Packing the Deal

Is an expensive HDTV cable really better than a cheap one?


Now that high-definition TVs are really coming down in price, competition among electronics retailers is heating up. Stores no longer enjoy the huge margins they did back in the days of $50,000 plasma screens. Big TVs are not sources of big profits.

Making up some of the difference is the art of "packing the deal." In short, this means adding high-profit extras on to the core purchase. It can mean extended warranties, or home installation, or service calls. Or it can mean expensive accessories such as cables.

In this report, Erica Johnson takes a close look at the HDMI cable. This is the all-in-one cord that carries both sound and video into your HDTV, and you'll need one to get the best picture from your new setup. The most expensive model we found in-store was a Monster cable costing upwards of $250. We found a generic one online for just $12, including shipping. The test? To see whether the extra money was worth it.


Yes this topic has been hashed several times but I though that this would be interesting for someone to watch. Erica Johnson works for a news program in Canada called Marketplace.


Link: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketpl...g_the_deal.wmv

I would see what kinda connections each end has and the quality of the cable shielding. That would be where the interference would occur. Sometimes prices does determine the quality but also sometimes your paying just for the name and not the quality of the part itself so I think it pays to dig a little deeper. To see if your paying for quality or just for the brand name....Oh yeah another problem. Is if your equipment isn't of good quality that also affect your display as well so it is all three that makes for a good entertainment system....HDtv must be of good quality and wires of good quality and equipment must be of good if not excellent quality so it takes three things to make a good output for good viewing..

Intersting but they should have mentioned the versions of cable. 1.3 cables are capable of transfering 10 GBps while others are not. Like this one for $19.95. Under features it says up to 5 Gbps, Not that it would matter becuase there is probably nothing out there that can deliver that kind if transfer rate at the moment. Monster cable are colour coded for transfer rates/bandwidth. Click

Not really. Most, in fact will work fine.
Don't confuse a speed rating with actual performance. Just because a cable isn't rated for 10G doesn't mean it can't perform at that rate. For the most part, the 1.3 rating is just more marketing hype designed to sell you a new set of cables that you don't need.

Well my point was that Market place did not mention the speed capabilities of the cables which should have been mentioned IMO. No arguement from me that it's marketing hype. I own 3 of the $19.95 ones I linked above and they work fine.

They are comparing $262 Monster cable vs $100 midrange cable bv Rocket fish vs $12 "online" cable and according to the test by CBC guy with all the sophisticated equipments, the 12 bucks one performs exactly the same with the pricey cables. "It's perfect, it can't get any better than this."

But did you guys hear that the CBC guy said: "The images we're sending in to the cable from DVD player output is coming out to the cable is exactly the same pixel to pixel, color to color, sharpness, black level, everthing exactly the same". It's around 7:00 mins in the video. So the guy didn't test with hidef video and audio? Or bandwidth test doesn't matter?

Btw, my HDMI cables are $5 from monoprice.

I agree with zevia, according to several cable manufacturers there is very little or none between the "Picture Quality" of highly expensive HDMI cable and the least costly ones as long as the least one being produced by well known and reputable cable manufacture.

It doesn't matter if he's testing SD or HD images, he's testing the video signal for image degradation. It would have been better if he actually tested the cables for max throughput, if such a test exists. But they were only testing the sales clerk's assurance that one could see a difference, so other considerations were not tested.

Considering that current HD players don't exceed maybe 50Mb/sec data rates, I have a hard time imaging a time when we will need 10Gb/sec rates. But it would be interesting to see if the $15 cables could do that.

Let's keep an open mind, other perspectives.

Well these articles are almost a year old, the skeptical geeks over at Gizmodo did a three-part face-off between Monster and Monoprice HDMI cables, and--while their results weren't exactly conclusive--overall, they supported the notion that bargain cables perform just as well as premium cables in the vast majority of real-world scenarios. In other words, if you're not concerned with compatibility with future video bandwidth--which you might not encounter for years, if ever--the bargain cables are a much more cost-effective solution.


The Truth About Monster Cable, Part I

Link: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/field-not...ble-266616.php

The Truth About Monster Cable, Part II

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

The Truth About Monster Cable, Part III

Link: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/th...r_cable_2.html

Very good article and practical analysis with conclusion for consumers to understand pricy cable is not necessary the beast for your need at this time. Only those they could afford would buy the shining brand at any price regardless they have use for it or not.

Intresting reading.

Where I work have just signed to sell Monster cables in store.

We got a 45 minute presentation all about them and what they stand for.

So what is you take on this issue? is Monster cable worth the price you have to pay for it or cheap cable like (monoprice could provide the same performance as monster does?.