Expensive HDMI Cables Do Make a Difference --> FACT (Go Monster Cables!!!)

Kintarō Hattori

OK I'm kidding making that remark but you just can't tell some people.

I work in a shop and a chap came in today looking for a HDMI cable. I normally have some for €9.99 but the cheapest I had at that moment were some for €29.99. I showed him those and he mulled it over for a moment or two and asked me if I had any Monster cables in stock. I said I did and showed him one for €69.99 and one for €129. I explained to him that being a digital cable there was no difference in picture quality between the cheap one and the expensive Monster cable.
He listened to what I had to say but he was absolutely fixed on taking a monster cable as he read a review which was favourable towards the Monster cables. I explained the difference between analogue and digital signals but he was still absolutely set on taking the Monster cable.

Eventually price (and sense) won out and although I think a little reluctant he took the cheaper (yes I know still expensive) of the two cables.

So there you go, depsite what we know to be common knowledge, despite a salesman trying to talk the customer down to buying something cheaper (:eek:) some people are just set on parting with their cash for little to no benefit.

087dannyboy

That seems almost criminal the price of them monster cables, to pay €129 euro for a cable you would fookin mad . What do they say is the differences how their better ?

Kintarō Hattori

087dannyboy wrote: »

That seems almost criminal the price of them monster cables, to pay €129 euro for a cable you would fookin mad . What do they say is the differences how their better ?

Ahh they say all kinda stuff such as colour reproduction is better, they are sharper etc.

Dont be at yourself

I wonder can there be a case against them for false advertising?

mayordenis

should of knocked the ****er out,
dont tell your boss you were trying to talk someone out of the more expensive option :P

grumpytrousers

I suppose it's kinda like those probiotic drinks where the ads are based on

"They make me feel better" as opposed to a medic saying
"They are better for you"

If a person wants to buy into the illusion, and you've honest salesmen (a rarity, perhaps) like our OP, then we're back to fools and money and the relative ease between which the pair might easily be parted...

Mossy Monk

You should have let him buy it. Fools and their money .............

conzy

You could probably get them for false advertising because in most of those "MONSTER VS generic cable" tests they use a composite cable as the "generic HDMI cable" ....... bastards

AlmightyCushion

Some people just don't listen to reason and want the best money can buy even if it's no better than something a fraction of the price.

Kintarō Hattori

conzymaher wrote: »

You could probably get them for false advertising because in most of those "MONSTER VS generic cable" tests they use a composite cable as the "generic HDMI cable" ....... bastards

Yeah I've heard about that too. Has it actually been proven that they did that?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Some people just don't listen to reason and want the best money can buy even if it's no better than something a fraction of the price.

I can well believe it.

BaconZombie

I think these articles sums up monster cables nicely :

Do coat hangers sound as good as Monster cables?

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-soun.html

http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables

QuadLeo

Mossy Monk wrote: »

You should have let him buy it. Fools and their money .............

Absolutely.

It's the shopper's loss. You informed him of the pros and cons ie: none. He wanted to buy the monster cable. Fair enough. More money for your employer, just because this person doesn't research the product and like most people is misinformed by the advertising and articles published by companies such as monster cable.

"Good luck and thanks"

AlmightyCushion

BOFH_139 wrote: »

I think these articles sums up monster cables nicely :

In fairness to monster that test is hardly scientific. It's hearsay at best.

Kashkai

If you buy a tv from DID, they go all out to get you to buy a monster cable. Is this where they get their commission????

I bought a 26in lcd from them 18 months ago (before I discovered how much cheaper tvs are online) and the DID salesman spent about 60 seconds explaining the tv's features, which I could have read from the sticker on it . He then spent about 4 minutes going on about the virtues of monster cables. I lost count of the number of times I told him I wasn't interested in forking out €100 for a HDMI cable that I could get for €10 elsewhere.

noodler

Bought one from Sainsburys for 6 pounds. One in Argos for 7.50e.

Lovely stuff.

Flaccus

Well according to the "world's no.1 home cinema and buying guide", HDMI cables DO make a difference as seen by the different ratings here.
http://whathifi.com/Reviews/Accessories-Reviews/Video-cables-Reviews/

When it comes to HDMI this one is pretty much one of the best
http://whathifi.com/Review/van-den-Hul-Ultimate/

WhatHiFi say "High End Home Cinema deserves a good cable". And van den Hul's ultimate HDMI v1.3 cable is the business they reckon and gives "great detailing" and "realistic pictures". Also this HDMI cable sounds "controlled" and "composed" It’s capable of "delivering the explosive adventures of Rambo with gusto" and is "equally adept at creating a tense atmosphere during Batman Begins". It get's 5 stars all the way.

Now look at the cambridge audio review.
http://whathifi.com/Review/Cambridge-Audio-HDMI-2m/

They advertise a hell of a lot more then van den Hul in this mag but WhatHiFi tell it as it is and give them only 4 stars because the cable sounds "lean and hard", and "lacks the solidity and full-bodied delivery" of other cables.

So there you have it.

Is there any truth to these reviews ?

Here is what Monster have to say.
http://whathifi.com/blogs/home-cinema/archive/2007/11/01/news-monster-debuts-speed-rated-cables.aspx

They point out that "digits are digits, so the cable can't make a difference view" is misinformation. Personally, I can't see how these uber expensive cables can make a picure better at 1080p. These companies have no scientific data to prove these expensive HDMI cables are better then the cheaper ones other then quoting specs and relying on subjective reviews in magazines. Are they saying that their cables, a completely passive device is somehow manipulating the digits ? On the other hand I would guess that there IS scientific data to prove that these digital cables are pretty much all the same. So why hasn't someone litigated against said companies for false claims ?

From Monsters site :
"Look for quality features that reduce interference and ensure complete and accurate data transfer : proper shielding from interference that is flexible enough to be bent without data interuption, oversized self-contained connectors that don't impede data
transfer, and construction with better conducting metals."

So we are paying for better built cables that give more accurate data transfer ???

Perhaps it is on the specs though that companies like Monster justify the price and not just their claimed superior image quality. Monster speed rate their cables for how much data capacity they can carry and guarantee them against obsolescence caused by advancements in HD standards. I run my PC and game at 2560x1600 (WQXGA) res. I do know that the HDMI licensing body has said "High Speed" cables can perform at 340mhz and can accomodate 2560x1600 and the high end monster cables will support this. But would a bog standard 15 euro HDMI cable be able to support this res also ? I'm sure some would. So why are Monster and companies like them charging so much ?

noodler

I never felt the need for an expensive Scart no would I spend ten times more on a HDMI cable. I have read more reviews than the above which go the other way. To be honest terms like more 'full-bodied' sound like aload of BS.

Even if there is a difference I would severely doubt it is comparable to the difference in price.

But anyway, the digital evidence is more compelling. Do people argue some component cables are better than others? They are digital as well aren't they?

AlmightyCushion

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

If you buy a tv from DID, they go all out to get you to buy a monster cable. Is this where they get their commission????

I bought a 26in lcd from them 18 months ago (before I discovered how much cheaper tvs are online) and the DID salesman spent about 60 seconds explaining the tv's features, which I could have read from the sticker on it . He then spent about 4 minutes going on about the virtues of monster cables. I lost count of the number of times I told him I wasn't interested in forking out €100 for a HDMI cable that I could get for €10 elsewhere.

The tv is probably only making 5 or 6% margin. The cable would probably be making >30% margin. The cable probably makes them more money than the tv.

Flaccus

It's still annoying having to listen to salesmens bull**** when it comes to these cables though. The old adage about spending 10% of your hifi budget on cables just doesn't apply here. I even heard one salesguy try to convince someone he wouldn't get all 12bits of data if he didn't buy the monster cable. Lying tossers :mad:

GrumPy

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

OK I'm kidding making that remark but you just can't tell some people.

I work in a shop and a chap came in today looking for a HDMI cable. I normally have some for €9.99 but the cheapest I had at that moment were some for €29.99. I showed him those and he mulled it over for a moment or two and asked me if I had any Monster cables in stock. I said I did and showed him one for €69.99 and one for €129. I explained to him that being a digital cable there was no difference in picture quality between the cheap one and the expensive Monster cable.
He listened to what I had to say but he was absolutely fixed on taking a monster cable as he read a review which was favourable towards the Monster cables. I explained the difference between analogue and digital signals but he was still absolutely set on taking the Monster cable.

Eventually price (and sense) won out and although I think a little reluctant he took the cheaper (yes I know still expensive) of the two cables.

So there you go, depsite what we know to be common knowledge, despite a salesman trying to talk the customer down to buying something cheaper (:eek:) some people are just set on parting with their cash for little to no benefit.

Have done this myself with customers, trying to convince them to buy a cheaper cable!

dcukhunter

Should have just gave him the cheap cable in monster pack. Pocket the rest. Win all round

Kintarō Hattori

dcukhunter wrote: »

Should have just gave him the cheap cable in monster pack. Pocket the rest. Win all round

Ahh I can't be doing that now.

ilovemybrick

Without quite understanding the big whoop about cables this thread reminds me of something that happened at a trade fair I was working at.

Bang and Olufsen were there as were as were another company called B&K sound solutions.

B&K were touting a pure non-oxidised copper stereo connector cable for something stupid like 300 euro per metre. I got talking to one of the guys at the Bang and Olufsen and he started laughing when I told him this. He showed me the set up they had for the fair which was ordinary copper cabling that is used for high voltage equipment (such as ovens in houses etc) which worked out at a about a euro a metre.

He said there was little to no difference.

mayordenis

"The Ultimate really does impress with its clear, detailed, realistic picture."

It makes the image realistic? sounds like bull**** to me van der hul

Kintarō Hattori

Well to put this to rest once and for all I took a €200 Monster cable home tonight and tested it and my own €9.99 cable and just couldn't see any difference. I watched the opening scene of Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and played a few minutes of GTA4 and COD4 and ya know what? I just couldn't see the difference.

There was no noticeable difference in colour or image quality.

Flaccus

But the 9.99 cable might not do 2560x1600

Mags will always be able to say there is a difference in image quality, colour etc.. as long as these tests are subjective.

Patrickof

All the tests done by those magazines are subjective, done using TVs, Blur ray players etc.

As the signal is digital, it's actually far more simple than that - though it can't be done by the guy at home due to the expensive signal generators.

Get a bit stream generator with HDMI interfaces.
Set for whatever speed, bit rate you want.
Pump a bit stream through the cable.
Verify the digital sequence is the same at both ends

Test over.

Non-subjective, can be done for any HDMI "version", including made up future ones.

Either the received digital bit stream is the same as the transmitted one - or it's not.

The only time I saw a magazine do this, they still relied on the tester doing visual analysis of the output, with graphs of the signal "envelope" - whatever that meant. Sorry I can't find the link.

noodler

Although the evidence seems to favour there being no difference I guess you have two options:

1:Buy an expensive one and hope that you are getting an image which is proportionately better to the cheap for the price you paid (But always in the back of your mind you may be getting ripped off or that an even more expensive one would get you a better picture)

OR
2: Buy a cheap one for 7.50e and be safe in the knowledge that even if there is a difference it won't be 100e better than what you currently have.


I prefer option 2.

mathias

Either the received digital bit stream is the same as the transmitted one - or it's not.

Thats it in a nutshell. Having tested over 100 cables I can personally confirm that this will be the case with 99.9% of cables.
( the other 0.01% didnt work at all .... no picture or sound ...zip ... and they both had mechanical faults).

The other thing you might like to think about is this ...

Given a perfect signal at the end of the cable , that has to be as good as it gets as far as the cable is concerned. It cant possibly be any better , so for any cable to produce supposedly better " colour definition or sound quality " as those magazine articles suggest , then for it to be true you have to assume two things ,

Firstly that only a select few cables have a perfect bit error rate , ( which is absolutely not the case )

And secondly , and more importantly , that the cables that dont have a perfect error rate , somehow cause errors that result in slightly inferior picture or sound as opposed to plain dropouts.
For that to happen the errors would have to be extremely selective , meaning that it would have to alter the code so that it was still valid , but produced an inferior picture.

That second point is just ludicrous , it is totally impossible for random errors in a HDMI line bitstream to just fall into place in such a fashion ... so I can guarantee you that any magazine that makes such a claim is lying through their teeth ... either that or they are employing a bunch of Morons for subjective tests.

Flaccus

Well said.

And I was thinking the same thing. If manufacturers are claiming their cables give better definitition, colour, sound etc.. then they are saying their cables are 100% error free and others are not. It's a bit of a joke really.

I suppose the only thing that can be said for these expensive cables is that they can support higher res's then 1080P, but then again I suppose alot of much cheaper cables can also but are possibly not tested for these resolutions.

mathias

I suppose alot of much cheaper cables can also but are possibly not tested for these resolutions.

100% correct.

The Equipment I was using to test the HDMI cables comes in at around 350,000 dollars for the setup. The companies that test cables typically charge anything up to 10,000 for the service , and that is to strenously test an engineering sample to either category 1 or category 2 , the category 1 test being considerably cheaper.

Given the cost , most opt for category 1 , but that does not mean it wont pass category 2 , most will as I have seen myself.

And Everybody note: It is highly likely that only an engineering sample of the particular cable you bought was actually physically tested. The rest were just made using the same process and shipped without testing.
The cost of testing every single cable off the line would drive any cable seller out of business.

So if you think any cable you bought was actually tested , think again. In all likelihood its never seen a test centre.

Edit : Just to clarify , theres nothing wrong with sample testing , its a very valid approach to quality control , however if any particular cable company tries to sell you a more expensive cable on the basis of whether it was tested or not ,( for instance a big mark up on category 2 vs category 1 ) then its an issue ...as the chances are it never was tested.