrect in my interpretation of the following article when it seems to me that they're clearly saying, and demonstrating, that as the signal degrades so does the PQ?

http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-about-monster-cable-+-grand-finale-part-iii

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205

pfp said:


> Hold on here. Are you really claiming Monster cables are bad quality. You will get no argument from me that they are grossly overpriced but their quality is just fine.
> 
> If someone thinks Monster cables are better than other cables and are willing to pay the price - fine. I only feel bad for these people if they are unaware of the other equally good products available for a fraction of the price. There is nothing wrong with Monster cables other than their inflated price.


No. I am not claiming that they of poor quality...just not superior to other similar products from Monoprice, Blue Jeans, etc.


----------



## Richard King

> For some reason here on DBSTALK.com there is a anti Monster attitude. Why I don't know and don't care.


Very simple. Monster is run by thugs with no business ethics.


----------



## dpeters11

I agree that for longer runs, running through walls etc you need to be more careful on your cabling. It's not just Monsters price, its the litigious nature. If it's true they sued Fenway Park over the Green Monster, or Disney for Monster's Inc., that's going too far. But at least those are big companies with money. If Blue Jeans Cable weren't run by a former attorney, it could have ruined them, just in cost. Monster certainly had no right to win on the merits.

What's kind of funny I've actually been confused a few times. I thought Monster Park was named for Monster.com. But I'd never think they made transmissions.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

dpeters11 said:


> I agree that for longer runs, running through walls etc you need to be more careful on your cabling. It's not just Monsters price, its the litigious nature. If it's true they sued Fenway Park over the Green Monster, or Disney for Monster's Inc., that's going too far. But at least those are big companies with money. If Blue Jeans Cable weren't run by a former attorney, it could have ruined them, just in cost. Monster certainly had no right to win on the merits.


Their aggressive legal attacks are definitely overboard. :nono:

Mike


----------



## Bigg

MicroBeta said:


> I am only relating the info as it's presented by the testers. With that said, if digital were just digital then all we would need is right number on conductors connected to the correct pins and voilà, we have pristine HDTV.
> 
> Keep in mind I'm a Mechanical Engineer, with the emphasis on mechanical, but if I understand correctly it's more complicated than simply assembling a series of digital information packets. The following is from one of the Gizmodo articles.
> 
> "_Just because digital information is made up of ones and zeros it can still degrade, especially over distances._
> I get this now, because it's not about the digital info just getting there, like packet data. It's video, so it's about the digital info getting there at the right time to make sense. It's also audio, and over distances, there's a greater chance that audio and video will get out of sync. The following pictures show a test that they run that measures data throughput. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that the more those lines crowd the center, the greater the risk of having crappy video."​
> According to those who say "digital is digital" this is a complete and total lie. Well, it's a "lie" that's I've run into many times when researching HDMI cables. In the Gizmodo article they didn't seem to be measuring signal percentages but rather wave forms, their positions, and separations. Honestly, I don't have a clue what I'm looking at in those pictures but from all the various write ups I've read signal degradation has an effect on picture/audio quality. Yet, you and others maintain there is ZERO change in PQ until the TV can no longer "render into an image on screen"; IOW, pristine or nothing. :shrug:
> 
> Am I incorrect in my interpretation of the following article when it seems to me that they're clearly saying, and demonstrating, that as the signal degrades so does the PQ?
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-about-monster-cable-+-grand-finale-part-iii
> 
> Mike


But the key here is that the cable can't go below that "threshold" when it is piled up with a bunch of other cables behind a TV cabinet. This is only true with HDMI. With component, if I were to use them to transmit HD, I would get the RG-6 cables from Monoprice, which are very thick and heavily shielded for a component cable. The RG-59's are fine for SD/ED (480p), since it doesn't use as much bandwidth.

If there's enough signal there for the receiving end to put it together, then it's 100%. If there's not, it's 0%. There is an extremely narrow in-between where the signal is dropping off, and MASSIVE macro-blocking occurs during this drop-off, but it would be virtually impossible to find this level outside of a lab with a very carefully tuned signal attenuator.

Digital PQ is 100% or 0%, or on the tiny line is the middle that causes horrendous macro blocking.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Bigg said:


> But the key here is that the cable can't go below that "threshold" when it is piled up with a bunch of other cables behind a TV cabinet. This is only true with HDMI. With component, if I were to use them to transmit HD, I would get the RG-6 cables from Monoprice, which are very thick and heavily shielded for a component cable. The RG-59's are fine for SD/ED (480p), since it doesn't use as much bandwidth.
> 
> If there's enough signal there for the receiving end to put it together, then it's 100%. If there's not, it's 0%. There is an extremely narrow in-between where the signal is dropping off, and MASSIVE macro-blocking occurs during this drop-off, but it would be virtually impossible to find this level outside of a lab with a very carefully tuned signal attenuator.
> 
> Digital PQ is 100% or 0%, or on the tiny line is the middle that causes horrendous macro blocking.


The research lead me here...

http://www.wowvision.tv/readme.htm

"Here is the Digital Myth stated in several ways:

"There is no variation in digital picture quality due to signal strength."

"Digital signal is an "all-or-nothing" proposition."

"You either get the picture, or you don't. The picture quality doesn't change."

"If you have lock, you'll have the best quality picture available."

These statements are all false.

The digital all-or-nothing idea was begun as a way to market the newer, more expensive, digital technology. What began as marketing has become "science". They contain misinformation gleaned from the marketing not science.
....
The truth about HD televisions, receivers, and digital systems, is that they are capable of producing a stable, but lower quality picture. At times a lower resolution picture is presented. Your picture may look blurry, grainy, blotchy, and be lacking realism. It may also look like enhanced definition instead of high definition."​
The site provides plenty of support for these assertions...not opinions but white papers and articles. It's an interesting read but very dense. From what I can gather that last statement is pretty much true. I'm still wading through the equations, graphs, FEC, MPEG, SCV, etc. but it seems to hold up in the face of it all...Interesting. 

Mike


----------



## pfp

kcolg30 said:


> Monster Cables (Yes or No)


Have we answered your question yet?


----------



## kevinturcotte

MicroBeta said:


> Their aggressive legal attacks are definitely overboard. :nono:
> 
> Mike


I'm gonna sue EVERYBODY who's also named Kevin-Everybody on here change your names IMMEDIATELY!!! :lol:


----------



## dpeters11

kevinturcotte said:


> I'm gonna sue EVERYBODY who's also named Kevin-Everybody on here change your names IMMEDIATELY!!! :lol:


Reminds me of the joke that Microsoft was going to sue everyone named Bob, or the real mikerowesoft.com lawsuit.


----------



## Bigg

MicroBeta said:


> The research lead me here...
> 
> http://www.wowvision.tv/readme.htm
> 
> "Here is the Digital Myth stated in several ways:
> 
> "There is no variation in digital picture quality due to signal strength."
> 
> "Digital signal is an "all-or-nothing" proposition."
> 
> "You either get the picture, or you don't. The picture quality doesn't change."
> 
> "If you have lock, you'll have the best quality picture available."
> 
> These statements are all false.
> 
> The digital all-or-nothing idea was begun as a way to market the newer, more expensive, digital technology. What began as marketing has become "science". They contain misinformation gleaned from the marketing not science.
> ....
> The truth about HD televisions, receivers, and digital systems, is that they are capable of producing a stable, but lower quality picture. At times a lower resolution picture is presented. Your picture may look blurry, grainy, blotchy, and be lacking realism. It may also look like enhanced definition instead of high definition."​
> The site provides plenty of support for these assertions...not opinions but white papers and articles. It's an interesting read but very dense. From what I can gather that last statement is pretty much true. I'm still wading through the equations, graphs, FEC, MPEG, SCV, etc. but it seems to hold up in the face of it all...Interesting.
> 
> Mike


Ok, but the question, then is, does HDMI do that? I don't think it does. I know ATSC-8VSB doesn't, and I know satellite signals don't. I have never seen any indication that HDMI would "step back". That would also imply that even if it could, there would still be a point where it's 100%, and there's no point in going farther. In the analog world, you asymptotically approach a perfect signal without ever getting there, and the farther you push the curve out, the more and more you spend with less and less return.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Bigg said:


> Ok, but the question, then is, does HDMI do that? I don't think it does. I know ATSC-8VSB doesn't, and I know satellite signals don't. I have never seen any indication that HDMI would "step back". That would also imply that even if it could, there would still be a point where it's 100%, and there's no point in going farther. In the analog world, you asymptotically approach a perfect signal without ever getting there, and the farther you push the curve out, the more and more you spend with less and less return.


I think his point is what happen when the signal degrades it effects the PQ. Based on the pictures in the Gizmodo article I now think it's possible. Over the really long lengths (50) where the test gear showed signal degradation, they showed noisy pictures and ghosting...things that we were all told isn't supposed to happen. :grin:

The one thing I am sure of; if it's 6' or less, any cable will do. Further, for you Monster fans, the Monster cable was clearly superior in the greater lengths...up to a point. I think if I were going 50' from an AV closet to an overhead projector in a media room, I'd probably find a better way than one continuous cable Monster or not.

Interesting discussion..... 

Mike


----------



## The Scotsman

I can see that there are already enough posts in this thread against Monster cables, but I will add to it by saying this. There are around ten HDMI cables in use in my home and their lengths vary from 6 feet to 25 feet. All were bought from eBay or Monoprice and costs including shipping varied from $6 to about $15. I always go for the lowest possible price I can find anywhere. 

It is also important for me to mention that I have never had any problems at all with any of those cheapy HDMI cables. When I go into certain major electronics retailers to do a bit of window shopping, I find sales people who are emphatic about the positive reasons for spending $100+ on Monster cables. The Monster company has never done me any harm and I would say there is no doubt their $100+ HDMI cables are of high quality. The problem with that scenario has been answered many times already. That is - you can get the same results from Monoprice or eBay for way cheaper. In fact, the money you $ave on ju$t one cable purcha$e would approach the price of a new Blu-ray player.

Archie


----------



## -Draino-

MicroBeta said:


> I think his point is what happen when the signal degrades it effects the PQ. Based on the pictures in the Gizmodo article I now think it's possible. Over the really long lengths (50) where the test gear showed signal degradation, they showed noisy pictures and ghosting...things that we were all told isn't supposed to happen. :grin:
> 
> The one thing I am sure of; if it's 6' or less, any cable will do. Further, for you Monster fans, the Monster cable was clearly superior in the greater lengths...up to a point. I think if I were going 50' from an AV closet to an overhead projector in a media room, I'd probably find a better way than one continuous cable Monster or not.
> 
> Interesting discussion.....
> 
> Mike


For what it's worth, I'll take the "free" 3 or 4 foot HDMI cable that comes with the HD DVR receiver before I give monster a single nickle. In fact I would never give monster a single nickel no matter what, not when I can get better cables from firefold or monoprice for a lot less money!!!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

-Draino- said:


> For what it's worth, I'll take the "free" 3 or 4 foot HDMI cable that comes with the HD DVR receiver before I give monster a single nickle. In fact I would never give monster a single nickel no matter what, not when I can get better cables from firefold or monoprice for a lot less money!!!


I agree with you...almost. While the cables are cheaper they are not "better". Monsters are top quality.

They just don't provide better picture quality in the shorter lengths. However, they did provide better PQ in the longer lengths. Deny it all you want but every comparison I've read agrees on this point.

IMHO, I don't see any reason to spend the money but that doesn't mean other people who do are wrong.

Mike


----------



## Nick

How many ways can you people say the same thing? Someone please stick a fork in thread, it's done!


----------



## sigma1914

Nick said:


> How many ways can you people say the same thing? Someone please stick a fork in thread, it's done!


What's the amount of ways people can say similar statements? A metal eating utensil needs inserting in to this topic by any person due to it's completion.


----------



## Bigg

MicroBeta said:


> I think his point is what happen when the signal degrades it effects the PQ. Based on the pictures in the Gizmodo article I now think it's possible. Over the really long lengths (50) where the test gear showed signal degradation, they showed noisy pictures and ghosting...things that we were all told isn't supposed to happen. :grin:
> 
> The one thing I am sure of; if it's 6' or less, any cable will do. Further, for you Monster fans, the Monster cable was clearly superior in the greater lengths...up to a point. I think if I were going 50' from an AV closet to an overhead projector in a media room, I'd probably find a better way than one continuous cable Monster or not.
> 
> Interesting discussion.....
> 
> Mike


I don't know what the spec reads, but I strongly suspect that the spec doesn't allow for cables that long, and thus they shouldn't be making 50 foot cables. For runs in walls (i.e. data closet to projector) there are active systems that have their own power supplies and use CAT-6 cable to achieve runs up to, I think, 148 feet without picture degradation.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Bigg said:


> I don't know what the spec reads, but I strongly suspect that the spec doesn't allow for cables that long, and thus they shouldn't be making 50 foot cables. For runs in walls (i.e. data closet to projector) there are active systems that have their own power supplies and use CAT-6 cable to achieve runs up to, I think, 148 feet without picture degradation.


IIRC, there is no limit on length by the HDMI spec.

Mike


----------



## Carl Spock

I think, and I could well be wrong, the maximum length spec for a HDMI cable is 8 meters, or about 26'.

EDIT: I see we have a disagreement here.  That there is a maximum length spec, I am sure.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Carl Spock said:


> I think, and I could well be wrong, the maximum length spec for a HDMI cable is 8 meters, or about 26'.
> 
> EDIT: I see we have a disagreement here.  That there is a maximum length spec, I am sure.


According to HDMI.org...

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

_Yes. HDMI technology has been designed to use standard copper cable construction at long lengths. In order to allow cable manufacturers to improve their products through the use of new technologies, *HDMI specifies the required performance of a cable but does not specify a maximum cable length*. We have seen cables pass "Standard Cable" HDMI compliance testing at lengths of up to a maximum of 10 meters without the use of a repeater. It is not only the cable that factors into how long a cable can successfully carry an HDMI signal, the receiver chip inside the TV or projector also plays a major factor. Receiver chips that include a feature called "cable equalization" are able to compensate for weaker signals thereby extending the potential length of any cable that is used with that device.

With any long run of an HDMI cable, quality manufactured cables can play a significant role in successfully running HDMI over such longer distances._​
Mike


----------



## Carl Spock

^ Missed it by _that_ much.

You are right, Mike. Here is a link to Blue Jeans website where they say the same thing and go into detail on the rest of the HDMI specs. They do say they've never seen a HDMI cable that's 50' long and compliant, including theirs. Of course, for longer runs, companies do make HDMI amplifiers.

I'm most often wrong about things of which I'm absolutely sure I'm right. :grin:



sigma1914 said:


> Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many ways can you people say the same thing? Someone please stick a fork in thread, it's done!
> 
> 
> 
> What's the amount of ways people can say similar statements? A metal eating utensil needs inserting in to this topic by any person due to it's completion.
Click to expand...

Forks are sooo overrated.

I only use sporks I get from Monoprice.


----------



## Mikemok1981

Carl Spock said:


> Forks are sooo overrated.
> 
> I only use sporks I get from Monoprice.


Best lines in this thread.


----------



## Bigg

Carl Spock said:


> ^ Missed it by _that_ much.
> 
> You are right, Mike. Here is a link to Blue Jeans website where they say the same thing and go into detail on the rest of the HDMI specs. They do say they've never seen a HDMI cable that's 50' long and compliant, including theirs. Of course, for longer runs, companies do make HDMI amplifiers.
> 
> I'm most often wrong about things of which I'm absolutely sure I'm right. :grin:
> 
> Forks are sooo overrated.
> 
> I only use sporks I get from Monoprice.


In that case, there is a limit in the spec, it's just not written as a number of feet, but rather determined by the physics of copper wire and signal loss. For longer runs, CAT-6 can be used with boxes that use additional power to in effect "repeat" the signal. For REALLY long runs, fiber can be used. Of course, at that point, it begs the question of just moving the source equipment closer or compressing it and streaming it over a network.

All that being said, I'd still never buy an HDMI cable that was any more "uber" than this.


----------



## matt

All that being said, I'd still never buy an HDMI cable that was any _less_ "uber" than this.


----------

