Monster HDMI "Speed Rated" Cables vs. Monoprice

Here are the new Monster HDMI cables:
"Standard Speed"
2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 500HD-2M 127663-00 $69.95 ea.

"High Speed"
2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 700HD-2M 127659-00 $79.95 ea.

"Ultra-High Speed"
2 m. length - 6.56 ft. MC 1000HD-2M 127655-00 $129.95 ea.

Monster claims "the payoff is a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts, such as streaks and flashing pixels." Monster is also providing training to the Best Buy sales teenagers. One was taught that there would be less ghosting for sports action scenes (which is the basis for this thread).
http://monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3831

Here are the new Monoprice HDMI cables:
Monoprice HDMI 1.3a Category 2 Certified Cable 28AWG - 6ft w/Ferrite Cores 3992 $6.43 ea.

Monoprice claims:
"Monoprice HDMI 1.3a cables have been designed to meet the high bandwidth performance standards set by HDMI 1.3a. Monoprice cables are constructed to the highest quality with full triple layer shielding from end to end, strong, solid wire welds and the highest quality materials including high purity copper, gold plated connectors and tin plated conduits."
http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2

So like should we consumers be paying $6 or $130 for a HDMI cable? Since the Monster cable claim to prevent common cable-induced artifacts then maybe they are worth it? Is this "speed rating" meaningful or just marketing?

Monster Technical Quote:
"Featuring exclusive connector technologies and precision-wound conductors, 700HD maximizes digital signal transfer. The payoff: a breathtaking picture, free of common cable-induced artifacts, such as streaks and flashing pixels. Step up to 700HD and experience a level of high definition that's beyond expectations."
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3832

Who thinks these Monster Cables are "free of common cable-induced artifacts"?
As most cable subscribers have undoubtedly seen, cable company induced artifacts are from programs which have been downsampled from their original data rates. This is the major source of artifacts in cable broadcasts. (Shame on the industry here too)
So how can any cable claim to restore the missing data and eliminate these artifacts? Is it like an mp3 restorer?
Inquiring minds want to know!


update: fixed typos with added good humor

Notice in the above Monster referenced link there is a URL which takes potential Monster customers to an embarrassingly tacky page:
"Get all your HDMI questions answered at MonserCable.com/HDMI".

Lets see how long it takes to fix this blooper!

HDMI at 120Hz?
---------------
What is the optimal refresh rate to send high definition film based movies to today's 1920*1080p projectors and displays?
I thought it was 24p or 24Hz

From an HDMI perspective, the 24Hz data rate puts less strain on the cable than even common 1080i/interlaced broadcasts.
I mention it because Monster is advertising HDMI at 120Hz to justify their most expensive cables here:
http://monstercable.com/hdmi/advancedhdmi.asp

Is it ridiculous to imply HDMI video data rates of 120Hz?
Is Monster's ad writer confused?
Is there any display which accepts HDMI based data at 1920*1080@120Hz?
Don't all HDMI cables have trouble transmitting high data rates at extended lengths?
Does Monster advertise or guarantee the lengths their cables will transmit data at, especially this imaginary 120Hz?

Smooth Video Refresh Rate™
----------------------------
What is this new "Smooth Video Refresh Rate" as trademarked by Monster? Is it part of the HDMI specification?
How can Monster HDMI cables alone perform this miraculous feat to generate 120Hz smooth video that no one else can do?
Is there something here that I didn't even realize I needed?

No need to bump, as others are finding out too, there is a large amount of infomercial marketing interspersed with some good technical information. The Monster stuff is the least defensible and is coincidently (), a major Wide Screen Review advertiser.

Why not take our sweet time (like a cat playing with a mouse) and relish pursuing the objective truth in a responsible manner. The January 2008 WSR* is the best issue in recent memory and is recommended if you have the discernment to separate fact from marketing. So let us test the claims to see if our advice to the consumer differs from the manufactures of expensive HMDI cables.

One goal is to not let the rather tawdry cable history repeat itself. That is the egregious excesses of the analog era which culminated with the multi-channel inputs should be avoided. Manufactures, publications, installers and retailers simply loved the rats nest of 7.1 analog connections** as this meant eight cable purchases per component. All at the expense of the uninformed consumer. Toward the end of the analog era the consumer realized that he had been duped and the backlash was considerable. Now, after the flames have died down a bit (remember consumers have a short memory) the marketeers are obviously planning for a repeat performance.

Custer's Last Stand
-------------=-----
But now with HDMI, we are down to just one cable per component. So the battle to sway and convince is intense. Should anyone be spending over a $100 per cable? Is a cable more important than the gear itself? Does the cable lead the horse?

Do we spend $100 per Ethernet or any other cable? What, if anything makes HDMI cables special? It can't be in the inferior design which does not even keep the impedance constant.

HDMI Design is Something of a Mess
----------------------------------
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...bles/index.htm
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...nformation.htm

HDMI and the Chinese Connection
--------------------------------
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...dmi-cables.htm
http://www.electroniccomponents.glob...0000082766.htm



*WSR is a relatively tiny publication with a dwindling circulation of 11,672. Owned by The Ruber Family Trust (Gary and Mary). These folks are rather paranoid about any direct quotes so its best to paraphrase here.

** Its ironic that the content providers first allowed only analog connections. Now they prohibit them.

One glaring fault with the HDMI articles in the January 2008 WSR magazine is they largely focus and emphasize on just the cables.

Should not we, the informed consumer, be concerned with making sure our entire system will operate in a reliably manner?
Is not a system only as good as its weakest link?
Is HDMI Organization certification sufficient to make a prudent purchasing decision?

Should we spend most of our budget on high-markup cables?
Will buying expensive cable guarantee that our system will function once connected?

Or would a better strategy be to concentrate on each component which makes up our HDMI system and then shop for the least expensive HDMI certified CL2 cables? (Similar to how we purchase a PC with its inexpensive Gigi-bit Ethernet cables)

Here is an excellent statement from the HDMI expert himself:
"First off, the vast majority of image quality or interoperability issues with HDMI devices are related to the software used for device communication and content protection, and have nothing to do with the HDMI cable. In particular, these issues are often caused by the software related to HDCP handshaking, or from devices improperly handling the device capability information read through HDMI (e.g. the device has an incorrect EDID, or an inability to properly read an EDID). It is fairly uncommon for the cable to be the cause of HDMI compatibility problems, or for non-compliant cables to be found in the market. In fact, the robustness of the HDMI specification has been verified by the fact that we have not found a compliant HDMI cable that is the root cause of HDMI playback issues with compliant devices.

All HDMI cables are required to support, at minimum, a standard HDTV video signal (i.e. 720p or 1080i) by virtue of being tested to verify that they meet the HDMI spec requirements. This is referred to as a Category 1 test. More recently, the HDMI Authorized Testing Centers (ATCs) have added equipment to be able to test the cable's ability to support 1080p (which is 2x the 720p/1080i video rates) and higher rates up to the maximum HDMI speeds. These higher speeds are called Category 2...

"It is most important to note that the quality of the HDMI receiver chip (in the TV, for example) has a large effect on the ability to cleanly recover and display the HDMI signal.
Personally, I have seen demonstrations by HDMI semiconductor companies showing a 1080p signal run on a 50 ft cable with a clean image, and a 720p signal run on a >75ft cable also with a clean image. It's likely that these cables would not even pass the Category 2 cable test, but this seems to indicate that a high quality receiver chip (particularly those with equalizer electronics built in) can have a significant impact on the signal margins, and thus the ability to have clean image with a lower quality and/or long cable."

Correct me if I’m wrong but the HDMI Licensing Organization’s compliance testing appears be legally binding, objective and most importantly independent. This independence eliminates the potential for any favoritism or bias. It sounds like a great way to ensure that the cables from all manufactures are tested and treated equally.

Its all the assurance I need to sleep at night!

Sometimes buying expensive cables can be dangerous to your equipments health. That is, they can break the input connectors of the equipment they connect to. There is long history of incompetent designs (especially for the legacy RCA type) in the cable world as marketers attempt to add perceived value.

HDMI cables are no exception. Here's an example of a very stiff and heavy cable:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...943149#reviews

Of course there are exceptions to ever rule: Very long cables tend to be thicker and less flexible. But this special case can be planned for. The bottom line is any stiff and heavy HDMI cable must be supported externally from the equipment they are connected to. If not then budget for some very expensive repairs.