I also have Monster 1000HD. It is quite good and compare well with other cables in the same price range. The only cable that beats the Monster 1000HD is my Kimber HD29 in my setup. But the Kimber cost is double the Monster though. |
No. I think they are now clearly responsible for promulgating myths. There is a fine line between good high quality cables and mumbo jumbo. Monster crossed that line years ago. |
Monster 2000HD is rated for it speed, but is a fine cable when matched w/ a superior monitor. Many variables to consider when stating......Better. All connected components must be optimized to realize cable potential & rendering. Tryed em all, just as with audio, must find the proper synergy, Just an observation. Some cables are cat 1 or 2, monster 2000HD was designed to bridge the gap between HDMI 1.3 & upcomimg 1.4 |
I think their cables are quite ordinary. I also refuse to buy them based on their legal strategy of taking to court any company that has the word monster in its title, even those that do not relate to audio. This article is worth reading....
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back |
If you think an HDMI can make video look "better" or "worse" compared to another HDMI cable, please do some reading on how HDMI works for video. It's impossible for a HDMI cable to uniformly change a video stream of encoded bits. If you do see a difference, it's not because of the cable - most likely faulty recollection or faulty hardware. |
as someone who's never grasped much difference between well-made cables, i don't understand why monster gets slammed for "promulgating myths" or hyping their (comparatively) modestly priced products when virtually every purveyor of mega-buck cables does the same thing. like coca cola or mcdonalds, monster has invested a ton in building brand awareness; i say more power to them. those folk that consider big businesses to be intrinsically more evil than small businesses can make buying decisions accordingly; everyone else can choose to benefit from the cost and technolgical advantages incident to economies of scale. |
Monster and Bose are consumer driven companies as opposed to "audiophile" driven. |
Although on paper HDMI cables shouldn't make any difference as long as they are made aocording to spec, I do see the difference which is not substantial but noticeable. However, their difference is not as big as audio cables which can sound very differently among so many brands. |
I'm with LoomisJohnson. Monster is, if anything, the least guilty of hyping, given the relatively low cost of their products. |
an audiophile is an consumer. |
I would say that they're all (nothing but marketing).
Buy sturdy,well made and correct size cable and spend the rest on the music. |
My understanding of HDMI cable is along the same line as Larry_s. |
There are many companies besides Monster that make HDMI cables in all sizes, construction materials, and price range. HDMI cables are made by Audioquest, Analysis Plus, Cardas, KImber, Nordost, Straightwire, PS Audio, etc.
Try audio adviser.
http://www.audioadvisor.com/products.asp?dept=238or. |
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 . . . |
I always found Monster cable to be too polite, when I listened in the past. I felt something was missing in the treble, sort of a rounding off of the high frequencies and loss of impact in the low bass. |
Monster is a company of shall I say? a Questionable ethic. I wouldn't buy any monster product. First, I'm not convinced and second I can do just as well or better without supporting Noel Lee. Without spending a penny more.
After there Heavy-Handed go around with Blue Jeans, that was it. |
Monster, in the early/mid 80's had the best single ended interconnect on the planet. It was the "Shotgun" design invented by Bruce Brisson, and Monster is still using it (as are a lot of other cable makers, because the patent has long ago expired.)
Bruce left Noel early in the game (I wonder why! ;--) to start MIT which he still owns. He developed many more patents, like the network box termination, which Monster and others cannot use. (Lots of folks put "me too" boxes on their cables but most are virtually empty ;--) He also designed the original Monster 'time coherent' speaker cable/wire -- you know, the stuff with the different sized, separately resin insulated strands of copper that forces all frequencies to get to the other end of the cable at the same time? You couldn't solder or terminate them unless you had a solder pot to burn of that insulation, which people used to unsuccessfully try to scape off with a knife!!
So in the beginning, Monster got very big, very fast, because Noel had the sole rights to Bruce's original patent; and thus, for awhile, had no competition. And Monster has been 'dining out' (or trying to) on that amazing initial success, ever since! They could have built on that success, even without Bruce's genius, by developing all kinds of new cable technology. But Noel was already so addicted to profits and marketing that he thought he could skip basic research. His high-end competition from that early time is still in business, and still very much respected (Kimber, Audioquest, Straightwire were basically 'it' other than Mogami in the pro audio/studio market.) |
Kirkus, you are right on the money and thanks for adding that. I was ignoring the cable length and quality issues because trying to keep people from falling for the "voodoo" that's rampant with analog video and audio. Also, at one point in the "history" of HDMI/DVI all receivers and transmitters were not "equal". Some people with long connections would replace a source or target device and the connection would no longer work properly - no connection or sparklies. Although I haven't noticed this reported recently.
Getting back to Monster, their cables are usually well constructed and work - just way too high priced.
larry |
We did lots of blind tests for hdmi cables and my wife picked the Monster cable every time. |
The higher-end monster has never been seen as the "bose of the cable world" by serious audio nuts.
Some M series items are quite good actually, and designed by serious engineers.
What turns folks off are the marketing tactics and the fact that 90% of monster products are not up to the hype, and particularly the fact that the finish has become 3rd class (solders, assembly, etc... made in cheap factories you know where). |
Never tried monster audio cable, but the connector for the monster 1000EX hdmi cable is very good. It is small and light, but you feel very smooth and secure when plugging into the TV. Other high end hdmi cable connectors are all big and bulky(make you feel it worth the extra money), but don’t fit into the TV connection as great as the monster one. Bigger and bulkier doesn’t necessarily mean better. |
I find their RCA interconnects and spools of speaker cable are good warm sounding copper cables, with slightly more resolution and detail and bass as you go up the line. Product names and lines are hopelessly confusing, perhaps by intention but probably more by accident over time as they serve different constituencies. |
I would like to defend Monster Cable and Noel Lee. The whole wire and cable thing was started by this "marketing" guy, and now look at the industry. I sold his cables back in the day and have used them as well. It is true Bruce Brisson, before moving on to another company, designed his earlier works, it was Noel that had the concept that wires and cables made a difference. Monster cable had two audiences. The regular consumer and the pro market, which consisted of studio folks and musicians. Bashing Monster and Noel Lee is unfair, because if you look at the prices for some cables out there, you will find MC is quite reasonable. I have found them to be very well made cables with good sound and non system dependent. The HDMI cables are extraordinary, and anyone who cannot see a difference, I cannot explain. Just like some claiming they cannot hear a difference between cable brands. Call it snake oil if you want. The eyes and ears do not lie. Thank you..... |
What do you call a bunch of Monster cables??? "Monster Mesh"...or was it "Monster Mash", and "he did the mash, and it was a grave yard smash...." Sorry, couldn't help myself with that popular old song....:-) |
I tried some Monster analog interconnects and they sounded OK but the connectors were just too tight. I was afraid of breaking something every time I connected or disconnected them.
Mark |
Go ahead and buy Monster products if you wish to support a company that is determined to bully any and every other company, especially the competition. I guess that's America. |
Leave monster cable alone right now! |
Sonic-wise I thought the Monster M2.4s speaker cable compared very favorably to the similarly priced Purist Audio Musaeus. Build quality-wise I thought the Musaeus a bit better. So I think Monster quite capable of making good-sounding cables, but their build quality is not quite up to the smaller, specialty cable companies. |
your Monster. I own all three and now just use the Monster as a back-up in case I ever want to hook up an extra component.
I bought mine at a big box store too, and thought it was decent until I bought the PS Audio copper/silver HDMI cable for my stereo and broke it in on my flatscreen. The Monster went on the shelf. Then I bought the PS Audio all silver HDMI and broke it in on the TV also. I love it, and it is slightly better than the other one, but it's going on the stereo and the copper/silver cable will go back on the TV.
Yes, the PS Audio cables cost more, but you can literally see and hear the difference. If you have a revealing audio system or HD TV, then it's worth the extra money.
As to your question, are they getting better? I guess I'd say compared to what? For most people, the Monster1000 would probably be acceptable, but I've just given you two that are better. The decision is yours. |
i was a rep for monster cable in the late 70s and they raised the bar for a while. recently i needed a pr of ics and all they have around here in the sticks is monster cable and they were so tight they broke the plugs on the back of my amplifier.i bet this has happened to other consumers and will never buy them again. but the whipping they take is a bit much, now bose is another issue entirely. 3 dollar tweeters? sorry |
I've recently dissected a few newer models from Monster Cables, the iCable, the HD1000 and some ICs. My findings are the following:
1. Poor quality copper, noticeably lighter and less dense. When you touch them they don't feel like metal at all.
2. Poor quality connection -- easily broken due to the tight RCA connector (the solider work is so bad that it's not even close to what it used to be)
3. Noticeably cheaper material used, i.e. the insulation and the RCA connectors.
Bottom line: Compared to the old school "Monster Standard", the newer line of cables are not even close in terms of material used and the craftsmanship
The iCable cost $29.99 in retail stores and in my opinion not even worth $2.99.
The so-called "THX Certified" interconnects are equivalent to "I am a piece of junk". |
I have heard a much better sound out of my son's electric guitar and my Roland v-drum set with monster cable. They offer a lot of improvements compared to the cheap interconnects found in music stores in terms of NOISE, dynamics and clarity. |
