or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › AudioQuest Vs. Monoprice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AudioQuest Vs. Monoprice - Page 3

post #61 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post

make sure you fill up your Civic with 94 octane gas. It's more expensive, so it must be better.
That analogy is more spot on than you might think. Very few cars actually need premium gas. Far more often than not manufacturers label their cars as needing premium gas because consumers think that means the engine has higher performance than one that runs on regular. In short, it's a sales tool, and a successful one, as the average consumer has no more understanding of how internal combustion engines work than they do how a piece of wire works.
post #62 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

one thousand dollars worth of cable means nothing  ..  How many cables did you bought, what length etc.  You could easily go to Walmart and spend one thousand dollars on cables for set up.
Nb I think Monoprice cables are good Cables  I am in noway putting down Monoprice.  I do have some Monoprice cables in my ceiling for my roof speakers.  but if I spent $100,000 on my setup I want the best out of if  So I am buying the best cables I can afford.             As I stated earlier on  buying a $ 500.0 pair of speaker cable for a $400.0 HTIB is not worth it  .Why do you thing the better amps cost more, the better cd player cost more , the better speakers cost more.  Because they are made of better materials and transfer into better sounds . the same goes for  cables
Think my friends
Quote:
Did not say because it is more expensive it is better

Sure about that?
post #63 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

 The fact is that most better cables cost more , because they are made of better materials.  

You should look at what's under the Techflex sleeving.
post #64 of 281

PS I said before expensive does not = to goog.   i am talking about good cables  regardless of cost   Good is good , expensive is expensive.  But most good cables cost more

post #65 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

PS I said before expensive does not = to goog.   i am talking about good cables  regardless of cost   Good is good , expensive is expensive.  But most good cables cost more

Simply not true. Only some of them do, certainly not a majority of them.
post #66 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

Did not say because it is more expensive it is better .  You need to get that out of your head.   i am talking about better cables, not expensive cables here  The fact is that most better cables cost more , because they are made of better materials.  but  I am talking about better cables  It does not go that all expensive cables are better or that all cheap cables are not good.        I am talking about cables with pick up less interference and transmit sound better which you can distinguish with your own ears  because you use your ears to listen to your music, movies etc not testing equiptment

Yes. Monoprice are good cables. All good cables perform equivalently. Lamp wire performs equivalently. Coathangers perform equivalently, which you would know if you read the link. If you get your head out of where you have it tucked you will start to realize what confirmation bias, post-purchase rationalization, observational selection bias, and plain old placebo effect do to your ability to perceive.

What you need to get out of your head is any idea that you, or anyone else can make any effective comparison between sounds while separating the listening sessions by minutes or hours, while knowing that there are specific changes being made to the equipment, and with the expectation that some of the changes are "better" than others.

You are factually wrong. Feel free to reference a double-blind test where individuals can distinguish among properly-performing cables. You can not. Would you like to hazard a guess why no manufacturer anywhere in the multi-billion dollar audio industry has published the results of such a test? Hint: it's because there is no difference.
post #67 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

That analogy is more spot on than you might think. Very few cars actually need premium gas. Far more often than not manufacturers label their cars as needing premium gas because consumers think that means the engine has higher performance than one that runs on regular. In short, it's a sales tool, and a successful one, as the average consumer has no more understanding of how internal combustion engines work than they do how a piece of wire works.

That's what I was driving at (no pun intended). I hadn't heard of manufacturers inflating their octane requirement, that's absurd. Since, as I'm sure you know, octane is a measure of burn rate, with higher meaning slower, using higher-than-required octane fuel will diminish mileage, so it's a double waste.
post #68 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post

That's what I was driving at (no pun intended). I hadn't heard of manufacturers inflating their octane requirement, that's absurd. Since, as I'm sure you know, octane is a measure of burn rate, with higher meaning slower, using higher-than-required octane fuel will diminish mileage, so it's a double waste.
The last car I owned that actually needed high octane gas was a '68 428 GTO. The last four cars I've owned all had that 'use premium gas' sticker, but I haven't, and not one of them ever suffered any knocking, including my Toyota Celica that red lined at 8,000. That's because they all had on-board computers to prevent it.
I bet if you told the average Mercedes/BMW/Lexus/Cadillac etc owner that their car could use regular gas they'd actually feel shortchanged. rolleyes.gif
And yes, I know that you get less mileage from premium gas. I doubt one in a hundred drivers has a clue what octane ratings actually mean, also apropos in this thread. wink.gif
post #69 of 281
Every time I'm even the slightest bit tempted to believe some new "pseudoscience" argument about the sonic superiority of exotic cables...I just remind myself of the following:

1. If cables were that big of a deal, all of the major speaker manufacturers would be shouting to the masses about how their use of "super wires" inside their speakers was a critical factor in why their speakers sounded so good...and as we all know, this rarely happens.

2. Then if I'm still tempted to believe....I just go to here and re-read posting #28

3. and then, being of sound mind and frugal wallet I pull up this page and resolve to make my own exotic cables for a fraction of the price.

4. and this is pretty interesting too

No doubt in my mind that any extra $$$$ spent on exotic cables would have produced far better results if spent on even better loudspeakers.
post #70 of 281

You know sir . with all your many rude remarks   It is all up to the listener. Dour your testing. Your double blind testing or whatever test you want to do  The end result is when you are in your home theater, your den, living room or where ever you listen to your music or movies. It is the human ear that listen and tell whether is is acceptable  for you. Not your double blind testing. whatever you may use for testing the final thing is your ears that is doing the listening to the end product and that is what it needs to sound good to.       So sir I will conclude  What ever sound best to my ears that'e what I will buy. not whatever sound good to your testing

 I sign off on this thread

post #71 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

You know sir . with all your many rude remarks   It is all up to the listener. Dour your testing. Your double blind testing or whatever test you want to do  The end result is when you are in your home theater, your den, living room or where ever you listen to your music or movies. It is the human ear that listen and tell whether is is acceptable  for you. Not your double blind testing. whatever you may use for testing the final thing is your ears that is doing the listening to the end product and that is what it needs to sound good to.       So sir I will conclude  What ever sound best to my ears that'e what I will buy. not whatever sound good to your testing
 I sign off on this thread

This is what happens when one cant handle the truth.
post #72 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

You know sir . with all your many rude remarks   It is all up to the listener. Dour your testing. Your double blind testing or whatever test you want to do  The end result is when you are in your home theater, your den, living room or where ever you listen to your music or movies. It is the human ear that listen and tell whether is is acceptable  for you. Not your double blind testing. whatever you may use for testing the final thing is your ears that is doing the listening to the end product and that is what it needs to sound good to.       So sir I will conclude  What ever sound best to my ears that'e what I will buy. not whatever sound good to your testing
 I sign off on this thread

I think you misunderstand us. We aren't trying to criticize or change your preferences. All we are doing is explaining the differences you hear in cables result from human bias not from anything in the cables themselves. You can hear, prefer and buy whatever you like.
post #73 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I think you misunderstand us. We aren't trying to criticize or change your preferences. All we are doing is explaining the differences you hear in cables result from human bias not from anything in the cables themselves. You can hear, prefer and buy whatever you like.

First of all, you will never ever never prove with 100% certainty that it's human bias. Now let's entertain your hypothetical idea for a second... Let's say it IS human bias. Does it matter? If you spend $300 to upgrade your speakers and experience sound which is 10% better (some would say it's human bias as well BTW). And I spend $300 on cables made out of better materials and due to human bias perceive the sound as being 10% better. Was your money better spent than mine?
post #74 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

This is what happens when one cant handle the truth.
It's actually a reaction not at all unlike Stockholm Syndrome. Really.
post #75 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

First of all, you will never ever never prove with 100% certainty that it's human bias. Now let's entertain your hypothetical idea for a second... Let's say it IS human bias. Does it matter? If you spend $300 to upgrade your speakers and experience sound which is 10% better (some would say it's human bias as well BTW). And I spend $300 on cables made out of better materials and due to human bias perceive the sound as being 10% better. Was your money better spent than mine?

Welcome to Bose Audio?
post #76 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton Robinson View Post

You know sir . with all your many rude remarks   It is all up to the listener. Dour your testing. Your double blind testing or whatever test you want to do  The end result is when you are in your home theater, your den, living room or where ever you listen to your music or movies. It is the human ear that listen and tell whether is is acceptable  for you. Not your double blind testing. whatever you may use for testing the final thing is your ears that is doing the listening to the end product and that is what it needs to sound good to.       So sir I will conclude  What ever sound best to my ears that'e what I will buy. not whatever sound good to your testing
 I sign off on this thread

Elton, interesting reaction by you in that I didn't reference you. Instead, I threw out my own observations and experiences along with a couple of links to provide some insightful reading. One thing that does seem to be true...when people conduct tests of loudspeaker, wires etc. and they can see what is being played, they are more likely to hear differences than when the tests are completely blind and done with rapid switching.

I will close by saying that I totally agree with you in that if one hears a difference and thinks that there is value in exotic cables, then so be it. On the other hand, since most of us live in a "limited budget world", it is unlikely that cables provide the best sonic bang for the buck.
post #77 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

The last car I owned that actually needed high octane gas was a '68 428 GTO. The last four cars I've owned all had that 'use premium gas' sticker, but I haven't, and not one of them ever suffered any knocking, including my Toyota Celica that red lined at 8,000. That's because they all had on-board computers to prevent it.
I bet if you told the average Mercedes/BMW/Lexus/Cadillac etc owner that their car could use regular gas they'd actually feel shortchanged. rolleyes.gif
And yes, I know that you get less mileage from premium gas. I doubt one in a hundred drivers has a clue what octane ratings actually mean, also apropos in this thread. wink.gif

I know cars don't knock any more, because of the computer, but higher compression still require higher octane for optimal performance/efficiency. Did you test the mileage wit hdifferent octane? I wouldn't care too much about a couple % of performance, but I certainly wouldn't want to spend my savings on Regular in reduced MPG.
post #78 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

First of all, you will never ever never prove with 100% certainty that it's human bias. Now let's entertain your hypothetical idea for a second... Let's say it IS human bias. Does it matter? If you spend $300 to upgrade your speakers and experience sound which is 10% better (some would say it's human bias as well BTW). And I spend $300 on cables made out of better materials and due to human bias perceive the sound as being 10% better. Was your money better spent than mine?

It's already been proven. There is nothing hypothetical. Nobody can tell a coathanger from a Monster cable. Nobody has ever distinguished a ubercable lubricated with unicorn flatulence from a run-of-the mill cable of appropriate gauge. BTW, I can sell you paint that will improve your system's performance by 10% for $300. Granted, the can will say "Krylon" on the outside, but don't be deceived. My team of elite corksniffers have convinced each other that this will wring that last intangible bit of nuance from the midrange, adding that punchy but warm air that you don't even know you're missing. If you don't care about your sound, well, best of luck to you, but if you are willing to pay for the best, get in touch.

Are you seriously trying to argue that it is worth money to experience an imaginary improvement? How about the four figure AC power cables? Hardwood knobs? Of course it is better to spend money on actual performance over a fraudulent upgrade, that's not even debatable. Are you Joe Nagy from the Kitchen Nightmares episode? You certainly have the same grasp of reality.
post #79 of 281
He's probably Arnold Naguis, the salesman for the Naguis family business?
post #80 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

A human ear is more complex than any audio tool, or measuring device. A worthy engineer should be the first to admit to it.

Edit: I've worked with real actual engineers for over a decade now. I know engineers from Fermilab. I'm just extremely curious which engineers do you associate with and base most of your claims on? Sure, I've met some closed minded engineers, but most are nothing like what you paint them out to be.

No, a human ear is not. A human brain is, yes. That's why double-blind testing is necessary.

The entire engineering team I worked with (and there were literally dozens) would laugh out loud any time a sales or marketing person would ask about high-end cables.

This is audio, not Fermilab work.
post #81 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post

I certainly wouldn't want to spend my savings on Regular in reduced MPG.
Regular gives higher MPG, not less. Higher octane gas is less volatile than lower octane gas. That's to prevent pre-ignition with high compression ratio engines. That was a real issue in the days of mechanical ignition timing, but not with computer controlled electronic ignition timing. High octane gas can be useful with some engines in extreme acceleration scenarios and exotic engines, like a Ferrari, but not with family automobiles.
post #82 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Regular gives higher MPG, not less. Higher octane gas is less volatile than lower octane gas. That's to prevent pre-ignition with high compression ratio engines. That was a real issue in the days of mechanical ignition timing, but not with computer controlled electronic ignition timing. High octane gas can be useful with some engines in extreme acceleration scenarios and exotic engines, like a Ferrari, but not with family automobiles.

I understand that, I just don't remember if making a computer compensate to avoid detonation caused by lower octane fuel would result in reduced performance, mileage, or both. I remember there is a trade off, it's not as easy as the computer banning detonation. If it's just performance, then, yes, one could just stay off the pedal and it wouldn't hurt anything.
post #83 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post

I understand that, I just don't remember if making a computer compensate to avoid detonation caused by lower octane fuel would result in reduced performance, mileage, or both. I remember there is a trade off, it's not as easy as the computer banning detonation. If it's just performance, then, yes, one could just stay off the pedal and it wouldn't hurt anything.
It would reduce performance somewhat under hard acceleration, as that's where knocking is most likely to occur and where higher octane gas might be beneficial. It won't have any effect under normal acceleration or cruising.
post #84 of 281
Just gonna jump in, knocking probably isn't the word you are thinking of. Typically when an engine is knocking that's a bottom end rod knock or something. Top end pings, ticking, and tapping would be caused by fuel issues.
post #85 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Regular gives higher MPG, not less. Higher octane gas is less volatile than lower octane gas. That's to prevent pre-ignition with high compression ratio engines. That was a real issue in the days of mechanical ignition timing, but not with computer controlled electronic ignition timing. High octane gas can be useful with some engines in extreme acceleration scenarios and exotic engines, like a Ferrari, but not with family automobiles.

Proper use of recommended fuel is best for operating your motor vehicle to get the best mileage. Regular dont necessary gives any better gas mileage if is not what the motor is desinged for. The so called on board computer, is designed to retardd timming when detonation is present when driving condition difffers such as weather, temperature, engine load, not primalary for people to use lower octane.
High octane found in most US gas station are good used for the US car market. Many cars now a days have much higher compression ratio not to mention that many runs higher RPM then car in the old days, so high octane are not just for exotic cars. Many luxury cars can be considered family car and many run high compression/turbo/Supercharged.
Edited by RicardoJoa - 2/11/14 at 12:42am
post #86 of 281
The comments on octane gas selection got me wondering what another forum more on the subject said. Seems it causes an amp-type debate there too smile.gif http://www.benzworld.org/forums/general-mercedes-benz/1514354-fuel-5.html (other threads I looked at from a search were similar, this was one had a high number of responses, # 41 is probably the best one).
post #87 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

The comments on octane gas selection got me wondering what another forum more on the subject said. Seems it causes an amp-type debate there too smile.gif http://www.benzworld.org/forums/general-mercedes-benz/1514354-fuel-5.html (other threads I looked at from a search were similar, this was one had a high number of responses, # 41 is probably the best one).

Consider that the lowest octane in the US is still higher then most third world country, now i wouldnt be suprised that any car can run on the regular wii have no ill effect that the driver can detect. That doesnt mean some wouldnt have noticed either. When i had my civic which only require the regular, i would run regular as i found that it got the best mileage. Clearly running higher octane was waste of money, not only has a lower gas mileage and it affected the already poor performance.
But with my Honda Accord EuroR which the motor was desinged to be used in Japan and with 100 ron, in my country, the highest was 97 ron, and i can hear knock/detonation when i call for. Easy to create by running higher gears and air con on. Nevertheless, the car ran fine. I cant say wether there was damage to the motor as i have never seen the motor inside so one cant come to conclusion as wether the motor has damage or not.
post #88 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

The comments on octane gas selection got me wondering what another forum more on the subject said. Seems it causes an amp-type debate there too smile.gif http://www.benzworld.org/forums/general-mercedes-benz/1514354-fuel-5.html (other threads I looked at from a search were similar, this was one had a high number of responses, # 41 is probably the best one).
Also apropos to this thread. Isolated islands of cogent comment by knowledgeable sources surrounded by a sea of ignorance.
post #89 of 281
Interesting, though, one of the sources in that post seems to imply a badly enough under-rated gas will result in poorer MPG. That just reinforces my policy: try the lower rated fuel until the cost per mile decreases, then move back up one level.
post #90 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post

Interesting, though, one of the sources in that post seems to imply a badly enough under-rated gas will result in poorer MPG. That just reinforces my policy: try the lower rated fuel until the cost per mile decreases, then move back up one level.
Logical, because you can accurately calculate your per mile cost, even if you don't have a trip computer that does it for you, as opposed to saying 'the expensive gas must work better, otherwise why would it be more expensive?'. wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › AudioQuest Vs. Monoprice