Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by kcolg30, May 12, 2010.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Monster's price on everything is a joke!
The signal either locks or it doesn't. Monoprice cables lock on to the signal just fine. Taking electrical measurements about what % of the signal is getting there is utterly meaningless until the signal falls below the level that the receiving end can render into an image on screen.
The % is a lot more relevant with a Dish, as you want to know how much headroom you have for rain, snow, and various atmospheric conditions to come in and weaken the signal, and still be above the cutoff where the box errors out on the signal.
I am only relating the info as it's presented by the testers. With that said, if digital were just digital then all we would need is right number on conductors connected to the correct pins and voilà, we have pristine HDTV.
Keep in mind I’m a Mechanical Engineer, with the emphasis on mechanical, but if I understand correctly it’s more complicated than simply assembling a series of digital information packets. The following is from one of the Gizmodo articles.
"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."
According to those who say “digital is digital” this is a complete and total lie. Well, it’s a “lie” that’s I’ve run into many times when researching HDMI cables. In the Gizmodo article they didn’t seem to be measuring signal percentages but rather wave forms, their positions, and separations. Honestly, I don’t have a clue what I’m looking at in those pictures but from all the various write ups I’ve read signal degradation has an effect on picture/audio quality. Yet, you and others maintain there is ZERO change in PQ until the TV can no longer “render into an image on screen”; IOW, pristine or nothing. :shrug:
Am I incorrect in my interpretation of the following article when it seems to me that they’re clearly saying, and demonstrating, that as the signal degrades so does the PQ?
No. I am not claiming that they of poor quality...just not superior to other similar products from Monoprice, Blue Jeans, etc.
Very simple. Monster is run by thugs with no business ethics.
I agree that for longer runs, running through walls etc you need to be more careful on your cabling. It's not just Monsters price, its the litigious nature. If it's true they sued Fenway Park over the Green Monster, or Disney for Monster's Inc., that's going too far. But at least those are big companies with money. If Blue Jeans Cable weren't run by a former attorney, it could have ruined them, just in cost. Monster certainly had no right to win on the merits.
What's kind of funny I've actually been confused a few times. I thought Monster Park was named for Monster.com. But I'd never think they made transmissions.
Their aggressive legal attacks are definitely overboard. :nono:
But the key here is that the cable can't go below that "threshold" when it is piled up with a bunch of other cables behind a TV cabinet. This is only true with HDMI. With component, if I were to use them to transmit HD, I would get the RG-6 cables from Monoprice, which are very thick and heavily shielded for a component cable. The RG-59's are fine for SD/ED (480p), since it doesn't use as much bandwidth.
If there's enough signal there for the receiving end to put it together, then it's 100%. If there's not, it's 0%. There is an extremely narrow in-between where the signal is dropping off, and MASSIVE macro-blocking occurs during this drop-off, but it would be virtually impossible to find this level outside of a lab with a very carefully tuned signal attenuator.
Digital PQ is 100% or 0%, or on the tiny line is the middle that causes horrendous macro blocking.
The research lead me here...
”Here is the Digital Myth stated in several ways:
"There is no variation in digital picture quality due to signal strength."
"Digital signal is an "all-or-nothing" proposition."
"You either get the picture, or you don't. The picture quality doesn't change."
"If you have lock, you'll have the best quality picture available."
These statements are all false.
The digital all-or-nothing idea was begun as a way to market the newer, more expensive, digital technology. What began as marketing has become "science". They contain misinformation gleaned from the marketing not science.
The truth about HD televisions, receivers, and digital systems, is that they are capable of producing a stable, but lower quality picture. At times a lower resolution picture is presented. Your picture may look blurry, grainy, blotchy, and be lacking realism. It may also look like enhanced definition instead of high definition.”
The site provides plenty of support for these assertions...not opinions but white papers and articles. It’s an interesting read but very dense. From what I can gather that last statement is pretty much true. I’m still wading through the equations, graphs, FEC, MPEG, SCV, etc. but it seems to hold up in the face of it all...Interesting.
Have we answered your question yet?
I'm gonna sue EVERYBODY who's also named Kevin-Everybody on here change your names IMMEDIATELY!!! :lol:
Reminds me of the joke that Microsoft was going to sue everyone named Bob, or the real mikerowesoft.com lawsuit.
Ok, but the question, then is, does HDMI do that? I don't think it does. I know ATSC-8VSB doesn't, and I know satellite signals don't. I have never seen any indication that HDMI would "step back". That would also imply that even if it could, there would still be a point where it's 100%, and there's no point in going farther. In the analog world, you asymptotically approach a perfect signal without ever getting there, and the farther you push the curve out, the more and more you spend with less and less return.
I think his point is what happen when the signal degrades it effects the PQ. Based on the pictures in the Gizmodo article I now think it's possible. Over the really long lengths (50) where the test gear showed signal degradation, they showed noisy pictures and ghosting...things that we were all told isn't supposed to happen.
The one thing I am sure of; if it’s 6’ or less, any cable will do. Further, for you Monster fans, the Monster cable was clearly superior in the greater lengths...up to a point. I think if I were going 50’ from an AV closet to an overhead projector in a media room, I’d probably find a better way than one continuous cable Monster or not.
I can see that there are already enough posts in this thread against Monster cables, but I will add to it by saying this. There are around ten HDMI cables in use in my home and their lengths vary from 6 feet to 25 feet. All were bought from eBay or Monoprice and costs including shipping varied from $6 to about $15. I always go for the lowest possible price I can find anywhere.
It is also important for me to mention that I have never had any problems at all with any of those cheapy HDMI cables. When I go into certain major electronics retailers to do a bit of window shopping, I find sales people who are emphatic about the positive reasons for spending $100+ on Monster cables. The Monster company has never done me any harm and I would say there is no doubt their $100+ HDMI cables are of high quality. The problem with that scenario has been answered many times already. That is - you can get the same results from Monoprice or eBay for way cheaper. In fact, the money you $ave on ju$t one cable purcha$e would approach the price of a new Blu-ray player.
For what it's worth, I'll take the "free" 3 or 4 foot HDMI cable that comes with the HD DVR receiver before I give monster a single nickle. In fact I would never give monster a single nickel no matter what, not when I can get better cables from firefold or monoprice for a lot less money!!!
I agree with you...almost. While the cables are cheaper they are not "better". Monsters are top quality.
They just don't provide better picture quality in the shorter lengths. However, they did provide better PQ in the longer lengths. Deny it all you want but every comparison I've read agrees on this point.
IMHO, I don't see any reason to spend the money but that doesn't mean other people who do are wrong.
How many ways can you people say the same thing? Someone please stick a fork in thread, it's done!
What's the amount of ways people can say similar statements? A metal eating utensil needs inserting in to this topic by any person due to it's completion.
I don't know what the spec reads, but I strongly suspect that the spec doesn't allow for cables that long, and thus they shouldn't be making 50 foot cables. For runs in walls (i.e. data closet to projector) there are active systems that have their own power supplies and use CAT-6 cable to achieve runs up to, I think, 148 feet without picture degradation.