The Truth about Monster Cable

[mzkhadir]

Gizmodo

 

[SLCentral]

What a load of crock.

 

[venkman]

I seriously question the legitimacy of test performed in the Monster labs for the benefit of the media. Sites like Audioholics have shown time and time again that Monster speaker cables provides no benefit in terms of signal degradation compared to simple Walmart Cables. The only thing I like about Monster cables is the fact that they have tight fittings that secure well into the component but that isn't worth a $100 premium.

If you think you need better than bargain basement cables, and you really don't, then there are plenty of "premium" online cable vendors that charge 1/2 to 1/3 of what Monster charges.

 

[NickelPlate]

Originally posted by: venkman
I seriously question the legitimacy of test performed in the Monster labs for the benefit of the media. Sites like Audioholics have shown time and time again that Monster speaker cables provides no benefit in terms of signal degradation compared to simple Walmart Cables. The only thing I like about Monster cables is the fact that they have tight fittings that secure well into the component but that isn't worth a $100 premium.

If you think you need better than bargain basement cables, and you really don't, then there are plenty of "premium" online cable vendors that charge 1/2 to 1/3 of what Monster charges.

Agreed. Monster cables are very good no doubt but they are definitely not worth the price premium, and what you're paying for is the flashy packaging, fancy in-store displays and Monster's "Monster" marketing machine. Kind of reminds me of Bose.

 

[krotchy]

Lol, that test is seriously laughable.

For consumer grade stuff, I have never gone wrong with monoprice.com cable, and I work in a Video quality lab, so I am the first one to see sparkles, blocking, sync issues, and most other video problems. I especially love how they try and make HDMI cable seem like its so much more difficult to make and requires all the extra hooplah, considering that the native video signal is identical to DVI in every way pretty much (ok color space can be luma-chroma over RGB, but that doesnt affect anything). All they did with HDMI is get rid of dual link capabilities of DVI, remove the analog portion and add audio and HDCP to the link (though DVI can do HDCP too). Removal of all the extra video data allows for a smaller header, a new name and suddenly the ability to market it as this amazing new cable that needs to be 100 bucks instead of 15 dollars like the DVI cables computer users have been using for 10 years.

 

[Mrfrog840]

I cant believe people pay that much for monster cable. I get them at wholesale

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840
I cant believe people pay that much for monster cable. I get them at wholesale

Unless wholesale price is about 10% of retail, then you're still getting ripped off.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Wow.. the Gizmodo guy completely misses the point. Obviously there are differences between good and bad cables. What does that have to do with the fact that Monster is overpriced???

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840
I cant believe people pay that much for monster cable. I get them at wholesale

Unless wholesale price is about 10% of retail, then you're still getting ripped off.

That is close to wholesale. Take the retail price and drop it to about 10-20% off and that's what the store pays for the cables (depending on size of the company and business history). Then drop that to what 1-5% and that's how much it costs Monster to make and market (really the stores do most of the marketing for them but they don't mind since they still get a healthy profit) the cables.

Wow.. the Gizmodo guy completely misses the point. Obviously there are differences between good and bad cables. What does that have to do with the fact that Monster is overpriced???

I've found several cases where Gizmodo writers completely miss a point and their own bias and ignorance shows clearly. I've actually stopped visiting their site altogether (I used to work with a guy who wrote for them) after several things that prove to me they barely have any clue what they're talking about (they have one audio/video "expert" who misses the point fairly often from what I've seen). I've seen it other places too, but at least Engadget will typically admit that they don't know enough to talk about it (usually in a condescening way when speaking about something that is hi-fi by saying its just for audiophiles).

If I remember correctly, when testing the new DRM-free iTunes music (which is also higher bitrate) they said they couldn't really tell a difference, even on their 5.1 Dolby capable sound system.

Back on topic, it looks like they convinced the reviewer to pick up some cables from monoprice (and possibly somewhere else) to compare. It'll be interesting to see his results.

 

[Mrfrog840]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840
I cant believe people pay that much for monster cable. I get them at wholesale

Unless wholesale price is about 10% of retail, then you're still getting ripped off.

That is close to wholesale. Take the retail price and drop it to about 10-20% off and that's what the store pays for the cables (depending on size of the company and business history). Then drop that to what 1-5% and that's how much it costs Monster to make and market (really the stores do most of the marketing for them but they don't mind since they still get a healthy profit) the cables.

Wow.. the Gizmodo guy completely misses the point. Obviously there are differences between good and bad cables. What does that have to do with the fact that Monster is overpriced???

I've found several cases where Gizmodo writers completely miss a point and their own bias and ignorance shows clearly. I've actually stopped visiting their site altogether (I used to work with a guy who wrote for them) after several things that prove to me they barely have any clue what they're talking about (they have one audio/video "expert" who misses the point fairly often from what I've seen). I've seen it other places too, but at least Engadget will typically admit that they don't know enough to talk about it (usually in a condescening way when speaking about something that is hi-fi by saying its just for audiophiles).

If I remember correctly, when testing the new DRM-free iTunes music (which is also higher bitrate) they said they couldn't really tell a difference, even on their 5.1 Dolby capable sound system.

Back on topic, it looks like they convinced the reviewer to pick up some cables from monoprice (and possibly somewhere else) to compare. It'll be interesting to see his results.

lol


10 percent? That is a horrible discount. Its better than that. When I worked at best buy it was something along the lines of 60-80% off retail.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840
I cant believe people pay that much for monster cable. I get them at wholesale

Unless wholesale price is about 10% of retail, then you're still getting ripped off.

That is close to wholesale. Take the retail price and drop it to about 10-20% off and that's what the store pays for the cables (depending on size of the company and business history). Then drop that to what 1-5% and that's how much it costs Monster to make and market (really the stores do most of the marketing for them but they don't mind since they still get a healthy profit) the cables.

Wow.. the Gizmodo guy completely misses the point. Obviously there are differences between good and bad cables. What does that have to do with the fact that Monster is overpriced???

I've found several cases where Gizmodo writers completely miss a point and their own bias and ignorance shows clearly. I've actually stopped visiting their site altogether (I used to work with a guy who wrote for them) after several things that prove to me they barely have any clue what they're talking about (they have one audio/video "expert" who misses the point fairly often from what I've seen). I've seen it other places too, but at least Engadget will typically admit that they don't know enough to talk about it (usually in a condescening way when speaking about something that is hi-fi by saying its just for audiophiles).

If I remember correctly, when testing the new DRM-free iTunes music (which is also higher bitrate) they said they couldn't really tell a difference, even on their 5.1 Dolby capable sound system.

Back on topic, it looks like they convinced the reviewer to pick up some cables from monoprice (and possibly somewhere else) to compare. It'll be interesting to see his results.

lol


10 percent? That is a horrible discount. Its better than that. When I worked at best buy it was something along the lines of 60-80% off retail.

I think he meant to say "That is close to wholesale. Take the retail price and drop it to about 10-20% [of retail price] and that's what the store pays for the cables"

 

[BD2003]

Their point is basically that monster cables can handle above and beyond what anyone really uses today. By the time 16-bit 1080p with 22.1 sound is really relevant, there will be cheaper alternatives to monster.

Their only real relevant point is that if youre going to hardware the cabling in wall, you should use monster. Which is a valid point, because if youre the kind of person who's going to run A/V cables through walls, you can almost certainly afford the monster cables.

But even still, there's probably cheaper alternatives to future proof, and thats not really how they market their cables in the first place.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Tiamat


I think he meant to say "That is close to wholesale. Take the retail price and drop it to about 10-20% [of retail price] and that's what the store pays for the cables"

You are correct. Sorry for the messed up wording.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Their point is basically that monster cables can handle above and beyond what anyone really uses today. By the time 16-bit 1080p with 22.1 sound is really relevant, there will be cheaper alternatives to monster.

Their only real relevant point is that if youre going to hardware the cabling in wall, you should use monster. Which is a valid point, because if youre the kind of person who's going to run A/V cables through walls, you can almost certainly afford the monster cables.

But even still, there's probably cheaper alternatives to future proof, and thats not really how they market their cables in the first place.

Right. There are two main things for consumers to understand about Monster:

1. As long as you meet a reasonable standard of quality, there is no discernable difference in performance. If there is a difference in cable performance - and no studies have ever proven that there is - then you still would do better to spend that money in more noticable areas, like better amps, processors, source components, speakers, etc.

2. If you don't believe the above, and you demand the highest quality cables, you still can get better quality at a cheaper price than Monster.

 

[zig3695]

yup moster is an all-american ripoff. not meaning they are bad cables, but overpriced to the point of insanity. even better, i just laugh my ass off when i see people spend $200 or whatever on a dvi cable for their new tv, because we all know how much data loss there is on a digital link

 

[Mrfrog840]

I love the look on customers faces though, Im like you NEED this cable.
but its 180 dollars?!

I DONT CARE YOU NEED IT!

and of course they end up buying it haha

 

[venkman]

I remember reading somewhere that a guy spent $350 dollars on a 25 ft Monster HDMI Cable for his HD DVD Player! Think about that, HIS CABLE COST MORE THAN HIS HIGH DEF DVD PLAYER!!! He could have bought 20 movies with that money.

That is just CRAZY!

Just in case you are wondering, Monoprice has those cables for about $30!

 

[kalrith]

I'll never forget the day when a coworker complained about how she just spent $120 on a 3-foot Monster HDMI cable. It took me about 3 minutes on deals forums to find a 6-foot HDMI cable for $4 shipped! I think she bought 5 of them, just to have a few extra.

The only Monster cables I have were bought online for about 10% of retail. At that price (and not a penny more), I think they're worth it.

 

[nullpointerus]

What's shocking is that Monster is still able to charge these premiums. Normally, when a company makes incredible profits based on brand name alone, competing companies will see the opportunity to establish new brands for slightly smaller profits. This would lead to price/marketing wars on "premium" cables and reduce gouging (a little, at least). So why has no one tried this? Maybe other companies have ethics?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
What's shocking is that Monster is still able to charge these premiums. Normally, when a company makes incredible profits based on brand name alone, competing companies will see the opportunity to establish new brands for slightly smaller profits. This would lead to price/marketing wars on "premium" cables and reduce gouging (a little, at least). So why has no one tried this? Maybe other companies have ethics?

Retailers want to limit your options so you buy the $120 3 foot cable. If that's the only kind they carry, that's the one you buy.

 

[Mrfrog840]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
What's shocking is that Monster is still able to charge these premiums. Normally, when a company makes incredible profits based on brand name alone, competing companies will see the opportunity to establish new brands for slightly smaller profits. This would lead to price/marketing wars on "premium" cables and reduce gouging (a little, at least). So why has no one tried this? Maybe other companies have ethics?

Retailers want to limit your options so you buy the $120 3 foot cable. If that's the only kind they carry, that's the one you buy.

yep.

Most major retailers carry many monster cables, and a few second hand brands

 

[marincounty]

I use Monster cable to connect my Sony mini-disc player to my Bose home theater system.
Sounds awesome.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
What's shocking is that Monster is still able to charge these premiums. Normally, when a company makes incredible profits based on brand name alone, competing companies will see the opportunity to establish new brands for slightly smaller profits. This would lead to price/marketing wars on "premium" cables and reduce gouging (a little, at least). So why has no one tried this? Maybe other companies have ethics?

Retailers want to limit your options so you buy the $120 3 foot cable. If that's the only kind they carry, that's the one you buy.

Planning ahead + Monoprice ftw!

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I use Monster cable to connect my Sony mini-disc player to my Bose home theater system.
Sounds awesome.

Did you get the optional Sony Xplode car stereo too? :Q

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
What's shocking is that Monster is still able to charge these premiums. Normally, when a company makes incredible profits based on brand name alone, competing companies will see the opportunity to establish new brands for slightly smaller profits. This would lead to price/marketing wars on "premium" cables and reduce gouging (a little, at least). So why has no one tried this? Maybe other companies have ethics?

Retailers want to limit your options so you buy the $120 3 foot cable. If that's the only kind they carry, that's the one you buy.

Planning ahead + Monoprice ftw!

I just placed an order today for my parents.

My dad said that could be his father's day present in preparation for a much needed new TV

I spent about $30, looks like monstercable from BB would have been about $250. That would have been 1/3 the cost of the Axiom M22 / Axiom VP150 / Onkyo 602 / Onix ULW-10 system :shocked: