Slashdot Mirror
Are 'Monster' Cables Worth It?
Digitarius asks: "Are "Monster" cables really better, or are they just more expensive? I'm setting up my HDTV, and I can get Component video cables made by Belkin for half the price of the Monster cable equivalents. Are there any actual stats or studies to back up Monster's claims of superiority? So far most people tell me to get the Monster cables, 'just to be sure,' but what's the real truth?"
unless you're looking at a significant length cable run (25 feet or more), i highly doubt you'll notice any difference at all, even between regular patch cords and a "component video" set of cables (which are three patch cords bound together). i have used monster cable speaker cables and signal cables, and you'll not notice a large difference using plain lamp cord and regular cables. as far as component video is concerned, you'll want to make sure the three cables are as similar as possible, and i recommend true coax, with the proper resistance bnc terminated ends (52 ohm i believe). for rca component video, 75 ohm coax terminated in rca plugs works very well, a friend of mine pointed out that for analog audio, this setup works well. for both situations, the components being connected seem to appreciate the higher resistance cable. it helps to curb noise.
either way, unless you're looking at a long run of cables, pretty much anything will do well. and for digital audio, it dosen't matter what the cable is, if it'll pass the signal, it'll work, (there's no signal loss with digital connecitons)
all that being said, monster cables sure are purty... i like purty cables...
Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
it doesn't matter if WE can hear a difference, if you cannot then it is not worth the money for you, even if money is not an issue as you claim.
http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
As a physicist, I can tell you there are two important qualities for the wires, both of which won't affect the sound quality. Those two factors is how well the wires connect to the posts, and how well the wires transmit the signal.
If there were some frequency dependencies, then you would see a degradation of sound. But there isn't. If there were some variability of resistance based on current, then there would be a degradation of sound. But there isn't.
The only benefit your get from monster cables is a perhaps slightly lower resistance. That is all. The higher resistance of standard wires can easily be overcome by "turning up the volume".
So, Monster Cables are not worth it, strictly speaking. The only reason people get Monster Cables is the same reason people get gold-plated pens. Other than a status symbol, it is meaningless.
And besides, people who sport jewelry or expensive toys tend to be poorer than those who are more modest. (Case in point: It seems these spinners people buy for their cars are bought by the lower class in my town. Where they get the money for this, yet can't pay for their children's college education, is a question I don't think they'd want to answer.)
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Firingsquad did a test between different brands and different types (rca vs svideo). The results where pretty interesting:
http://www.firingsquad.com/guides/ps2picture/
Monster Cables are a giant scam designed to relieve gullible people of their money. Double-blind testing has shown time and time again that you can not physically perceive the difference.
There is a huge industry around selling useless crap to people. Monster cables will give you about the same results as rocks. (Yes, people buy those rocks and yes, they think they make their stereos sound better.)
I highly recommend that you check out the James Randi Educational Foundation, and do a site search for "audiophile" or the like.
Frankly, I don't know what scares me more: the fact that someone will honestly claim that a magic rock will make music sound better, or the fact that people will pay good money for one...
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
When I got into audio I thought all of these things mattered, but I slowly realized that I couldn't tell the difference. Much like I can't tell the difference between a diamond with E color and F color. 12 years ago back a company introduced a cable that somehow carried different frequencies at different rates or some other similar magic - I really can't remember. A friend of mine swore he could tell a difference, I couldn't. He dropped hundreds on the cables, I didn't.
Visit one of your friends who is recommending monster cable, listen to his system. Swap the cables with lower-end ones, and see if you can tell the difference. That hour of time may put your mind at ease.
I can't say that I did an empirical review to accurately measure differences, but recently I purchased an HDTV and was wondering the very same thing. I tried several different "just normal cables" one being the cable the cable company gave me, one being regular coax, one being a cheap svideo, and one being a top of the line from radio shack, and a component video set from Monster. The coax was the worst of them all, the sideo cable being second worst. Then came the cable company component, which still wasn't that great. Some of the colors seemed a little washed out, and I could see some signal noise, but that was probably due to my setup. Then I finally tried out the Monster cables. I saw an immediate difference over all the previously tried, the signal came in nice and clear, and there was no color bleeding, and no signal noise visible on my screen. But of course results may vary.
I would personally go to a store, and keep the receipt and just try it out, and see if you notice a difference.
I was recently shopping for a DVI cable for my HDTV, and was blown away by the US$80 AND UP prices I was finding around town. 80 bucks for a bloody 1 meter cable!?!? Thankfully, someone pointed me to http://www.pacificcable.com/ and I found a 1 meter DVI-I Dual Link for $22. (I am not affiliated, just a satisfied customer)
The Monster-type cables are the profit center for the A/V stores. They have to compete for pricing on the actual gear, where they may get less than 10% markup from their cost. On cables and accessories, they can get up to 40% or more. There is no way that one cable is better than the other, provided the connectors make good contact at the jack. Don't waste your money.
.... solidity and good build quality matter just as well. Especially for musicians - as a guitar player, I've lost count of how many times I've tripped on a cheap cable, only to find out I'd ripped one end off or something. Good build quality is something I've paid for in the past and got my money's worth for.
" To be honest, I haven't seen other cables perform as well."
In what context? Did you engage in double-blind testing? Was there a control? What do you mean by "perform?"
"We are ordered by Corporate to not use the demo on ANY other brand of protector besides 'Monster'"
The reason for that rule is simple. Any other protector will give the exact same results as the Monster one. Monster is not a cable company, it is a marketing company. They take components that are no better than standard ones (often manufactured in the same factories and then branded) and market them at a higher price-point.
Insecure and gullible people assume that the high price is justified, when in fact their products provide zero benefit.
Not to sound cruel or flamebait-ish, but you are either very naive, or else a Radio Shack/Monster shill.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
For the physics inclined, have a read here about skin effect in audio cables.
The basic idea is that electrons ride the outside of a conductor, not equally through its cross-section. The depth of the 'skin' depends on frequency. You might think that stranded cable would do better then, since there's more surface area, but because the strands aren't insulated they act as a single conductor, providing no skin-effect benefit. There is an exception, cables of 'Litz' construction, where each conductor is individually insulated, creating a virtual cable of effective diameter without skin effect.
My take-away from the linked article is that skin effect does have a slight effect on sound quality that can be measured and possibly perceived. Swinging back to the topic, Monster does make a Litz speaker cable, but it runs you $1500 per 3-foot cable - this isn't Best-Buy level Monster cable. A Google search on Litz at monstercable.com only provides two hits, both 3rd-party write-ups.
So to achieve top theoretical sound quality, assuming good connections, etc., you can buy thousands of dollars worth of top-quality Monster cables or cheap cables with fat conductors. If gauge and weight are far more important than cost, say on a Space Shuttle or similar, then dropping $10K on speaker cable might be worthwhile.
This all has me wondering of anybody here has used 10-gauge Romex as speaker cable.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But if you spend thousands on components, why skimp on a $10 cable vice a $50 one? The price difference is negligable. It's like complaining about a WinXP license on a $20k server. Just buy big and never worry.
It's very interesting listening to the difference between scientists and marketers. I work with both. Scientists always want to make a better product, without wasting resources. Marketers always want to make a product seem better while being cheaper to produce. The most common advice from Marketers to scientists is "raise the price."
For some reason purchasers often assume that a greater price indicates a better product. Often the best way to make your product seem superior in the eyes of consumers is to price it higher than everyone else's. It works too. Otherwise people like you would not describe the quality of their components in terms of how much they cost.
First off, don't ask audiophile questions on /. unless you want to be told that a bit is a bit and how it gets from point A to point B doesn't matter.
Yup. Lots of people with scientific minds here. They care about facts and how things work. If you want I can sell you very poorly made components and cables at high prices. You'll probably even think they sound better. (Maybe someone like Monster has beaten me to it.)
But, if you spend thousands anyway, why skimp on Radio Shack cables?
The original post said that price was not a concern. The question was about the quality of Monster cables relative to other cables. Are they better or just higher priced? It is a very valid question that you don't really answer.
It's like complaining about a WinXP license on a $20k server. Just buy big and never worry.
On Slashdot this has to be a troll. But it is a troll that brings out a very real problem with Linux. The functional value of Linux is often demonstrably better than Windows, especially for servers. Since the price is free, however, people perceive it as less valuable and less useful. Luckily there are plenty of companies ready to charge you money for free things.
Let's clear up a few myths. First, there is no such thing as a digital signal. It's an analog signal which encodes digital information. Wrong impedances can cause bad things to happen (such as some of the bits getting corrupted). Depending on the protocol used, this can be very significant.
SPDIF is a horrible protocol that is sensitive to cables and almost anything else. Though it's nominally a digital signal, it's multiplexed with the system clock (which is as analog as it gets). If your cable distorts the signal (it almost certainly does), the system clock will be jittery and this will cause distortion. On a decent system, this can be audible.
Analog signals are a whole different ballgame. If you don't think cables can make a difference, pick up an electromagnetics book. Anything from Wal-mart is probably suboptimal -- even if it looks well-made, it probably isn't.
Don't rob him of his fantasies. If he defines the cables needed as a percentage of the system cost, then let him be. For systems over $200 you definitely need the Mosters. Actually, on occasion it has been observed that they are needed even for systems at $179.99, and there is anecdotal evidence of one case where they were needed at the $149.99 price point, though that is up for debate.
...which has exactly zero to do with how those bits got to the DAC in the first place. Since the OP mentioned hard drives, I'll assume he was referring to playing audio from a computer. Here's how this would work:
Note how there's no direct connection between "transport" and "DAC" in the diagram above; as long as the CPU gets the rights bits in the right order, the end result will be the same.
By the way, here's a sample of the source he was quoting:
Oh, just to make sure we know where he stands:
Yeah. "Sparkle", "immediacy" (WTF?), "wetter", and "width" are effected by the label on the batch-produced CDR. Here's to hoping that he posts a followup article on which brand of DVD gives a higher Doom 3 framerate.
People who say stuff like that are freaks and should be ignore or ridiculed.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Bullshit gold is the best conductor. Silver has much much lower resistance.
If I had a bull that was shitting gold, I wouldn't waste it by using it as a conductor.
I'm just sayin'...
That's cruel.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"