Monster Cables anyone using any any difference at all ??

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Monster Cables anyone using any any difference at all ??

iam thinking of getting some for my HD PC to HD Tv connection some
componet cables. Just want the best picture i can get. Not going to
get the REALy expensive cables just the 200 Aussie dollar ones.

Ive read that they work better with HD and you notice the qiality
colours sharpness much more with HD over SD.

If you think iam wrong let me know :)

Thanks.
14 answers Last reply
More about monster cables difference
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    news:EN7Ce.33137$Qo.24447@fed1read01...
    > In the audio world, there are those who can hear differences in wire. In
    > reading reviews, I've seen that they don't necessarily favor expensive
    wire.
    > If a cheap wire sounds ok, they will say so.

    Well, at least there are those who claim to be able to hear
    such differences. I have always found it very interesting, though,
    that all such claimed differences somehow vanish when the
    comparison is performed under controlled/double-blind
    conditions. Funny how that happens, isn't it?

    Bob M.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    > news:EN7Ce.33137$Qo.24447@fed1read01...
    >> In the audio world, there are those who can hear differences in wire. In
    >> reading reviews, I've seen that they don't necessarily favor expensive
    > wire.
    >> If a cheap wire sounds ok, they will say so.
    >
    > Well, at least there are those who claim to be able to hear
    > such differences. I have always found it very interesting, though,
    > that all such claimed differences somehow vanish when the
    > comparison is performed under controlled/double-blind
    > conditions. Funny how that happens, isn't it?

    "In twentieth century parapsychology laboratories there is the "observer
    effect": Those described as gifted psychics find that their powers
    diminish markedly whenever skeptics arrive, and disappear altogether in the
    presence of a conjurer as skilled as James Randi."
    --Carl Sagan,
    "The Demon Haunted World"
    >
    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:12:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


    >Wire's wire. I've never heard of a double-blind test in which anybody could
    >tell a difference between Monster and other brands of cable. A classic
    >example of the triumph of marketing over truth.

    A friend was getting RF interference from his cheap cable splitter and
    buying a Monster splitter fixed the issue.

    I used to have an expensive CD interconnect cable (not Monster - there
    are better than Monster) and could hear the difference. And I don't
    give a rat's arse what you think of my hearing capability either. The
    sound was warmer with the expensive cable.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fisher wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:12:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Wire's wire. I've never heard of a double-blind test in which anybody
    >>could
    >>tell a difference between Monster and other brands of cable. A classic
    >>example of the triumph of marketing over truth.
    >
    > A friend was getting RF interference from his cheap cable splitter and
    > buying a Monster splitter fixed the issue.

    That's a splitter, not a cable. It has components in it other than copper
    and insulation and the quality of those components can make a significant
    difference in signal quality.

    > I used to have an expensive CD interconnect cable (not Monster - there
    > are better than Monster) and could hear the difference. And I don't
    > give a rat's arse what you think of my hearing capability either. The
    > sound was warmer with the expensive cable.

    "CD interconnect cable"? Interconnecting the CD to _what_? Are you talking
    about an audio patch cable or a Toslink cable or what?

    Now, was that in a double-blind (you _do_ understand double-blind don't
    you--neither you nor the guy conducting the test and figuring the results
    knows which cable is which) A/B test, or did you just plug in your
    overpriced piece of wire and notice "Oh, wow, the sound is warmer"? It is
    not a matter of your "hearing capability" it is a matter of your
    interpretation of what you hear.

    Now, try it double-blind A/B or even better A/B/C/D with a piece of Monster
    and the cheapest POS you can find just so you have a range of cable
    performance and make sure that the guy flipping the switch and tallying the
    results knows to not flip it every time. I think you'll be surprised at
    the results.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
    news:e94ld1pkd7mq83irakdtbodm6c19vh8e9e@4ax.com...
    >example of the triumph of marketing over truth.
    >
    > A friend was getting RF interference from his cheap cable splitter and
    > buying a Monster splitter fixed the issue.
    >
    > I used to have an expensive CD interconnect cable (not Monster - there
    > are better than Monster) and could hear the difference. And I don't
    > give a rat's arse what you think of my hearing capability either. The
    > sound was warmer with the expensive cable.

    Fine, but then no one really is arguing with the notion that
    swapping cables might make an audible difference; the real
    issue is that (a) what difference may be there almost certainly
    does NOT come about as a result of the "advantages"
    generally claimed by the Expensive Cables bunch, and (b)
    whatever improvements there are to be had can be obtained
    with some very ordinary, inexpensive materials/components.

    This is separate from the question of just how much difference
    "really" is there (as opposed to being due to the placebo effect),
    but that question also remains a very valid one.

    Bob M.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:36:53 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


    >That's a splitter, not a cable. It has components in it other than copper
    >and insulation and the quality of those components can make a significant
    >difference in signal quality.

    It's all about quality of insualtion and pathing.


    >"CD interconnect cable"? Interconnecting the CD to _what_? Are you talking
    >about an audio patch cable or a Toslink cable or what?

    Are you stupid or what? If you did a quick search on Google you would
    have found out that the term I used is quite common in the audio field
    and you would have got your answer. Because you are stupid the rest of
    your post doesn't warrant an answer.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fisher wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:36:53 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>That's a splitter, not a cable. It has components in it other than copper
    >>and insulation and the quality of those components can make a significant
    >>difference in signal quality.
    >
    > It's all about quality of insualtion and pathing.

    Not with a splitter it isn't.

    >>"CD interconnect cable"? Interconnecting the CD to _what_? Are you
    >>talking about an audio patch cable or a Toslink cable or what?
    >
    > Are you stupid or what? If you did a quick search on Google you would
    > have found out that the term I used is quite common in the audio field
    > and you would have got your answer. Because you are stupid the rest of
    > your post doesn't warrant an answer.

    I see. So you use a term in a nonstandard way--if you meant an audio patch
    cable you should have said so.

    But you're right, I'm stupid. Anybody who does anything to an advocate of
    Monster cable and the like other than plonk them is a fool.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:09:15 GMT, "Bob Myers"
    <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:


    >Fine, but then no one really is arguing with the notion that
    >swapping cables might make an audible difference; the real
    >issue is that (a) what difference may be there almost certainly
    >does NOT come about as a result of the "advantages"
    >generally claimed by the Expensive Cables bunch, and (b)
    >whatever improvements there are to be had can be obtained
    >with some very ordinary, inexpensive materials/components.
    >
    >This is separate from the question of just how much difference
    >"really" is there (as opposed to being due to the placebo effect),
    >but that question also remains a very valid one.
    >
    >Bob M.
    >

    People like you are the same type of people that buy the cheap
    Japanese amps and say they all sound the same and are as good as the
    esoteric expensive amps. You are a waste of my time.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
    news:gib2e1tbfl9hqlumgbsgko9iuvakgu8pmt@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:36:53 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >That's a splitter, not a cable. It has components in it other than
    copper
    > >and insulation and the quality of those components can make a significant
    > >difference in signal quality.
    >
    > It's all about quality of insualtion and pathing.

    Not at all. The quality of a splitter is dominated by the other factors
    mentioned by Mr. Clarke. You would be well advised to gain a
    better understanding of electrical interconnects before commenting
    further.

    > >"CD interconnect cable"? Interconnecting the CD to _what_? Are you
    talking
    > >about an audio patch cable or a Toslink cable or what?
    >
    > Are you stupid or what? If you did a quick search on Google you would
    > have found out that the term I used is quite common in the audio field
    > and you would have got your answer. Because you are stupid the rest of
    > your post doesn't warrant an answer.

    That you would consider someone to be "stupid" merely because
    they asked a needed question - based on YOUR narrow understanding
    of a very broad term - may indicate that your post doesn't warrant an
    answer, but I'll continue nonetheless.

    The fact that a given phrase - in this case "CD interconnect" - is used
    by some segment of the lay public to refer only to one specific item
    doesn't mean that this same phrase can't have a much broader
    meaning within the technical community. A Toslink cable, used,
    for example, to connect a CD players to an external DAC unit
    or other such equipment clearly is also a case of a "CD interconnect"
    usage. You can hardly be upset with someone because your own
    usage of a term is sloppy.

    Bob M.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
    news:7qb2e19ohvmlm4rjkqjholphln1g17pc42@4ax.com...
    > People like you are the same type of people that buy the cheap
    > Japanese amps and say they all sound the same and are as good as the
    > esoteric expensive amps. You are a waste of my time.

    Amazing how you have this ability to infer someone else's
    buying and listening habits from a few statements regarding
    well-known factors in the industry. Have you considered
    taking James Randi up on his $1M "psychic challenge"?

    What, specifically, in my earlier posting did you disagree
    with? And assuming there IS something you find incorrect,
    could you please demonstrate precisely how it is in error?

    Bob M.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Boy, I predicted flames at the start of this thread.

    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    spam@uce.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:19:41 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


    >
    >This thread finally pushed me offcenter to killfile any post which contains
    >the F-word on the basis that anyone whose conversational range is limited
    >to what Tom Wolfe described as the "f- patois" doesn't have anything to say
    >that I particularly care about hearing.

    Whatever, tosspot.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fisher! wrote:

    > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:19:41 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>This thread finally pushed me offcenter to killfile any post which
    >>contains the F-word on the basis that anyone whose conversational range is
    >>limited to what Tom Wolfe described as the "f- patois" doesn't have
    >>anything to say that I particularly care about hearing.
    >
    > Whatever, tosspot.

    Oh goody--another word to killfile.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:56:24 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    wrote:


    >You are a dumbsh*t.
    >
    >*plonk*

    ***** **** ****!!!!
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Cable HD Monster Graphics