02-12-11, 01:11 AM
I recently bought these cables (http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-Cable-2M-6-Feet/dp/B0002L5R78/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297490929&sr=8-1) for, as you can see, super cheap. The reviews are great, so I have to wonder... what is the difference between these cables and other brands like Monster that charge you $40+ for a cable? Do the people writing these reviews just not really know the difference? They were only $4 with free prime shipping, so I'm not really concerned if I didn't get a good deal, but I'm quite curious if so called "large-gauge high-purity copper conductors" and "corrosion-resistant 24k gold contacts" really make a difference.
At that length most cables will be ok. But there are quality differences in cables. Generally, bigger is better, although it's not quite that cut and dried. [insert joke here] With digital signal it's generally pretty easy to see if the cable is working properly. Bad cables will simply not pass the signal most of the time. Early HDMI cables had an issue that looked like white specks where there was signal loss, I think we called it sparklies. But I haven't seen that in years.
I don't know about right now, but there was a time when Monster was selling $100 HDMI cables that often failed to transfer signal at all, and Monoprice was selling cables for $10 that were perfect.
HDMI keeps getting upgraded, and sometimes older cables don't work with newer equipment. It's really been a pain, considering a main point of HDMI was to simplify connections. (well, there is another major reason, too)
Monster is to cables as Bose is to equipment
02-12-11, 03:00 AM
Okay. Well this is just a set up for my dorm room, I have a 27'' HDTV hooked up to my PS3 with an HDMI cable, and I have a reciever that is hooked up to the TV through a headphone jack extension that runs to my TV, and then feeds the sound through my bookshelf speakers. Not all that impressive but good enough for a dorm room, and the speakers are certainly better than those of my TV.