Finally got a flatscreen and have entered the world of HD.

One of my first lessons I am learning rather quickly is quality of cable = quality of picture. Since I needed 2 HDMI cables I purchased a two pack of 6 foot vizio cables from Sams Club...

Mistake -- My 600hz TV looks like a 60hz.

That being said, anyone have any suggestions for good cables? I am thinking monster cables since they have a lifetime warranty and make excellent cables for music applications, but I am open to all suggestions.

DO NOT BUY MONSTER CABLES.

Do not pay more than $5 for a cable, it's not worth it. They are no better.

Either get them from http://monoprice.com or Amazon.

Six HUNDRED hertz?
holy ****.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-battlemodo/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-268788.php

I have a 15ft (I think) Monoprice cable that I run from my PC to the TV (1080P). Runs everything fine. All my others are either Monoprice or the 3/$7.99 buy.com deals. No problems.

It's a completely different statistic used lately in plasma TV marketing as an attempt to make them sound bigger and better than LCDs.

It's not refresh rate, it's sub-field drive rate, which effectively means how many times the display pulses per second to display an image. So when you see 600 Hz on a plasma TV ad, it's generally going to mean it has a 60 Hz refresh rate and the TV pulses 10 times per frame.

Well geez, I got all excited over nothing.

quote from wiki

A clever article edit by the cheap cable industry executives trying to deceive us!

The wiki-quote is slightly off. Sometimes you can get cables that will not have good connectors, and they will fail sometimes, but not always. Which is frustrating. So, cheap cables DO sometimes have problems, but it's not a quality issue. I don't think signal quality has been an issue since we all abandoned coax.

Here you go.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2106254

No. This is absolutely, 100%, empirically PROVABLE to be complete rubbish. Doesn't matter. An HDMI cable that meets the specification required is the same as any other cable that meets the same specification.

If it doesn't look good, it's because your TV sucks or the source video sucks.

Go to monoprice.com and no where else.

I just doesn't matter when you're going to have small cables (less then 2-3 meters), after that the noise-reduction might fail because of the higher impedance. Oh, and you probably want your cables shielded from EMP. They might pick up radio signals. But most cables are electronically shielded....

Digital is not analogue, as long as your cable is good enough to allow you to get a picture at all, there is absolutely no reason to spend more.

Pro tip, a £2 cheapo cable from Amazon is enough.

I live 3 miles from Monoprice, and can go pick up my orders in person on the same day if I order before 10am and nothing is back-ordered.

Yeee!

Yeah, if you buy a Monster Cable we will never let you live it down. Just get some cable off of Monoprice or similar.

:carl::carl:


Let's start with this: What exactly is wrong with your picture right now?

u need 2 buy mor mega hurtz

It's not ten times more than he expected?

Well being that I said I was new to the subject is say the ridiculing is a bit uncalled for, eh gents?

A friend has let me borrow his monster cable to try before I purchase and the difference is definitely noticeable. Several of my family members have concurred.

As for the Hertz issue I am only listing what the spec sheet on my tv instruction manual says. I don't know what more to tell you there.

I think a few of you need to remember when it comes to technology we all had to start with minimal knowledge and work our way up. Were not all born demi-gods.

This is why we are educating you.

If you want to burn money, go buy Monster cables.

No. You don't understand. This is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. A digital signal breaks if something goes wrong. There can be no small, minute differences between cables. It either works or it doesn't. It's either crystal clear or a complete garbled mess. Everything you are seeing is entirely placebo. If you did this in a double blind test, your ability to determine which cable was which would be no better than random.


So why are you saying "My 600 Hz TV is like 60 Hz!" If you don't know what it means?


There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. But you should learn humility and understand what you don't know and don't pretend otherwise.

Holy crap did I just see Emon tell someone to learn humility?

Start by *describing* the difference. If the cables aren't producing a flawless picture they are defective and should be returned.

Yeah, I thought that was funny too.

Also, x25064, perhaps you got a "standard" HDMI cable instead of a "high speed" HDMI cable (this is a serious question)?

It's only strange if you ignore all of the posts where I am explicitly modest and cherry pick the rest to form some distorted vision of what you think my personality is.

...Cables have speeds?

Emon, friend, please take it down a notch. No need to be so hostile. I am not coming here with an attitude or sense of entitlement and my apologies if that is what I have conveyed to you. To do so would be counterproductive to my posting here. The reason I have said for people to tone it down is because I am not looking to pick a fight with you or anyone. I am chill, and others should be too, this is after all, a discussion forum no? I am merely conversing and gathering information. I am not looking for a fight, I rather like you all.

What I meant by saying it "looks like a 60hz" is that-- from my understanding thus far, my TV is supposed to have above average picture quality given its features and ratings. I am not expecting the best TV in the world like others have stated, I am merely looking to get my moneys worth for a product that has been advertised and rated as above average. From my understanding of televisions thus far, 60hz is about as low as you can go quality wise. I do expect some crispness and clarity as I have seen with other television sets around the same quality as my own.

To describe what I saw when using the Vizio "ultra fast" cables:

Blu-Ray 1080p:
Textures and surfaces were detailed. Edges seemed a bit blurry. Colors were above average and somewhat vibrant. TV and player were both tweaked to optimal settings for the desired effect.

Xbox 360 1080p:
Edges seemed very jagged. Much like when not using Anti Aliasing when gaming on a PC. Fine detailed edges such as character hair appeared fuzzy. The fuzzy-ness can best be described as something similar to the effect when compressing a jpeg file in Microsoft paint.

With the Monster 800hd:
-increased clarity and sharp edges with blu-ray
-jagged edges resolved (ex running 16x AA) and fuzzy edges cleared

I was under the impression that jagged edges were directly related to the hardware in the graphics processor, so your guess is as good as mine as far as that goes. I would not post here blatantly proposing something I and others have not witnessed, so as for it being physically impossible, I am not sure what to tell you. It is simply what I observed.

Maybe it happens on the threads I don't read (most of them).

This. One of my earlier jobs was working at Circuit City and they [the managers] wanted me to sell these Monster cables to everyone and their dog but I always advised people not to buy them unless they just wanted to make me look good (we weren't paid by commission). They really are not any better at all, and even if they were, it's not worth the 85% price increase.

Find some way to get evidence of this, monster cables would pay through the nose for actual scientific evidence that their **** does anything.
Because it doesn't.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-cables.htm

Found that to be an interesting read.
Just as an added note I have a dirt cheap 20 meter HDMI that runs perfectly.

Yes, that is quite interesting.

The key point to take away is that high quality cables can help deal with signal attenuation over long distances (but as long as your cable can cope with the distance, there's no point spending any extra), but they can't actually improve the quality of the image itself.

They're the designated names. The cables have different data throughputs.



If you are sure they were all running at 1080p when testing them, then you are just seeing things (as Emon said, physically impossible for the quality to be different). As you didn't address my question, I'm going to assume you at least knew the TV was outputting at 1080p and thus have high-speed cables. But if it makes you feel better, more power to you, get the more expensive cable and enjoy your "improved" visual quality. I don't give any more ****s about how you waste your money to write another sentence. Oh, wait.

Also,



This paragraph pretty much shows how little you know about TVs. Honestly, for someone who bought an HDTV recently, I would've expected you to do at least some research as to what the hz rating, 1080p, etc. mean. Obviously, you are a dumb****. For starters, refresh rates beyond 60hz have nothing to do with the cable (in other words, 120hz/240hz/what have you is constructed internally in the TV from the 60hz signal).

I skimmed it and the tone I got was, "Cables don't really matter...but no, they still do a little! Buy our cables please! They're only a little more expensive and they matter, sort of, kind of, they do! Honest!"

I've seen these arguments go back and forth hundreds of times. It's usually between people who think they are "hands on" and "practical" like recording "engineers" vs. actual electrical engineers. Taking advice from recording artists for an engineering topic is like taking advice from a makeup artist instead of a dermatologist.

A. You don't even understand what the hz rating is used for, and thus you shouldn't even concern yourself with it. Needless to say, anything over 120hz is just for marketing, it does absolutely nothing for the picture. It'd be like having a car that can go 600mph but only being able to drive it on roads that go 120mph.

B. Everything you described cannot be explained by HDMI cable quality. Either you were using different settings inbetween each test, or you're suffering from the placebo effect. Don't argue this, because this is the only choice. In order for an HDMI cable to do what you describe, it would have to have a computer chip built in, with a power source, doing all sorts of post-processing (basically a small computer). No, they don't have this. Either the 1's and 0's make it from one end of the cable to the other, or they don't. Thus is the point of digital.

C. 60hz is as low as you can go on a TV, because that's been a standard for years. The only reason hz ever became an issue is due to the recently increasing demand for Blu-Ray 24p footage, which, for best quality, needs a display with a refresh rate of 24p, or a multiple thereof. 60hz is not a multiple of 24. And so as not to compromise in regular television (which goes up to 60hz), you need a refresh rate that is both a multiple of 24 and 60. That would be 120hz. ANYTHING over 120hz is marketing BS.

Note that the hz rating will only make a difference when playing back Blu-ray content at 24p settings. The effect will be smoother playback, especially on panning scenes. There will be absolutely no other visual difference.

Right. Just to further explain, it's because when your TV is updating 60 times per second, it can't display 24 frames in an even fashion because 60 isn't divisible by 24. It can display 30 FPS media, like TV shows, but not 24 like film in movies (and thus, Blu-ray). TVs use a technique called 2:3 pulldown to basically fudge it and make 24 frames fit. This results in an annoying "judder" artifact. With a 120 Hz TV, the TV updates 120 times per second, and since 120 is divisible by 24 and 30, it can display both smoothly.

But as mentioned this has nothing to do with sharpness, color or picture clarity in any way.

from what i've been told these stores push the monster cables because the markup on them is huge



blue jeans cable is one of those audio/videophile (in this context phile=fool) cable manufacturers (though on the lower end of the ridiculous price range... but still ridiculous) so keep in mind that page is there to try to sell you cables through BS

lets put it this way... the only people who will try to convince you that one digital cable (HDMI, DVI, toslink, etc) can give you better video or audio quality than another cable (of the same type) is either trying to sell you a cable or trying to justify purchasing an overpriced cable

plenty of home theater enthusiasts with nice big expensive projector setups use monoprice cables and recommend them because they understand that digital either works or doesn't and monoprice cables are cheap and they work

Ok I've read and understand everything that has been posted. Ill probably stick with the other cables then.

Ragna, seriously I don't appreciate being called names dude. Especially for something you misread. I never ever ever related the hz of the tv to the cable. I know the hz comes from the tv not the cable. I was comparing what I guess I "didn't see" to something i previously thought to be low quality which was not the case as cm pointed out. You all need to cool the **** off, for the third time. This thread can be closed. I tried being nice but I am not going to keep getting **** on here. Its just cables and I am just trying to understand here, Jesus ****ing christ.

Yea what's up with the hostility? He's just looking for help, good lord.

YOU SIR ARE A MORON FOR NOT KNOWING THINGS THAT I KNOW!!

Ah don't let the massassians get to ya, just doing what we do best