Is Monster cable getting better?

Thanks for all your responses. One thing I want to correct: the cable I use is Monster 10000EX instead of 1000HD. I am not sure it will make a difference.

I have to agree with Loomisjohnson that most of high end audio cables are over-priced like my transparent cables. You have to pay double the price when you want to move up one level with transparent cables. The top of line transparent Opus sells for $20,000. So the price tag can reach $1 million soon if they can come up with several levels high than the Opus.

I know it is far easy to tell the difference among audio cables than video cables especially hdmi cables. According to the specs, hdmi cables should have the same performance if they have solid construction, but I am not the only one who feels the Monster or other hdmi cables look much better than the well constructed Monoprice cable.

Maybe the difference is there, but many people are incapable of telling the difference. When you do a hdmi cable comparison, sometime people will forget what they saw from cable A after they switch to cable B. My wife can remember those details better than me. For those who can’t tell the difference among hdmi cables, lucky them because they can just happily use $10 cables.

I guess Monster started it all with high end (expensive) cable. 20 something years ago, I started this hobby thinking cables didn't make any difference. However, the Monster Cable Interlink Reference A interconnect blew me away. It was way better than the stock ICs that came with your components. It was like $100 for one meter then and was considered very expensive. But look at today's high end cable market, Monster Cable is quite cheap. Hype and overpriced or not, they have a place in the audio and video business.

I agree it is harder to discern a difference between video cables (HDMI). But some people are better with their eyes than their ears though or vice versa.

I to used to think cables were difference makers,but never quite understood how other people heard differences and I didn't. Then I started reading more technical papers and got away from the magazines and cable advertising ads.
Try some of these links.
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/top-ten-signs-an-audio-cable-vendor-is-selling-you-snake-oil
http://www.verber.com/mark/ce/cables.html

Here's something I posted in another thread here about HDMI cables and video. It will save some of you the trouble of looking it up....

HDMI uses TMDS (Transition Minimized Differential Signaling) to send data. In short, each 8bit data value is encoded into a 10bit value before it is sent over the "wire".

The encoding is done to minimize the 0->1 and 1->0 transitions: The encoder chooses between XOR and XNOR by determining which will result in the fewest transitions; the ninth bit is added to show which was used. In the second stage, the first eight bits are optionally inverted to even out the balance of ones and zeros and therefore the sustained average DC level. The tenth bit is added to indicate whether this inversion took place.

In order for a cable to uniformly change a video stream that looks "better" or "worse", the random bit changes of every 10bit value would have to somehow decode to uniform changes in the resulting 8bit value. Chances of this happening - ZERO.
---------------------

Sending PCM over HDMI is somewhat different. The audio info is sent in between the video frames (blanking interval, IIRC) and is has error correction (unlike video). When just audio is sent, video frames still have to be used. However, the clocking is sent over a separate "wire" of the cable so recovering the clock on the target end and "synchronizing" with the incoming audio data could be prone to jitter.

larry

In order for a cable to uniformly change a video stream that looks "better" or "worse", the random bit changes of every 10bit value would have to somehow decode to uniform changes in the resulting 8bit value. Chances of this happening - ZERO.

While it is indeed erroneous (or at least extremely imprecise) to characterize data errors in a digital transmission system (HDMI/DVI) in the same terms that we associate with an analog system (i.e. component or RGB video) . . . it's also important to understand that TMDS is no different than other digital modulation/encoding schemes in that in order for it to work properly and deliver uncorrupted data, certain electrical conditions must be adhered to in the cable and connection.

Electrically, HDMI uses multiple shielded twisted-pair cables within a single jacket, and supports a bandwidth of 350 MHz (HDMI 1.3). Main cable vulnerabilities include high differential skew between pairs, high crosstalk, incorrect impedance, and poor bandwidth . . . in addition to classic cable issues such as high ground resistance (causing hum components to be imposed on the data).

So in terms of cable quality, there may be any number of issues that may or may not surface for any given application. For instance, does it meet the same specs in all lengths for which it's available? Is the production consistent between different samples? Do the connectors mate securly and reliably with those of many other manufacturers? Does it maintain its performance in electrically noisy environments? When twisted and flexed? When it makes a small-radius bend behind a flat-panel TV?

As always, humans have an infinite capacity to cut corners and make things cheaper, and HDMI cables are no exception. For that 1-meter length that's easily accessed for replacement, a cheap one may suffice . . . but for a 40-foot run up through the walls and attic to a projector? Well, if you don't mind crawling up there to replace it if you start having problems, then maybe a cheap one there is fine as well . . .