* "Benjamins" means $100 USD for those of you unfamiliar with US currency.• The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins. Fortunately for Monster, there are plenty of those people. They're not even suckers, they are just rich as hell, and want the best. This testing did not prove that Monster is not the best. It just proved that the best is, for the most part, unnecessary.
And the thing about HDMI is that it is DIGITAL... it either works or it doesn't. Therefore, if your TV picture is not broken up, not fuzzy, or jittery caused by packet loss caused by bad cables, you simply cannot get "more better" than the digital signal. HDMI signals degrade with distance, so buy only the quality needed to cover the distance you want. One or two meter cables can be cheap cheap.zzm9980 wrote:Tangentially related, tests on "high end" HDMI cables:
http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-abo ... e-part-iii
* "Benjamins" means $100 USD for those of you unfamiliar with US currency.• The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins. Fortunately for Monster, there are plenty of those people. They're not even suckers, they are just rich as hell, and want the best. This testing did not prove that Monster is not the best. It just proved that the best is, for the most part, unnecessary.
Yes, Eagle! I can see you're a secret sound appreciation expert.Strong Eagle wrote:And the thing about HDMI is that it is DIGITAL... it either works or it doesn't. Therefore, if your TV picture is not broken up, not fuzzy, or jittery caused by packet loss caused by bad cables, you simply cannot get "more better" than the digital signal. HDMI signals degrade with distance, so buy only the quality needed to cover the distance you want. One or two meter cables can be cheap cheap.zzm9980 wrote:Tangentially related, tests on "high end" HDMI cables:
http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-abo ... e-part-iii
* "Benjamins" means $100 USD for those of you unfamiliar with US currency.• The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins. Fortunately for Monster, there are plenty of those people. They're not even suckers, they are just rich as hell, and want the best. This testing did not prove that Monster is not the best. It just proved that the best is, for the most part, unnecessary.
I really do like the best sound I can possibly get. And I'm not saying that you don't get better quality for more money up to a point, and I'm not saying that you don't get more features or perhaps longevity or power for more money. Nor am I saying that changes in equalizer settings, loudness, or tone doesn't make a difference.BillyB wrote:Yes, Eagle! I can see you're a secret sound appreciation expert.Strong Eagle wrote:And the thing about HDMI is that it is DIGITAL... it either works or it doesn't. Therefore, if your TV picture is not broken up, not fuzzy, or jittery caused by packet loss caused by bad cables, you simply cannot get "more better" than the digital signal. HDMI signals degrade with distance, so buy only the quality needed to cover the distance you want. One or two meter cables can be cheap cheap.zzm9980 wrote:Tangentially related, tests on "high end" HDMI cables:
http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-abo ... e-part-iii
* "Benjamins" means $100 USD for those of you unfamiliar with US currency.
I've also found that people don't always listen to music in FLAC or lossless format - which, itself, can make a huge difference to the type of and the quality of the sound.taxico wrote:it's difficult if not impossible for any store to replicate your home/office... so even a blind test is useless as they will sound different once you've hooked it up at your place. even the genre of music makes a difference...
which is why i prefer buying my audio stuff overseas - if i don't think my ears like them, i return them.
in brand conscious singapore, the higher end stuff would eventually find a buyer - so i take it as renting equipment that i may possibly like. if i like what i hear, i keep 'em.
one of my favorite set-ups have been a 70s sansui amp + speakers. which i got for free. they got thrown out by mistake because they look extremely ratty and dirty. i miss them because that sound has never been replicated thus far.
good speakers/amps naturally amplify all the defects inherent at source. so unless we're ripping a very well recorded CD (/DVDA/SACD/HDCD) with good software/settings/equipment... or buying "real" lossless digital music... (which some purists believe requires a DAC for playback), audio fidelity will probably sound worse than a cheap hifi set.BillyB wrote:I've also found that people don't always listen to music in FLAC or lossless format - which, itself, can make a huge difference to the type of and the quality of the sound.
Even using analogue sources and stripping out all the processing can make a big difference.
Years ago I returned my first set of $300+ headphones (hardly considered 'audiophile') because I realized all of my mp3s were only ripped at 192k. I could very clearly hear the difference between those and the 320kb ones, or lossless copies.BillyB wrote:
I've also found that people don't always listen to music in FLAC or lossless format - which, itself, can make a huge difference to the type of and the quality of the sound.
Yep - my current set-up can be very sensitive at times to lossless. Some stuff is far too lively. I guess it goes down to how the stuff was edited and produced.taxico wrote:good speakers/amps naturally amplify all the defects inherent at source. so unless we're ripping a very well recorded CD (/DVDA/SACD/HDCD) with good software/settings/equipment... or buying "real" lossless digital music... (which some purists believe requires a DAC for playback), audio fidelity will probably sound worse than a cheap hifi set.BillyB wrote:I've also found that people don't always listen to music in FLAC or lossless format - which, itself, can make a huge difference to the type of and the quality of the sound.
Even using analogue sources and stripping out all the processing can make a big difference.
i do not currently own any real audio equipment as i shipped all of mine home last year when i originally planned to go back to the US. plans changed and i'm still here... so i'm back to using computer bluetooth speakers or my ipod which i used to only use on long plane rides.
to be honest... sometimes i wonder why i bother with the dollars, sweat, sore knees and backaches that audio equipment induces... $200 computer speakers work just fine!
I think i'm tone deaf when it comes to MP3 quality through headphones - i use Sennheiser and find they just give a nice, warm low end sort of sound. But nothing too discernible over standard issue stuff. No DAC either, just the hardware that comes with the phone.zzm9980 wrote:Years ago I returned my first set of $300+ headphones (hardly considered 'audiophile') because I realized all of my mp3s were only ripped at 192k. I could very clearly hear the difference between those and the 320kb ones, or lossless copies.BillyB wrote:
I've also found that people don't always listen to music in FLAC or lossless format - which, itself, can make a huge difference to the type of and the quality of the sound.
Later after replacing everything with better rips, I now buy better headphones again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests