FA: NEW MONSTER CABLE COMPLETE HOME THEATER WIRING SET -- ..

Kurt wrote:
> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>,
> Marie Deperna <md RemoveThis @nothanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
>>http:spam
>
>
> Monster Cables do not work any better than regular speaker wire.
>

I don't necessarily disagree w/ you, but there is at least some logical
(not necessarily reasonable) argument that premium analog speaker wires
can improve audio fidelity (lower attenuation and all that). What kills
me are the ridiculously high price hikes for them, *plus* the inclusion
of high priced digital cables which *don't* have a reasonable argument
that they are any better than a lower priced alternative.

Randy s.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:35:03 -0500, "Randy S." <rswitt.RemoveThis@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Kurt wrote:
>> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>,
>> Marie Deperna <md.RemoveThis@nothanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
>>>http:spam
>>
>>
>> Monster Cables do not work any better than regular speaker wire.
>>
>
>I don't necessarily disagree w/ you, but there is at least some logical
>(not necessarily reasonable) argument that premium analog speaker wires
>can improve audio fidelity (lower attenuation and all that). What kills
>me are the ridiculously high price hikes for them, *plus* the inclusion
>of high priced digital cables which *don't* have a reasonable argument
>that they are any better than a lower priced alternative.
>
>Randy s.

Monster stuff looks cool. That's a big reason they sell.

In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>, Marie Deperna
<md.RemoveThis@nothanks.com> wrote:

> Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
> http://tinyurl.com/cctly

Weren't these kits on woot.com a couple of weeks ago for $20?

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

From:George Max
lazarus.TakeThisOut@removethiswi.rr.com

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:35:03 -0500, "Randy S." <rswitt.TakeThisOut@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Kurt wrote:
>>> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>,
>>> Marie Deperna <md.TakeThisOut@nothanks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
>>>> http:spam
>>>
>>>
>>> Monster Cables do not work any better than regular speaker wire.
>>>
>>
>> I don't necessarily disagree w/ you, but there is at least some
>> logical (not necessarily reasonable) argument that premium analog
>> speaker wires can improve audio fidelity (lower attenuation and all
>> that). What kills me are the ridiculously high price hikes for
>> them, *plus* the inclusion of high priced digital cables which
>> *don't* have a reasonable argument that they are any better than a
>> lower priced alternative.
>>
>> Randy s.
>
> Monster stuff looks cool. That's a big reason they sell.

The reason they sell is good marketing and of course the "cool" look is
part of that. Dealers like selling them because of the extremely high
profit margins. While they tout how rugged their connectors are, it
would be cheaper to just replace them with new ones. The premium spent
on the high end cables is more wisely spent on better equipment or more
entertainment content.

In article <lnaBf.1927$Ou1.30@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
"BruceR" <br DeleteThis @NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote:

> From:George Max
> lazarus DeleteThis @removethiswi.rr.com
>
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:35:03 -0500, "Randy S." <rswitt DeleteThis @nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Kurt wrote:
> >>> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>,
> >>> Marie Deperna <md DeleteThis @nothanks.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
> >>>> http:spam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Monster Cables do not work any better than regular speaker wire.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't necessarily disagree w/ you, but there is at least some
> >> logical (not necessarily reasonable) argument that premium analog
> >> speaker wires can improve audio fidelity (lower attenuation and all
> >> that). What kills me are the ridiculously high price hikes for
> >> them, *plus* the inclusion of high priced digital cables which
> >> *don't* have a reasonable argument that they are any better than a
> >> lower priced alternative.
> >>
> >> Randy s.
> >
> > Monster stuff looks cool. That's a big reason they sell.
>
> The reason they sell is good marketing and of course the "cool" look is
> part of that. Dealers like selling them because of the extremely high
> profit margins. While they tout how rugged their connectors are, it
> would be cheaper to just replace them with new ones. The premium spent
> on the high end cables is more wisely spent on better equipment or more
> entertainment content.

Of course, there will be always those who'll spend the extra bucks:

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/cables/speaker-cables/mit-cables/PRD_12465
5_1584crx.aspx

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

>>
>> Monster stuff looks cool. That's a big reason they sell.
>
>The reason they sell is good marketing and of course the "cool" look is
>part of that. Dealers like selling them because of the extremely high
>profit margins. While they tout how rugged their connectors are, it
>would be cheaper to just replace them with new ones. The premium spent
>on the high end cables is more wisely spent on better equipment or more
>entertainment content.
>

Well, I must say that I've bought a pair of their audio cables. I
think a video one too. I think the build quality *is* higher than
some others I've used, notably Radio Shack stuff. What I mean is that
without a whole lot of jostling around, the connectors became
intermittent. That is, however they attached the conductors to the
jacks inside the plug simply went to hell. The Monsters haven't done
that and they've been in there for years now.

That does NOT mean that other ordinary (read: Cheap) cables aren't
equally up to the task, just that the Monsters appear to be physically
durable. Most of my stuff is pretty generic and hasn't broken. It
may be worth noting that just about any Radio Shack supplied
interconnect has, in my experience, failed.

Buy the good stuff from www.pimfg.com and you'll get the good
connectors. FWIW, in 40+ years of using a/v cables from all kinds of
places I've only had a few go bad and that was from abuse.

From:George Max
lazarus DeleteThis @removethiswi.rr.com

>>> Monster stuff looks cool. That's a big reason they sell.
>>
>> The reason they sell is good marketing and of course the "cool" look
>> is part of that. Dealers like selling them because of the extremely
>> high profit margins. While they tout how rugged their connectors
>> are, it would be cheaper to just replace them with new ones. The
>> premium spent on the high end cables is more wisely spent on better
>> equipment or more entertainment content.
>>
>
> Well, I must say that I've bought a pair of their audio cables. I
> think a video one too. I think the build quality *is* higher than
> some others I've used, notably Radio Shack stuff. What I mean is that
> without a whole lot of jostling around, the connectors became
> intermittent. That is, however they attached the conductors to the
> jacks inside the plug simply went to hell. The Monsters haven't done
> that and they've been in there for years now.
>
> That does NOT mean that other ordinary (read: Cheap) cables aren't
> equally up to the task, just that the Monsters appear to be physically
> durable. Most of my stuff is pretty generic and hasn't broken. It
> may be worth noting that just about any Radio Shack supplied
> interconnect has, in my experience, failed.

Stephen Worth wrote:
> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>, Marie Deperna
> <md DeleteThis @nothanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
>>http://tinyurl.com/cctly
>
>
> Weren't these kits on woot.com a couple of weeks ago for $20?
>
> See ya
> Steve
>

And they had another one just 2 days ago. $30 for an AV cable kit.
Even discounted they're overpriced!

Randy S.

Randy S. wrote:
> Stephen Worth wrote:
>> In article <230120060958186052%md@nothanks.com>, Marie Deperna
>> <md DeleteThis @nothanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Less than 2 days left, on eBay:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cctly
>>
>>
>> Weren't these kits on woot.com a couple of weeks ago for $20?
>>
>> See ya
>> Steve
>>
>
> And they had another one just 2 days ago. $30 for an AV cable kit. Even
> discounted they're overpriced!
>
> Randy S.
>
I laugh at the audiophoolery of thousand buck speaker cable and such;
but has anybody priced computer cables at places like Office Depot?
*That's* a racket if I ever saw one...$30 for a stupid USB cable. Of
course I never spend that, but apparently many do.

jak

"Randy S." <rswitt.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:

> ... there is at least some logical
> (not necessarily reasonable) argument that premium analog speaker wires
> can improve audio fidelity (lower attenuation and all that).

When Monster cable first came out, a salesman was trying to tell me that
they reduced Skin Effect (which is a real phenomenon in signal propagation,
but doesn't begin to be noticeable until you get into microwave
frequencies).

Most speakers are designed to work best with a Thevenin (voltage source)
drive, so the total resistance of the output amplifier and cable is
important (even more so for the lower-impedance speakers used in several
setups). The biggest (real) advantage to Monster cables are the quality of
the join between the cable and the connector.


> What kills
> me are the ridiculously high price hikes for them, *plus* the inclusion
> of high priced digital cables which *don't* have a reasonable argument
> that they are any better than a lower priced alternative.

For HDMI and DVI cables, the bit rate can be upwards of 2.5 Gbps (billion
bits per second; HDMI is actually designed for 5 Gbps). The distributed
capacitance of the cable places an upper limit on cable length (because the
capacitance acts like a short circuit across the output at higher
frequencies and longer cables means more capacitance). HDMI and DVI is
designed for resistance to noise, not for the ability to drive long cables.


Jeff

>>What kills
>>me are the ridiculously high price hikes for them, *plus* the inclusion
>>of high priced digital cables which *don't* have a reasonable argument
>>that they are any better than a lower priced alternative.
>
>
> For HDMI and DVI cables, the bit rate can be upwards of 2.5 Gbps (billion
> bits per second; HDMI is actually designed for 5 Gbps). The distributed
> capacitance of the cable places an upper limit on cable length (because the
> capacitance acts like a short circuit across the output at higher
> frequencies and longer cables means more capacitance). HDMI and DVI is
> designed for resistance to noise, not for the ability to drive long cables.
>
>
> Jeff
>

Sure, but digital Monster Cables carry a *huge* price premium even when
compared to standard issue cables of an equivalent length. I can
certainly understand that longer cables can carry a large price premium
over shorter cables, but at equivalent lengths, unless I'm missing
something non-obvious, a digital cable should either work or not work,
there's little-to-no gradation in between. So if the $20 cable works
fine for you, it's a complete waste of money to buy the $100 cable (this
is for digital only, analog cables obviously *do* show incremental
changes in signal quality).

Randy S.

Randy S. wrote:


>
> Sure, but digital Monster Cables carry a *huge* price premium even when
> compared to standard issue cables of an equivalent length. I can
> certainly understand that longer cables can carry a large price premium
> over shorter cables, but at equivalent lengths, unless I'm missing
> something non-obvious, a digital cable should either work or not work,
> there's little-to-no gradation in between. So if the $20 cable works
> fine for you, it's a complete waste of money to buy the $100 cable (this
> is for digital only, analog cables obviously *do* show incremental
> changes in signal quality).
>
> Randy S.

Not quite right. When talking about digital, the transmitter/receivers are
are still analog. e.g., in a 5V system, everything above 3V is a '1',
everything below 2V is a '0'. 2-3V depends on the receiver portion of the
system. It may be a '1', it may be a '0'. If you have a cable with
combined losses of ~ 2V for the distance, then noise will begin to change
your digital signal. Or, should you have an antenna (i.e., cabling) that
can add 1V to the receiver, same thing. But you are still looking at a
voltage level; in other words, analog.

I usually pay a premium for cabling, only because I never, ever, want to
start moving the entire freaking entertainment center just for a suspect
cable. And I certainly don't want to pull the cable out of the wall for my
rear speakers. If I don't notice a change by jiggling the cable at the
transmission source, then the cable is good. This has not failed me in 20+
years.

Last year I paid a couple grand for auto insurance, and didn't have any
wrecks. 3 years ago I paid $40 for a 6' AR audio cable that has never
given me grief.
I consider both acceptable losses.

Peter

--
Eh, that's it, I guess. No 300 million dollar unveiling event for this
kernel, I'm afraid, but you're still supposed to think of this as the
"happening of the century" (at least until the next kernel comes along).
-- Linus, in the announcement for 1.3.27

"Randy S." <rswitt.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

>> For HDMI and DVI cables, the bit rate can be upwards of 2.5 Gbps
>> (billion bits per second... The
>> distributed capacitance of the cable places an upper limit on cable
>> length

> I can
> certainly understand that longer cables can carry a large price
> premium over shorter cables... if the $20
> cable works fine for you, it's a complete waste of money to buy the
> $100 cable (this is for digital only, analog cables obviously *do*
> show incremental changes in signal quality).

Yes, that is the case.


Jeff