Monster Cable setup a mobile test lab at CEDIA this year, challenging any cable manufacturer to a head-to-head battle. Only one attempted to enter, but didn’t see disclaimer that Monster wanted 4m cables or longer in the match up, and that particular maker didn’t have HDMI cables that long.
I know what’s yelled whenever a Monster Cable HDMI story comes up: Monoprice-4-evah playa! I hear ya, but take a look at what the test equipment that Monster Cable employs to prove their cables are the best. It impressed me.
Monster Cable provided an engineer for some hands-on tests. The unit on the left simulates bandwidth, with the number in the top left representing the number of bytes being ran over one of the three HDMI channels. (multiple that number by three for the total cable capability) The monitor on the right provides a real-time image of the HDMI signal. Ideally, a cable should have narrow bars with a large center ‘eye.’ The bigger the bars and the smaller the center eye, means more noise in the digital signal thanks to lower quality manufacturing and parts.
The way the engineer explained it to me is that viewers will not notice the difference in short runs because of the loss can be compensated by the HDTVs processors. Apparently, with longer cables, the extra noise is more noticeable and therefore the need for higher-quality long digital cables arise.
Okay, onto the tests.
The first test was ‘brand-x’ 4m cable. It passed the 2.23GB test which is fine for high-def cable TV.
The cable failed the 4.95GB test though, which according to Monster Cable means viewers will notice digital artifacts from Blu-ray players and PS3s.
The Monster HDMI cable passed the same 4.95GB that the off-brand failed. The lines on the monitor are a lot tighter, representing less digital fluctuations.
The engineer even threw the test thingie up to 14.85GB total throughput, and sure ‘nough, their cable passed the test. Notice that the lines are larger though.
I know this was their test equipment and it could have been rigged, but I have personally noticed digital artifacts on long HDMI runs so the company’s claims do have some weight with me. Monster Cable even said that on short runs, digital loss is cut to a minimum. This hands-on experience didn’t swayed my opinion ’bout the company, but rather open my eyes to the different HDMI options.
So if you can excuse me, I have a kool-aid mustache I need to wash off.
I wonder when they’ll release some awesome cable cleaning fluid? Hopefully there will be a different blend for each cable type and length.
** ENTIRE TEST WAS A FARCE. **
THREE sets of equipe… ( NOTE REFER TO HDMI SPEC.) Why so many.. A Network Analyzer and a pair of baluns made by Ed Lee At LiTek in Taiwan. That’s all one needs.
Further more, To do a full sweep takes 20-30 min. for each cable depending on length for all all parametric testing and thus you have a complete ” eye pattern”.
( Call Tektronics, HP, Etc..) This sweep tests for FXT
(far end cross talk), impedance, skew, etc..
In this particular Monster test, a “monster sweep” was accomplished in less that 30/59 seconds depending upon the
” PROGRAM ” they manually selected from their connected lap top which is illustrated in your photo’s…
This was CEDIA… it’s a targeted ” installer demographic ” that companies target and some even entice their client with a Doobie Brothers concert or a promised ride in an exotic car..
At this particular venue last week in Denver all was behind a blacked out closed door, engineers and tech police; no where to be seen… Come to any ones closet they’ll tell ya everyone’s elses punch sux…. ( To the author : did you ride in a Ferrari/Lamboghini or perhaps go to a Doobie brother concert drunk on all that punch ??? )
I DARE MONSTER TO PULL THIS TEST AT AN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE WHERE REAL ENGINEERS WHOM WORK WITH THESE TOOLS ARE PRESENT… i.e. HDMI DEV CONFERENCE, INTEL DEV CON, OR MACWORLD, ETC..
THE SMOKE WOULD MAJESTICALLY CLEAR .. As it would be self regulating and the 20 year old ” know it all’s would suffice to be present to tell you what you need “..
I have no idea what this guy is talking about but I like his style.
I just read this information from cedia about testing bandwidth of HDMI and found it pretty informative. the reason (as stated) that they would not test shorter lengths is that generally all cables (regardless of construction, cost, etc…) that have hdmi 1.3 or better specs, will pass 1080P and deep color over short lengths.
we were at cedia, attended one session. all comers were welcomed, I could see no policing of who attended and monster generally answered virtually all questions poised to them.
as I gathered the point they triedc to make, as that the increased bandwidth neceessary as sources ability to do 12 bit color, higher refresh rates etc… is todays poorly construction cables, won’t be able to keep muster when you upgrade to a true 1080P source (not broadcast or satellelite HD). I must take exception to the comments by this rick foringer person, who seems to hold some sort of grudge against the company monster, AND thus looses all credibility with the average and mostly informed readers
I doubt the Monster test set-up was rigged.
However, it doesn’t matter that the Monster cables tested have a higher bandwidth than the cheap cables – HDMI cables in home use will not see the types of bandwidths they are discussing here (for several years or maybe EVER). It’s analogous buying a 20″ diameter drain pipe over a 10″ dia. drain pipe option when a 5″ drain pipe will work.
“But the 20″ drain pipe (Monster product) will accommodate the flood waters (4k HD) in 15 years”.
Who cares?! Buy the cheap cable and when (IF) the time comes where you need to upgrade, buy the 10″ drain pipe.
Ask yourself…Why doesn’t Monster just do a simple A-B comparison with REAL world components (between a PS3 and a Projector for example). Why?? Because they know that NO ONE would see a difference (no matter how much kool-aid they drank). You’re nuts if you spend more than a $1/foot on HDMI cable.