HDMI cables.... Good vs BEST

Profit margin

Have you seen the AWESOME packaging those Monster cables come in?  It's freaking incredible!  So shiny, colorful, and sparkly - not to mention how SECURELY it holds the cables in place.  When you order those cheap cables from Monoprice, they just come in a box, a plastic sheath and a couple of twist ties.  Who wants such crappy packaging - I'd much rather spend 20 minutes with a knife extracting my cables from their cozy, protective cocoon.

OK, all sarcasm aside, there is no difference.  It's a digital transmission - so it's either 100% there or not at all.  Oh, and ALL digital transmissions go at just about the speed of light, so there's no truth to "fast", "faster", and "Super-duper fast" HDMI cables, either.

As long as it's version 1.3a compliant you're all set to go.

I agree. I love Monoprice cables. Expensive cables are the biggest scam in the A/V industry. People keep buying them though because they don't know any better.

Just ran across a well known site that has real reasonable price on Hdmi cables " Amazon" ordered them and set them up on my PJ and PS3 and have a excellent, beautiful picture and sound and could not believe it, the reviews are all 5, try the site.

There is no "BEST" in HDMI cables.  HDMI is a robust protocol with more than sufficient error detection.  If the cable is not up to snuff, the picture deteriorates rapidly and recognizably, displaying sparkling and pixelization, followed by a blank screen.  In other words, HDMI either works . . . or it doesn't.  If they work, you are getting the absolute BEST picture you can get, no matter the cost of the cable.  Let me say that again . . .  if your HDMI cable is working (i.e., you get a picture at all, with no obvious sparkling, pixelization, etc.), then you are getting the BEST picture you can get.  Buying a "better" cable will never, repeat NEVER, give you a better picture.  The only thing buying an overpriced HDMI cable will do is remove more money from your wallet.

Jeff,

So let me get this straight.... You are saying that the $100.00 Monster Cable Digiphile 10,000 Special Collectors edition, boxed set, HDMI cable doesn't make the 1's come out with sharper edges and the 0's with more defined curvature?

One of our sponsors Blue Jeans Cable make fantastic HMDI cables and are very well priced. I have three of them and have had nothing but fantastic results.

What every one above has said there is no difference from one HDMI cable to another.

I just ordered three 10' HDMI cables from monoprice for less than $20 (including S&H).  The cables cost $4.44 apiece. 

I saw at Wal-Mart last night a guy picking out a single 6' HDMI cable for $26. 

It's a crazy world in which we live. 

I found some HDMI cables locally at blockbuster video. they sell both 2 ft and 3 ft. the 2 is 9.99.

Jacob

That's what I'm saying.  Haven't had anyone prove me wrong yet.

DAMMIT!  Why do they have to go and start doing this?  It's just going to add fuel to the fire and further confuse everyone.

If anything, the difference between the cables is related to BANDWIDTH and not SPEED, but they just HAVE to use product naming language that completely distorts the technical difference between the cables.

FYI - the link refers to an article about how the naming convention of HDMI 1.4 cables will change.  Yes, Virginia, there will now be an HDMI cable that is "officially" HIGH SPEED.

Dammit.

Wow, Jason.

That article actually confused me already (not always a difficult thing to do!).

Admittedly, I know very little about HDMI (but am just now finding it necessary to learn something about the technology).  But it seems as if 1.3 and under only had one basic technology per version...but with 1.4 they now plan on designing different cables to serve different functions?

And, you will (with 1.4) have to get the "high speed" version for 1080p...while with 1.3 and lower any old HDMI cable would carry 1080p?

They must have hired someone from the marketing departments of Monster Cable or Rocketfish and he/she cooked up the idea. Or maybe he/she still works under the table for Monster Cable or Rocketfish and decided to figure out a way for them to charge 500 dollars for Chinese cables, instead of the 250 that they are charging now. What a great marketing tool for MC and Rocketfish: NEW! HDMI 1.4 now with HIGH SPEED!

What a crock.

I'll have to take a closer look at the specs, but I know lots of people are using their HDMI 1.3 cables for 1080p and haven't been complaining... All of a sudden, the NEWER spec comes out and most of the flavors (3 of 5) supposedly DON'T support 1080p?  Ahh, yeah.  That makes a ton of sense.

I see.  So much like we know there's no difference between the "quality" of HDMI cables up to now, you are doubtful that the differences in the HDMI cables of the future will actually exist...

Sometimes you gotta smack me upside the head...  

Just go w/ one of the easily affordable options like others pointed out.  As long as the cable is legitimately compliant w/ the HDMI specs, you should be good to go.  Don't necessarily go w/ the cheapest, no-frills, fly-by-night $0.99 cable out there (unless you don't mind taking a little risk), but go w/ what's already recommended by others (or at least sold by reputable dealers, etc).  You do want something known to be reliable afterall -- and not have it cause headaches while you try to get things set up or have it fail due to insufficient QC, etc. a few months to a year later.

Also, treat your cables reasonably, if you want them to last.  In practice, probably the weakest point (and most prone to failure) of a cable is the connector and where it meets the cable itself.  Don't force that to bend, eg. don't push it against a wall or the back of your A/V rack/cabinet.  Take a little care when you connect or disconnect the cable from a device.  I can imagine the more expensive cables *might* offer somewhat more protection toward such ends, but they are not indestructible either way.

Stuff like THX certification is mostly just a marketing ploy (like already mentioned).  The cheaper options just don't pass along the cost of "THX certification" (or whatever other marketing bulletpoint) to the customer is all.  The wealthiest (and arguably most successful) man in the country basically "failed" to get Harvard certification some years ago (so to speak), but that hasn't stopped him from building an empire that's dominated the field for a couple decades now.  

_Man_

Edited by ManW_TheUncool - 11/25/09 at 8:27am

OK, this is looking more and more like complete marketing BS by the HDMI folks themselves.  That's probably the most disappointing aspect of it to me - I can understand Monster making this crap up, but for the folks at HDMI to start doing it is a bummer.

Their online Knowledge base contains no details yet on the 1.4 spec, but here are two interesting items FROM THEIR OWN SITE regarding the capabilities of HDMI 1.3:

Q: What functionality was added to each version of HDMI?

Q: What's new in the HDMI 1.3 specification?

In each instance, they specifically state that 1.3 supports full 1080p resolution, Deep Color, and x.v.Color.

I can buy that "ethernet" capability (whatever that really means) may have required an enhancement to the spec, but as far as I can tell, the rest of the "improvements" 1.4 is supposed to provide is a bunch of crap.

Not that I really want to get off on a rant here, but HDMI.org did post some high-level bullet points on what the 1.4 spec provides.  In most cases, the cable spec is preceeding the actual feature spec.  Hardware doesn't yet exist that can benefit from these features, nor provide a source for these features.  Have the specs for the features themselves (like 3D, 4K video streams) even been determined yet?  I don't see any reason to get a 1.4 cable for at least a few years.

If anyone's interested: Introducing HDMI 1.4

Half the feature set of HDMI 1.3 has never seen the light of day (at least at the consumer level), never mind the stuff in HDMI 1.4.

There are still some supposedly knowledgable people, like Terry Paullin of WSR among others, who feel there is a reason to buy the much more expensive hdmi cables (and pretty much everything else) than the "...$14 HDMI cables".
 
He did write something I do agree with. "All things in balance, folks". I wouldn't use a $14 cable with a $10,000 display but I wouldn't use a $200 HDMI cable with a $500 32" tv either.

For most of us, a $25 Monoprice, or a BlueJeans cable for a little more, is more than adequate. Buy an HDMI cable the same way you buy anything else. Just look for what appears to be good video shielding, quality ends and an over-all high quality feel to it. If it looks to be a little bit better than you think you need then it probably will be. If it looks a bit cheap but it's quite a few bucks cheaper then don't complain if it doesn't live up to it's stated specs.

There very well could be a difference in mega-buck HDMI cables over the less expensive ones, who the hell really knows, but I doubt anyone could actually see it, especially with our modest level of equipment.

Gene...... HOW can there be a difference?? It's D  I  G  I   T  A  L  ..... It's either works, or it does not.  A 1 does not go in one side and come out the other side as a 2.... Or a 1.5 ..

I won't argue that a more expensive cable may be physically more robust and may outlast a cheaper cable, it it will not outperform it by what you see on the screen.

Actually, although in practice under normal circumstances w/ reasonably sufficient cables, that *should* be true, but that mantra does sometimes get a tad overused.

The signal itself is actually an electrical signal ... or rather, the digital signal is carried over an analog electrical carrier.  If stuff like shielding (or poor connector) somehow becomes an issue under stressful situation (perhaps due to poor QC, etc. and not truly compliant to HDMI specs perhaps), it can lead to inconsistent behaviour kinda like how OTA HDTV reception can get iffy during weather changes, etc. even though reception may be perfectly fine most times.

Of course, I'm just simplifying that -- and I'm no HDMI expert either -- but a digital signal carried over some wires is not quite as "digital" as people often assumes.

I'd add that one probably doesn't need to worry about this stuff unless one requires very long runs of cabling that may need to be snaked thru walls, etc. (perhaps for a FP setup w/ all gears hidden away as much as possible).  If you are doing things that would push close to the limits of the HDMI specs (and would be a serious hassle and might involve extra labor costs to resolve any potential cabling problems), then you should certainly go the extra mile and spend a bit more $$$ to ensure things go well for the life of the setup.  Afterall, you do need to factor in your time and efforts (and any intolerable troubles) and/or labor costs, if hiring out the setup work, into the final cost of setting up and operating your HT.

_Man_

Edited by ManW_TheUncool - 11/26/09 at 6:10am

Man did a pretty good job of explaining why I said there "might" be a difference. Shielding, poor quality connectors, long cable runs and generally poor construction once again "might" cause a cheaper cable to under-perform.

The main reason though is, as Man said, I'm no expert either so I'm not going to completely dismiss the idea that there isn't a difference based on information and arguments that go way over my head. I like to at least understand the basics of both sides of an argument before coming to a firm decision and I just haven't looked into it deeply enough to do that yet, and probably never will.

All I know is the $28 Premium cables I bought from Monoprice seem to work very well and I can't imagine a more expensive cable performing any better in my situation. However, I did pass over the $4 cables at Monoprice and the .99 cent ones at the Flea Market (which should have done just as well?) so maybe all the hype did get to me. At least a little bit.

As I said before, use your head. Buy what's approriate. If you have an OPPO or a Pioneer 51, as I do, then the Bluejeans or Monoprice cables (the Premium ones  ) sould be just fine IMO. If you have a $7000 Marantz 9004 BR and a $10,000 Fujitsu projector then maybe you should spend a little more just to be safe. On the other hand, if you have a cheap htib based system and a cheap off brand display then head to the Flea Market  .

Oh, happy Thanksgiving everyone!!

For relatively short distances (6 - 10 feet), the quality is not terribly important. Most of the actual problems usually have to do with the HDCP handshaking, which is on a return path.

A cheap cable could cause a roll-off of the edges of the square-wave, which could get bad enough to cause read errors if the receiver doesn't have good detection and buffer circuitry. This means that a Cheap TV or Player probably requires a better cable than a Premium set. (and longer distances might need a bi-directional repeater) This might seem counter-intuitive but the better circuitry should be able to supply or read the Digital signal better than a cheap one.

People, there is no "being safe" with HDMI.  It either works, or it doesn't work.  "Works" means the best picture available from the source.  "Doesn't work" means an unwatchable picture, full of sparkling and pixelization, and eventually complete failure.  No matter what you pay, your cable will give one or the other (and nothing in between).  If it gives the former (as in about 99.9% of the cables), then you have a good cable, and cannot buy a "better" one.  If you get the latter, take it back.  That's it folks; all you have to know about HDMI cables.

I'm one that believes there's no difference in cables. As was said, it either works or it doesn't. If you want to have some fun, go to the Polk Audio forums, and say there's no difference in cables. Especially audio cables............