While I do agree that cables are overpriced, they are that way for a reason. Markup on the actual electronics, like TVs, is relatively small, if there is any, and the money has to be made somewhere. I worked at Future Shop for a while, and learned a lot about TVs and cables. This program was misleading. Yes, there is no picture quality difference no matter what HDMI cable you get, but that has nothing to do with the price difference. I do believe the sales person selling that TV should be fired immediately for using false information to sell product, and I can honestly say that Future Shop does not encourage such practices. The Future Shop exec that was spoken to near the end of the piece was correct- there is a HUGE difference in manufacturing and quality of product between that twelve dollar cable and the Monster cable. Monster cables will last FOREVER. They are gold plated, have maximum insulation, protect against surges, etc. If you want to replace your cable every six months, go with the twelve dollar cable. Your best bet if you have money to burn, is to go with monster. For most people, I'd say go with the Rocketfish. Every time I watch, this show disappoints me with its misinformation. I'm getting really tired of it. Posted by: Stephanie Murfin | Feb 20, 08 07:02 PM

I never miss your show and am now in the market for an HDTV and when I watched this episode I was amazed as I have been through the barrage of shop talk at both the locations you had on your show. I now am researching the cable factor further as you have shed light where no one else has before. Posted by: wally cuvelier | Feb 20, 08 07:10 PM

I bought one of the "12 dollar" hdmi cables and have been using it for over 1 year now on my 52" lcd and love it. Can't tell the difference and no issues with it at all. Great show! Posted by: Jason Clapp | Feb 20, 08 08:00 PM

I watched your episode about the HDTV cabling. I myself use an HDMI midrange priced cable, and I had no idea there is a quality difference between a 20 dollar cable and a 250 dollar cable. Here's the thing I want to know from marketplace: do the 12 dollar cables you get online get disrupted by Electromagnetic interference (or EMI, also called radio frequency interference or RFI)? Does the shielding on the 12 dollar cable stand up to the quality of the monster cable? Posted by: Tory All | Feb 20, 08 08:02 PM

I have bought Monster cables and will buy them again because I had a failure at one time with one, and I got a free replacement. I am a guitar player and use the cables because the sound quality is clearly better. They take much more abuse, and of course, the warranty makes it worth the purchase price. I have found that for the most part, the better the quality of most electronics products, the higher the price. If I can get the quality on sale, that is what I prefer! Posted by: Paul Schumacher | Feb 20, 08 08:04 PM

This piece is in sync with Consumer Report's findings. They also said that there was no point spending 100's of dollars on cables -- getting a generic shielded cable was just as good. I wonder from where Marketplace ordered its cheap cable. Posted by: h dancey | Feb 20, 08 08:08 PM

I've worked for both Future Shop and Best Buy through the course of my college years. While I was working at Future Shop I brought to management a concern I had with another employee pressuring a customer into buying something they didn't need, almost to the point of lying about the product they were selling. Management shrugged it off saying that he was a 'seasoned employee' who 'surpassed his sales goals.' Future Shop employees make big bucks by selling cables and the 'product service plan'. I hate to say, but when making extra dough is on the associate's mind, they might do just about anything to get that dough in their pockets. As for the Monster Cables, I have no doubt that they are made from 'better' materials. But there are products that perform just as well that won't die (unlike what Future Shop associates might tell you.) Chances are you're better off with the $12 cable even if it dies after, say, 3 years... you're still paying less for all the replacements over the life of your TV then you would pay for one Monster Cable. Posted by: Nikolas | Feb 20, 08 08:14 PM

I recently ran into this HDMI overpriced cable phenomenon, but from a very different angle. When I bought my 1080p TV almost a year ago, I also bought two HDMI cables, at $80 and $40. While the expensive cable had no problems at all, the cheap cable failed to perform at 1080p resolution. 1080i and 720p worked fine, but I got garbled green lines at 1080p. I later replaced this cable with one of the $12 online cables, and it worked, but there was a physical difference between the two: the online cable was 24 gauge while the $40 cable was 28. The $80 cable was also 24 gauge. It seems to me the gauge of the cable (smaller is better) does play a role in quality. To this day I do not know if the cable failed to perform at 1080p due to a manufacturing error, or because the cable was simply poor quality. I would be happy to provide the cable to Marketplace if they would like to perform any tests on it. I think Marketplace should have taken a moment to explain the differences between analogue and digital signal quality. While low analogue quality produces a fuzzy, but otherwise intelligible signal, any data loss in a digital signal can produce an entirely corrupt result. There is no “fuzzy signal” in digital. Either it works - perfectly, as your engineer stressed - or it doesn’t. Also, I noticed that the test was performed using a DVD player. I am under the impression that standard DVD players put out a 480p signal, which is far below the demands of a 1080p signal. How would the cables have fared in the test if they were performed at a higher bitrate? Furthermore, could tests have been performed to find out the failure point of each cable? Perhaps 1080p is as high as things go today, but could more expensive monster cables be "future-proof" in providing a stable signal at higher bitrates than a 1080p signal? These issues are important and should be addressed before the topic is put aside. I would very much like to see a follow-up episode which covers these topics. Posted by: Simon Ludgate | Feb 20, 08 08:23 PM

Marketplace where did you get this 12 dollar cable from? Posted by: db | Feb 20, 08 08:30 PM

HDMI cables carry a digital signal so they are not susceptible to EMI/RF interference. I don't know if I am allow to post where to get them online but here goes, http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2 Posted by: jason clapp | Feb 20, 08 08:38 PM

If you want a good resource for HDTVs check out www.digitalhome.ca. This is a Canadian based user forum that discusses anything and everything related to home entertainment. www.monoprice.com is an online retailer that sells HD cables for around $10, and they are great quality. Research online as much as possible before buying. Posted by: anthony | Feb 20, 08 08:43 PM

I think MARKETPLACE should have disclosed the name of the on-line retailer you purchased the $12.00 cable from. Internet sellers are also part of the marketplace and they should get the same treatment as the big box stores you visited. It seems that your program is more interested in 'undercover' camera work than in presenting the full story to consumers. Sensationalist and entertaining, yes, but not as informative about the MARKETPLACE as it could have been. Posted by: Terry A | Feb 20, 08 08:54 PM

I'm kind of curious as to why you would be going to Best Buy and then to Future Shop and making comparisons between the two. Are they not owned by the same company? Posted by: glp | Feb 20, 08 09:01 PM

Marketplace should be complimented on this subject since most people have no idea about electronics. There idea to get scientific proof concerning all HDMI cables being the same was brilliant. My advice is to learn as much as you can about HDMI or ask a Home Theater expert like myself. That will help you to be future proof. For example, Blu-ray defeating HD DVD. Take a look at www.monoprice.com and you will be amazed. Make sure your HDMI cable IS a HDMI 1.3 or HDMI 1.3a or best HDMI 1.3b. NOT HDMI 1.0 or HDMI 1.1 or 1.2/1.2a Posted by: Chris "knuckles" Nilan | Feb 20, 08 09:19 PM

HDMI is a digital signal so as long as the frequency along the cable hits the range making it a 1 or 0 there will never be a difference. It is the same principle that makes your CPU work and all the other digital signals in your computer and digital electronics. Posted by: Bob | Feb 20, 08 09:59 PM

You at CBC Market Place did exactly what you should have. I am an electrician and no matter the use of copper on cables whether it is for a 25000 volt transformer or a mouse for your computer, copper is the highest quality. MONSTER CABLES ARE THE BIGGEST RIPOFF IN THE ELECTRONIC/ELECTRIC COMMUNITY. STAY AWAY. Posted by: Adam Badzioch | Feb 20, 08 10:10 PM

You're like 60 Minutes with a velvet glove. Technology is far outstripping consumers' ability to learn & absorb the new products. Unless consumers have a healthy dose of skepticism and a relatively good understanding of technology, they are bound to be overwhelmed by all the 'techno hype'. Bottom line [as an electronic technologist], I suggest you buy the less expensive (or cheapest) device and if it doesn't work to your expectations, move up a notch. If no noticeable improvement, then the accessory may not be the problem. Posted by: John Beck | Feb 20, 08 10:57 PM

While I am not a regular watcher, I always got the idea that your show was from an objective viewpoint. I was disappointed watching this segment. Instead providing all the information, you glorified the information to back your case. You knew the answer you were looking for, and naturally you found and proved it. You have a responsibility to provide all the facts, there is so much wrong out there worthy of your time. A show with your reputation can do significantly more harm to understanding by claiming to be an objective voice, and failing so miserably in achieving this goal. Posted by: McKenzie | Feb 20, 08 11:08 PM

The 12 dollar HDMI cable will perform just as good as the 300 dollar one for most applications. However marketplace did not do a thorough investigation. There are major differences when you factor in A)length, over 5m and HDMI signals begin to get out of sync B)HDMI 1.3+ requires huge bandwith which the 12 dollar cable cannot put out C)cable construction, durablity of the connectors as well as actual insulation is important when you plan, i.e. running cables through walls Posted by: z | Feb 20, 08 11:18 PM

Search www.digitalhome.ca for cables and you will discover anything and everything you would ever need to know. Then stay on the site and learn everything you will ever need to know about everything else electronics. Just say NO to Best Buy Future Shop and Mon$ter! Posted by: Bob | Feb 21, 08 12:28 AM

Great show - I am curious why the $12 cable was tested and not the $37 "Best Buy" brand cable...did it produce similar results? Is it a good deal for those who do not or cannot shop online? Also, what brand was the $12 cable? Is it available in stores as well? Posted by: arthur thomson | Feb 21, 08 09:04 AM

I was disappointed yet again by your show. I was surprised and interested to learn that the three cables tested performed to the same standard, but the shopper had purchased three cables and the lowest cost one (in the $50.00 range) wasn't tested. I wonder if it didn't perform to the same standard, which wouldn't have supported the story you wanted to portray, so then was left out of the report. Also, no mention was made of the possible reasons (other than price gouging) for the price difference in the cables. They may be made of or cased in superior/inferior materials which may cause different cables to last longer/wear out faster. How can the consumer be a savvy shopper if we are yet again given misleading information. Time and time again I come away from watching the show feeling like I've not been given the whole story, or have just watch a lesson in "spinning". I used to think CBC's Marketplace was on my side, however I'm coming to realize that the producers are just packaging and selling a product like everyone else! Posted by: Nola Haidl | Feb 21, 08 10:47 AM

paid $20 for my 15 foot hdmi cable... it's a digital signal, so it's either working or not. When I ask the people at futureshop or London drugs for their cheapest cable, and they say $70, I laugh at them and tell them I'll never pay that for wire. I bought a shaw HD box and the guy at London Drugs told me I should buy a DVI-HDMI cable, even though it comes with a component cable in the box, he said the quality was better. I said I didn't believe him. That was another no sale The guitarist that buys monster because they stand up to all the abuse, how much abuse does a cable sitting behind your tv take? If you're going to be using it as a skipping rope, then fair enough, but if it's sitting in one place sending 1's & 0's down the wires constantly, I'll buy the $20 cables for everything. And one more thing... the monster cables and rocket thingy no name cables, they're probably all made in the same Chinese factory anyway. Posted by: John | Feb 21, 08 11:34 AM

Why did Marketplace decide to go to the retail end and tear into the salesmen when you should have gone directly to the manufacturer and learned why the cost of these cables are so high. By going to the retail level all you're doing is proving how stupid/smart the salesmen are and not the actual facts from the respected manufacturers. Posted by: Tomas | Feb 21, 08 12:47 PM

I found the CBC's testing approach unconvincing, and rife with bias: 1) The CBC hosts a watch-the-CBC party and then puts the two TVs back to back? The normal and logical way to compare the signals would be to put them side-by-side, so that you could compare them in real time. If they wanted to get the average Joe's opinion, then they should have set them up side-by-side at a mall and run a Pepsi-challenge type poll. And there shouldn't have been any free snacks and drinks provided. 2) The CBC consults a CBC technician to provide supporting evidence for a case the CBC is making. Hmmm...does that sound unbiased to you? Why not find an objective third party, instead? I'm not arguing either side of the piece--just pointing out that the CBC's rhetoric rings pretty hollow without more convincing evidence. Posted by: Wissam | Feb 21, 08 01:17 PM

I just happened to attend a industry demonstration of HDMI cables and have a problem with this article. What was the GBPS that was put through on the testing gear? Was his gear sensitive enough? Broadcast gear may not be. Even the expensive brands admit that 1-3 meters no difference. once you get to 4-5 meters the lower hi-resolution signals 1080i and lower seem to work (your cable box was 1080i 60hz max so they will not see a difference) but as Blu-Ray gets to 1080p 60hz and higher 120hz and 240 hz are coming. The differences were huge enough that some cables worked perfect at 1080i and stopped completely at 1080p 60hz. Nice try but when i see someone do these reports the outcome is always pre-determined. Posted by: S | Feb 21, 08 02:30 PM

@John | Feb 21, 08 11:34 AM. Component cables carry an analogue signal. DVI and HDMI carry digital signals. A digital cable between your cable box and HDTV should indeed provide a better picture. So the London Drugs sales-droid was correct at one level, just not in trying to sell you an over-priced digital cable. Posted by: Jim | Feb 21, 08 02:54 PM

I'm with John. We were snookered into buying a $165+ Monster HDMI cable when we bought our HDTV from FutureShop last year. I needed 2 more HDMI cables to finish my system and didn't relish the thought of spending another $400, so I did a little research. The Marketplace story is right on the money - I found some HDMI cables at Great Canadian Superstore for $16.99 each and they're every bit as good as the Monsters. I keep my cables well secured and tucked in neatly behind my system where they're not subjected to any 'abuse', so that's a total non-starter. Monster Cable's EMI-resistance and 'superior construction' excuses are meaningless at best and outright lies at worst and make absolutely NO difference to 99.9% of consumers, and obviously the tests bear that out. Thanks, Marketplace. Posted by: Tony | Feb 21, 08 03:09 PM

Many of you have been asking about where we got our $12 HDMI cable for the "Packing the Deal" test. Due to our show being 100% commercial free, we do not want to endorse particular products, but to aid in your search, the cable we bought was 15ft, gold-plated with male-to-male connectors and was priced around $6 U.S. (before shipping). Trying searching for that online, and you should get lucky. Posted by: Bret, CBC producer | Feb 21, 08 04:25 PM

I was thrilled to see the edits in the section where you spoke to the Future Shop merchant manager. You asked him why he thought the price was higher - he answered truthfully that the quality of the materials and cable construction was higher on the Monster cable. Your rebuttal was that the signal quality was the same - which had nothing to do with what he had stated. When are Canadians going to wise up and realize we spend more money funding the CBC than we ever would on cables? It's time for this dinosaur to have it's funding cut. Posted by: Graham Williams | Feb 21, 08 05:59 PM

While I agree that Monster and other expensive cables are a waste of money for digital type cables - HDMI, DVI, SPDIF coax/toslink, etc., they can be beneficial for analog connections such as component video. I had a problem with interference in my condo / area causing my HDTV to display some sort of interference lines on the screen and only upgrading to a mid-level cable would fix it as they were better shielded and this is what monster and other brands got their reputation for good shielded cables but exorbitant prices. I would like to see Marketplace test Component video cables as well since there are a lot of TVs and DVD players out there with these. Now I wouldn't buy the $150-200 component video cable but a modestly priced $50-90 cable is worth it if you are prone to interference in the area you live. Posted by: Brian | Feb 21, 08 07:29 PM

A very important aspect of high definition that was not referred to in your program is bandwidth. No doubt most people are aware of the difference between high speed internet connections versus dial up. This comparison can be equated to high definition TV as well. In your test group of hockey fans and even your CBC tech, the signal sent through the HDMI cable was pretty standard. I challenge you to make the same comparison with a Bluray DVD player. The issue is the cable's capacity to transmit the bandwidth put out by the source. Ask your CBC tech. The inferior cable will need more error correction at the receiving end and as a result the picture will suffer. I guarantee this is visually noticeable. High definition broadcast TV is to Bluray as dial up internet is to a T2 connection. Ask your CBC tech. There may not be a difference between the higher end pricing but the inferior $12 cable will most certainly be left in the ditch for dead in a high bandwidth comparison. Posted by: George | Feb 21, 08 08:47 PM

I'm not surprised Monster didn't want to participate in Marketplace's segment. The simple fact is the less expensive cables are just as good for watching HD content on your TV as Monster's premium cables. PERIOD. If the cheaper cable is properly made and you're not needing extra long cables, then they are fine. People, you are not getting any extra value for your money spending $200+ on HDMI cables!! Just because Monster and some retailers tell you, doesn't make it so! Don't believe the Monster fanboy hype. Posted by: Jasper Jay | Feb 22, 08 08:10 AM

I just came from the future shop site checking out the FAQ's on HDMI cables. There is an example of what a bad HDMI-cable picture might look like. Future shop even refutes the all cables are created equal myth-which Marketplace has proven to me to be basically true. Check out the FAQ's and maybe do a follow up on what Futureshop is saying about their HDMI products and what the truth actually is. Posted by: Melvin Mac Donald | Feb 22, 08 08:32 AM

I find it very interesting how some of these tests were performed. As previously mentioned, it seems so peculiar that the 2 tvs were tested back to back. Was that a strategic move to distort the test results? However, this is not by any means my main concern. It's even more peculiar that there was no mention of the quality of signal being tested with the different cables. Was it a signal at 1920 x 1080 resolution? Or was it 640 x 480? Perhaps just a single audio signal. One of the MAJOR differences in cables is the bandwidth they are able to transmit. You could spend $100,000, or $100,000,000 building a 2 lane road. No matter what the quality, 2 cars will always be able to drive side by side. However, if you want 10 cars side by side - you need a bigger road - hands down! Quality may not matter for certain signal - but the higher it gets, the higher it needs. An inexpensive HDMI cable may be perfectly suitable for an up-converting DVD player - it only transmits a hair over 480p. However, you might want to consider a higher-bandwidth cable for the 720p provided through your hi-definition satellite receiver - and furthermore, even higher for your 1080p blu-ray. No one ever once pointed out the bandwidth descriptions displayed on some monster cable packaging. The report was insightful, but not all of the right testing or research was administered. As helpful as it may be to assist consumers in their purchase decisions, it's wrong to mis-lead them by not providing all of the information. I can see there has been previous mention of bandwidth in the comments - hopefully more in number will help to educate anyone seriously considering high-definition. Posted by: Dohn | Feb 22, 08 11:22 AM

I have a been a huge of supporter of CBC market place but I have to say this was somewhat misleading. you are suggesting that customers are always getting ripped off if they choose the more expensive ones. I have been in and out of the retail business for about 20 years know and I always thought that the consumer has the choice to purchase what product they believe is going to benefit them. Secondly, retailers do not make money off the larger items so the retailers need to make money off of accessories, but to trash talk these items in a unjust manner to general public is unfair. Posted by: serious watcher of cbc market place | Feb 22, 08 06:03 PM

A lot of people are saying the expensive cable is worth it for warranty. After working many years in the tech business I can tell you even the 12 dollar cable has a lifetime warranty against defects as do pretty much all machine made cables. Posted by: Greg | Feb 23, 08 07:56 AM

Monster and FutureShop prove that P.T. Barnham was right..... It's not that they're bad cables, they are just overpriced, way way overpriced. Posted by: Wayne Cook | Feb 23, 08 04:13 PM

Excellent show! Your show was very much in line with the findings of Consumer Reports, in that Monster Cables are a complete waste of money and are just marketing hype to create huge profit margins. A friend of mine works at Future Shop and he says they’ll regularly give people a deal on the price of the TV to give them the idea they’re getting a deal, but only if the customers is willing to buy Monster Cables. For those who say, yeah but it’s worth spending $250 on Monster Cables because of the warranty is great and they’ll replace them for free it there’s a problem. Newsflash, if you had problems you could replace the $12 cables twice a year for 10 years and still be a little ahead of the cost buying the Monster Cables. Plus in 10 years there’ll likely be new technology that uses different cables anyhow. In short if you want to flush the money down the drain, hey knock yourself out. I’m happy with my cheaper cables and I’ve had no problems whatsoever. Posted by: Aaron J. | Feb 23, 08 04:20 PM

I appreciate the viewpoint which CBC brings to consumers with the show "MarketPlace"; it is beneficial to have a trusted source bring some often needed constructive criticism or consumer advocacy to industry and commerce. However, I was disappointed with your coverage on this segment. I agree that cables are overpriced, and that often you don't need to spend the most money to get the best cable. That being said, I have worked in the Home Electronics and Pro Audio industry and know that the $12 cable is NOT the same as the $100 one. The difference in quality cannot be measured by price, in this you were correct. But there are far more factors involved in the quality of a cable than it's ability to carry a signal from source A to source B than your test was able to show. Your test or coverage did not include may of the other factors that contribute to signal loss. For example a high quality cable will be constructed to adequately handle interference from any other cables (audio, video, or power) that are within 6". Most people don't know that for the best performance you need to have proper separation between cables, most people bundle the cables coming out of the back of their TV together with a twist tie. In this case, the $12 cable you showed will not provide the same quality as the expensive one. You need to be sure that you include the appropriate information for consumers to make an informed decision, not just the information required to discredit the manufacturer and reseller. Posted by: Caleb | Feb 23, 08 04:24 PM

Good report. Makes a lot of sense. All of the people who spend lots of money on Monster cable have reasons to doubt the findings, but none of them are scientifically sound. Posted by: Peter | Feb 23, 08 04:25 PM

While I agree that Monster and other expensive cables are a waste of money for digital type cables - HDMI, DVI, SPDIF coax/toslink, etc they can be benefical for analog connections such as component video. I had a problem with interference in my condo / area causing my HDTV to display some sort of interference lines on the screen and only upgrading to a mid-level cable would fix it as they were better shielded and this is what monster and other brands got their reputation for good shielded cables but exorbitant prices. I would like to see Marketplace test Compnent video cables as well since there are a lot of TVs and DVD players out there with these. Now I wouldn't buy the $150-200 component video cable but a modestly priced $50-90 cable is worth it if you are prone to interference in the area you live. Posted by: Brian Olmsted | Feb 23, 08 08:00 PM

Stupid consumers should educate themselves before blowing their money on a new high-def TV. HDMI is a digital signal that either works or doesn't. It's 100% or 0%. Get the cheapest HDMI cable you can find. Component/Svideo/Composite are analog signals that degrade. That's where you should spend the money on a better cable. The component cables that come with your TV are crap. The same with audio. Get a cheap digital cable, but spend more on analog cables. If the consumer can't figure this out (hint: try the Internet), it's too bad. Don't blame the retailers. Posted by: tv watcher | Feb 23, 08 08:01 PM

I am an avid supporter of the Monster product, being taught that it’s the best product on the market, much like many people have been taught that Sony is the best and most people are willing to consider buying Sony TVs (trust me I’ve worked in electronics for about 2 years total). Even in places such as Zellers where it's very unlikely you will find a high-end TV, I have heard customers ask if they carry it. But I do agree with CBC almost 90% anyways, because I have discovered myself that there is NO…difference between a 40$ cable and a 250$ cable. Not always being able to afford a 129$ Monster HDMI for my Ps3 I settled for a much cheaper 69$ cable made by Energx (a company I have previously never even heard of) and to be honest it's made no noticeable difference, the quality of the signal is good, the cable is well made – gold plated, surge protected, electrically shielded, etc. – and its also guaranteed for life! Now…if I was helping a person buy an HDTV and its accessories I wouldn’t hesitate to offer this $69 cable to them, in fact I would not even suggest a Monster cable in most cases (unless they were videofiles that are obsessed with the “best”). There are a few things I don’t agree with though – a) You may not NEED to pay $30 on Monster Screen clean (there are cheaper products that work about the same) BUT, screen clean REALLY works, and I use it for everything electronic, I even use it to clean things (other than screens) that get smudged/dirty, b) though the tests are legit the tester was using a monster connecter/adapter, not that this would “change” the results, it's just an interesting fact and last but not least c) I am a student in Television Broadcasting and know FOR A FACT that ALL of CBC’s HD equipment is hooked up using Monster cables, in fact they are industry standard! Posted by: John Anderson | Feb 24, 08 09:51 AM

Thank you Marketplace for exposing this scam. Unfortunately you missed something even bigger. Both Futureshop and Bestbuy have a side-by-side comparison of Monster Cable brand vs. Standard cable in most of their stores here in Quebec. They have 2 TV's, or 1 TV with Split-Screen, showing the image quality difference between the 2 cable Brands. What they do not tell you is that in reality, the high quality image is produced using 4 Cables for each Red Green Blue, Gamma signal on 1 TV, and a Standard single Composite signal on the other TV. Composite is by default, worse quality, because the source must combine signals into one, and then have the TV derive the RGB values from it, whereas RGB offers separate, discreet signals throughout. Composite is old technology. When looking at this Futureshop display, I knew that there was something more to the huge image quality difference. When I tried to look behind the TV I was told not to do it and that I might "get a shock". WHAT?? I looked anyway, and my suspicions were true. When I asked the salesperson why they were attempting to sell Monster cable this way, he told me he would get the sales manager, but surprise no one returned. Posted by: The Futureshop Inolvement in the Monster Cable SCAM | Feb 24, 08 12:40 PM

The salesmen at Futureshop may be somewhat correct about build quality, but he is only slightly correct. First of all, most of these components come from the same place, its up to the factories to build them and ship them. The main problem here, and why the Futureshop rep isn't doing a great job explaining, is that Monster Cable is high quality build, but so are a lot of the cheap cables. Monoprice, Blujeans cables, etc. They are 2 companies that are very popular among Home Theater enthusiasts and professional builders. Not a single professional is going to say "get the more expensive cable", not a single one. The cables I use on my set up here are all from Bluejeans cables, they are BETTER quality than any Monster Cable brand cable. Better build materials and better building process (They use double bonded techniques). So it doesn't matter is Monster Cable has some better made cables, because they aren't the best, and the better ones are drastically cheaper. This is the problem with Monster Cable, they are marketed towards people who are basically ignorant of the truth. Not a single pro would ever use them, that is a joke. As for the people talking about BETTER testing, well sure.... pass a 1080p/60 or 1080p/24 signal with a 3.0GB signal through the pipe, let the wire be coiled for maximum error effect. Doesn't matter. Guess what? Gizmodo did far more extensive testing! You can pass future world specs, like 1440p and 5GB of information down a 12 dollar cable that is about 25ft or less, with no problems. The signal is 100% retained. CBC did a fine job here I believe, most of the people watching this need to know this is a total RIP OFF! And the other small percentage already know this, and have known it for years. I applaud the CBC. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/the-truth-about-monster-cable-+-grand-finale-part-iii-282725.php Posted by: Sandy | Feb 24, 08 02:36 PM

For all the shortcomings that people see in this particular show, I can't find fault with it. Journalists have to squeeze the essentials into a certain time, and they've done a decent job of it without glossing over much. I think they should have pointed out the difference between versions of cables and lengths. Anything else is ridiculous nitpicking. Independent research available on the net also confirms their results anyways. Posted by: GurjeetC | Feb 24, 08 04:11 PM

We hear a lot of people bad mouthing monster cable equipment &(prices). We are very satisfied with monster cable, their prompt service & warranty. We purchased a $150 monster cable power bar for our big screen TV & video equipment last Dec. and had a power spike that fried the power bar & several other things on the powerbar. We contacted monster cables 1-800 # on the back of the powerbar told them what happened and they sent out a powerbar immediately & were willing to compensate any other damage caused as the powerbar should have protected it. Question is would the lower end power bars & cables give the same warranty & service hassle free if a customer had the same problem? Posted by: Bev | Feb 24, 08 05:36 PM

Hey, I work at best buy, and I have to agree with what several people have pointed out. This was not a very fair comparison, and is very misleading to the consumer. While I do recognize that many salesman will sell cables that are much more than what a customer needs, sometimes monster cables will be the more sensible choice. Many people pointed out that they did not put the tv's side by side, which seems extremely strange. Also, as others have said, they did not state the resolution of the image they were broadcasting for the test subjects. Also, the cables were under very little stress and no bending. Many people wall mount these tv's, and a monster cable will provide a superior image as it can be bent just fine without breaking and distortion, whereas the dynex or $12 cable will have the pins within the cable break. Also, most of these cheap cables are not built to spec for in wall wiring, which is very important for some people as well. Also, there are no other components around for the tests that are performed, so there is minimal interfering signals around the cables. All this aside, for those who do not need an extremely durable cable, the 1 meter 300 series monster cable costs $83.99, compared to the dynex cable which goes for $39.99 While the price difference is significant and there will likely be no difference in picture quality, Monster has a lifetime warranty. Dynex will claim a lifetime warranty as well, but I have personally tested both warranties and you can practically cut the monster cable and Monster will replace it, while Dynex is a lot more picky in what they replace. Simply put, I do not think that $83.99 is an absurd price for an hdmi cable guaranteed for life. Posted by: Shane - Best Buy Employee | Feb 24, 08 10:24 PM

part 1 Although I do agree with some of the findings in your Monster cable report, there are many things that I disagree with as well. I actually laughed out loud when the Best Buy sales representative said that a specific Dynex cable is “crap”. HDMI cables, (and digital cables in general), do indeed carry very similar video signal, but to say that there is no difference between cables is absurd. After spending your hard-earned money on an expensive TV, it seems stupid NOT to pay a little extra money for enhancements. When buying a high-end automobile, I would rather pay more money to purchase better quality oil during an oil change than to settle for a lower grade. I don’t notice my car running more smoothly afterwards, but I do have peace-of-mind knowing that I have done my best to ensure that it runs at its peak performance. That being said, your comparison of two TVs used only a Rogers digital box and no other equipment, (such as surround sound), that could interfere with the video quality. Not to mention that cable, (as opposed to satellite), has the weakest HD video quality and HD TV is only 720P signal while Blu-Ray movies are 1080P. You also used a higher-end Monster cable that is 1.3 certified for higher bandwidth devices or meant to be used with 1.3 surround sound receivers, which was unnecessary in the context of your demonstration. I’m not a science major, so I don’t know how much performance degradation would be caused by converting a cable’s signal, yet I noticed that an adapter was used while testing each of the three cables. Bill Nye the Science Guy had an HDMI-to-DVI/VGA converter plugged into the computer from each cable’s end. That was just one more misleading variable in your attempt to disprove the necessity of quality cables and TV add-ons. Posted by: Martin H. | Feb 25, 08 12:22 AM

I will finish the rest of the video when they do a proper test. When they tested out the Future Shop/Best Buy home brand cable Rocketfish cable at 6:37 they used a grey DVI adapter that looked like it might belong to a computer or and old Star Choice box. Then at 6:52 the $12 cable they bought online was used with what looks like a "monster dvi adapter". Tell me when you fix that then Ill finish the rest of the 3 minutes that's left. Posted by: B4MV | Feb 25, 08 01:34 AM

As a computer and HD retailer myself, I don't agree with the report in the sense that it lends to the fact that you should buy a cheaper product that you need to replace on a greater frequency rather than buying a quality product that never needs replacing. The question is... how valuable is your garbage? Posted by: Kyle | Feb 25, 08 09:35 AM

- During the hockey game viewing, what source was being viewed? The digital cable box shown in the background is an older 2000 series which doesn't have HMDI outputs. - TV's should have been side by side for direct comparison. - Were the spectators educuated on what to look for? Colour differences/bleeding, detail loss, jaqgged edges/blurring? Tv's used were Sharp 64 series which only have 60Hz processors. Should have used the 82 series for less blurring, more detail. - All cables not tested, was the Dynex truly "crap"? - Using a DVD to test HDMI output? Which player? Was it set to 480i, 480P,720P, 1080i or 1080P. Should have used a BluRay or HDDVD. - FutureShop rep clearly states superior build quality over the cheap cables and reporter responds, their engineer said the cables were the same. Engineer never mentioned build quality. - Reporter makes reference to Monster stating their own tests show that their cables are better, why wasn't that segment aired? Thanks for leaving the average consumer with more questions than answers. Posted by: 3M 3TI8 | Feb 25, 08 10:25 AM

I am an Audio Video specialist, I owned an A/V store, I have a degree in electronics. The $12 (if not damaged) cable will ALWAYS perform the same as the most expensive one, if you claim otherwise this is the placebo effect. BUT, you should buy a cable that is well shielded; any signal analog or digital is sensitive to EMI/RF interference. Those interferences, if large enough may/will damage your electronic equipments, I know I been there. A good shield is required. Also a good jacket will protect the cable from physical damage and gold contact will prevent corrosion of the contacts, therefore buy the "online" $25 cable, not the $12. If your cable is more the 8M long use a 24ga cable (less lose of voltage on the signal), for less then 8M the 28ga cable is alright. Although HDMI specification does not define a length limit, you may experience image degradation and loss of frames on cable longer the 30M, but you may not. Given the same wire gage and a decent shield, Monster or any other expensive cables will not make a difference. As for the “lifetime” warranty, you may break 10 “cheap” cables before you break even with the $250 cable. I install many, many, many cables; I do not break one cable per year. Enjoy HD! Posted by: Alain | Feb 25, 08 10:38 AM

I completely agree with this article. For those of you looking for cheap, high quality cables (HDMI and otherwise), check out www.monoprice.com. They are well rated, high quality cables. Good shielding, the shipping is very fast and they come well packaged. For the posters above who lament that 12 dollar cables can't support the bandwidth requirements of HDMI 1.3 (somewhat of a non-issue at this point with little support as yet), monoprice does indeed sell HDMI 1.3 compliant HDMI cables, for 12 dollars or less. And they work great. Posted by: Mike B | Feb 25, 08 11:57 AM

I watched the Marketplace segment and noticed a glaring omission. The focus of the report and testing was on the Video signal/quality. HDMI cables also carry audio signals. No mention was made of the audio quality. Perhaps there could be a followup segment that would deal with the audio component. Posted by: Shachindra | Feb 25, 08 01:25 PM

I have regularly used Monoprice for cable purchases for myself, and my company. I try to let people know about the scam that the big box stores are pulling, and point them to the internet or local stores that have reasonable cable pricing. Posted by: Daniel | Feb 25, 08 10:43 PM

Spot on as usual. But if you fell for the pitch to "pack the deal" at Soundsaround in Alberta, you can forget about getting a refund, credit or exchange on the product. I bought a Monster Power Center because of their claim that it would help filter AC power line noise on my subwoofer. It made absolutely no difference, and I returned the product to the store. Approaching the service counter, I noticed, too late, the "No Refunds" signs. I gamely tried to negotiate an exchange of the product for something useful, and was informed that "there are no exchanges for used, opened, installed or delivered products". That pretty much covers everything that goes out the door. Regrettably, I've learned that Soundsaround's customer service ethos can be summarized in two words: "buyer beware". Posted by: ROD VALLAS | Feb 25, 08 11:50 PM

Your video comparison was very flawed. First of all if you want to compare pictures, have the TV's side by side, not back to back. They were not comparing the picture qualities in your demo. Second of all, there was a delay when you "switched" HDMI cables and your subjects would have forgotten anything they saw. Third thing, you were showing a picture that was 90% white screen. Do you think that your average viewer will see a difference from one white screen to another? Why didn't you actually go to Monster to get them to show the differences? Posted by: James Thorp | Feb 26, 08 10:02 AM

I found the segment very misleading. It seemed to focus only on building the case of bashing the more expensive cables without justifying the cost differences. If so why not go direct to the manufacturer? Future shop and best buy employees along with many other retailers obtain their information from training provided by the Manufacturer, e.g. Monster. Posted by: Anthony | Feb 26, 08 03:16 PM

Great story. I work at a high end post production facility that produces HD programming. I talked to our engineer about this story, and he agrees. Actually we buy a lot of our cables at Active Surplus on Queen street. For $12, I'm not too worried about wearing out the cables. They pretty much just sit there collecting dust. How much wear and tear can they be getting? I'm sick of the box stores trying to upsell me products and warranties. Posted by: Editor | Feb 26, 08 04:04 PM

I would just like to say that having worked at Best Buy for the last 6 months I really do think that Monster is a better quality cable. I have had 3 dynex cables break on me the end has snapped off. That said you fail to mention that there is more of a mark up on dynex and rocketfish then there is on the average monster cable. Where I work none of us push the ultra cables because the average person will not see a difference. The monster 2m flat screen series at 76 dollars I think is a good value. Also Monster backs their product. I'm sure they would talk to you and explain their side. I would like to see a more unbiased testing process as well use a third professional party not a CBC employee who's using a signal generator that had at least one adapter on it. Posted by: Danny | Feb 26, 08 09:12 PM

Let's face it, we the consumers are well aware of prices, we all have the internet and can find information easily on just about anything. Now Noel Lee (the head monster as he is known) started his company in the 70's with the intention of creating the absolute best quality connections for sound. He is a true audiophile and is respected highly in the music industry. I don't really wanna bother trying to convince anyone on this forum about how important quality connections will make your system perform best to its ability, as everyone here has already made up their minds and just are looking to hear what they want. I feel consumer report magazines and shows like marketplace play good cop, vs bad cop(major retailers), and rarely if ever reveal their testing methods, or even how they came to their conclusions. So buy premium fuel, or don't cause gas is gas. Buy blade steak vs t-bone, cause beef is beef. Drink water from the tap vs purified water, because water is water. We all make our own choices in life, don't look to justify yours. Posted by: kris olofson | Feb 26, 08 09:37 PM

I am very disappointed that our tax money is spent in such an unprofessional way. The story was missing so much valuable information and one sided. Bret the CBC producers post of Feb 21 is insulting to say the least. He states that the program is commercial free so they would not mention the brand name of the $12 cable yet CBC had no trouble mentioning the Monster, rocketfish and dynex brands from a negative stand point. Also had no problem mentioning the number 1 and number 2 electronics retailers in Canada by name. Negative advertisement is ok? Your so called test was a farce, very poorly done. Posted by: No Fear | Feb 26, 08 10:14 PM

What a great job you've done I mean I am so impressed, making people look like con artists at their jobs and also making Future Shop and Best Buy look like evil corporations must make you sleep well at night. First of all I do not work for either of these companies, secondly your test was just conducted with so many holes, and I mean you could have done a better job. Problem 1# you have two TVs back to back this doesn't do the test any justice for proving either point. 2nd the men watching the TV are drinking beer and are most likely drunk so how can they see a difference in detail. 3rd lets get technical HDMI cables are not all created equal forget the construction and all the fancy trimmings. Monster HDMI cables have the ability to transfer up to 10 GB of information per second, DYNEX, Rocket Fish and any other no name HDMI’S have a bandwidth of 2.2 GB of information. To test and HDMI cable properly you should have used an HD source rather then that Standard Definition CBC channel because HD sends more then 2.2 GBPS. That would have been a much better way of conducting your test. People don’t buy HDMI cables to watch Standard Content they buy them for HD content. There are a lot of younger people whom work at retail outlets that put up with enough attitude from customers and now you have just made their jobs even worse. I would not have a problem with this test if you conducted it with some integrity and professionalism. You see not all sales people are honest but not all are scam artists. I think you should ask your self who the scam artist really was in that situation. P.S Wouldn’t the company be more inclined to sell you their house brand cable seeing as how it would obviously have a lower cost then the expensive monster cable? Maybe they are selling you that cable for a honest reason. Posted by: Matt | Feb 27, 08 10:17 AM

To get a proper understanding of the issues relating to HDMI cables go here: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/1984/hdmi-13-the-missing-link.html and here: http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi and here: http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/hdmi-1-3-cables-bitrate/?searchterm=hdmi%20cablesTo Posted by: Chuck Collins | Feb 27, 08 08:41 PM

This reminds me a lot of the wine business. The uneducated buyer goes in and thinks a $50 bottle is way better than a $20 bottle just on price. Not also true and often not. One thing to remember is that pricing strategy is one of the 4 "P"s of marketing. Monster is obviously trying to position itself as an upscale product by their pricing strategy, which has very little to do with production costs of the cables. Monster also out-promotes and out-packages Monoprice (mine came in a nondescript US Postal Service corrugated box with the cable wrapped with a bubble sheet in a plastic bag), but the Monoprice product is at least as good and less than 10% of the Monster price. And they also feature a lifetime guarantee and good customer service. Posted by: Mike Vormittag | Mar 1, 08 08:00 PM

I worked for an electronics retailer a few years ago. The markup on cables was about 400 percent! And that was on the cheap cables! Can you even comprehend the profit Monster is making on it's $200 cables? It's sick. I use the cheapest cables possible, and have never had a problem. Posted by: John Larq | Mar 4, 08 10:17 AM

Obviously some of the people leaving comments have a hate-on for the CBC and would rather focus on that than the original topic. I appreciate what the show is trying to do which is make the consumer more aware of their purchases and become better informed. Is it wise to take the sales person's advise who depends on you spending as much money as possible in their store? Probably not. Just about every sales person I've come across has used the line "I just bought this model myself and I love it." If you don't take the time to research the subject on your own you run the risk of someone taking advantage of your ignorance. This program helps consumers realize this. Posted by: Nathan | Mar 4, 08 06:27 PM

I'm disappointed by a lot of misinformation from the comments posted here. For example: Matt (Feb 27, 08 10:17 AM) posted that Monster cables transfer data at 10GB per second while other cables only handle 2.2GB per second. That is false for several reasons. #1: Matt mentions 10GB (ten gigabytes) when he really means 10Gb (ten gigabits). #2: HDMI 1.3 specifications require 10.2Gbps. Older HDMI cables only support 4.95Gbps (in theory). Low-price HDMI 1.3 cables capable of 10.2Gbps are widely available #3: Blu-Ray 1080p signals currently only require 40Mbps (forty megabits) and uncompressed 1080p can reach 3Gbps, all within reach of the older HDMI specifications. Meanwhile, the Best Buy responder is giving you the typical run-around. He talks about in-wall cables that some people might want. You can buy low-priced CL2 in-wall HDMI if you want, but if you don't need it, why buy it? He also talks about interference, but the low-priced cables I buy have triple-level EMI shielding with ferrite cores. And my cables have a lifetime warranty and I deal with very amenable customer service. Not only that, but it's from a company that is very well-respected in the AVS forums. Posted by: Pete D. | Mar 5, 08 12:59 PM

Those of you who are advocating the purchase of Monster HDMI cables over other brands have been misinformed. For cable lengths less than 15 meters there is no difference in signal quality (for both audio and video) between Monoprice and Monster products. The signal that is passed through HDMI is digital. It is not prone to interface like analogue signals passed via component cables, for example. The whole HDMI 1.3 certification for cables is outright silly. There is no media source, currently, the takes advantage of the increased video bandwidth of 1.3. In fact, the audio bandwidth of HDMI 1.3 is exactly the same as 1.0. Yes, with a certified 1.0 cable you can transmit 1080p (24-bit) video signals and up to eight PCM streams of audio. Monster has done an excellent job at fooling many people it seems. Posted by: Hin Jang | Mar 8, 08 04:30 PM

Back in the years of analog TV and analog signals you could see the difference between the cables. The video signal could be diluted by the quality of cable. I actually tried cables ($2 from dollar store and $75 Monster Cable from BestBuy). The DVD quality improved drastically because of cable quality. I also use high quality S-Video cable to connect my computer to TV and I also noticed the difference. But these days when the signal is digital there is no difference in cables. So there are two outcomes: whether there the cable transmits the signal or not. The signal gets decoded by TV and picture quality depends on TV quality. So, many people continue to think that there is a difference in quality depending on brand. There is a difference in quality of materials and you can see it. But cables that work, work the same. Posted by: Alex S | Mar 8, 08 05:20 PM

The only real way to test a digital cable is to determine the signal to noise ratio at the frequencies used to push the data through. If you want to test for external noise susceptibility, you hit with the EMI/EMC in the frequency bands of components that might be near by. There should be adequate margin built into all cables irregardless of their price, that there is no observable difference in picture quality. Posted by: eric | Mar 13, 08 04:39 PM

To Paul Schumacher: Monster cables are not the best for guitar, midrange Digiflex (made with Canare) perform better for much less money AND they also have the exact same lifetime warranty. And best of all you can buy them at any generic music store, i.e. Mother's Music, Long & McQuade, etc. I've been a studio guitarist for decades and have tested extensively -- Digiflex outperforms Monster for a fraction of the cost. The Digiflex line are superb products for the studio and stage at a very fair price. If you have problems with a Digiflex cable you just take it back in and they replace it free. Posted by: Corey Milner | Mar 13, 08 10:43 PM

Reading through these comments, methinks I doth detect the odour of astroturf. Extremely grammatical, well-polished astroturf, absolutely; but still, astroturf. Posted by: Michael S. | Mar 13, 08 11:19 PM

The warranty most certainly doesn't make Monster Cables worth it... Let's say you buy a $12 cable instead of a $250 one. You would need to break or damage the expensive cable *21 times* before the warranty was actually worth it. Posted by: dwarf | Mar 14, 08 09:49 AM

I too purchased an expensive HDMI cable and hooked it up to my Rogers HD box, however, I couldn't use the volume control from the Rogers Box. Rogers told me that the Audio signal would not work using the cable. I replaced it with the cable that came with the Rogers box and my Rogers remote volume was working. I also noticed no difference using the Rogers supplied cables. I'm going to see if I can return those HDMI cables. Posted by: Anthony L | Mar 14, 08 02:04 PM

I have to admit, I have not read all 70 or so comments so I may be repeating something here. The biggest reason for better cabling is the quality of shielding in the physical cable itself. Electronic signals are very hard to alter or distort, a fact supported by the cheap cable working as well as the expensive type. External signals such as those generated by power chords or video/audio cables can however 'leak' into other cables and cause distortion. Although I could never justify the exorbitant prices shown here, quality shielding can prevent that phenomenon from happening. Posted by: Arthur Lynas | Mar 18, 08 10:01 AM

This is an ongoing debate in the audio/visual community, are higher quality (priced) cables worth it....well, many believe yes (including myself, though my experience is mostly in the analogue domain) and as stated above adequate shielding has a lot to do with it. I am just wondering why CBC didn’t go to some of the very informed and experienced experts Canada has to offer in the field of audio/video assessing and comparing such as the editors/reviewers at UHF (or Inner Ear) Magazine instead of the opinions of big box retailers or their own CBC tech.…..sometimes if you don’t know what to listen or look for, you won’t know the difference….plus the cable you should use is always dependent on the equipment you have, sometimes you are better off with a $12 cable. Thank you for your program…... Posted by: Paul P | Mar 18, 08 09:33 PM

I work as an engineer in the high-end projection industry. First things first. Let us understand from a fundamental level what is the difference between a digital and analog signal. Most people don't even know. "Digital" just sounds cool. A digital signal is a discrete signal. It is either on or it is off. There is nothing in between. If a pulse comes in at 80% of the high voltage (on), it is taken to be on, just like 20% of the lower voltage level would be considered off. There is actually more room for error in a digital signal than an analog signal, which is what makes digital so attractive. Even if one of the bits comes wrong (which happens from time to time, but if it is too often, your cable is junk), there are error correction methods in the HDMI spec to resolve this. At the end of the day whether you use a 24k gold plated connector, which is less resistant than a normal connector and transports a "cleaner" signal, granted, a voltage difference of a couple percent doesn't make a difference. Whether it comes in as 90% of the voltage of on or 95%, it makes no difference. Sure, your pulses might not be as "square" as they could but, but the receiver still interprets the signal the same. Posted by: Randy S | Apr 1, 08 10:45 AM

i am surprised by the fact the cbc missed the point in the show. monster cables will make a difference but not one that is earth shattering and too many consumers there 1000-5000+ tv is a lot of money which they would like to last for a long time and in order to do so there are certain products that help and monster being one. using crapy cables can actually cause damange. another thing is yes the warranty is about profit but also does protect you from many things and it has come in the advantage to many people myself being one. obviously i would not buy it on something like an ipod but tv's, high end camera's, some appliances, and especially computers. (By the way CBC should do an indepth analysis why computers are made crapy and dont come with many key components like a recovery disc). So for the consumer do you value your 300 camera purchase that you want it to last atleast 4 years guaranteed for an additional 40-50 bucks or are you going to throw it out in short time. Also I personally think bestbuy is the root cause for FutureShop's woes. Those guys work on commision to make a living and I know friends who work under extreme pressure from the top meaning direct top. So ya think it through for the customer thats all i gotta say Posted by: R Singh | Apr 2, 08 11:30 AM

In response to Stephanie Murfin, I've bought the cheap $12 dollar HDMI cable as you mentioned and I have used it over a year without any problems. I don't see how a cable would deteriorate on its own so that it must be replaced in 6 months. Even if I had to replace the cheap cable every 6 months, I could still replace the cheap cable 20 times before the cost becomes equivalent to the $250 Monster cable; by then there would probably be new technology out there and I wouldn't need any more HDMI cables. Posted by: Mike | Apr 4, 08 06:04 AM

To the poster saying that you will be buying a $12 HDMI cable every 6 months: Mines been going solid on my 37" LCD for 18 months now. That's $24 I have saved. To people talking about shielding and interference. It's digital, you know, 10110100101001. It's there or it's not. You seem to be willing to say anything other than Monster Cable is grossly overpriced. I guess that is because you foolishly bought it and have to justify it somehow. You enjoy your $250 cable, I'll enjoy my $12 cable. Fools and their money. Posted by: mark | Apr 15, 08 09:19 PM

Never mind perceived quality. You can't argue with numbers! I bought HDMI 3 cables from monoprice.com They are 24AWG. That's plenty thick, they feel solid. They use "high purity copper" and "gold plated connectors" and have "full triple layer shielding from end to end". They are HDMI 1.3a Category 2 certified @ 340mHz / 10.2gbps cables. There is no higher rating. No cable can claim to be more future proof. No current HDMI device can go any faster than 340mHz. And when new a standard HDMI emerges, I'll have only spent $9 per cable. This is the equivalent to Monsters top o' the line M1000 series. The most expensive cable they make. I paid $9.52USD for a 6ft cable. Monster wants $129. I could buy 13 cables for the same price. Who needs a warranty when the cable costs 9 bucks. That's like selling a Honda for $500,000 and giving a lifetime warranty. yeah it's a half-million but it's gotta great warranty. Duh! I have used Monoprice HDMI (certified @ 75mHz category 1) cables for 2 years without a single issue. I'm now getting a Sony XBR5 120hz 52" LCD with HDMI 1.3 and I have the PS3 (also HDMI 1.3) so I decided to upgrade the cable too. So my upgrade of 3 cables is costing less than $40 with shipping. The rest of you who claim to "hear a difference" or believe that 10.2gbps on Monster is faster than 10.2gbps on another cable are absolutely crazy. Wake up! The Matrix has you! Posted by: John Keenan | Apr 21, 08 08:08 PM

I worked at Futureshop for about a month. We had 'sales goals' which counted how much we could get people to spend in addition to the big item. I was also expressly told to tell customers that the products (in this case, video game systems) always break down in the first year, so they need the Service plan. I think they called it the 'complete solution' or something. The main reason for the price of Monster cables is markup, which is why they are pushed so hard. It's also why TVs and DVD players don't include cables, the stores get the manufacturers to leave them out so they can charge an extra $200 for them. I also recommend Monoprice.com for cables, I've ordered many times, and the quality is great. People should check some home theater enthusiast websites (like AVS Forum) Monster is considered a joke, at best. Posted by: Jeremiah | Apr 27, 08 05:45 PM

Thanks for exposing the cable ripoffs. I had a component video cable manufactured by a local electronics supplier. It was 10 feet long, and had no signal degradation whatsoever. It cost me $6.00. I recently purchased TWO DVI to HDMI cables online for $7.99. Again they are just fine. I too was told by London drugs and Future shop sales people that such cables are crap. Posted by: Robert Ipema | Apr 27, 08 05:51 PM

I purchased a DVD player which included a generic cable from Best Buy and of course was offered the expensive Monster cable. The sales rep stated how the quality was important to the signal and you "wouldn't want to by high-end gear and compromise it with low-end cables". I looked behind the very expensive Multimedia Server connected to the very expensive large-screen LCD TV, and - voila! - the standard "cheap" cable connected it all. What's good for the goose... Best Buy/Future Shop: you are the "experts"! Posted by: Michael | Apr 29, 08 01:25 AM

Everyone out there getting a new HDTV needs to do home work first, on HDtvs and HDcables and HD devices(sat. blueray, camcorders etc). The current standards for HDTV are 480i or p, 720i/p, 1080i/p and now there is 1440i/p. There is also differences in frame rate and bit color. The standards for those are currently 60hz frame rate but soon 120hz will be out(for smoother picture)The bit rate for color is 8-bit but 12-bit and 24-bit are soon.(When I say soon I mean months not years) The above is the HDTV standards so one needs to buy a cable to handle the GBps(gigabytes per second)that each HD device is able to run at.eg. satalite at the best can only do 720i, 60hz and 8bit and no higher but a bluray dvd player can do 1080p 120hz and 12 bit color. So for satalite the bottom rung cable is fine for the most part because the GBps is about 2 GBps or lower, but the best blue ray player may run as high as 10 GBps. Also poorly made cables have less warrenty,as low as 3 months,than other top of the line cables have lifetime warrenty. Construction of the cables change also, like gauge and durability and sheilding. For example if you have a fuzzy picture on you new tv it most likely that your video cable leaning on a power plug or a power bar. My question for the show is what standard of HD did your CBC tech. guy use. Because if he only did the quality that your station can put out he would be using the lowest HD signal available(2gbps). He should have been using what the cable can handle befor it doenst perform. I do think it was a little funny that non of these numbers came up at all through out the entire show because the above is what makes the difference in these types of cables. Posted by: C Hapko | Apr 30, 08 06:11 PM

The monster cable really isn't any better, the brand name has earned a good reputation allowing them to price higher, PERIOD. Posted by: matt | May 7, 08 12:58 PM

Dear reader, don't be fooled by comments about superior cables. An inexpensive cable that is rated the same as a brand cable will perform the same. Doesn't anyone wonder why a specialty brand cable is $280 while a high-end 32" HDTV is only 3-4x the price?? As one poster above mentioned when buying online make sure the cable is rated at least 1.3a. And by the way when ordering online and it is being shipped from the states there is no duty on orders under $20. So go ahead and order that cable :) Or if you MUST have that cable in the next hour and can't wait for delivery drop by the Apple store and get their inhouse version $29.99 vs the specialty brand they sell for 70+. Good day. Posted by: Ali | Jun 22, 08 09:26 PM

Digital is zeros and ones. Your cable is working properly if you are getting a signal. It doesn't matter if it is $1 or $500. If it is a digital signal and you are receiving it there will be no difference in your picture. Analog cables(composite, s-video, composite) degrade in signal so there is a reason to buy better cables but not for a digital signal. These $12 cables can be purchased at www.monoprice.com Posted by: Andrew | Jun 24, 08 10:57 AM

Video and resistive quality aside, one thing that most here are failing to recognize about the price difference is what is included in the price. Remember that Monster Cable is a globally recognized brand employing hundreds of staff from engineers to service, support and sales reps. You are also paying for their reputation as a quality stereo component manufacturer and any future products and design as well as product aesthetics. Future Shop and Best Buy also need to inventory the product, make their margin to pay their staff, and to keep the lights on so you have the option of shopping again in their stores. The online products and even the midrange products most likely do not have any of these concerns, so they can charge a minimal price and still make a tidy profit. Ultimately the choice is yours but don't discount the services you are receiving when stepping into Future Shop or any other store that has a product you need. Posted by: Glen | Jul 17, 08 01:19 PM

Man there are a ton of idiots blatantly from Futureshop/BB management ranks posting nonsense in here about being 'disappointed' with the show. Sorry guys, the facts are clear: 1) For digital signals such as HDMI, the type of cable doesn't matter. $3 HDMI cable from monoprice looks identical watching Bluray 1080p on a high-end XBR set as does the rip-off Monster stuff. 2) Futureshop etc. push the Monster stuff because of thin margins on TV (being outcompeted by online retailers, I love it). They make HUGE margins on this garbage 3) For analog (e.g. audio) cables where quality does matter, Monster is still garbage compared to real hi-fi manufacturers. 4) If you want to punish Futureshop, go in to buy a new TV, grab $1,200 of Monster crap (power cleaner, surge protector, 5 HDMI cables) and use it to negotiate the price of your TV down $500-750. Then come back a week later and returned the un-opened Monster garbage. Works every time. Posted by: Grambo | Jul 18, 08 04:55 AM

I bought an HDMI cable on ebay for 1 penny. plus $3 shipping internationally. Works like a charm. Posted by: Matt | Aug 6, 08 03:39 PM

I can't believe CBC would pay $12 for an HDMI cable online! What a rip off! I bought one online for $0.99 (plus $3 shipping), and it's been perfect. I see Matt knows what I'm talking about. Posted by: Jamal Washington | Aug 29, 08 08:05 PM

All cables sold at Future Shop, Best Buy and similar stores have always been overpriced - from the printer cable, the USB cable, the speaker cable, HDMI cable, etc. But few people know this; all you have to do is shop on line or simply go to a MicroByte store - the cables ARE very cheap and just as good. At the other end of the spectrum, you have people who will pay thousands of dollars for speaker wire, audio cable, and be very happy with all the hype ! - go figure... Posted by: Yves Paradis | Aug 29, 08 08:35 PM

every one is a s--t monster are better cables made buy better stuff and how do we know that the pics on both tvs are the same we cant tell for your self now with rocketfish the ends pull off on them and i bet u got a monster cable for 12 online cuz people will sell anything to make money. now stop lie to your selfs and buy monster u pay for it once and thats it not haveing to go and buy one every time it breaks and waiting Posted by: did doesnt matter | Aug 30, 08 04:51 PM

I have RCA cables in my home that are over 5 years old that I have to pull out and use once in awhile and they still work so the issue of whether or not the $12 cable wil last is a Red Herring.Cables last forever.It will last as long as your TV will and the HDMI connection standard itself. There will lklely be some new connection type before that $12 cable see's any problem. I have one of those $12 cables that's been running for about a year and a half now with never a problem. Even if the HDMI standard lasts 15 years and you have to replace the $12 cable every year for 15 years (a scenario about as likely as wining the lottery jackpot), that only totals $180....still $80 cheaper than ONE Monster cable. Simply put,Monter Cable is THE BIGGEST scam in A/V retailing... Posted by: Sean Montgomery | Aug 31, 08 12:46 PM

I could tell you guys the truth is, almost all Mxxxxxx cables are manufactured in China, with cost around 1 to 5 bucks. Then it is shipped to the US and put their label and package on. Posted by: Insider from Hong Kong | Sep 9, 08 06:14 AM