The Unconscionable Scam of HDMI Cable Prices.

Karyudo wrote:

(Please stick to real science)

The real difference is in mathematical science, $116.01 to be exact.

Ah, grasshoppah, you forget about sales tax!

Yeah, but that's economics and accounting --- the OP asked to
stick to *science* only.

Carlos
--

Agent_C wrote:
Would someone please tell me what the real difference is between the
$124.00 Monster Cable 2 meter HDMI cable and the $7.99 version from
http://www.ehdmi.com ??? Same gold plated connectors, same heavy gage
insulation, same ferrite insulators, etc.

About $116.01..........


(Please stick to real science)

Please enlighten me, I'm breathless with anticipation.

A_C

Would someone please tell me what the real difference is between the
$124.00 Monster Cable 2 meter HDMI cable and the $7.99 version from
http://www.ehdmi.com ??? Same gold plated connectors, same heavy gage

That's one of the greatest features of digital interconnects.

With analog cables, Monster could tell you that you need to buy their cable
because the one you already have is subtly degrading the quality. They
wouldn't necessarily be wrong either. I saw an amazing difference going
from a Mad-Catz S-Video cable to a Monster cable on my PS2. So stuff like
that makes one wonder if a cheaper cable is really just as good.

But, with digital interconnects, there is no notion of "subtle". Either,
the cable sends a perfect signal or there are major problems. There's no
in between.

tq96:

With analog cables, Monster could tell you that you need to buy their
cable because the one you already have is subtly degrading the
quality. They wouldn't necessarily be wrong either. I saw an
amazing difference going from a Mad-Catz S-Video cable to a Monster
cable on my PS2. So stuff like that makes one wonder if a cheaper
cable is really just as good.

I think it's silly to pay too much for cables but I did buy a Monster
digital audio cable on clearance at Target and it gives a dramatic
improvement both in volume and quality over any generic cable I own. I'm
using it on a sub.
--
Mac Cool

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
tq96:

With analog cables, Monster could tell you that you need to buy their
cable because the one you already have is subtly degrading the
quality. They wouldn't necessarily be wrong either. I saw an
amazing difference going from a Mad-Catz S-Video cable to a Monster
cable on my PS2. So stuff like that makes one wonder if a cheaper
cable is really just as good.

I think it's silly to pay too much for cables but I did buy a Monster
digital audio cable on clearance at Target and it gives a dramatic
improvement both in volume and quality over any generic cable I own. I'm
using it on a sub.

I just grabbed a monster digital cable and ran a couple of sweeps through it
and measured the output at low frequencies (audio) and at high frequencies
(video). The low frequency performance was flatter than my mixer for as low
as I can measure reliably. The high frequency response has a small bump at
about 1mHz and is similar to RG6U beyond that out to 4 mHz. Did not measure
beyond that.

A cable optimized for digital transmission should have good high frequency
response as digital signals behave similarly to RF. A cable optimized for
analog video or a sub would not need response at as high a frequency but
should be flat near DC, since there is information there. In practice,
there is not much difference in the response of any of them until you get
into the mHz regions. If you hear such a difference with a sub, there is
something else going on other than the cable, or there is a problem with one
of the cables.

Monster cable is usually very well made product. They are not necessarily
any better than others in performance, in fact usually not. Don't
misunderstand, I am not a "cables don't make any difference" snob, but I
have measured many cables and looked for differences. Sometimes they are
present, but mostly irrelevant. Sometimes, MC has been inferior to other
cables. RG6 is hard to beat for most purposes in AV applications.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 24155 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"JimK" wrote in message
...

And bet you believe that E* (and DTV) HDMI problem is a software issue
and will be fixed in the next update (DTV saying the same thing).

Kool-Aid is just sugar and water kind of like cheap HDMI cables, I
prefer fresh squeezed orange juice.

Cheap HDMI versus Monster HDMI400 and Reliability issues when using
Dish VIP-622 or DTV H20. Which HDMI cable would you use?
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4...eaphdmigx8.jpg





I usually buy the cheapest cables I can find but hdmi is a different
story because the PCB HDMI connector issues.

The problem is usually with the lack of support on the boards of the Dish
recievers. The connections break at the boards. There is also the matter
of some connectors not being certified to the latter HDMI specs, but most of
those have gone away. Mostly, Dish needs to beef up the design of the
board, as does Samsung on some of their LCD sets. Most of the cables that I
have seen from Monoprice and other low price vendors have been fine.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 24202 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"JimK" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:01:04 -0500, "Leonard Caillouet"
wrote:


"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
tq96:

With analog cables, Monster could tell you that you need to buy their
cable because the one you already have is subtly degrading the
quality. They wouldn't necessarily be wrong either. I saw an
amazing difference going from a Mad-Catz S-Video cable to a Monster
cable on my PS2. So stuff like that makes one wonder if a cheaper
cable is really just as good.

I think it's silly to pay too much for cables but I did buy a Monster
digital audio cable on clearance at Target and it gives a dramatic
improvement both in volume and quality over any generic cable I own. I'm
using it on a sub.

I just grabbed a monster digital cable and ran a couple of sweeps through
it
and measured the output at low frequencies (audio) and at high frequencies
(video). The low frequency performance was flatter than my mixer for as
low
as I can measure reliably. The high frequency response has a small bump
at
about 1mHz and is similar to RG6U beyond that out to 4 mHz. Did not
measure
beyond that.

A cable optimized for digital transmission should have good high frequency
response as digital signals behave similarly to RF. A cable optimized for
analog video or a sub would not need response at as high a frequency but
should be flat near DC, since there is information there. In practice,
there is not much difference in the response of any of them until you get
into the mHz regions. If you hear such a difference with a sub, there is
something else going on other than the cable, or there is a problem with
one
of the cables.

Monster cable is usually very well made product. They are not necessarily
any better than others in performance, in fact usually not. Don't
misunderstand, I am not a "cables don't make any difference" snob, but I
have measured many cables and looked for differences. Sometimes they are
present, but mostly irrelevant. Sometimes, MC has been inferior to other
cables. RG6 is hard to beat for most purposes in AV applications.

Leonard

Each hdmi connector needs 170 mhz for total cable bandwidth of
5 Gbps bandwidth. HDMI 1.3 specification Bandwidth is 340 MHz (10.2
Gigabits per)

The poster tha I responded to was talking about a difference in a subwoofer
connection using a Monster digital audio cable. The bandwidth of HDMI specs
is what it is, but I have yet to find an HDMI cable that does not work
adequately at lengths less than 15 meters.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 24202 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:03:53 GMT, JimK wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:41:07 -0500, Agent_C
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:57:50 GMT, JimK wrote:

[...] I was trying to increase my odds
of not having problems and Monster makes a good and reliable HDMI
cable with lifetime warranty, also seeing the huge ferrite chokes on
ends of the cheaper HDMI cables kind of turned me off (Monster HDMI400
has no ferrite chokes). The Monster HDMI400 is extremely light and
flexible and uses High-density triple-shielding for maximum rejection
of RFI and EMI.

In other words, you drank the Kool-Aid.

A_C



And bet you believe that E* (and DTV) HDMI problem is a software issue
and will be fixed in the next update (DTV saying the same thing).

Kool-Aid is just sugar and water kind of like cheap HDMI cables, I
prefer fresh squeezed orange juice.

I'm not so sure I'd make that comparison. Kool-Aid it quality at low
price even if it is only water and flavoring.



Cheap HDMI versus Monster HDMI400 and Reliability issues when using

What about less expensive, but good cables versus Monster rather than
just cheap? They should be able to cut the price of the Monster
cables in half and still make money. IMO most of the good, but less
expensive cables will work as well as the monster cables as far as the
consumer is concerned with DTV and HDMI. They'll never see the
difference due to the self correcting nature of digital. It'll work or
it won't.

Dish VIP-622 or DTV H20. Which HDMI cable would you use?
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4...eaphdmigx8.jpg
They only have two valid arguments. Weight and flexibility.
and being they sell the things it's hardly an unbiased argument.
When they added the "constructed by slave labor" they lost their
credibility with me.

However they'd both be better off to get rid of the copper braid and
go to Aluminum foil for 100% shielding.

Whether it's 100% copper or alloy means very little. The amount of
shielding is the important part. That is why the important coax cables
are going with foil shield. That and it's cheaper with better
performance. I use cables that have 100% foil shield with a tinned
copper braid over that for both TV and up to 1500 watts out for my ham
station. My coax cables for the station, both OTA antennas, and the
satellite dish run in the same PVC conduit to the same tower. I have a
130 foot run of CAT5e on a gigabit network that parallels that run for
about 75 feet about 5 to 10 foot out. There is no cross talk between
any of the systems.

One other issue is signal degradation. Analog signal deterioration is
usually more apparent than digital. Digital can sustain substantial
loss and distortion (the amount of which depends on the equipment)
before the problem becomes noticeable. It's usually a major problem
or it's not noticeable.

As with Ku band reception it's usually a good signal or gone with only
a little in between the two extremes..

Chokes? Those may be a necessity and except for the weight are not a
bad point. They reduce currents flowing on the shield which would be
coming from either the TV or satellite receiver. If those exist you
need the chokes on either cable. Good ones don't necessiarily need to
be heavy.






I usually buy the cheapest cables I can find but hdmi is a different
story because the PCB HDMI connector issues.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Agent_C wrote:
Would someone please tell me what the real difference is between the
$124.00 Monster Cable 2 meter HDMI cable and the $7.99 version from
http://www.ehdmi.com ???

The real differences is that you're $116.01 lighter with one than the
other.

Oh, and marketing.