HDMI: does the cable itself matter?

[Scryer_360]

I work at a Big Box retailer, and in the Home Theater department (I know I know, Big Box, ick).

The first thing i was told when I started working there was that Monster made the best HDMI cables, and that the reason being was that they had all the exotic materials gold to triple shielding. I remembered this same thing with USB and DVI: I myself fell prey to the high quality USB scam (hey I was 16 at the time!).

So naturally I decided to test the thesis that there was a difference in HDMI cables based on brand.

I bought both an Acoustic Research 4 ft HDMI line and a Monster 1000 series HDMI line (als 4 ft) and used a Philips upconvert DVD player (one of last years models, I dont have it anymore)(replaced it for a BDP-1200) and connected it to a Samsung 4051 D.

Now here is where it got interesting: on my way out of the store I stopped to talk with our installer. He said that after years of hooking these up, all he would use is Monster Cable if the customer could afford it. After an half hour of talking with him, I left, only to return to go to the audio installers bay for a head-unit issue. While there, I learned the chief installer was a former home theater installer. I expected to get a different answer than "more expensive cables are worth it" from him. Well, he too said only Monster cable ran in his house, and that anything else was heresy (same words as his).

Confused that the guy who was leaving to become an electrician just days later (he was leaving the employ of the store), I went home and hooked it up. I do not have any scientific equipment (indeed I planned on returning the TV for another one afterwards, I was just using it for the test).

First test I tried the AR cable. I was amazed at how good an upconvert could indeed look. After watching the first thirty minutes of Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl, I switched out the cheap AR cable for the Monster 1000 series. Now I was recording it: what I was doing is using a digital camcorder to record the first 5 minutes of video with AR, then the next first 5 minutes on Monster. I switched the Camera off after 5 minutes so that way I would not have to splice so much video together.

Actually, to my eye, I liked the image better with the Monster Cable hooked up! I really, really did. Just movement in the image and color seemed better. I was shocked: this had to just be that watching it the second time around was better because in my memory it was not as clear.

So I took the video segments on the camera and ran them in two images on my computer monitor. I know that an image from a TV recorded by a camera will not look the same as having been there, but being the same camera in the same lighting, I should still be able to see flaws in the playback if the image was indeed worse

Running two windows, the video playing side by side, I decided to not actually view it myself. So I pulled aside my brother, my mother, and a friend and told them to point to the video that looked better: left or right. They did not know, but Monster Cable was on the right, AR on the left. They all pointed to the right. Once again discouraged by my thesis was being disproven, I decided it may be a problem with the monitor. So I swapped sides of the windows: monster was now on left, AR on right. The test subjects (as i called them in my mind) were brought back into the room one by one and asked which video they though looked better.

Now they all chose the left, which was Monster Cable. I though "wtf? there is no way!"

Next day I returned the AR cable, and the TV (it was $1500 or so at the time, and I really could only budget about $1000). I kept the cable and player.

And it gets worse: at the store we sell three kinds of HDMI cable. Usually, we get the first two kinds returned and Monster cables get purchased by those returning AR and the other brand. It seems other people, not just me, see to like the more expensive cabling.

I am entirely ignoring the article written on Audioholics by BlueJeansCable: I ignore any manufacturers thoughts and why their cable is better or worse. BJC could just be, for all I know, trying to build a case to by cheaper cables like theirs for no other reason then that then they'd be making money. But then it becomes really hard to find independant research on the subject.

Why is it that Monster Cable sells so well? Why did I think it looked better? WTF?!?!?!?!?

 

[Haoleb]

Im not going to argue with you about if it was better or not. Because I couldnt care less.

The problem with monster is that its overpriced. The average person doesnt need to spend upwards of $100 for a simple HDMI cable, or any other cable for that matter. If they are a videophile or audiophile they probably already know what they want, and then if they choose to buy expensive cables good for them. But always telling someone uneducated they need to get these cables that are overpriced because it makes a minute difference isint that great. For alot less they could get a calibration dvd and read up on proper system setup and calibration and make much more of a difference.

Monster makes good cables, but dont get that confused with the real reason why they are generally frowned upon.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why is it that Monster Cable sells so well? Why did I think it looked better? WTF?!?!?!?!?

Monster sells because it has a great marketing effort, humans are very gullible and biased. It is that simple. The installers do not have immunity from the two latter issues.

Your testing protocol was flawed and unreliable at best.
Stores or you don't have the setup for a split screen comparison, one side is one cable.

The only way to test is incorporating bias controls and randomizing the trials. 5 minutes is way to long of a snippet to remember how the first frame looked on each cable. This also applies to audio sound perception. No different.

 

[Adam]

Welcome to the forum.

Questions. First, does the image on an LCD television change as it warms up like it does on a CRT (my video calibration DVD specifically says to have the TV on for 30 minutes before attempting to calibrate it)? Second, if LCDs should be warmed up, did you do that before you watched and recorded the video using the AR cable? The TV would have been warmed up for the Monster cable because you watched it for 30 minutes before switching out the cables.

Just wondering.

Also, Haoleb nailed it. Monster makes good cables, but the bulk of the cost is from the name - not the quality.

 

[Scryer_360]

Thanks for the welcome.

It is true the TV had not been on long when I used AR, and its also true that (as I had said) it is not a very scientific method that I have used. But I will say that most arguments over this are most likely to be inductive (that is, only meant to show strong support for the position), rather than deductive (which is meant to prove a point to be factual).

So its agreed Monster makes a good cable, just that its overpriced? That would be something I agree with ($100 for a 4 ft 600 series!). Another question though: would its viability change based upon interference level? At this retailer I work for, we are told that if power cables and other video cables are in close proximity to the HDMI cable (and in fact any cable), the RF and EMI interference is going to degrade picture quality.

Its true that I did not really pay attention to where I was laying my HDMI cabling, I just hooked it up and whatever the cable was sitting next to, so it was.

Also, just to let you know, I am not partial to Monster Cable. I imagine if I was wealthy I'd go ahead and use them (now that people have said they are good), but only if I was wealthy enough to say build the $75000 Home Theater system. In which case, I'd probably be getting whatever this M series is.....

 

[davidtwotrees]

Ahhhh, the cable debates.............funny that you use Monster as your high end reference cabling. If you go to an "audiophile" they would balk at using Monster cables as cheap garbage. In fact, they mention Monster not unlike Audioholics mention Bose! If price is your reference for cables Nordhost makes some cable that is $1000 a foot.

I was attracted to Audioholics as they have an engineering mentality to this hobby. Logic and common sense are used in determining what is good. Snake oil doesn't fly. And that's why BJC is reccommended here. It is good, well made cabling that is priced properly using very good materials.

I buy more "expensive" cabling because it looks cool............buy whatever makes you happy.

 

[fmw]

I don't believe personally that the cable can possibly matter. Remember, it is transmitting digital data, not analog waveforms. The digital data either reaches its destination intact or it doesn't. There is no in-between. Any competently made cable whether it costs $20 or $200 will transmit the data intact.

In my high end audio days (glad that's over) I remember people talking about digital "jitter" which involved the "timing" of the arrival of the digital bits. While I suppose it was possible to measure it, it certainly wasn't audible because all the digital devices had a buffer so the timing of the arrival of the data wasn't significant. As long as all the bits arrived, the data was exactly the same no matter how it got there. The jitter thing was and probably still is used to sell expensive cables. Those cables had nothing at all to do with the sound one heard coming from the speakers. I offer this only as an example of how science can become pseudo-science in order to market a product.

Personally, I don't like Best Buy's approach at all and I wrote to them about it. I have no problem with add on sales - that is just good salesmanship. I have no problem with increasing average margin with add on sales - that is just good retailing. My problem is telling a customer that a $200 cable will give them a better picture than a $50 cable. That is simply not true and lying is not good salesmanship. If they would simply sell the cable as a high quality cable that will perform well over the life of the equipment, that would be honest. If they just say that HDMI is the best way to connect the equipment here is an array of HDMI cables for the purpose and each varies in quality, I wouldn't be bothered by it. I wouldn't buy it because I can buy a cable that will perform the same for $20 but, at least, I wouldn't resent the sales pitch and feel angry inside. Best Buy preys on the unknowing with this kind of lie and they should be better than that.

Sorry, as person who has been involved in retailing and sales most of my life, I feel pretty strongly about this. I know it can be done without lying.

 

[brock20]

cable

go to mono price.com they have great hdmi cable you want find a better price they work just as good as monster

 

[Haoleb]

I don't believe personally that the cable can possibly matter. Remember, it is transmitting digital data, not analog waveforms. The digital data either reaches its destination intact or it doesn't. There is no in-between.

Not entirely, I'm not sure that most people really understand digital the way they do analog. Digital isint 0 and 1's it is a squarewave of either a high or a low which is determined by a certain voltage. There is still a possibilty for that wave to become distorted through the transmission of the signal.

 

[Scryer_360]

Hmmm, just read over that article by BJC again... something caught my eye. Whenever I listen to a industry rep or even receive email from the HDMI Group (I mail them constantly) no one ever talks about impediance or such... its about the data. And funny thing: the way BJC is talking about the cabling, it almost sounds as if they are thinking of HDMI sending signals in an analog format. But HDMI is digital, right? So....... what gives?

I know from usage that coaxial cables send High Definition signals like ****, unless its an antenna to the ATSC tuner in the TV. From DVD players and such Component video (even the cheapo ones, if price does indeed make a difference) and HDMI both seem to give better image quality. Indeed, the way we explain it is that when signals are traveling along coax through your house the signal is just compressed data that cannot be read by your TV tuner (unless QAM is built in, QAM being most cable companies digital tuner), while once going from a cable or satellite box to your TV, its an uncompressed picture that needs a higher bandwidth cable to send the data (and HDMI is nothing if not high bandwidth).

Is this true? If say someone is using digital cable to receive high-definition, is the reason HDMI or component is used between the cable box and TV and coaxial between the cable box and wall because since the signal is decoded at the tuner (which is in the cable box), it needs a different cable to maintain image quality when going to the TV?

 

[furrycute]

It's all digital, 0's and 1', do you guys really think that the cable matters?

 

[MDS]

If say someone is using digital cable to receive high-definition, is the reason HDMI or component is used between the cable box and TV and coaxial between the cable box and wall because since the signal is decoded at the tuner (which is in the cable box), it needs a different cable to maintain image quality when going to the TV?

No, the reason is that HD signals contain a lot of data and thus require a cable capable of a very wide bandwidth.

For analog, the bandwidth is the difference between the highest and lowest frequencies, because remember an analog signal IS the actual waveform. For digital, the bandwidth is the number of bits per second that can be transmitted. Composite and S-Video (which are analog) cannot deal with such high bandwidth signals.

A digital signal consists of logical zeros and ones that describe the signal - it is not the signal itself. The digital data can take any number of forms. Using cable as the example, the data is 'compressed' using MPEG2. The MPEG2 data can further be encrypted ('scrambled' as in the premium channels). That data is modulated; ie sent over the physical cable, using the QAM modulation scheme.

There are lots of little ways that the data can be corrupted so it is not strictly true that digital is 'all or nothing' but in practice it works out that way in most cases. You have to have serious problems for the receiving device to have a hard time distinguishing a one from a zero.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Not entirely, I'm not sure that most people really understand digital the way they do analog. Digital isint 0 and 1's it is a squarewave of either a high or a low which is determined by a certain voltage. There is still a possibilty for that wave to become distorted through the transmission of the signal.

Digital signal is concerned with timing info, not distortion in that quasi square wave.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The Monster vs. Others debate has been going on for a long time. The bottom line is that there must have been something flawed with your testing if the results did not confirm that both cables produced identical results. Especially since you used a digital connection.

The entire problem with your test was that you did not have proper equipment to do single frame image captures or to produce high quality video. No matter how you look at it, even with a decent camcorder, you aren't ever going to properly capture footage the way you were testing. Really, what you need, at the very least, is a couple of friends over and someone other than you switching the cables between brands rather quickly while you are viewing with randomization. Preferably with your friend not in the line of site to judge his reaction.

The bottom line remains the same with digital cables - the signal either arrives, or it does not and a well made cable is a well made cable. HDMI is not analog, you aren't going to get better zeroes, or better ones, so if you see results that are different, then you have to find out what was different and question everything. In my experience, I now stick with www.monoprice.com for all my digital cabling needs and go custom with everything else. Custom is more expensive, but it gives me exactly the length I need when I need it.

I personally have no issue with Monster Cable stuff, but agree with others. Yet, when it comes to distributed audio wiring I have yet to find a better cable than the Monster CIPRO cabling I used in my home. Not for signal quality, but actual build. It runs smoother, strips easier, and has fine strands which all combine to make it incredibly easy to work with compared to competing brands.

 

[informel]

HDMI is digital, but bit can be lost

I worked in telecom for several years, the difference between HDMI and digital transmission is that with use error correction if bits are lost, it is possible to loose bits on an HDMI cable, but unless you have a lot of interference, how many bits can you loose in a short cable like that? (probably not enough to be visible)

Also installers are selling monster cable because of high profit margin (they could by belden cable and build a better cable but could not ask the same price as Monter cable) , salesman sell Monster cable because they have training from monster cable that tells them that their cables are better.

here are some example.

There are different quality in fiber optic cable (digital signal could be sent several kilometers before the signal gets too low).

for analog signal: low frequency travel inside the conductor, but high frequency travel at the surface of the conductor only, this is true; but 20 KHZ is not high frequency. THE SKIN EFFECT ONLY HAPPEN AT SEVERAL MEGAHERTZ

 

[mtrycrafts]

THE SKIN EFFECT ONLY HAPPEN AT SEVERAL MEGAHERTZ

Skin effect happens at any frequency above DC. The amount of the effect or the amount of concern is what is in question.
Certainly at high frequency it is a much bigger concern than at audio frequency.

 

[fmw]

Skin effect happens at any frequency above DC. The amount of the effect or the amount of concern is what is in question.
Certainly at high frequency it is a much bigger concern than at audio frequency.

I think the point is that, at audio frequencies, skin effect is trivial and certainly doesn't cause audible issues with a waveform. When a high end cable manufacturer uses it to help sell his cables, then that is pseudo science and nonsense.

 

[krabapple]

It's all digital, 0's and 1', do you guys really think that the cable matters?

For a long HDMI run, the cable quality certainly matters.

Otherwise, not.

 

[highfihoney]

I work at a Big Box retailer, and in the Home Theater department (I know I know, Big Box, ick).

The first thing i was told when I started working there was that Monster made the best HDMI cables, and that the reason being was that they had all the exotic materials gold to triple shielding. I remembered this same thing with USB and DVI: I myself fell prey to the high quality USB scam (hey I was 16 at the time!).

So naturally I decided to test the thesis that there was a difference in HDMI cables based on brand.

I bought both an Acoustic Research 4 ft HDMI line and a Monster 1000 series HDMI line (als 4 ft) and used a Philips upconvert DVD player (one of last years models, I dont have it anymore)(replaced it for a BDP-1200) and connected it to a Samsung 4051 D.

Now here is where it got interesting: on my way out of the store I stopped to talk with our installer. He said that after years of hooking these up, all he would use is Monster Cable if the customer could afford it. After an half hour of talking with him, I left, only to return to go to the audio installers bay for a head-unit issue. While there, I learned the chief installer was a former home theater installer. I expected to get a different answer than "more expensive cables are worth it" from him. Well, he too said only Monster cable ran in his house, and that anything else was heresy (same words as his).

Confused that the guy who was leaving to become an electrician just days later (he was leaving the employ of the store), I went home and hooked it up. I do not have any scientific equipment (indeed I planned on returning the TV for another one afterwards, I was just using it for the test).

First test I tried the AR cable. I was amazed at how good an upconvert could indeed look. After watching the first thirty minutes of Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl, I switched out the cheap AR cable for the Monster 1000 series. Now I was recording it: what I was doing is using a digital camcorder to record the first 5 minutes of video with AR, then the next first 5 minutes on Monster. I switched the Camera off after 5 minutes so that way I would not have to splice so much video together.

Actually, to my eye, I liked the image better with the Monster Cable hooked up! I really, really did. Just movement in the image and color seemed better. I was shocked: this had to just be that watching it the second time around was better because in my memory it was not as clear.

So I took the video segments on the camera and ran them in two images on my computer monitor. I know that an image from a TV recorded by a camera will not look the same as having been there, but being the same camera in the same lighting, I should still be able to see flaws in the playback if the image was indeed worse

Running two windows, the video playing side by side, I decided to not actually view it myself. So I pulled aside my brother, my mother, and a friend and told them to point to the video that looked better: left or right. They did not know, but Monster Cable was on the right, AR on the left. They all pointed to the right. Once again discouraged by my thesis was being disproven, I decided it may be a problem with the monitor. So I swapped sides of the windows: monster was now on left, AR on right. The test subjects (as i called them in my mind) were brought back into the room one by one and asked which video they though looked better.

Now they all chose the left, which was Monster Cable. I though "wtf? there is no way!"

Next day I returned the AR cable, and the TV (it was $1500 or so at the time, and I really could only budget about $1000). I kept the cable and player.

And it gets worse: at the store we sell three kinds of HDMI cable. Usually, we get the first two kinds returned and Monster cables get purchased by those returning AR and the other brand. It seems other people, not just me, see to like the more expensive cabling.

I am entirely ignoring the article written on Audioholics by BlueJeansCable: I ignore any manufacturers thoughts and why their cable is better or worse. BJC could just be, for all I know, trying to build a case to by cheaper cables like theirs for no other reason then that then they'd be making money. But then it becomes really hard to find independant research on the subject.

Why is it that Monster Cable sells so well? Why did I think it looked better? WTF?!?!?!?!?

WOW,a whopping 3 posts & a glaringly obvious shill post,cmon dude can you be even a bit less obvious that you work for monster.

You guys kill me with your nonsense

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Most who buy Monster are the same folks that buy into Bose, Dyson vacuum cleaners, . Uninformed, commercial watching sponges. Hifi, you nailed this thread.