Interesting report from PC World...
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,121777,pg,1,00.asp
As we have indicated on this forum many times, there is no difference in ultimate picture quality between a modestly priced cable and a "luxury" cable (like Mon$ter).
I would have preferred if the PC World testing were done "double blind", but the results in this case are "the same" in that the actual performance of the cables was "the same". Yes, there were minor differences in some electronic measurements.
Interestingly, one "failing" of the $300 Mon$ter brand HDMI cable was that due to the weight of it, it fell out... Quite the opposite of the connectors on the Mon$ter Component Video cables which are almost "too snug" and have been known to damage the equipment they're connected to...
Edit: We have had similar comments from others on this forum - the heavy cables can either fall out, or damage the HDMI port on equipment, due to the weight of the cable. The lighter (28 ga) cables can therefore be better for your TV, provided you don't need the 22 or 24 ga for in-wall installations or long lengths like 15'+. (25' changed to 15' due to newer specs (HDMI 1.4, 3D, etc) in recent years, as per below)
The cables tested cost US$18-$300.
Edit 2010.09.09 (modified for additional bandwidth for newer specs, BD, etc.): Another test result with similar results, however, at longer lengths (15'+) or for in-wall applications, it's best to get a "good" cable, just as we have repeatedly stated here. For longer lengths, suggest 22 or 24 ga.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-battlemodo/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-268788.php Link may take some time to display, be patient.
Long Cable Test... Mon$ter not worth it again.
Edit 2008.02.24 - MarketPlace confirms the same:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=81285
Edit 2008.12.16 - CNET:
http://reviews.cnet.com/hdmi-cable/?tag=mncol;txt
...and the money missing from your wallet (57)
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,121777,pg,1,00.asp
As we have indicated on this forum many times, there is no difference in ultimate picture quality between a modestly priced cable and a "luxury" cable (like Mon$ter).
I would have preferred if the PC World testing were done "double blind", but the results in this case are "the same" in that the actual performance of the cables was "the same". Yes, there were minor differences in some electronic measurements.
Interestingly, one "failing" of the $300 Mon$ter brand HDMI cable was that due to the weight of it, it fell out... Quite the opposite of the connectors on the Mon$ter Component Video cables which are almost "too snug" and have been known to damage the equipment they're connected to...
Edit: We have had similar comments from others on this forum - the heavy cables can either fall out, or damage the HDMI port on equipment, due to the weight of the cable. The lighter (28 ga) cables can therefore be better for your TV, provided you don't need the 22 or 24 ga for in-wall installations or long lengths like 15'+. (25' changed to 15' due to newer specs (HDMI 1.4, 3D, etc) in recent years, as per below)
The cables tested cost US$18-$300.
Edit 2010.09.09 (modified for additional bandwidth for newer specs, BD, etc.): Another test result with similar results, however, at longer lengths (15'+) or for in-wall applications, it's best to get a "good" cable, just as we have repeatedly stated here. For longer lengths, suggest 22 or 24 ga.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hdmi-cable-battlemodo/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-268788.php Link may take some time to display, be patient.
Long Cable Test... Mon$ter not worth it again.
Edit 2008.02.24 - MarketPlace confirms the same:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=81285
Edit 2008.12.16 - CNET:
http://reviews.cnet.com/hdmi-cable/?tag=mncol;txt