Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Gardner
The $6.00 cables are here. (I have no affiliation with this company.)
I checked for noise immunity, and again, the $6.00 cables are as good as the Monster cables. This is not rocket science, even though so many audio and videophiles make it out to be. It's not hard to make a decent cable from both an electrical and mechanical standpoint, and it certainly doesn't cost >$100 to do so. Most of that goes into all of the advertising and hype campaigns.
|
Aha! I've got you now! These are actually
$7 cables (thought I wouldn't notice the price structure, eh?).
Seriously, these look to be a very high quality offering at that price point; the gross margin must be extremely low. I do doubt that they are the equal in every respect of the M1000 series, but I'll bet your point that they are more cost effective is accurate. My perspective on pricing comes from being in a manufacturing business. If I design a product that is essentially a "sole source", I have no qualms about asking 90% or better gross margin; hence my lack of resentment toward those who do likewise. Monster are no longer in such a position, and it is clear that they will have to adjust or suffer. If they are smart, most of that money has been going into their pockets, not into advertising.
Quote:
| I'll put together a description of my test methods and equipment (along with photos) when I get some time. |
I would appreciate a look at your test suite, if you have time to post it.
Quote:
| Have you done double-blind testing? If not, then I would be willing to bet that there is bias creeping into your evaluations. Even the so-called "experts" who write for the high-end audio and video magazines (and who should know better) regularly get bitten by this. Someone once did a double-blind test where they compared a $3000 stereo interconnect cable to a straightened coat hanger, and 6 out of 10 "expert" audiophiles preferred the coat hanger. |
The technical problems associated with devising accurate double blind tests are well known. My training and experience as an engineer have taught me to be skeptical of
all conclusions, especially those to which I feel emotionally attached (emotion based decisions can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in an R&D setting). I still believe that an open mind and a willingness to accept new data are the most powerful defense against wishful thinking. Reviewers in the magazines you cite are, by and large, the least dependable sources of information imaginable, as they are beholding to their advertisers on a grand scale. And I think that interconnects that cost thousands of dollars are among the least likely of audio upgrades (along with $1000 power cables and cryogenically treated wall sockets
) to be cost effective.
Quote:
| What I especially find funny are the people who spend hundreds or thousands on expensive cabling, and then feed their displays with crappy, overcompressed signals full of motion and compression artifacts. |
I could not agree more; I believe that the most dependable sign that a particular audio or video system is nearing "nerdvanna" is when it reaches the point where it can distinguish an excellent source from a good one. After that, improvement tends to be incremental and difficult to achieve, though not necessarily expensive or impossible.
regards, billb....
(edited for spelling)
