digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at engadget.com

MonsterCable vs.CoatHanger, Audiophiles can't see difference

engadget.com — We've always believed that the perceived quality boost that comes from using high-end cables is really just a trick of the mind (read: justifying the ridiculous cost of premium cables to yourself) -- if you've dropped enough cash, you can probably hear anything you want....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mrshiney, on 03/04/2008, -9/+175Audiophiles aren't ready to admit that their expensive rigs are just that ... expensive. Having said that, all things being equal, the best improvement you can do for your audio setup is a decent pair of speakers (or set, for the home theater types). The next most important thing is the mastering quality of the source material (largely based on the skill of their sound engineer) -- this holds true for music as well as movies, but even moreso for movies since the quality of the usual surround mix is highly variable.
    • dvsbastard, on 03/04/2008, -4/+64Audiophiles are just like any other competitive hobbyists... But because there is no real subjective way to determine who has the greatest sound, they have to resort to other quantifiable and comparable factors... such as how much they have spent on their precious setups.. And so they come off sounding like arrogant, delusional, morons suffering from compulsive neurosis (which for the most part they are).
      • easyfinger, on 03/04/2008, -15/+1No bad
      • MtheoryX, on 03/04/2008, -19/+7Well, for one, I think you mean an "objective way" to determine who has the greatest sound.

        And for two, stop using terms you don't understand. It doesn't make you look smart.
        • Wartz, on 03/04/2008, -3/+17I understood all the words he used.
          • shortyjacobs, on 03/04/2008, -13/+3....did you understand he used them wrong?
          • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/04/2008, -1/+12Yeah, the only word he used incorrectly was subjective. As in, the determined sound quality is subjective, i.e. there is no objective way to determine the sound quality, or more precisely, no objective way to determine the "better" sound.
          • paradigmx, on 03/04/2008, -6/+1his last semi-sentance came off as a little awkward as well.

            wait, who gives a *****, its the internet
          • unjustend, on 03/04/2008, -6/+1paradigmx:
            Is our children learning?

            I support grammar nazi's because I learn something from them all the time.
          • unreg, on 03/04/2008, -4/+1Actually he used a lot of highfalutin five dollar words for "my dicks bigger than yours".
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2This story is absolutely perfect in timing. Yesterday, I got into a huge debate with some of my friends over expensive cables. They were trying to say that you need high end gold plated to have good picture. I am an electronics technician and had intense study on digital technology. The funny thing about digital is that it isn't based on wavelengths to transmit signal that are sensitive to interference. Instead there are two voltage levels that are exact and symbolize 1's or 0's. The result is instead of a staticy picture, you get no picture. If you have a picture, that is as good as it will get. It is yes or no, on or off, 1 or 0. So as long as a cable works, that is all that you need. Besides, a connection is only as strong as the weakest link. For gold cables to even make a difference on an analog signal, the connectors on both devices will have to be gold (which is rare) and then all of the circuitry coming from those connectors would have to be gold (which never happens).
          • KingBabi, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3So arguably, the vacuum gold wires might offer an improvement if using analog speakers and a turntable?
          • unreg, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3So wrapping tin-foil round the rabbit ears has no impact?
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2@KingBabi
            Ha ha. Actually, yeah. Just not really noticably unless the components contained in both are gold. Which isn't gonna happen. Thumbs up to you.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 03/04/2008, -2/+10There actually is an objective way to determine when sound quality is most accurate - measuring the relative volume of each frequency along a spectrum from 20 to 20,000 hz and finding the greatest possible signal to noise ratio. Audiophiles quibble over which speakers/headphones sound best for certain types of music, however.
        • coolbru, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7Nope. It's all trade-offs. Even 24-bit 192KHz studio kit doesn't claim to offer a flat response. There are simply limits to what can be done, and more importantly, compromises to be made. The filters on digital audio kit are very hard to design well - you might get perfect frequency response, but your phase will be all over the place. Vinyl typically has poor signal to noise, but can have better dynamic range than 16-bit CD. I've heard examples where the same recording on vinyl and CD simply sounds better on vinyl. Some might say I'm in audiophile la-la land, but I'm not talking about technical, theoretical performance, or any particular level of accuracy, just how good it sounds to me. All processes will introduce noise of some kind, and one key factor in this I suspect is that analogue distortion tends to be harmonically related to the material, whereas digital distortions are mostly not (like quantisation noise). So a record may sound crackly as hell and be quite a long way from the original material, but still provide a better musical experience than CD. I know it's subjective, but it always is - everyone hears differently. I'm not some analogue loony (I've designed synthesisers and digital audio processors), I've had a go at many an audiophile that claimed they could hear differences between CD transports and digital interconnects, and I don't even own a turntable any more. Personally I think that if it sounds good, it's right; how it got that way is a secondary consideration.
          As for headphone/speaker choices, I don't think audiophiles are alone in having opinions on this. Speakers that sound great for The Chemical Brothers will probably suck for a string quartet and vice versa. I love my Sennheiser HD280Pros, but the fact that I can't hear my kids wrecking the house while I'm wearing them means I usually put up with crummy iPod earbuds (curiously, the older earbuds that came with the iPod mini sound much better than the newer ones). See? Compromises everywhere.
          • SpykerSpeed, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2I never said there was such a thing as a perfectly flat response, I was just countering the arguments above that audiophiles are all doofuses. BTW, pick up a pair of Sennheiser HD595's, they're fantastic. Plus they're open so you can hear outside noises if need be.
        • kingmanic, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2@coolbru: Vinyl doesn't have any better dynamic range. CD's are simply mixed with compressed dynamic ranges to make them louder which thus far has not be done to the vinyl versions for one reason or another. The poor signal to noise actually means it has a poorer potential dynamic range as the noise would be the bottom of any dynamic range.
          • unreg, on 03/04/2008, -4/+0You just validated him:

            CD's have a compressed dynamic range - Vinyl doesn't.
          • kingmanic, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3@unreg: It's not an intrinsic property of CD's. I just said he's right BUT not for the reason he thinks. It's simply the person mixing choosing to have it sound that way.
    • jemka, on 03/04/2008, -3/+127Of course they can't "see" the difference.
      • cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -1/+64I hear ya.
      • soil, on 03/04/2008, -5/+44so.... They CAN'T see what you did there.
      • diggit83, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Also the first thing that poped into my mind when I read the title lol. Good catch.
    • Fedge, on 03/04/2008, -1/+144So this is a Digg submission to an Engadget article that links to BoingBoing that links to The Consumerist which links to an audio forum?

      Jesus people, can't we just link to the original material?
    • Klisk, on 03/04/2008, -2/+51Real audiophiles will openly admit that cables don't make a difference and it's all placebo, especially monster cables. Hell, in my experience hardcore audiophiles will cheaply make their own cables, and monster cables are considered trash. Monster cables are more marketed towards naive/ignorant consumers that get tricked into the sales pitch, not true audiophiles, or at least that's my experience/opinion.

      Granted, there is a such thing as a crappy cable, but likewise you don't have to buy EXPENSIVE cables in order to get GOOD ones, y'know?
      • akwok, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10Yes, I agree completely. I run a pair of Sonus Faber Guarneris, off of some Pass Labs gear. I use DIY speaker cables that are about ~$60, and interconnects that are about $30. Every time my audiophile relatives come over they get a bit annoyed when I don't agree with their extravagant cables (one of my relatives run a pair of $300 B&W bookshelfs with $400 MIT interconnects and speaker cables, and some $500 power cables), but meh!

        I've learnt a long ways back that you really can't place that much trust in even your own ears -- any intro Psych course can tell you that!
        • JGent, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3I spent £130 on some bi-cables and terminations and they where a vast improvement over the £0.30 per meter bell wire I was using. However, what i did waste money on the end terminations. I wouldn't be surprised if I had bought some half decent cheaper plugs it would sound the same. The cable wasn't that expensive just with it being bi-wired and the length etc

          One type of cable I'm always suspicious of is digital interlinks I can't really see how a digital cable can make something sound bright, or 'slow' etc. I have one branded cable and can't tell the difference between that and a £5.00 ebay one. Maybe I have just been to too many nightclubs and concerts....

          i can't tell with my ears, speaker placement and solid stands if you have stand mounters are far more important.
      • theOster, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2i'm using an old spool of powercord wire to run two large cabinet speakers i found on the street. they actually sound pretty good.
      • brstilson, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Monster cables are like Cutco knives or Kirby Vacuum cleaners. Are they nice? yeah. But nobody needs something that nice for that much of a markup.
    • farrellj, on 03/04/2008, -7/+26Most of the "audiophiles" I know come from within the sound industry, and work/have worked in with pro sound. They don't buy Monster Cables, unless they happen to be the cheapest ones they can get when dealing with an emergency. I remember some wannabe audiophiles who tried to tell me that this super-expensive "missile cable" was better than lamp cables...I switched them after spending a couple dollars, and they couldn't tell the difference. Or another wannabe who had wired his $5,000 speakers out of phase, and couldn't tell that there were out of phase.
      On the other hand, I can tell the difference between a CD recording and good quality vinyl recording of the same music, vinyl tends to be more full spectrum than the CD...and of course, today's CDs REALLY REALLY SUCK sound wise due to the Loudness Wars. But that's another article...:-)
      ttyl
      Farrell
      • Chris_F, on 03/04/2008, -6/+13You couldn't tell the difference between CD and vinyl unless what was going on them was somehow different in the first place.
        • swanny89, on 03/04/2008, -20/+5If you're sound equipment is up to snuff, a vinyl record will sound better than a cd. A cd is a digital approximation of the actual sound wave vs. a vinyl's analog method. A cd is like the series approximation of a function whereas vinyl is like an integral; the integral my give a dirtier answer than the approximation, buts its more accurate.
          • Chris_F, on 03/04/2008, -2/+19My point is that its beyond the capability of your ears or your mind to detect the difference. And don't even try to tell my you can, because its all in your head. 24 frames a second is the standard frame rate for motion picture. The majority of the time thats all that is needed for smooth motion, why? Well, the brain is a funny thing, you see, thats all it really needs as most of what you see is your brains interpretation and not the actual images . Same goes for sound. Now, CD audio is sampled at 44,100 samples a second, with 65,536 distinct levels of amplitude. Using a microphone to pick up CD audio and running it threw a computer you'd have a damn hard time to be detect the effect of approximating it. Your ears are far less suited to do the same.

            So again, you couldn't tell the difference between CD and vinyl unless what was going on them was somehow different in the first place. If you say you can, your either a liar, are you only think you can.
          • somerandomnerd, on 03/04/2008, -16/+1You have no idea what goes on between your ears and your brain. I recommend you find out before you start googling related statistics and spouting crap as though you did.

            Your ears have more "levels of sensitivity" than 65,536 levels of amplitude (for starters, without talking about a frequency range, that number is completely meaningless.) In fact, it's almost as though they weren't even digital devices at all!
          • JigoroKano, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7A CD reproduces smooth wave forms to within a Nyquist frequency of 22,500Hz, which is well above what most humans can hear. The other quality restriction is the bit-rate, which on a regular CD has a far smaller error than all of the different noise sources that plague the mechanical record format and make it sound like low-def *****.
          • phronko, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Do you audio expert people not need to know the difference between "your" and "you're" because they sound exactly the same?
          • CoolWind, on 03/04/2008, -5/+1Regardless of sample rate, the sound encoded on a CD cannot be retrieved/decoded and played back as easily and accurately as the sound on an LP. It doesn't surprise me at all if someone enjoys LP music more than CD music.
          • JigoroKano, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3@phronko
            Not in general.

            your [yoor, yawr, yohr; unstressed yer]
            you're [yoor; unstressed yer]
        • stoanhart, on 03/04/2008, -1/+16But a vinyl is also an approximation. Sure, it's analogue, but the machines that captured the sound (mic) and carved little grooves into a piece of plastic aren't perfect. In the end, I would bet that modern, digital, pro-audio equipment can give a better approximation.
          • CoolWind, on 03/04/2008, -4/+1But can your cheap CD player make it sound better than a record player?
          • ThreeDee912, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1You mean headphones/speakers?
        • Klisk, on 03/04/2008, -2/+14I thought I read that vinyl and CD's are differently EQ'd naturally, and that even if you print the same exact recording onto both medias that they will sound different due to the natural EQ, and that it's really hard to argue which is 'better', since it's just a matter of opinion and of no REAL substance. For example vinyl naturally cuts off the highs, which amplifies the low, even though the lows are also a bit 'cut' and thusly softer. People consider this better even though it's technically a limitation of the media. CD's reserve all of the soundscape, a lot of which can be a lot more fatiguing than vinyl... Even though technically it's better, I guess 'less is more' can kind of apply here.

          That being said, a lot of vinyl albums are actually better because they bypass the loudness wars and get the original mix of the music before it's put through a hard limiter, due to the record industry "knowing" their niche. But yeah... it's less of a "this is better than that" or "can you hear the difference" ordeal as much as... Apples and oranges. If your audio equipment is up to snuff you should be able to hear a difference, but technically speaking, neither media is better. They just have different EQ curves of an identical source. CD's are more 'perfect', while vinyl's imperfection is what usually draws people to the sound. I wouldn't say you could hear more on vinyl unless the source is different, which is very common in the recording industry. (Like I said, CD's=Loudness War, Vinyl=Original Source.) If both sources actually are the same vinyl should not be superior, though. Just different.
        • Abomonog, on 03/04/2008, -5/+4It really all depends. If your original recording is digital then you must put it on CD for top quality. But analog is entirely different. There are distortions and natural reverberations that analog recording picks up that gets filtered out with any conversion to digital so putting an analog recording on a CD is going to rape much of the recording. A great example of this raping is Led Zeppelins "The Ocean". The original 4 track recording got a major rework for CD that turned a really lively tune into a dull thud fest and the digital mixdown made a very quiet section of the song as loud as the rest of it. Original 1972 recording sounds great. CD version sucks ass.
        • aprestia, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Oh boy how wrong you are - I mean this is difficult to even test since finding both anaologyand digital gear with high quality enough electronics and converters that none of your players are introducing sound changes, but having said that, I promise you, there's a real difference, if you've got decent ears. Transients are different, so are low frequencies in general - vinyl tends to sound "bottom heavy" but without being too "muddy." It all has to do with the inherent limitations in analog audio technology; it's slower than digital - frequencies are related to time - therefore "slower" = "change in frequency response" - it's much more complicated than that obviously but that's the basics, for anyone questioning the science.

          Furthermore, CD quality audio isn't even in fact as good as DIGITAL audio can be - I'm just a student and this is something I'm just beginning to be able to pick up with my own ears, but I don't doubt that it's true. Of course your average person on the street won't be able to tell the difference. But the average person CAN hear the difference between cd and vinyl.
          • camg188, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3Indeed. Digital music sounds more contemplative and luminous, while analog music sounds more textured and aromatic.
      • rootneg2, on 03/04/2008, -1/+22I think that people are ignoring your reason *why* CDs "suck" and instinctively digging all the pro-vinyl people down for being stuck up audiosnobs

        it's not due to any inherent deficiency in the medium, A properly mastered CD next to a properly mastered vinyl will both sound equally good (a little different, since vinyl doesn't have quite the range of CDs) and neither is "better" than the other from a technical standpoint.

        It's all about recording studios and the "loudness war", nothing else. If CDs were properly mastered for optimal home listening, rather than grabbing consumers attention at a listening station, there wouldn't be any problem.
      • kingmanic, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4You're not hearing the difference between vinyl or CD, you're hearing the difference between some producers attempt at making his music louder via dynamic range compression and the lack of dynamic range compression because vinyl doesn't sell enough for the producer to care and actually the lack of it allows them to push more over priced plastic on to audiophiles.
      • ThreeDee912, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Abomonog, It doesn't matter if it's from a CD of vinyl. If did a sloppy job mastering it, it's gonna sound like *****. This is what probably happened to the Led CD.
      • brstilson, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Vinyl has it's limits, too. First, there's the quality degredation. A vinyl recording won't last nearly as long as a CD. Also, on a lot of records the bass frequencies are severely cut. Expanding that range of sound would require thicker records and wider tracks. Unfortunately, the "loudness war" turned the bass up too high, along with all the other frequencies, so the difference between a CD and vinyl almost disappears. A good example of a CD that isn't mixed "loud" is Norah Jones' "Not Too Late."
    • ccdoggy, on 03/04/2008, -19/+7You do need to remember that monster cables are crap. NO real audiophile uses them.

      I do concede that in the low to medium price ranges cables make no difference as long as you have something with good copper in it. However in high end setups cables do make a difference. Mind you the cables are not made out of a special magical metal, its copper with typically a box that is used to house special filtering equipment.

      It really does make a difference, Although not everyone can hear it BECAUSE it takes time and effort to train ones' ears to actually pick up the detail and nuances of the music.

      I find it kinda of amazing how many articles on Audiophiles and how much they spend on stuff that is "worthless" comes up on Digg.
      • mCanada, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10What's that sound I hear? It's the FAIL train!!
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3As a crazed Audiophile, I can say your amplifier, the quality of your speakers, and so forth matters a lot more than cheap or expensive cables that are 1)all made in China, 2) in the same factories no less.

          After this, lets turn our attention to our respective wives and girlfriends whom love to purchase pricey Gucci bags, that are also made in nearby Chinese factories alongside the cheap Walmart bags.
    • woofers07, on 03/04/2008, -11/+4Actually a receiver is more important than the speakers. A good receiver will make mediocre speakers sound decent, but the same cannot be said about good speakers and a mediocre receiver.
      • diggeddugg, on 03/04/2008, -4/+8[citation needed]
        • TritonX, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2me,
          @Woofers07, don't bother about the ratings, people are obviously deaf around here.
      • amtram, on 03/04/2008, -4/+5no
      • Abomonog, on 03/04/2008, -1/+11Speakers are 80% of your sound. A good speaker can make a 2 dollar AM radio sound decent. But a bad speaker can make even a high end receiver sound like crap.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Don't forget good amplification too.

          It's mainly the big 3. You've got your source (I mean if its FM radio it'll never compare to CD no matter what you've got), Amplification (really bad amplifiers will give an audible hiss for instance), and speakers (these are a given, you'll need good ones [not expensive but good], and no one debates this except BOSE).

          Audiophiles do not equate price with quality, only deaf wannabe's do. Like that BOSE *****, another MonsterCable wannabe, which is pricey and crappy. You could get better sound systems or headphones than BOSE at half the price.
      • davdev, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Wrong, speakers are far more important, a Pioneer Elite receiver is not going to make a cheap set of Sony Bookshelves sound good. However you do have to make sure you are giving the speakers the power they need.
        A cheap set of JBL or Polks will be able to be driven just fine with a $2-300 receiver. However, if you go out and buy a nice set of Paradigm Signatures, you better make sure you have the Amps to drive it as they will crush just about any reciever on the market because most receivers cannot handle 4 Ohm loads.
        My rule of thumb has always been to spend about 70-80% of the MSRP cost of your two front speakers on a receiver. So if you have $1000 a pair fronts, then a $7-800 receiver should do.

    • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -9/+2This article is intentionally stupid.
      1)The picture asks if one can "see' a difference. Video frequencies are magnitudes larger than audio frequencies. This is an audio test.
      2)A set of cables was replaced with coathangers and had "speaker connectors" soldered on. What the hell is a speaker connector? Is it an RCA or a banana? Be Clear.
      3) Coathangers are pretty short for speaker cables.
      4) Let's say it was an interconnect. Was it a digital one or an analog one?
      5) How easy was it to hide that flexible cable behind the equipment.. now I am nitpicking..

      Monoprice brings in great cheap cables from China. About 20% of the HDMI cables have been defective, but it was worth the cost savings in each case.

      I have neer stressed over the $20-100 it cost to get the cables NOW. People have to make a profit and it's your right to avoid giving it to them, but let's not swallow this crap.
    • brufleth, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7The room plays a huge part in sound quality too. The modern home is a pretty crappy music hall. The much heavier plaster walls used in older homes are apparently far superior.

      And of course cars are just terrible for audio quality.
    • LogicBomB, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3To the OP: I'm afraid you actually have it wrong.

      A good/great set of speakers are wonderful but room EQ plays a larger role in how things sound than even the speakers itself. A good pair of speakers can sound great in a good room and a great pair of speakers can sound like garbage. Room acoustics are huge.
    • illt, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3LogicBomB, that's why i end up just wearing headphones, because i don't have the means to afford a "listening room"...or the price of a great set of loudspeakers :D
    • bluesdealer, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1You're right in that the speakers and audio source are most important when it comes to quality, but cheap cables can often be a bottleneck in any rig. I've noticed certain bargain bin guitar cables will compress my sound and truncate upper range harmonics.

      Many times, it's easier to just get the Monster Cables and know I'm getting proper cables rather than gamble with bargain brands. Once I have lots of equipment chained together, it can often be tedious and time-consuming to isolate which connection is degrading the signal.
    • mrASSMAN, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Depends whether the signal was digital or analog.. if it's a digital signal, it really doesn't matter what type of cable you use, but with analog it actually does make a major difference to use proper gauge and shielding.

      But the article doesn't mention the specifics so who knows what type was used. (I'm not an audiophile, but this is common sense).
  • elint6, on 03/04/2008, -6/+126No surprises here, they're both made in China.
    • diggit83, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4Posting under this comment because I came in too late to make front page....(Ill probably get dugg down as a result)

      The shielding on expensive cables helps when you have potential interference. If you have a perfect environment then the expensive shielding is worthless.
      The 2nd part of the expensive cable is the material that the actual cable is made from. Copper is usually used, silver in more expensive ones. These are better conductors than ferrous metals and dont have the magnetic properties. If their cables had any length to them there would have been a considerable difference between the two.

      The 3rd is the gauge of the cable that is transferring the signal. The thicker the cable.....the stronger a signal can be pushed through, giving a fuller sound (Provided the speakers can make use of the more powerful signal)

      I sold audio video equipment for years. I had my own demos I set up to show the difference between a BAD cable and GOOD cable. RCA makes some nice cables for $ 5-25 that perform just as well as the $100+ monster stuff.

      Im posting this so people dont go buying JUNK cables thinking EVERYTHING is equal. Thats simply not true. This was set up well by these guys, I just hope people can understand a little more why it worked out this way.
      • B1663r, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7But the original article shows that everything you just said is *****. Coat hangers work just as good as monster cable. So we are back to what matters in a speaker cable... What is easiest to install...
        • diggit83, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3No it doesn't......I told you that their environment FAVORS that result and thats the ONLY ENVIRONMENT in which it would play out this way.

          At a distance over 3 feet you would experience considerable signal drop. (He didnt say that he had the volume the same on each speaker cable in the test did he? Thats because this coathanger cable would have needed more from the amplifier to achieve the same level of sound)
          Other devices putting out a larger EMF, or radio interference will degrade your signal.

          For longer distances or in some homes/businesses ect...it may pay to get a higher quality shielded cable, however, monster is usually a rip off no matter what the situation.

          IF you want more volume, you would want a THICKER cable (Lower gauge)

          Brands and prices aside.
      • provost, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4also, post at the bottom, line cutter. If people really care what you have to say they will get to it eventually. Noone likes a line cutter.
        • diggit83, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I understand that, thats why I put it there.

          Some people will refuse to read anything longer than 2-3 lines. I wanted those people to get the same message even if they didnt want to take the time and read the whole thing.
    • elint6, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Chilax people
  • Legato, on 03/04/2008, -0/+202i knew i got screwed on those plastic coat hangers the salesman pushed on me...
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 03/04/2008, -3/+13Copper man, copper.
    • Mootabolife, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7Faye Dunaway has something to say about that.
    • daza, on 03/04/2008, -1/+13We recently just got these new 3 meter Sony HDMI cables in at work, for the affordable price of $299. I will never, ever sell one of these, and if a customer absolutely wants one, I won't sell it until they are made aware there is no difference between the cheap and expensive cables. Maybe I won't go as far as recommending coat hangers though..
    • adidos, on 03/04/2008, -11/+3@Converse: I sort of had the opposite happen to me:
      I screwed my girlfriend, she got pregnant, and then I used a coat hanger on her...
      • maffiou, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Funny, but in some horrible kind of way...
        Now the real question: can you perform field abortions with a monster cable ?
    • MrCrumbles, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1I wonder if a string would do the trick. It works in those treehouse phones. Or so TV and movies have led me to believe.
  • mobiledescent, on 03/04/2008, -5/+237www.monoprice.com ENOUGH SAID..
    • Aleman360, on 03/04/2008, -2/+34Exactly, I recently bought all the cables I needed for my home theater system from Monoprice (3 HDMI, 2 optical, 1 subwoofer, 50 ft of low gauge speaker wire, and a headphone adapter) for < $30 shipped. Everything looks and sounds great.
    • splott, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11why'd ya have to go and tell everyone.
    • swordedge, on 03/04/2008, -1/+17Nokia wanted over $30 for a cable to connect my phone to my computer. Monoprice sold one that works fine for $4.
    • daza, on 03/04/2008, -1/+33Monoprice saved my drowning baby. Cheers!
    • SteelyDuran, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Also: bluejeanscable.com
    • kevyn, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1that site looks amazing... I only wish I could find a similar one for the UK... any suggestions people?
    • camino262, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Man, I got ripped off on my plasma wall mount. Thanks for the link - this is as awesome as newegg.
    • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3The Monoprice plasma mount sticks out too far and came with the wrong screws for my friend's Pioneer Plasma. He ended up keeping it b/c the shipping is as much as teh mount. The HDMI switcher he bought was buggy, but no one on AVS had issues with it?!?

      Use them for cables.
    • VSLOATHE, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Monoprice and other retailers like them just strike deals with the same Chinese manufacturers that make all the "big name" cables. Here's the one thing they'll never tell you: If you buy them in bulk (we're talking thousands) like these guys do, they're anywhere from .001$ (yes, 1/10th of a cent) to .15$ (fifteen cents) a piece.

      I run another discount online retail shop, and we have a similar deal. I won't spam the URL here for obvious reasons.
      • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1So I can buy a 1000 cables for a dollar. Well I have a spare $20 might as well hook up the entire city.

        And to think there is copper in these cables worth more than that.
        It's a crazy Chinese world.
  • Bean66, on 03/04/2008, -20/+4ditto to monoprice
  • badjokes, on 03/04/2008, -2/+27haha so basically the expensive monster cables are a bunch of coat hangers with fancy wrapping.
    • Justice101, on 03/04/2008, -3/+6No, technically it's more like there trying to sell you gold coat hangars, because they have some different properties than the usual coat hangers you use made of aluminum.
      • nonymous666, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8Aluminum coat hangars? Wow, sounds fancy.
    • swordedge, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8They really are engineered and electronic equipment can measure differences but nobody, including audio professionals, can hear the difference.
    • Duffle, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4That's generally what cable is.
  • Alex2, on 03/04/2008, -1/+217The Monster brand coat hangers sound ever better.
    • cygnus2112, on 03/04/2008, -0/+12All of my monsters have coat hangers.
    • chrisatwork, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1And they're only 4x the price!
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/04/2008, -4/+71"See?"
    • Hayaemsay, on 03/04/2008, -2/+58True audiophiles watch the waveform.
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8"Damn, that looks like it sounds incredible!"
      • hansondr, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Audiophiles are like the Neos of sound
    • willdelaney, on 03/04/2008, -16/+2I think you mean "Hear"
    • tnvwboy, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe they were handing out tabs of Acid?
  • mooninite, on 03/04/2008, -9/+342Wow this is the worst blog link spam I've seen yet.

    Digg article links to engadget -> links to Boing Boing -> links to Consumerist -> links to original article.

    Ridiculous.

    Original: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php? ...

    Digg: Invent a blog link spam detector. You'll be rolling in even more millions. Hell, fly me out to California and I'll do it for free.
    • radu79, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7I also wanted to post that this si by far the worst blog spam I've seen. Kind of like the dumb blonde joke thingy.
    • evil-doer, on 03/04/2008, -0/+35and the original article is 4 years old.
      • ikillpeoplexx, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3AND it's a forum post. Tee hee.
    • ZiggityZhang, on 03/04/2008, -8/+3lol, when i saw this comment it was at -1, then i dugg it was at +4. good to see people actually reading the comment.
      • evil-doer, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2was -3 when i first dugg it. unbelievable.
    • kiyora, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3The picture on the Engadget site links to the original forum post.
      • fkr3, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5And it's so generous of Engadget to link in such an obscure way to the actual story instead of their stupid dribble!
        • adooga, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2Well there is that link that says "read" on engadget. That's the one I always click to get the article.
      • isewise, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Actually the "Read" link under "Via BoingBoing" is directly to the forum post. The real problem is that digg story submitters don't submit their stories to the actually story, just some blog that summarizes the entire story and adds their low quality internet humor.
    • gnomeh, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I noticed this immediately as well. Made me LOL noticing a blog of a blog of a blog. Took me 3 links before the original post.
    • Decipher13, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1I totally agree. This "linking to a blog that's linking to a blog that's linking..." is tripe.
    • takua108, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2You, sir, win.
    • speedyrev, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2I actually went to post the original article and found out it was a duplicate (http://digg.com/search?s=coat+hanger&submit=Search ... I guess killerknives ignored that part of the submit process.
    • GR8Idea, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Bravo! I was going to post this too. The original blog is quite the read. It is a shame the poster didn't read anything beyond the headline before he listed it here.
    • cquilliam, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1What is everyone here complaining about? I click on the digg link above, it takes me to Engadget, i read the article summary then clicked on "Read" and it brought me to the original posting on the audioholics forums. Am I missing something?
  • cheesedog, on 03/04/2008, -11/+19why would audiophiles be able to see a difference, they're only good at hearing things, right?
    oh, and: http://digg.com/tech_news/Do_Coat_Hangers_Sound_As ...
    • ch4os1337, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2Monster makes more then 100 different types of cables... not just your expensive $109.99 HDMI cables you get from futureshop (or bestbuy whatever).
  • UCBearcats, on 03/04/2008, -15/+4DUPE, about 7 hours late too
    http://digg.com/tech_news/Do_Coat_Hangers_Sound_As ...
    • EwMo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8Yes, but this coming from the ever popular Engadget ensures that this will prevail, despite the other coming first and the other thread having better comments anyway.
    • metateck, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5And as always, now I have to go out of my way to bury yours since you are whining about it being a dupe.
  • kru1e, on 03/04/2008, -1/+66well duh they can't see the difference, they are audiophiles...
  • coppyrightmind, on 03/04/2008, -0/+110Next up: Monster vs Coat Hanger, which are better for hanging clothes?
  • DKasler, on 03/04/2008, -7/+99"Audiophiles can't see difference" uhh?? Wouldn't audiophiles HEAR the difference.
    • sbgskl, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7They were most likely afflicted with that form of autism where sounds actually appear visually. A trumpet's blare might appear a starburst of color, for example. I am perplexed as to why the story submitter neglected to mention this.
    • BJLStorm, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1/sarcasm The audiophiles couldn't see the monster cable; therefore, they couldn't see the difference the monster cable was making. If they had seen the cable, they audio would have sounded better! /end sarcasm

      Let me put it this way. It's kinda like the experiment where you have the same brand orange pop and color it different colors, such as clear, yellow, and orange. People swear the orange colored orange pop tastes more like oranges in comparison to the yellow or clear orange pop.
    • takua108, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1They're so audiophiliac, they've actually developed synesthesia.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Not in a double-blind test. But they don't believe in those...
  • havokzero, on 03/04/2008, -16/+8Buried for inaccuracy: The submitter conveniently "forgot" to mention that the coat hangers used were MONSTER COAT HANGERS.
    Of course they couldn't tell the difference.
    • BJLStorm, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Your attempt at being witty has failed.
  • HibikiRush, on 03/04/2008, -13/+1Wouldn't they be hearing the difference, not seeing it?
  • gudnbluts, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8And to think, I've been wasting my money on coat hangers all this time.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 03/04/2008, -11/+5Monster guitar cables are ok. The lifetime warranty makes up for the price.
    • CroMag, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1I bet they sound grreat.
    • centran, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10They have lifetime warranties? ***** yeah then it is worth it. Those 1/4' always get messed up.
    • washburn085, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2Why are people burying you? I cannot tell the difference between monster audio cables and generic brands. But I must say, monster guitar cables are great. The lifetime warranty is worth it alone, just bring in a portion of the cable and you get a brand new one. After using a generic brand guitar cable for a few yrs and beating it to hell, it gets kinks and sound quality gets worse. My monster cable is 4 yrs old and is as sturdy as it was when i first bought, still sounds great. Don't buy Monster cables for home audio, but for guitars... Monster all the way.
      • dext3r, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4Kinks are preventing the electrons from flowing, you are correct sir.
    • illt, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2or you can buy a 2 dollar cable and have it last 10 years.
      The only reason i would buy a nice guitar cable, is if it were fabric sleaved isntead of rubber/plastic just for aesthetic reasons.
    • Vinny128128, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Diggers don't know their guitar stuff :(

      Guitar cables definitely require good production. Corrosion kills.
  • PxCxG, on 03/04/2008, -2/+16Yeah but those were some high quality coat hangers...
  • D3koy, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4I would like to see/hear it done...can we make that happen?
    • stupidStan, on 03/04/2008, -5/+1i should punch you in your dumb face
    • lucutus, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1ok here you can see/hear it done.
      "F-IT" -- see it done.
      Read out loud to hear it.
  • chinafka, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Yes and when you break down the fundamentals of the cable it's nothing fancy.
  • DarrenFreemont, on 03/04/2008, -11/+58It doesn't matter what sort of cables, speakers or high quality audio components you have in general if you are listening to any music mixed in the past 10 years. Listening to Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park or any other radio pop drivel is mastered so pathetically that it sounds the same on a pair of iPod headphones as it does on a pair of the best quality Sennheisers.

    Low frequencies? Make them as loud as possible. High frequencies? Make them as loud as possible? Warm, subtle midtones? Loud as possible please.

    Monster cables this day in age are somehow rendered even more worthless than they already are by the fact that the common consumer will never realize that cables simply cannot do to music what is needed to make Green Day sound good.
    • cdawzrd, on 03/04/2008, -4/+10Correct, but leave (early) Chili Peppers out of that.
    • iDiggIt42, on 03/04/2008, -8/+4I'll take my Beatles and other misc. 60s, 70s, and 80s music and go home, thank you.
    • diggingaround, on 03/04/2008, -9/+3+ most of new popular rock music features those annoying endlessly grinding guitars... uh.. God forbid to try to play some nice melody... just griiiiiiiiind.... griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind..griiiiiiiiiiiind..
    • headzoo, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5I think it's been mentioned here before, that music these days is being mastered to sound as good as they can on _portable_ players. So you're right. That big fancy stereo isn't going to sound any better than an iPod.
      And this is the reason why I still buy vinyl, and play it on an old 50's German made cabinet record player.
    • Mr8lack, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3sorry to burst your bubble but nothing makes green day sound good.
    • betobeto, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Super agreed: The minimum common denominator has taken over sound engineering, and for the worse. What may sound passable on your crappy computer speakers or earbuds may make you want to stick icepicks on your ears when playing it through a real stereo system (and by "real" I don't mean those Transformer-like big box systems). There's no subtlety at all, now it's all loud Loud LOUD! I am also a vinyl fan, but I've also realized that vinyl, by itself, won't make a crappy recording sound good (as is the case of most recent pop releases). The "garbage in, garbage out" principle still holds true.
      Plus, if you want loud music, there's this thing called, uh, "volume"...
    • kylehale, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1"Listening to Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park or any other radio pop drivel is mastered so pathetically that it sounds the same on a pair of iPod headphones as it does on a pair of the best quality Sennheisers."
      Isn't the point of technology to progress into something better? So essentially what you are saying is that because music is loud, it is being mixed more poorly? I highly doubt this is true.
      Sure music is over compressed these days, I could go on and on about the "loudness wars" as I'm an audio engineer myself. But to say these mixes are pathetic is a bold statement. The frequencies aren't being cut out, they are just all being leveled out. Some of the top engineers in the world mix these bands to make them sound good on ANY system, which is a feat in itself. People perceive loudness as being better, which is a far cry from being true because you loose dynamics... but this is the predicament that most sound engineers can't escape. They have to keep up with market trends, thus squashing the crap out of everything. You can't say these guys are mixing and mastering poorly though...
      • TnTBass, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4I think its not a matter that they have been mixed or mastered poorly, but a case of them being mastered for the lowest common denominator. It's great for Ipod owners, not great for audio lovers.
        Although it does make me feel a hell of a lot better about not spending ass loads of money on a stereo.
        • TritonX, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3It's still worth getting something decent for a stereo, more or less 1K for stereo sound, you don't need a lot of power, just a clean amps and strong speakers. I got 50wx2 and I'm fine with it, over that, unless you have a very big room, or a bar it is pointless unless you want to be deaf.
      • logandurand, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1The OP is referring to the average loudness of the song, which is raised during the mastering process to make the song attract attention. Unfortunately, this process works by reducing the contrast between low and high amplitude sounds, making the end result one constant wall of sound.
    • illt, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure they were listening to some high production listening material based on their setup....
      I doubt they were listening to radio friendly loud recorded cds.
  • CroMag, on 03/04/2008, -10/+25Unfortunately, audiophiles are content to be audiophiles....they are money blowing assholes and they know it. It's the dudes who are getting convinced to tack on an extra $100 worth of cables at Best Buy to go along with the purchase of their new widescreen that are getting jerked .
    • ccdoggy, on 03/04/2008, -4/+10So every audiophile is an ass and has a ton of cash to blow? I guess you know absolutely no audiophiles.

      That is a ridiculous statement, thats like saying that everyone that drives a civic is a street racing ricer with no regard for anyone else's safety. Sure the guy buying the tv is being taken for the cables, but that is best buy doing it.
      • TheMidnight, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2But everyone who drives a Civic is a street-racing ricer...
    • diggingaround, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7FYI ...Audiophiles don't buy there stuff at Best Buy... that is consumer level stuff... they go to specialized dealers. (ps. I'm not one of them)
      • miket, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1He didnt say audiophiles were buying stuff at best buy....
    • bemenaker, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5I'm an audiophile who is also practical, you can be both. Speakers are home built, and will put them against anything out there. Bought good cable online, but for $20 a roll, not $100 for ten feet like monster BS.

      Tis possible to be frugal and demand quality.
      • dennysivo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0" will put them against anything out there"

        even my Egglestons?
  • Charlie230, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4MonsterCable vs.CoatHanger, Audiophiles can't see difference because the new MonsterCable looks like a stretched out coat hanger being used as a freaking wire!
  • campo, on 03/04/2008, -12/+10why are we trusting audiophiles as judges of sight?
  • dustout, on 03/04/2008, -19/+20If this was an analog signal then an argument could be made in favor of monster, but a person would have to be retarded to believe that a digital signal can be improved with a wire
    • otakushark, on 03/04/2008, -0/+25These were speaker cables. Analog speaker cables.
    • samssf, on 03/04/2008, -4/+8Please tell me you're joking.
    • Vinny128128, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Hahaha. Oh, digg, you do make me laugh.
    • jabelar, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1That is only sort of true. As long as the bits (1s and 0s) are being accurately recognized at the far end then there will be no difference. But it is possible for the electrical quality of a cable to be so poor that the bits start being detected in error.
  • nshef, on 03/04/2008, -1/+11Aha! But can you hang your coat on a Monster cable?
  • EwMo, on 03/04/2008, -1/+8Dugg for the Egyptian Llama cable.
    and a Monster fail.
  • joe8pack, on 03/04/2008, -1/+13Yeah but my coat falls right off the monster cable.
  • noseeme, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7Wow, that is the third funnest thing you can do with a metal coathanger! (second being hanging coats and shirts)
  • visiblepulse, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7see: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/packing_the_deal/
  • psykiv, on 03/04/2008, -5/+26Digital - No difference. Either the signal gets there or it doesn't.
    Analog - Can make a measureable difference. Audible difference? Questionable.

    With that being said, I'd like to see some comparisons between the two extremes. Say a coat hanger and some $3300/m nordost valhalla's or some kimber kables..
    • psykiv, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7Or holy *****. Some Tara Labs The ZERO audio cable. A one meter pair of RCA's is $14,900!

      Seriously, wtf, you could buy a decent car for that much!
    • adooga, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Amp ---> Speaker is an analogue signal.
      • psykiv, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2No, but everything from the transport to the DAC is digital.
      • Evazan21, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4I am fairly certain that this article is discussing the analog signal being sent to the speakers.
    • illt, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3the only analog paths you really need to be concerned about are the line level signals from source to amplification (but most cheap sources are pre-amped anyway). They are prone to 60hz hum and other noise...but nothing a $0.50 shielded cable won't do.

      Digital sources you have to worry about Jitter and clock synch...but this has to do with the DAC and DAC interface, not interconnects/cables
      • dennysivo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0not so much. If you are picking up noise in the digital signal path then you can loose phase response via error correction.
  • internetcoward, on 03/04/2008, -4/+7Aren't Monster Cables equipped with a craftsman-like lifetime guarantee? I heard that if you just bring in a shot or messed up cable you can get one for free.

    http://www.monstercable.com/faqs/siteResults.asp?S ...

    lifetime warranty? Maybe that is their appeal?
    • internetcoward, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5PS I am just speaking from a musicians POV not a home sound system.
      • gudnbluts, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5I think for that money you could afford to replace the coathangers a couple of times.
        • Kallahan, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9coat hangers would make ***** instrument cables, being bare on a beer stained stage is just stupid. Monster cables do make sense for musicians, 40 bucks I get a cable that if it breaks I get a new one no questions asked (Done this twice now)
          Musicians constantly plug and unplug cables, on top of that they are not diverted behind an entertainment console, they are right on the god damn floor, being run over by everything. I used to go through cables in my computer/music room every 4 weeks due to the abuse they get, I've gotten over a year from my last monster cable. Do they sound any better? No, they don't. Are they better cables? Yes, they are.
          • Reziarfg, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1Yeah sure, no one in their right mind would use coat hangers. It's just a proof of concept to Monster's uselessness. Anyways you can still get equally effective cables, insulation, jacket, and all, for under $10 online.
    • otakushark, on 03/04/2008, -0/+16When was the last time you broke a speaker cable?
      • Vinny128128, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Speaker cable, maybe. But guitar cables break all the time. I've been playing 9 months and I've already threw two away - the first one was second hand, and was horribly corroded... the other one just stopped working, no idea why.
    • dfective, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2Unless things have changed your a right. So when you buy that HDMI cable, you have one for life.

      This is especially use full if you are a band on the road. It helps a lot because you can drop the cable off anywhere and get it replaced no questions asked. Cables are going to wear out. So this is actually a good deal if you are a band and your on the road in extended times. Making your own Magomi cables are a pain in the ass.
    • washburn085, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1Exactly, they are great for musicians. Too bad my monster cable is the only one that doesn't ***** out or break. I'm sure i'll make use of the warranty one day.
    • camino262, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3If you have a melted speaker cable you have a much bigger problem on hand...
  • magejqh1973, on 03/04/2008, -6/+0very exciting!
  • garfonzo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6All jokes aside, I've heard a lot of stuff about brutally overpriced cables. What would be a good option? Get some bulk speaker wire and solder on the connections yourself?
    • rnelsonee, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Even if you're good at soldering, it's usually just easier to buy cheap cables online. As with every other topic about Monster cables on Digg, someone brings up monoprice.com, and with good reason - a lot of us shop there. RCA cables are excellent - either the 5-in-1 kind (for $3.50), or if you want to splurge, their Digital Coaxial cable is the same thing but 99.9% copper with gold connectors (you can use the cheap RCA cables too though). Digital cables obviously allow you to buy really cheap cables as well. If you have >100ft runs though, and a lot of interference (say, you live in a power plant), better-shielded cables for your analog stuff might be worth it. For digital? As long as you're getting something with a solid connector, any cable will do.
    • otakushark, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Don't even bother with connectors unless you absolutely need them--you're just introducing more potential noise from poor connections. Keep your cables short and use heavy gauge wire to lower the resistance and you'll be fine.
      • altacus, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Only true if you are talking speaker wires.
    • bjs3171, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5it sounds like you can really just use normal AV cables, doesn't it? like the red, white, yellow ones. i bought some heavy gauge cables for my LCD tv, radioshack brand - $30. it seems even that wasn't necessary.
      • da_bradler, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Unless your running your cables over some fluorescent lights and threw a microwave your most likely fine with the cheap stuff. The biggest problem with cheap cables is simply literal quality, if you are moving them around a lot unpluging repluging pulling on them the wrong way the ultra thin wiring in them can shed or connections would break and wear down.
    • AzraeI, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Go down to your local HiFi store and have a talk to them. I did this and borrowed a pair of speaker cables to try out in my set up at home. Made a big difference to music where there is a lot going on. So 90NZD later I have a noticeable improvement in the sound I get out of my HiFi setup.
      Basically you can read around as much as you like but at the end of the day try stuff out first hand. If you can't tell the difference between some cheap cables and some expensive cables then get the cheap ones. What *you* perceive is the only thing you should be worried about.
      • mrwhitethc, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Dugg for the most intelligent thing on here, trust your eyes and ears not anyone else's.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1You go right ahead and keep trusting your ears. I'll keep sitting back and making money off your over-active imagination.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Lamp cord
      • altacus, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Vacuum cords make great speaker wires because they tend to be a higher gauge and well shielded.
    • betobeto, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1At the risk of being dugg down, I've known a while ago about Rob Fritz and his Audio Art Cable brand. He's selling the exact same stuff as those other audiophool companies with overinflated markup, but at a really affordable price if you are a sound enthusiast on a budget and want to step up from typical Rat Shack/Monster Cable fare. They really do enough of a difference even for the most skeptical, and won't make you look like an idiot. Plus, Rob is the kind of guy you can argue with on things like these. http://www.audioartcable.com/ (disclaimer: not affiliated, etc, etc... just a happy customer)
  • br0wnstar, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1What was that webpage that someone posted on digg before about monster cables and how they're much cheaper on this page?
  • stenspect, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Consumerist broke this story originally. Funny that Engadget, a Weblogs company is getting credit and traffic when Gawker Media, their arch enemy and owner of Gizmodo, published it first.
    http://consumerist.com/
  • absurdist, on 03/04/2008, -0/+11NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!
  • turdblossom1, on 03/04/2008, -4/+25Music Lovers listen to Music
    Audiophiles listen to Hardware
    • bjs3171, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1haha. nice.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4And HDTV viewers watch pixels.
      • tnvwboy, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1And what pretty pretty pixels they are.
    • dennysivo, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0False Dichotomy.
      I can't love listening to music if it's played back as an MP3 on your crappy plastic self powered computer speakers.
  • dfective, on 03/04/2008, -9/+4*****, I got a studio and would not mike anything with cheap crap. Mogami all the way... There is a difference between the cheap ***** analog audio cables with cheap tips vs the high quality with high quality connectors.
    • absurdist, on 03/04/2008, -1/+13For pro use, yeah... the build quality means you're not ***** around with broken/shorted/***** up cables during a setup. But for home use you could use zip cord from Radio Shack and no one would know the difference.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2You mean there's a difference between the connectors.
  • CplMax, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1the only thing i saw from monster cable to normal is that monster cables are very strong. vs. normal HDMI cables. but ya.. the difference in carring a frequency doesn't mean anything. i mean.. there's no difference in picture.
    • bemenaker, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1monoprice's $5 HDMI is just as good.
      • altacus, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0You have to Qualify that statement. For most consumer purposes yes, however, in certain environments the right cables can eliminate 60 cycle hum. For HDMI, ensure proper shielding is on the cable; the connections to me are crap.
  • Rooster99, on 03/04/2008, -0/+14I work for a 'big box' retailer in Australia (its pretty much a 'Best Buy" with a different name). I am forced to tell people about how much better a monster cable is supposed to be. It makes me feel so damn dirty and really sleazy. But the funny thing is, even my boss and a few other people I work with actually swallow the tripe they are being given about monster cables.

    I have training with a Monster Cable rep in a week or 2. I will be bringing my $2 HDMI cable and my $2 optical cable. I will say to him "If you can prove to me beyond any doubt that monster cables makes that much difference, I will buy one today."

    As much as would like o fight the system, I like my paycheck so I will continue to sell cables to people. I figure, if you are dumb enough to actually go into a big box retailer for genuine advice, then you deserve to get screwed. But having said that I have gotten myself placed away from all the cabling so I have only sold one so far. You will never see me buying them for myself.
    • daza, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7I work for a big box retailer in Australia too and I never sell someone a HDMI cable worth more than $50 unless they know there is no difference in the quality. Fortunately our management doesn't really push us to sell the expensive leads at all, even though we stock them. Would like to hear the result of what the Monster Cable rep says once you prove to him the cables are identical.

      I guess you shouldn't really rely on big box retailers for advice, but what about the elderly who trust whatever you say? So many older people still think "the more expensive it is, the less trouble I will have", and it's your job to let them know HDMI is all the same :)
    • MoneyPenney, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3I live in Australia and am always getting into arguments with retailers about this stuff (I am sure I know what chain you work for, good on you for speaking out!). Remember the Monster rep will know his arguments and "science" better than you so be prepared to be bamboozled (ask him if he would be happy to do an ABX blind test!). I make sure all my friends know not to spend on expensive cables and interconnects.

      Check out http://www.theaudiocritic.com if you want some good info on how to question and argue about cables and how they make no significant difference, along with how most amps sound the same, etc. There are also sites on the interwebs that detail how Monster try and argue the point (e.g. for HDMI they talk about timing and such, but it still comes down to there being no difference in what we see and hear - they have to use oscilliscopes and psuedo-science to explain the difference instead of your ears/eyes).
    • aprestia, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1That sucks dude. If it were me I'd give it to them straight up, but that doesn't mean totally bashing the Monster's necessarily. Audio quality aside they really are FAR more well made than pretty much any store bought cable I've ever come across (I've used 10 year old patch cables that looked, felt, and sounded brand new) - and there's that warranty. Were it me, I'd focus only selling the, "This is the only ____ cable you'll EVER have to buy!" aspect, cause I have to say, if ever I come across a cable I need that I can't make, beg, borrow, or steal, I'm at least going to check out what I could get a Monster for - because it WOULD be nice to know that that thing, at least, is never gonna cause you a problem (unlike EVERYTHING else in the audio world).
  • theskyisblue, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1i am not that surprised... although i am a bit pleasantly surprised =). Same goes for a lot of low end car parts. By low end I mean bolt-ons and such.
  • mikeyhell, on 03/04/2008, -9/+1haha ... kindof like the guy down the street from me that claims his new tires make his car faster.
    • Duffle, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Was that sarcasm? Good tires increase traction which in turn increases speed. (Handling and braking distance mainly, but there's some speed gain)
      • phatmatt626, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Yea dude, hate to break it to you, but those tires probably DO make his car faster.
  • ozydingo, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2The biggest noticeably difference would be noise pickup (just ran into that issue today hooking up my preamp actually), but that only really even applies to unbalanced cables. most decent equipment will have balanced inputs/outputs, which is simply a wonderful thing.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1Noise pickup? In speaker cables? As long as they're thick enough to not affect the damping factor, there won't be a noticeable difference.
      • ozydingo, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Observation: I get noise--a combination of 60 Hz and some boardband unstructured noise, when I use cheap unbalanced cables that goes away when I used cheap balanced cables. The noise is not loud, but it is there, and particularly problematic if I need to gain anything I've recorded. I'm just going by what I've experienced.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I said "speaker cables", dear. Of course you're going to get noise pickup in ***** mic cables.
          • ozydingo, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, but you responded to my post, in which I was talking about cables going from my preamp to my audio interface ;-)
  • >mark, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6Make your own monster cables (a bit long but it's worth it)

    http://revision3.com/systm/avcabling/
  • broeks, on 03/04/2008, -2/+14I've never bought into the golden tips or "oxygen free" crap they push -- but I still buy into getting non-brand name thick gauge wire for large speakers because its manly.
    • ccdoggy, on 03/04/2008, -8/+5ummm oxygen free is what you want, less oxygen in the material means better current flow. given anything higher then 99.9% really makes no difference.

      \Manly is good.
      • TheWindBlows, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3durno why your getting buried...
        the whole reason for golden tips is because of the gap in connectors thats it.
        If there is oxygen the efficiency falls and you get some static because the electrons have to travel through air more making it more chaotic unless you use some resistors (which will cost more)
      • MoneyPenney, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4Thicker cables generally mean lower resistance, which for short runs (less than 10m) is all you really need to worry about. If you can hear the difference between standard copper and so called oxygen free copper in a double blind ABX test then I suggest you publish your findings!

        Your description does not sound like science to me, sorry.
      • snotrokit, on 03/04/2008, -3/+1dunno why you are getting dugg down. You are all right. As electrons travel on the outside of the copper, the size does not matter as much as the strands and the contacts of the strands to the connector(s). A good high strand OFC (Oxy free) copper and a SOLDERED connection is all you need. I buy cable off of amazon.com for $0.50 a foot 12 gauge.
    • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Oxygen free is good to a point.
      Gold connectors do not corrode and gold is malleable allowing for more surface area contact.
      The conclusion is cables are overengineered and extremely "OverMarketed."
    • HypocriteDigg, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1And also degrades your signal you idiot.
  • deathmatch, on 03/04/2008, -4/+13I used to work at Best buy and the employee price (cost price) of a pair of $125 monster cables would be about $6.99. Talk about overpriced
    • bjs3171, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4suddenly i don't feel so dumb buying $30 radioshack cables.
    • zongamin, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Complete rubbish.
    • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Lying sack of *****.
      • itchyfeet, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Have you ever cut open a monster cable? Complete ***** rubbish. Full of curry.
        • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Multiple times. It's a lots of insulation, but the shielding is both tightly wound copper and aluminum foil unlike many cheaper broadcast cables and some cheaper Radioshack cables. This shjelding helps reduce IR an RF interference. Your cable box is an RF bomb. Most of the time the core is stranded for flexibility where many of the more popular online sources use a solid core. The soldering job is pretty well done. It's a fight against diminishing returns in my book. I never found any curry.
    • CluelessTroll, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Is that with utilizing the 10% or 5-finger discount?
  • pyrite1, on 03/04/2008, -7/+3No big surprise, premium speaker cables are pretty much a waste of money unless the signal's traveling over a vast distance. The signal between power amp and speaker is so hot (loud) it suffers little even when some loss is experienced. If this test was conducted earlier in the signal chain, however (such as in between the source and the preamp or between the preamp and power amp) the results would be VERY different. Low level signals require a very good path. A coat hanger placed there would likely be utterly useless
    • satanswetnipple, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6The counter argument comes from Australia. The oldest national radio service is built on very thin wire. I believe it is approximately 0.75 mm. The broadcast is transmitted from various places around Australia and the signal runs along these wires for 1000s of kilometres. These wires were installed nearly a century ago, and have not been replaced. They have corrosion in places and have been repaired countless times.

      Yet no one, including Audiophiles complain about the broadcast sound quality at any major city. If there is sound degradation over a few metres, the sound degradation should theoretically render thousands of kms of cable useless.
      • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Radio sounds like *****. They generally don't go analog over long runs anymore. They either have boosters and they convert to digital.
        • itchyfeet, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Mate, I'm inclined to agree with you, but if you've ever seen Master Control in an ABC station (and I assume you're talking about the ABC), then you'd know that a lot of those signals are now carried by sattelite. Sorry to call ***** on you, but it's true. The only cable involved is where the sattelite signal goes to the delay machine in Adelaide and Perth.
          • ICanRead, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1No, you are right.

            I was supposed to say "They either have boosters and convert to digital or they go by satellite."

            Radio still sounds like crap, but a lot of that is content based too ;).
    • HonestAbe, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1The resistance of a speaker wire does actually have a measurable effect on distortion. You're only driving 4-16 ohm load.
  • danz24, on 03/04/2008, -10/+2why couldnt they use normal or cheaper wires instead of coathangers?? who uses coathangers for their audio system??
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.