Audiophile Monster Cables vs a Coat Hanger (2008)(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Audiophile Monster Cables vs a Coat Hanger (2008)
https://gizmodo.com/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger-363154
7 comments
The funny side effect of all this is that the first time I saw a Monster product at the same price as all the other crap on the shelf I felt more comfortable buying it.
I’ve been installing pro audio for more than 30 years and while there’s a lot of BS, specially in the “audiophile” market, there’s more to consider in a cable than just passing a signal, i’m tired of seeing braided instrument cables behind audio racks or in outdoor installations just because “they’re good quality” usually Belden + Switchcraft or Canare is all you need.
Reminds me of the tonearm cartridge I saw yesterday, selling for almost $3000 (no tonearm included). I guess if you've spent $25,000 on a tonearm, you might as well. I also guess that - at those prices, if your ears are that spectacular - what the hell, get the unobtainium wires.
The test they did was of a digital signal, no?
As long as the signal gets from a to b there would be no quality difference.
As long as the signal gets from a to b there would be no quality difference.
The signal has already been converted from digital to analog by the time it's going out over a speaker cable.
The jacks on their quarter-inch instrument cables are not the standard shape and are truly terrible.
They were selling $200 gold-plated HDMI cables back then too.
In my experience Monster isn’t anything special, but it’s not unusable either. Since their undefined panel of listening judges can’t tell the difference between Monster and copper hangers what would interest me more is if they also introduced some cabling that is thought to be far superior to Monster and ask them to then make judgments between all three.