You can fool some of the people some of the time...
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
Monster cable is a company that's entire business model is based on selling people insanely marked up cables despite that fact that they don't actually make a high end sound system sound any better than metal coat hangers with audio jacks soldered to the ends. A bit more broadly speaking since Joe Moron only comparison shops the price of the TV, retailers have very low margins on it and make their profit in heavily marked up accessories and service plans. The $1470 TV might only have a $20 profit margin vs the $10 from the $1000 TV, but the $difference between $30 worth of cables and $500 worth of cables and service plans is likely at least 50% profit. Only the really high end image quality panels have any real inherent profit margin, but since crappy lighting can make garbage grade LCDs with eye-searingly bright backlights look better than expensive panels with backlights adjusted to normal household brighness levels and much deeper darks in normal lighting. http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html[^]
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
Some stores make more profit on HDMI cables, than on TVs. They make more profit (% wise) on SD Cards (I don’t think it is true anymore, but) than on the camera. HDMI cables are a big profit center for stores.
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
www.monoprice.com[^] is a great source for low cost cables. Didn't see a UK link.
-
When a technology is new, the people buying are likely to be suckers for technospeak and expensive cables. I buy my HDMI cables in the US, cheapest ones I can, but the dearest one I've seen was $100, which is 50 pounds. 300 pounds ? You must have been at suckers r us
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I believe the emporium we went to was "Bumsrush and Sons. Swindling since 2007". What gets me is that this isn't even particularly new technology, but what chance does the average, uncritical, punter have when supposedly legitimate review sites/magazines rave about expensive tat like that? What really, really raises my blood pressure though is what will "miraculously" appear tomorrow: "Bridget "Effing" Jones' Diary" and "Notting Hill" in HD Blu-Ray-O-Vision. Not only are they crap films, we've already got them on DVD. I'm thankful that they haven't got around to releasing "Titanic" on Blu-Ray yet - we've got that on both VHS and DVD already.
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
This kind of cr*p is why the HDMI Organisatio are finally getting round to sorting cable labelling out - i.e. HgihSpeed for 1080p deep colour otherwise Standard Speed. This is for a given cable not the brand etc. If you think that's bad someone is selling mains cables for over $2,000! :wtf: I decided against going to the Bristol Sound and Vision Show because laughing in people's faces offends :-D
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
I believe the emporium we went to was "Bumsrush and Sons. Swindling since 2007". What gets me is that this isn't even particularly new technology, but what chance does the average, uncritical, punter have when supposedly legitimate review sites/magazines rave about expensive tat like that? What really, really raises my blood pressure though is what will "miraculously" appear tomorrow: "Bridget "Effing" Jones' Diary" and "Notting Hill" in HD Blu-Ray-O-Vision. Not only are they crap films, we've already got them on DVD. I'm thankful that they haven't got around to releasing "Titanic" on Blu-Ray yet - we've got that on both VHS and DVD already.
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
You see, Martin, electrons traveling through the wire leak out over very small distances, because, well, electrons are small, and the wire shielding has microscopic holes in it and so they leak. If you had an Electron Microscope, you could look and see the electrons all over your floor, but since you don't you'll just have to trust me. The result of these leaks means you loose parts of your TV picture, so you're not getting the "Big Picture", as people like to say; I'm sure you've heard that before. Those specially constructed, highly priced, wires have something called NHT (No Holes Technology); no holes, means no leaks, and no leaks means you'll get the "Big Picture". Since everyone is always saying that people need to get the "Big Picture", it's something you should want to spend endless amounts of money on. I hope that clears things up for you. OK. THX. BYE.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
This kind of cr*p is why the HDMI Organisatio are finally getting round to sorting cable labelling out - i.e. HgihSpeed for 1080p deep colour otherwise Standard Speed. This is for a given cable not the brand etc. If you think that's bad someone is selling mains cables for over $2,000! :wtf: I decided against going to the Bristol Sound and Vision Show because laughing in people's faces offends :-D
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
If you think that's bad someone is selling mains cables for over $2,000!
that's a bargain! at least compared to Transparent Opus MM SC cables[^]...
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
I paid £26 GBP for a 15m HDMI cable around 6 months ago which works fine for connecting the HDMI output of my GeForce 9800GTX+ to my TV that's in the other room - no issues with quality or visual artifacts etc.
-
This kind of cr*p is why the HDMI Organisatio are finally getting round to sorting cable labelling out - i.e. HgihSpeed for 1080p deep colour otherwise Standard Speed. This is for a given cable not the brand etc. If you think that's bad someone is selling mains cables for over $2,000! :wtf: I decided against going to the Bristol Sound and Vision Show because laughing in people's faces offends :-D
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
I decided against going to the Bristol Sound and Vision Show because laughing in people's faces offends
You could have had some fun with that though :) You: Vendor, show me your finest A/V cable! Vendor: Well this one's £500 per metre. Good innit? You: I see. Here is £1,500 [flourishes money]... which I'm not going to give to you. Chump. On another, and yet related note... You'll remember my battle with video from the other day and there's one thing I still don't understand properly. Take a Pal DVD in anamorphic 16:9 - this is stored, so I understand, in a squished format on the DVD as 720x576 and expanded to 1024x576 by the DVD player. On a widescreen (CRT) TV I can see how this would be full screen, the TV presumably being 1024 pixels wide by 576 high. However, played on a 4:3 TV you get black bars top and bottom, but supposedly the entire width. How does that work? If the TV doesn't have 1024 pixels in width, how do you get the full width? Do you not actually get the full width, with bits chopped off either side? Is the image slightly distorted, so you do get the full width, but things are stretched? Do 4:3 TV's actually have more pixels in width than 720? Or is this all about square and rectangular pixels - something I didn't comprehend at all (although I'll admit the will to live was somewhat vanishing at the time)?
-
You see, Martin, electrons traveling through the wire leak out over very small distances, because, well, electrons are small, and the wire shielding has microscopic holes in it and so they leak. If you had an Electron Microscope, you could look and see the electrons all over your floor, but since you don't you'll just have to trust me. The result of these leaks means you loose parts of your TV picture, so you're not getting the "Big Picture", as people like to say; I'm sure you've heard that before. Those specially constructed, highly priced, wires have something called NHT (No Holes Technology); no holes, means no leaks, and no leaks means you'll get the "Big Picture". Since everyone is always saying that people need to get the "Big Picture", it's something you should want to spend endless amounts of money on. I hope that clears things up for you. OK. THX. BYE.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTLYou and Luc should get together. What with his perfectly formed electrons and your "No holes guaranteed!" technology, you'll be sure to make a killing ;)
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
Martin, Martin, Martin... tut tut tut... Those cheaper ordinary cables use ordinary run-of-the-mill electrons, whilst the £300 cable uses positrons, which create a much more intense, realistic picture on the TV screen as they react with the normal matter in the set. The extra money is for the magnetic containment field which contains the positrons, because if any of those buggers leaked out, they would annihilate parts of your flat. By the way, don't sit too close to the TV; the 511 keV gamma radiation might age you prematurely (or cause you to never be able to father children).
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
IMO those ultimate cables only make sense when you intend to transport perfectly shaped electrons, not the ordinary ones you are probably getting from your power distribution. Talk to the power company about it before investing in renewed house wiring and top-of-the-bill network cabling. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
Getting an article published on CodeProject now is hard and not sufficiently rewarded.
I'm interested in your proposal, and think I know a perfect business partner.[^] :)
-
Martin, Martin, Martin... tut tut tut... Those cheaper ordinary cables use ordinary run-of-the-mill electrons, whilst the £300 cable uses positrons, which create a much more intense, realistic picture on the TV screen as they react with the normal matter in the set. The extra money is for the magnetic containment field which contains the positrons, because if any of those buggers leaked out, they would annihilate parts of your flat. By the way, don't sit too close to the TV; the 511 keV gamma radiation might age you prematurely (or cause you to never be able to father children).
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
Tom Delany wrote:
they would annihilate parts of your flat
I don't own a flat - well I do, but I don't live in it; I rent it out to people. But point taken :)
Tom Delany wrote:
Those cheaper ordinary cables use ordinary run-of-the-mill electrons, whilst the £300 cable uses positrons, which create a much more intense, realistic picture on the TV screen as they react with the normal matter in the set. The extra money is for the magnetic containment field which contains the positrons, because if any of those buggers leaked out, they would annihilate parts of your flat.
Let me introduce you to Luc[^] and Doug[^] - those two entrepreneurs are about to launch a brand new technology and I'm sure your positron know-how will be useful to them :D
-
I'm interested in your proposal, and think I know a perfect business partner.[^] :)
I'm rushing to the Get-Togethers and the Running-a-Business forums right now. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
Getting an article published on CodeProject now is hard and not sufficiently rewarded.
-
Tom Delany wrote:
they would annihilate parts of your flat
I don't own a flat - well I do, but I don't live in it; I rent it out to people. But point taken :)
Tom Delany wrote:
Those cheaper ordinary cables use ordinary run-of-the-mill electrons, whilst the £300 cable uses positrons, which create a much more intense, realistic picture on the TV screen as they react with the normal matter in the set. The extra money is for the magnetic containment field which contains the positrons, because if any of those buggers leaked out, they would annihilate parts of your flat.
Let me introduce you to Luc[^] and Doug[^] - those two entrepreneurs are about to launch a brand new technology and I'm sure your positron know-how will be useful to them :D
The Perfect Positronic wire with No Holes Containment Field Technology. My God ... we'll be rich. :rolleyes:
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
I bought my last 6-foot HDMI cable for $15.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Trollslayer wrote:
I decided against going to the Bristol Sound and Vision Show because laughing in people's faces offends
You could have had some fun with that though :) You: Vendor, show me your finest A/V cable! Vendor: Well this one's £500 per metre. Good innit? You: I see. Here is £1,500 [flourishes money]... which I'm not going to give to you. Chump. On another, and yet related note... You'll remember my battle with video from the other day and there's one thing I still don't understand properly. Take a Pal DVD in anamorphic 16:9 - this is stored, so I understand, in a squished format on the DVD as 720x576 and expanded to 1024x576 by the DVD player. On a widescreen (CRT) TV I can see how this would be full screen, the TV presumably being 1024 pixels wide by 576 high. However, played on a 4:3 TV you get black bars top and bottom, but supposedly the entire width. How does that work? If the TV doesn't have 1024 pixels in width, how do you get the full width? Do you not actually get the full width, with bits chopped off either side? Is the image slightly distorted, so you do get the full width, but things are stretched? Do 4:3 TV's actually have more pixels in width than 720? Or is this all about square and rectangular pixels - something I didn't comprehend at all (although I'll admit the will to live was somewhat vanishing at the time)?
PAL resolution is 720x576 whether the display is 4:3 or 16:9. A 21:9 film will be letter boxed to fit within 16:9 if anamorphic, cropped to various degrees for non anamorphic and for 4:3 may well be the 16:9 anamorphic image but scaled up for either. There are flags to allow the producer to apply limits to how these work, it can even change between scenes if they are showing off.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]
£300? Bargain. Try one of these[^]. (And for a real giggle, read the technical mumbo-jumbo below).
-
...but try to sell me a £300 HDMI cable and I'll laugh in your face! (Long story short - I finally caved in and bought a new TV set, replete with Blu-Ray and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm about as interested in home cinema as I am in watching paint dry, so don't ask me what any of it is - I just pay the bills.) Do people seriously fall for this kind of trick[^]? I'm no physicist, but even I know that over a distance of 1 metre you're extraordinarily unlikely to see any performance enhancement using that £300 cable than you would using this far more reasonably priced cable.[^]