As I mentioned this morning, I skipped the testing on the shorter cables because, using Monster's own gear, we showed that they could carry today's 1080p signal without trouble. (One, from XtremeHD, had trouble with some extreme video simulations, but it passed all of the real-world simulations, so you can keep using it... for now.)

But as you know, both the 35-footer and 50-footer from Monoprice failed the 1080p test in the lab. I used the very same cables from the lab for the real world test below, and guess what? The 35-footer did just fine, as did the 35-ft cable from Monster. But Monoprice's 50-footer gave me some unmistakable trouble signs, as you will see below.

The TV in all of these shots is a Samsung LN-T5265F 52-inch 1080p LCD. It's nice and big, the better to spot any aberrant cable behavior. I recognize that you might think the TV's error correction is interfering with the test, to which I reply:
• I ran preliminary tests with a Sony Bravia KDF-37H1000 rear-projection set, but since it had 1080p inputs but only 720p display, couldn't use it for the finals.
• We are only testing 1080p TV signal. Given that tightened criteria, wouldn't all new "full HD" sets have at least some competent error correction?
• If error correction is truly the name of the game, then it especially doesn't matter which cable you buy.

You will notice that all of the cables in the pictures are coiled. I did that on purpose, in order to amplify any problems in their performance. If there was a weakness, I wanted to get to it.

Here are the test shots:

Monoprice 35-ft In-Wall CL2 ($35.17)
Test 1: Sony PS3 with Hellboy BD
All good

Test 2: Samsung BD-P1200 with Happy Feet BD
All good

Monster 1000HD 35-ft ($250)
Test 1: Sony PS3 with Hellboy BD
All good

Test 2: Samsung BD-P1200 with Happy Feet BD
All good

Monoprice 50-ft In-Wall CL2 ($53.64)
Test 1: Sony PS3 with Hellboy BD
All good

Test 2: Samsung BD-P1200 with Happy Feet BD
What the...? Is that screen noise?
There was actually quite a lot of noise—a bouncing picture that happened so frequently I was able to capture the effect with a still camera. I was able to reproduce the noise with some consistency, too. Here's the noise detail for you to scrutinize:

While it may seem conclusive that the 50-foot Monoprice is not a good choice, I was fortunate enough to have another 50-footer from the company, one that was not part of the original lab test. When I used it, I was not able to reproduce the noise. Furthermore, I double-checked the noisy cable on the Sony Bravia KDF-37H1000 with 1080p input (but 720p display) and again could not duplicate it.

The missing piece is Monster's "No Frills" $300 50-footer. I know some of you wish I had tested it, that it had been part of this from the beginning. I don't have a time machine to fix that, but I will say that, given how the Monster 35 footer (10M) did in the lab, chances are you're not going to see noise on the Monster 50 footer.

For the love of God, what does it all mean???
I have to say I for one have learned a few things with all of this testing, and I hope you have too. The way I see it:

• It never pays to buy a Monster cable first. It doesn't even make sense to buy the "marked down" $50 cable you can buy if you don't want Monster. Go online, order your cables, and wait.

• Even if you're going for the long haul, try a cheaper cable from a reliable vendor first. Monoprice isn't the only one. During this process I've spoken with good people at FireFold, DataPro International, and others, and tested an assortment of discount products, with no noticeable problems. I am confident that, if a vendor has a solid return policy and satisfaction guarantee, you should feel free to buy even a super-long cable from a discount house. In the case of my 50-footer noise, a quick return would have been all that was required.

• Monster has a point about future-proofing. I have no doubt, given our testing, that Monster cables can outperform other cables in video formats that are not yet in use. What does this mean for a consumer? Does it make sense to spend $300 now on a 50-foot cable, assuming you will spend thousands to upgrade all of your video equipment around it in the next few years? Logic dictates that the answer is no.

• The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins. Fortunately for Monster, there are plenty of those people. They're not even suckers, they are just rich as hell, and want the best. This testing did not prove that Monster is not the best. It just proved that the best is, for the most part, unnecessary.

This was not the easiest task to undertake, and I appreciate everyone who helped out with encouragement, tips, wisdom and wild speculation. I hope it was both entertaining and educational. For me, if I never look at another cable it will be too soon.

[]

This time, we brought along a bag full of awesomely priced cables, mostly from Monoprice, that we were ready to run bandwidth tests on, side-by-side with Monster's finest (and most damned expensive) cables.

What were our findings?

1) At short distances up to 6ft (2 meters), you can pretty much get away with any cable. Monoprice cables kicked ass at the 6 foot length that mostly everyone uses.

Not all cables are the same, however, and in truth, it's the medium-priced cables that may be the real rip-off.

2) At longer distances, cheaper cable tends to choke up. A 720p signal will make it, but even today's standard 1080p signal can fry out inside of a long cable that isn't built as well. If you are trying to hook up a 1080p projector on your ceiling to a Blu-ray or HD DVD player, this is a concern.

The tests, which fired digital signal through the cable to synthesize high-definition video, can be divided into REAL-WORLD requirements (720p and 8-bit 60Hz 1080p) and FUTURE-WORLD requirements (12-bit 60Hz 1080p and even 12-bit 120Hz 1080p). Mind you, the future formats don't exist now, so they should only be a concern when you are buying cables you intend to keep for five years, such as those you want to build into a wall.

OK, you got the results, now, don't you want to see how the test was done, and see what we saw?

Look at the pic above. The box on the left is an Anritsu Pulse Pattern Generator. To simulate high-def video, it sends signal down one of three paths within an HDMI cable, so its signal at any given time is ONE-THIRD the bandwidth of that video format. The list of bandwidth tests we ran is as follows:

REAL WORLD
• 720p 8-bit 60Hz = 742 Mbps (x3)
• 1080p 8-bit 60Hz = 1.65 Gbps (x3)

FUTURE WORLD
• 1080p 12-bit 120Hz = 4.455 Gbps (x3)
• 1440p 12-bit 120Hz = 8.24 Gbps (x3)

When the signal was sent out over the cable, its performance was measured on a Tektronix DSA8200 Digital Serial Analyzer. The argument goes like this: it may all be 1's and 0's, but what is being sent over that cable is electric current. When too much data is sent over a shabby cable, the device on the other end can't tell what is a 1 and what is a 0. The end result is video that is either jittery, full of digital snow, or flat-out not there.

The Tektronix display shows two arcs, a high ridge that stands for the 1's and a low ridge that stands for the 0's. As bandwidth increases, you will see that the arcs get fuzzier, and at the failure point, there are too many 1's that look like 0's, and vice versa.

Bear in mind, in some cases, if the cable failed at one level, we didn't go on to the next. Likewise, if we knew it passed the higher test, we might not go on to a lower test.

Monster Cable 2-meter ($120)

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - PASS

Monoprice 6ft HDMI 1.2a ($4.79)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

Monoprice 6ft HDMI 1.3 Category 2 Certified (Price unavailable, but fairly cheap)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

XtremeHD 2-meter HDMI 1.3 ($20)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - FAIL

Monoprice 6ft Heavy-Duty CL2 ($15.44)

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1440p - (CLOSE) FAIL

Monoprice 35-ft In-Wall CL2 ($35.17)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

Monster 10-meter ($230)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - PASS

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

Monoprice 50-ft In-Wall CL2 ($53.64)

REAL WORLD 720p - PASS

REAL WORLD 1080p - FAIL

FUTURE WORLD 1080p - FAIL

You will notice that even the Monster 10-meter couldn't pass the Future World 1080p test. The Monster folks said they didn't have a 50-footer in the building that they could test with, but I suspect it would have done a little bit better than the Monoprice, possibly even carrying today's 1080p. But we did not test that.

Judging from these results, I would have to reiterate my original position, that it's best to skimp at short distances, but you don't want to be caught with the wrong cable installed in your walls. Even with the projector, it might be smart to buy a $30 cable first and see if it works, but be prepared, when upgrading your gear, to upgrade the cable too. Does it have to be Monster? Hell no, but you might have to pay something close to a Monster-sized price.

The truth is, the bigger rip-off appears to be the $20 XtremeHD cable. It didn't perform as well as stuff one-fifth the price. (No wonder they don't sell a 10-meter cable.) I would say beware of mid-priced cable of dubious origin. Our dealings with Monoprice lead us to believe that at least they know what they're selling, even at such a tremendous discount.

Stay tuned for HDMI Cable Battlemodo: The Truth About Monster, Part 3, where we try to match the laboratory results with basic, in-home testing. If the Digital Serial Analyzer said a cable fails, but it works just fine in my basement, maybe I'll have to call BS. – Wilson Rothman

Monster Cable [Gizmodo]

Let's start with my allegation about Monster, which isn't mine alone, because Lee helpfully pointed out the gist of it in the opening of his presentation:

I say, since everything is digital, and since HDMI is a spec, the cheap cable will get the data from point A to point B as well as any other cable. Additionally I say that if there are subtle (i.e. videophile-grade) differences in cables, the average consumer isn't going to spot them on the TV.

Am I wrong? Monster says yes, but in Lee's elaborate answer I felt both his POV and mine were justified.

Here are Monster's truths:

Bandwidth is King.
The requirements of 1080p and beyond is what separates from the high-end cable from the knock-offs. This is the same as Ethernet cable, in the sense that a cable certified for HDMI 1.3a "Highspeed" will guarantee greater throughput. The newest spec, 1.3a means just over 10Gbps of bandwidth. Standard 480p requires less than 1Gbps, the current 8-bit 1080p requires 4.46 Gbps, but the next gen 1080p formats will require nearly 15Gbps, more than the highest certified HDMI cable can support. (See chart if you can, if not I'll try to get a better one up later.)

Not all cables are the same.
During Lee's slideshow, he demonstrated via X-Ray slides that pricier cables (OK, Monster's) have a smaller chance of wear and tear damage at the point where the cable meets the connector. t's a concept that's easy for any musician to understand—remember all of those shorting-out patch cords?

Even if it has an HDMI-style connector, it may not be certified HDMI.
You have to look for the HDMI logo, says Steve Venuti of HDMI Licensing. There are tons of knock-offs, especially the bundled or online cables, since you can't look at the packaging when you buy. Really high-end cables will certify other things, such as HDMI 1.3a and even "Highspeed."

Just because digital information is made up of ones and zeros it can still degrade, especially over distances.
I get this now, because it's not about the digital info just getting there, like packet data. It's video, so it's about the digital info getting there at the right time to make sense. It's also audio, and over distances, there's a greater chance that audio and video will get out of sync. The following pictures show a test that they run that measures data throughput. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that the more those lines crowd the center, the greater the risk of having crappy video.

This is what it looks like when a low-grade 10-meter cable tries to handle 720p:

This is what it looks like when a Monster 10-meter cable tries to handle 1080p:

Differences in cable are easily spotted by untrained eyes.
A PS3 feeding 1080p signal to a Samsung 1080p LCD TV starts to jitter and throw digital noise lines across the screen if the cable can't hack the bandwidth. We tested the two cables above on a PS3 showing a Blu-ray of Chicken Little and it was totally noticeable, there were lines and jitters, none of this videophile matter-of-opinion stuff that I had anticipated. It was totally obvious, and something that Monster says people often blame on their TV, not their cable.

Future proofing and heavy-duty cable are crucial for in-wall installation.
This probably made the most sense of all. Given the fact that in-wall cable is longer than others, you'd need something that can handle the bandwidth. (In fact, when it gets to 50 feet, you don't have many choices in the cable world for that reason—Monster says it's soon headed for 100 feet of HDMI.) Couple that with staples, kinks and other weirdness that might happen with in-wall installation, and the fact that when you upgrade your TV, you don't want to have to re-do your drywall, and Monster has a good point.

Lest you think I be drinkin' Lee's Kool-Aid, here are my caveats to Monster's truths:

• If you are going from any source to a 720p or 1080i TV set, you should really be in the clear using a full-on crappy ass cable.

• As long as you're not doing installing the wiring in your wall, start with the crappy cable. If it sucks and you only paid $20 for it, go back and spend more on something certified.

• In the demo, Monster even proved that good components can offset crappy cables: that PS3 and that Samsung 1080p were able to work around much of the problems, all the more reason why, in a non-custom non-in-wall installation, you should try out the lower grade stuff first.

So listen, you've heard it from me: there are differences in cable, but there are also differences in technical requirements. We don't all need $120 cables for our components. As to the question of why Monster won't offer a lower-priced product in recognition of these differences in technical requirements, Lee told me to "stay tuned."

OK people, let's hear it. Go ahead and vent. – Wilson Rothman

Company site [Monster Cable]
Info site [HDMIInfo.org]