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]