Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Monster Cables anyone using any any difference at all ??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2005 8:55:58 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2005 8:56:29 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2005 3:54:24 AM

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)
Related resources
July 17, 2005 9:15:06 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2005 9:15:07 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 18, 2005 10:09:15 PM

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.
July 22, 2005 9:37:08 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2005 9:37:09 PM

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)
July 22, 2005 9:39:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2005 10:09:03 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2005 10:11:30 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2005 10:11:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2005 6:50:30 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 25, 2005 1:56:41 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2005 9:08:11 PM

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*

***** **** ****!!!!
!