You can fool some of the people some of 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 ;)
-
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.[^] :)
-
...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$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
Martin, Martin, Martin... tut tut tut... Those cheaper ordinary cables use ordinary run-of-the-mill electrons, whilst the £300 cable uses positrons, which create a much more intense, realistic picture on the TV screen as they react with the normal matter in the set. The extra money is for the magnetic containment field which contains the positrons, because if any of those buggers leaked out, they would annihilate parts of your flat. By the way, don't sit too close to the TV; the 511 keV gamma radiation might age you prematurely (or cause you to never be able to father children).
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ 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.[^]
-
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[^]
I didn't understand a word of that - and be aware, I'm going to keep on pestering until I do ;)
-
:wtf: I guess enough people must be falling for it if they can get away with it like that... a fool and his money are easily parted, as they say. But really, what part of digital don't people understand?
J. Dunlap wrote:
what part of digital don't people understand?
The nicer cables produce straighter ones and rounder zeros.
-
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
Actually, they inspired me for my reply... :-\
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.
-
...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've seen 25m HDMI cables with a built in repeater for cheaper than that. My cable though, is 0.5m long and cost me £3.99 but I admit I may have to upgrade to the £5.99 model as very occasionally the picture gets lost on the bottom half of the screen - a quick nudge of the wire soon fixes that though.
My current favourite word is: Smooth!
-SK Genius
-
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.
What I love is the stuff coming out on blu ray that's 50 years old. Really ? It was shot in HD ?
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.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
"Bridget "Effing" Jones' Diary" and "Notting Hill"
X| Looks like our wives are similar in the nastiest of regards. And she wonders why I insist on having an extra bottle of Absolut in the house.
ROTFL - mine is the same, so you got my 5, b/c I totally sympathise, we're all in the same boat.
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.
-
It's in the contacts, baby. :rolleyes: Yes, there are people who build their world around these cables and accessories. Due to my job, I know a lot of companies with an audiophile target market who "don't measure, just listen". It's the same people and the same principle, just for another medium.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.[shaking head] The brother of a friend of mine (back in the 70's, when I had real life friends :rolleyes:) was an 'audiophile'. He spent thousands of pre-1980 dollars buying gear. He would buy a record, and record it onto a cassette, and listen to it 15? - 30? times, marking it each time. After he 'used it up' he would trash the cassette and re-record it on a brand new cassette. Me, I can't tell the difference between CD and vinyl, except for the hiss and popping from the record.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
What I love is the stuff coming out on blu ray that's 50 years old. Really ? It was shot in HD ?
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.
35mm film has from somewhat higher to *much* higher resolution than HD video, and I'm guessing that 50 years ago movies were shot mostly on 35mm film. Good stuff still is. Check out wikipedia on "high-definition video".
-
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.
Some of the SF stuff on bluray is amazing, also there are some great nature shows on HD that are really impressive. I got Universe I think it was very early on and it was stunning.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
...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.[^]
