HDMI cable made a difference in picture quality??


I just bought an a 42 inch LG LCD flat screen TV which is has full HD function. I have a HD cable box and opted to use RCA cables betwwen the box and TV. I am getting missed opinions from the cable provider and the LG dealer about the usefulness of the HDMI cable hookup. Does it actually improve picture quality??? If so,how much? and will it also improve non-HD programming??? I have seen several adds from Monster Cable and Audioquest touting their HDMI cables. Monster has one that is about $70; another is about $100. I have seen even higher price tags from Audioquest. All comments welcomed. Thanks Jim
sunnyjim
My 2 cents is try to find out if the cable you're interested in has a good reputation for staying in the HDMI port. The HDMI connector is inherently flawed in that it is a small plug that relies on friction to stay in. Some HDMI cable connectors simply fall out of the port, particularly if the cable is stiff or heavy. I had bad luck with Audioquest in this regard. If you get the cable home and it doesn't make a tight connection or risks coming out of the port, get another cable.
On my TV the HDMI cable was much worse than the component cable. That said the HDMI cable was a freebie from the cable company. Also maybe there was something wrong with the HDMI output on my cable box. I would try both and use which ever is better.
I bought some hdmi/cat 6 cables from monoprice and like them for the price and solid build quality. I dislike Monster video cables for their high margin and marketing stuff, but to say there is no visual difference between Monoprice hdmi cable and Monster HDMI 750 and up cables by Cnet and other people is just beyond my believe. Car in casino Royal looks more shiny and vivid from Monster cable than from Monoprice when bond pull over the car to pick up the aribian lady. My own HD home video looks more fuzzy from Monoprice than Monster when I quickly pan the lense from left to right. I like to say Monster cable is snake oil, but I can't.