Comments on: Audiophile Deathmatch: Monster Cables vs. a Coat Hanger

By: Andrew H

Andrew H — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:35:02 +0000

I thank you, Chris, for completely missing the point. I mean, really, in such spectacular fashion…it’s not easy. Dude, you’re not even in the same country as the point. You’re in like, a completely different galaxy from the point. The point exists solely on a dimension you have no possible chance of perceiving, let alone the point itself.

I’m done.

By: Bubba

Bubba — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:22:10 +0000

But… Monster Cables HAVE TO sound better because they COST MORE, right? Stupid audiophiles! Judge sound quality with your EARS, not your wallet! (Of course, that doesn’t mean this whole article isn’t just made-up b.s. either – wouldn’t be the first time in Gizmodo)

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:57:46 +0000

“…..yet still insists on digitizing his entire vinyl collection onto .WAV, not high grade mp3 or AAC or whatever.”

Am I missing something?

I was of the understanding that .WAV is an uncompressed format that retains the detail of the source with no compromise.

‘high grade mp3′ was and remains as far as I am aware, a lossy compressed format that strips out the detail of the source in the name of a smaller file size.

AAC whilst considered to be the ’successor’ to mp3 is also a lossy compressed format.

WAV is uncompressed and thus any self respecting ‘audiophile’ or anyone who actually cares about their music sounding the best it possibly can, would obviously be insisting that it be digitized into the best available format.

He may have ear wax problems, but a bit of digging with a q-tip will sort that out.

Similarly a bit of digging and a bit of independent thought may actually reveal some things to be more than they seem.

Ignorance is never a defense.

Food for thought my friend.

By: Thanks

Thanks — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:07:17 +0000

This is why I hate reading comments. Everyone thinks they know what they are talking about. If you think monster cable is good quality then keep your hands off the keyboard and go upgrade your components.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:17:17 +0000

Great….there goes the price of coat hangers.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:29:47 +0000

Nobody gets a hard-on over coathanger wires… so the extra expense is worth it.

By: JewFro

JewFro — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:22:50 +0000

I’m an audiophile. However I don’t have a home theater system. My sound is a 75w guitar amp in the back, 25 watt bass amp in the front, an old stereo probably also 25 watts, and two computer speakers. So in this particular argument between monster audio and regular audio I’ve never used either of them. Now when it comes to guitar and bass, My monster cables sound at least 25% better than the cheapo ones, plus I can get them replaced for free if they go bad. As for regular audio cables, there probably isn’t much of a difference. But I’d like to find out for myself

By: Wynnde

Wynnde — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:35:40 +0000

Digital Cables?

Wow…And I thought the expensive cabling was a joke…

Analog signal can degrade, but digital is either on…or off…how can you fuck that up?

Ye Gods! what morons we have among us.

By: Wynnde

Wynnde — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:31:55 +0000

Bullshit…plain and simple.

Wear in and warm up on a system to make a difference in sound? You’ve prolly got vermin in yer walls that get scared and start moving when you crank your “rig” up.
I am ceaselessly amazed by “audiophuks” who think that $$$ = better sound. A smart shopper (one who researches his/her purchases) will save beau coup $$$ and get a very nice sound from their home theatre…and enjoy it in the process.
I’m not gonna get into the argument over the whole cable thing…it’s been debunked so many times, I am frankly tired of slapping people in the face with facts.
People will convince themselves that they “hear” or “feel” things that simply aren’t there if you tell them often enough to expect it…seems those who think MP3 encoding or $10 cables will bring the overall value of their “rig” down to human standards…It’s really such a pity to only be able to play sounds humans can hear when you paid for something that should command the attention of every dog within miles.

Idiots.

99% of everyone who argues the point of “more expensive cables produce better sound” does so for the ability to tell their associates that they have the best equipment that money can buy. It’s a status thing, and quite childish in it’s simplicity, not to mention completely idiotic sounding to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

I consider myself to be a diligent lover or music (in all of it’s myriad forms)…and I am a performance artist (I play music as a side job)…and unless the venue supplies cables (which I have yet to see), I’m going to hook up with my $25 cables from Best Buy.

I’ve never had a complaint yet.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:02:57 +0000

The only time cables are going to be an issue is when they become very long. Electrical resistance becomes larger the more cable you use so it needs to be thicker. Also the longer the cable the more it will act as a capacitor, filtering out low Frequencies. If you have a lot of cable wound up in a loop it will start to filter high frequencies. Now all this is more theoretical then practical as 99.99% of all human ears will not be able to detect the difference.