Monster Cable at it again. (1 Viewer)

[Mjorgensen]

I don't really know how I should respond to this if at all. I feel that it really says more about "you" than me. I'm not rich by any means and rarely have anyone new in my theater so I do it for myself. Just because "I" choose "nice" things does not make me stupid, it does make you an A** for saying I do it to "impress" people. Get a life...

 

[RobertR]

Buying audio "jewelry" doesn't have to be done to impress others. It's no less jewelry if you do it to show yourself your "taste and pride in your choices".

 

[gene c]

I have to say that I really don't understand the problem with this audio jewelry thing (unless you have no taste or personal pride ). I consider my Swans (as well as most of my other stuff) to be "audio jewelry" because I enjoy looking at them almost as much as I enjoy listening to them. As for cables, even though I have some Monoprice stuff, as well as a few others and a couple of Standard Monster Cables, I usually spend a little more for them than that because I'm at the point in my life where I like having nicer things in my house whenever possible. If someone else thinks that's a waste or is "stupid" it doesn't bother me any. I like to buy things that tickle all the senses, not just the ones they were designed for. BTW, I also have two classic cars with lots of aluminum and chrome that I polish on occasion. Not because I'm trying to impress anyone (including myself) but just because I enjoy doing it . Just like I enjoy putting together a nice HT, including cables.

 

[RobertR]

I don't have a problem with it either --as long as the person freely admits that's what it IS, and doesn't try to justify the stuff by claiming it really does "perform better" (shiny chrome looks nice on a car, but does anyone say it improves horsepower or decreases 0-60 time?). I've dressed up cables with Techflex to make them look nice. I don't pretend it makes them sound better, and buying Techflex from Parts Express is a HELL of a lot cheaper than buying "boutique" cables dressed in the stuff.

 

[gene c]

It's probably not my place to say it (but that's never stopped me before ) but I think you read a lot more into it then what was actually meant. And there's a big difference between a "boutique" cable and a "nice" one. The reason I put myself into this is because I also buy what I think are "nice" cables. AR, Blue Jeans, and yes the occasional entry level Monsters, among others. And not because they perform any better but because it "looks" like they are made from better materials. Kinda like shinier chrome Oh, I don't know. Smoother surface could lead to less wind resistance which might produce a slightly lower ET. Then again, maybe not. Have a good night.

 

[troy evans]

Here's something I've never done. When someone comes to my house and I show off my system, I don't take them to the back where everythings hooked up and say "look at those cables I have there." Who cares? As long as they perform. If installed right, cables should not be seen. If it makes some feel better to know those expensive cables are back there, so be it. It makes me feel better to know I get the same quality performance and have spent hundreds less. I take pride in saving money . Also, who says less expensive cables= cheap cables . You can get some damn fine looking cables for a third or even less, than what Monster charges. Look, it's great to have a shielded/no interference cable that can transmit covert top secret spy communications. Or a cable that has a test of 500 pounds of strength so you can go swinging through your neighborhood like Spider-Man. However, at the end of the day, none of that super-duper bullshit matters. As long as the cables do what they are supposed to do. Which is to give me optimum performance.

 

[gene c]

Absolutely! But, particularly with analog cables, do we really know we're getting optimum performance from cheap (excuse me) in-expensive cable? I don't. So I'm willing to spend a few dollars more (a few, not hundreds) for cables that are made with what "appear" to be better materials. Just in case. Anyway, I've really enjoyed the conversation and hope I didnt upset anyone too much. Remember, these are cables we're talking about. No reason to get bent outta shape over them . I'm gone for the rest of the day. Happy Easter, everyone!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yes, you do:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ifference.html

Can't get any "in-expensive" than coat hangers.

 

[gene c]

I read that thread too but transmission of a signal is one thing, protecting that signal is something else. And until I'm able to conduct my own tests I'm willing to spend a few bucks more for Blue Jeans or PartsExpress just to be safe. And I'm not defending Monster Cable in the least bit. Their stuff is way too expensive for what it is and $250 for an HDMI cable is absurd.And I fixed that one .

 

[RobertR]

Just for the record, I don't consider Blue Jeans or Parts Express to be in the "ridiculously overpriced" category.

 

[troy evans]

I feel this way as well. Blue Jeans are awesome for the money.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Make that three.

 

[LewB]

CNET Quick Guide: HDMI and HDMI cables: What HDMI cable should I buy? - CNET reviews

Just 0's and 1's. It's there or it ain't.

 

[gene c]

But I would put them into the "nice" category that Mark referred to. The Blue Jeans in particular. Certainly better (quality, and yes, even looks) than coat hangers. Even if they apparently don't perform any better. I said "apparently" because I, as yet, have never tried coat hangers! .

 

[RobertR]

Nice is, well, nice. But when I made the remark about 'audio jewelry" that Mark objected to, I had in mind MIT and Transparent cables that he also referred to.

 

[gene c]

And tha's why I thought you were reading more into it than what was meant because it was the nice ones that he bought. And so did I.