The thing i s you assuming because the signal is 1s and 0s that it's an all or nothing game. It's not. A small proportion of those 1s or 0s may be unreadable or undistinguishable.
No I totally understand that, look back where I explain how a few missed reads will result in a color dramatically different from the original. When errors reach a certain level the picture is dropped entirely.
10000001 may be red, but then 10100001 (which is only one bit read wrong) could be super bright purple. This is why digital errrors result in different kinds of degradation than analog. People who don't understand how the tech works assume that failures of previous tech happen the same way in current. This is why non of my family understands why when you copy a CD it doesn't get worse sounding every time... because every time they copy an audio tape it degrades.
I am not assuming anything, I know exactly how it works and I understand how each failure could result in a certain type of problem.
The one here who is assuming is you, you are assuming that due to the results you see, the issue lies within a certain part of the system. This is an assumption and the only way to remove the assumption is to either fully understand how the parts work or a double blind test.
I definately without a doubt see better black levels and colour reproduction from my Monster over my other two cables. What requirements they met i don't know.
First off find out all the details, what spec were your old cables, are they different in any way other than just not being monster (I am talking spec wise). Now do a double blind test with your old cables see if it holds up, or only when you have some outside knowledge (ie you swapped the cables).
Again I am not saying you are not seeing a difference, but I AM saying the difference is not from what you are attributing it from (ie Monster cables better quality making a better quality picture).
As for Monoprice they seem to be equally as good as Monster up to about 14 feet i believe, which is why people keep saying there is no difference.
We just did a run at work, ordered 35 ft and 50ft monoprice cables. They are run in a wall with tons of other noisy electronics. Not a sparkle to be seen.
There is definitely a difference, I do believe monsnter cables are better quality, but there will be no real world difference. If I was going 75ft or more I might reconsider but would still not bother with monster. There are better values for higher quality cables.
In reality I think nowadays, even the lower end (not necessarily absolute low end) cables are about on par with the top end ones in real life performance.
Trouble is most cheap HDMI cables arn't as good as the monoprice ones and don't meet the HDMI 1.3 cat B requirement which both Monster and Monoprice do.
It's quite possible they are not as good quality as monoprice, and none of them are probably as good quality as monster (as I covered before) but they probably all carry the data reliably, and even if they didn't, the result would not be blurrines or washed out colors or less deep blacks... it would be sparkles, or no picture.
I have only paid £30 for the monster so i don't feel mugged. It's built to a better quality and is more future proof.
Well how much do good generic cables cost over there? I mean if I bought a lightbulb that normally sells for $200 for $50 I wouldn't feel as ripped off, but if a similar performing lightbulb sold for $5 all the time, I would still be unhappy.
The point here is, if you don't care, then that's fine, but if you do care and want to know, the truth is you got ripped off and bought into worthless marketing. How much you got ripped off for is not the question. I personally hate getting ripped off for any amount even if it's not much. I just don't like being the sucker who bought into the lie.
It's like saying why buy an F430 over a Z06.Both technically will offer similar performance, but it's in the build quality and complexity where the former shines.
Kind of, but if you were to use that anaogy the correct question would be can they both reach 65mph reliably. The answer is yes. Maybe one a little bit snazzire than the other, but when the requirement is to perform 65mph, then they are both equal even if one can actually go 300mph faster than the other. Also with HDMI the only objective is to get the bits from here to there; analogus with the cars would be can they get you from home to work. To say one HDMI cable makes the picture better would be like saying one car gets you there and you come out more tan.
Look Dan, I understand why you don't want to believe this, but if you will actually be objective about this and sit back, you will see that you are making a statements based on what you see and not how the components work. If you could see and understand how they work, you would understand why what you see cannot be caused by what you think it is. This is how magic tricks work, you see something happen, and the most reasonable explanation is it's magic. Once you disect it you realize what the real problem is.
Let me say it again, saying HDMI cables can make a difference in image quality (oustide of a spec increase) similar to analog improvements is like saying:
One brand of CDR has better sound quality than another brand.
When you copy a document file, the grammar gets worse and spelling gest worse. Also the letters are no longer as well aligned and sometimes the text gets fuzzy.
If you know how they work (which I assume you do) you know it's not true.
http://ehdmi.co.uk/tag/monster-failes-cat-2-test/
Highlighted the important bit above...
