Right, I know it's strange but to me it's obvious enough to notice. Then again, I am also one of the few that will notice differences with other type of cables.

<RANT MODE ON>Look at replies like dharding and Deftones; they are not even taking this thread seriously; I am tempting to use the T-word. Perhaps I do see something that doesn't exist. Or maybe there is a difference that will manifest itself under certain parameters. Who knows. This is not about digital data transfer or specifications; but how this data is transmitted, which data is lost (inevitably there will be ALWAYS some loss of data) and how it affects the components. You don't like the answer that SOMEONE out there things that there are better HDMI cables than HDMI? Move on or discuss like adults. Thank you. <RANT MODE OFF>

Isn't it Planet Earth a great disc?

It is disc 1, I believe the first chapter called Mountains (I can look up the exact information tonight if you want). This one:

hahahahahahaah

yeah right. the difference is only "perceived". I would bet the farm.

Anyone who couldn't see this "result" coming from a mile away is a bigger fool than anyone I have ever met.

Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to order Blue Jeans Cables. They are just a bit more expensive than monoprice but are much better.

I've always been a huge BJC supporter, and have thought they make a very high quality product. My 35' HDMI cable for my HT is from there, along with the majority of my other cables. With that said, I've used Monoprice's HDMI, component and video game cables and see absolutely no difference between the two brands on my 110" screen. You're not going to drop frames or see a more blurry background with either cable. It will be a much more drastic difference if there was any. As long as more pepople are buying their cables form BJC or MP, and less from a big box store, than I am a happy man.

"Foregone conclusion" comes to mind....

Nice if you're trying to be honest and people still don't believe you...

Wait, let's write some different reviews:

1. For people like you, the 'monoprice rulessssssssss'

"The cables look and sound EXACTLY the same, no difference whatsoever. I can't believe I ever spend $20 more on BJC cables! And why is Monster still in business? Their marketing is AWESOME but they ARE the devil. I just love Monoprice."

2. The review how I could have written it

"Sounds and quality is dramatically better with BJC cables. There is much more dynamics while listening to DTH and the picture on both SD and HD DVD is just amazing with BJC while mediocre at best with Monoprice."

3. Or what I did say
"Sound: no noticeable difference (this is harder to test anyway)

Picture:
standard DVD: it seems that monoprice's cables are a bit softer than BJC. Difference is minimal
HD DVD: now we're talking! The monoprice cable clearly is inferior: background details are soft and less revealing, color are also not as deep as with the BJC. I will post some photos soon (hopefully the differences will be clear on these pictures). It seems that either monoprice cables aren't capable of handling the bandwith or are dropping frames."

Guess you were only ready to hear #1, huh?

Why are you the only person who has ever seen these problems?

I've never read a thread about cables on an AV forum that didn't overwhelming recommend monoprice. And I guarantee there are people out there with better equipment than you who would disagree with your findings. Some of them are right here in this thread.

What are the odds that you are able to see something that hundreds (or maybe thousands) of other people cannot?

Here's my take on your valid question:
1. Not everyone's equipment is similar
2. There are definitely a lot of people that do notice a difference in cables: I don't have a problem with monoprice, but I can see a difference in quality. Visit boards in the US or UK discussing H/T equipment; you will see similar discussions with similar outcomes: people that don't see/believe there is a difference and people that will see one.

This is nothing new. There have been cable arguments going way back to the analog days. I never argued to spend $100+ on Monster HDMI cables; I just argued to use common sense and spend a little bit extra to get at least a product with known components, made in the USA and possible a slightly better image.

Finally: If you spend, let's say, $1500 on a plasma/LCD; why would you spend $4 on a HDMI cable, while a $25 HDMI cable might actually improve your picture?

Because it won't?

That's your opinion. And it is based on...???

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2309p111id121777.htm

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cabl...t-2-268788.php

Again, this is pretty much what everyone has stated here time and time again. For 95% of the population, that only needs a short distance of cable run, a cheap cable is the same as an expensive one. When you start to run longer cables, you'll run into problems. Again, everyone has pointed that out to you, but you don't want to accept these facts.

How much more evidence do you need? I mean, your biased eyes are telling you one thing, but gobs of technical data are telling you that you are wrong. Guess some people would rather be ignorant than realize the truth.

Sorry exm, I see what you're trying to say, but that just isn't the case. The quote from PC Mag that Deftones included is pretty much what the professional A/V industry thinks (aside form Monster Cables of course): You won't notice a slight change but a drastic change once the cable begins or is already failing to reproduce the correct signal. This is different from analog cables, which a lot of people still assume applies to digital cables.

But at the end of the day, if you think your $25 cable is better than a $4 cable, continue to use it and keep yourself happy. As I said before, BJC is a great company, makes very good cables and I continue to support them. But Monoprice also makes very good cables for a lower cost, which I use as well.

That is a great link (the gizmodo one)! And it brings things back to where they should be. In testing a digital cable, bits is bits. If you can compare the bits coming out of the cable to the bits going in, and they are unchanged (with or without available error correction), then the cable is sufficient for the task. Personal perceptions are too easily colored by our own biases and desired outcomes.

The only thing that might be interesting to learn would be whether Monoprice cables have a higher number of corrected bit errors than BJ cables. My guess would be no, but I don't have access to the necessary equipment to make such a determination.

I was holding onto that Gizmodo article, and didn't post it once I knew exm bought a Monoprice cable to test it. I wanted to give him the chance to put this to rest. Since he didn't, I did.

What's also interesting is a statement in the PC World article that confirms what I said earlier in the thread. I didn't want to speak authoritatively, since I am no real expert on HDMI, but I worked in digital data transmission for over a decade a while back, so I know a fair bit about signal loss and its resulting problems.

The perception of faded colors and blurred details are artifacts of a poor analog cable, but those artifacts do not apply in the digital domain. Sparkles and other forms of fine noise, and macroblocking are the main things to look for when determining if there is a digital cable problem. Other problems may also occur, but at the least some of these problems will also be present. If they aren't, it is extremely unlikely that the cable is at fault.

Deftones,

I am glad you're finally starting to make sense.

You at least admit that for 95% of the population "at only needs a short distance of cable run, a cheap cable is the same as an expensive one.", meaning that for the other 5% it DOES make a difference. Well said.

Besides that, you base YOUR facts purely on articles. I'm not the one to claim that these articles are false, but * I * at least have taken the effort to test cables. As far as I'm concerned, you can tone it done a bit until * YOU * actually tested another cable besides monoprice. Not sure if it makes sense with your equipment anyway though.

I think you need to re-read that line. My interpretation is that the remaining 5% are folks using cables longer than 6 feet, not a subset of people with the same higher quality perception that you claim you have.

Your pessimistic attitude to the Monoprice cable you ordered negated your subsequent "test" in many peoples eyes, even before you performed it. Ultimately there was a very strong whiff of the "nocebo effect" about the whole affair when you revealed your "results". Posting a picture you took of the screen proves nothing (other than the fact that everything in the whole photo, even beyond the boundaries of the screen, had a grainy look about it). Then, when someone proves to you, albeit via a third party article, that tests performed in a very controlled and scientific manner contradict the contentious element of your opinion, you poo-poo it.

I've read through this thread as it has developed, interested and impressed at contrasting but nonetheless informed opinions, however your last message seems trivial and weak. If you had performed a rigorous, unbiased and genuinely scientific test maybe you would really be in a position to ask someone to "tone it down", but simply casting your (apparently) finely honed ear and eye over it, means nothing. On top of that your final line was just plain puerile.

No. I've always made sense. I'm basing my opinion on both the articles and my own personal experience. I've used monster HDMI, Monoprice HDMI and cheap shit in between. Unlike you, I've noticed absolutely no difference in the signal and/or picture quality between these cables. As for the dig about my equipment, you don't know jack for shit what I have, so let's not even step into that realm.

As for the articles, they test (using proven scientific methods) these cables. Both are from highly regarded sources and should be considered unbiased in the information they present to consumers. If you still can't accept what they are saying in these articles, then I have no reason to continue try to pursuade you on this matter. Numerous individuals have given you example after example (including technical data) why you are wrong. You refuse to believe us. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm hear to get you to stop bullshit disinformation about cabling.

BTW, the 5% that need longer cable (than most people would normally run) runs don't need better quality cable. They need amplification of the signal. Let's not even get into the issue (that is mentioned in the PC world article) that states either the cable works or it doesn't due to signal degredation. There is nothing in between.

Time for me to say bye bye to this thread because of these type of replies. I am getting ZERO appreciation for going against the flow and at least making an effort to test different configurations. Most of you just read articles, quote from them, listen to people who do the same thing and crucifying anyone who thinks differently. Biased? Aren't we all to a certain degree.

So what happened with your Monster cable?

And no, I don't know 'jack shit' what you have but I do consider it relevant.


As I said in my previous reply:
Thanks for giving me credit of at least trying another cable and posting my results

I am not bullshitting anyone, just posting MY findings.

The last I am going to say in this thread is to anyone who's reading this: if you believe most of the people here that a $4 'Made in China' cable will be just fine, good for you. If you think there might the slightest chance that a $20 'Made in the USA' cable, gives some sort or improvement to your expensive Plasma/LCD: try BJC.

Peace. Back to talking DVD's.

You're getting no appreciation because your findings didn't prove anything. A few fuzzy pics don't help justify your findings. I've said many times that I have used multiple brands of cables including BJC and MP that have not produced varying results.

I think this thread has worn out it's life and needs to be closed as all info that can be said has been said.

His findings prove that he is biased towards BJC... and that is all he proved.

And you're not biased towards monoprice right?