monster cable differences [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : monster cable differences



jmracura
01-02-2004, 12:06 AM
Hi Everyone,

I have been trying to do some side by side comparison between the Monster Cable OMC-500 which I have to buy by foot or the Z line which I can buy in 50ft packages in the store. Can't tell the difference between the 2. Does anyone have an opinion as to what is better? What about the M line?

BTW... I couldn't even find the omc-500 on the Monster website...

Thanks

Rockwell
01-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Hi Everyone,

I have been trying to do some side by side comparison between the Monster Cable OMC-500 which I have to buy by foot or the Z line which I can buy in 50ft packages in the store. Can't tell the difference between the 2. Does anyone have an opinion as to what is better? What about the M line?

BTW... I couldn't even find the omc-500 on the Monster website...

Thanks

The idea that you can hear the difference between two proper* cables is a myth. You can get the same performing wire for much cheaper than Monster by using generic. The Monster cable company has no proof that their cables a superior to anything else.

* proper- meaning adequately guaged, undamaged, or engineered to degrade the signal, etc

pctower
01-02-2004, 10:44 AM
The idea that you can hear the difference between two proper* cables is a myth. You can get the same performing wire for much cheaper than Monster by using generic. The Monster cable company has no proof that their cables a superior to anything else.

* proper- meaning adequately guaged, undamaged, or engineered to degrade the signal, etc

What proof do you have that it's a myth?

Please don't ask me for proof that it is not a myth. I make you claims one way or another. You have made a claim and I wonder what proof you base that claim on.

Rockwell
01-02-2004, 01:22 PM
What proof do you have that it's a myth?

Please don't ask me for proof that it is not a myth. I make you claims one way or another. You have made a claim and I wonder what proof you base that claim on.

I can only assume it is a myth until someone proves it's not. That's the way it works. By example, the Lochness Monster is just a myth until we capture her or find some definitive evidence. However, there is no way I can prove that she is does not exist, short of draining Loch ness. Of course, if I did drain the pond, someone would say that she went out for a stroll whilst in the process of draining. I can't prove a negative, and lack of positive evidence indicates myth.

EDIT: You've been here long enough to have heard this before(and several times over). Are you just yankin' my chain?

mtrycraft
01-02-2004, 02:21 PM
What proof do you have that it's a myth?



Difficult to prove a non existance, don't you think? Just like all my examples, astrology, alien abduction, psychic powers, etc.
If monster was audibly different, or any comparable cables for that matter, evidence would be in hand by now.

mtrycraft
01-02-2004, 02:22 PM
Hi Everyone,

I have been trying to do some side by side comparison between the Monster Cable OMC-500 which I have to buy by foot or the Z line which I can buy in 50ft packages in the store. Can't tell the difference between the 2. Does anyone have an opinion as to what is better? What about the M line?

BTW... I couldn't even find the omc-500 on the Monster website...

Thanks

You'd be better off with generic cables as you can buy more music or movies with the $$$ saved.

pctower
01-03-2004, 03:30 AM
I can only assume it is a myth until someone proves it's not. That's the way it works. By example, the Lochness Monster is just a myth until we capture her or find some definitive evidence. However, there is no way I can prove that she is does not exist, short of draining Loch ness. Of course, if I did drain the pond, someone would say that she went out for a stroll whilst in the process of draining. I can't prove a negative, and lack of positive evidence indicates myth.

EDIT: You've been here long enough to have heard this before(and several times over). Are you just yankin' my chain?

Here's the definition of "myth":

"NOUN: 1a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
ETYMOLOGY: New Latin mthus, from Late Latin mthos, from Greek mthos."

There's nothing in that definition about "unproven". Number 3 is the closest to how you seem to be using the word. It (and really, each of the 4 different definitions) assumes as a given that what is being referred to as "myth" is fiction or half-truth. So I read your original comment as claiming that the idea that two cables can sound different is fiction or half-truth. I believe that is a claim. Here is what Pat D. said about claims in another thread:

"Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim."

I'm not yanking your chain. I'm simply asking that science and rationality be applied evenly. People who make claims about the difference in cables here are routinely categated for lacking proof. I say that if proof is a prerequisite on this board for stating claims, that ought to apply across the board.

pctower
01-03-2004, 03:31 AM
Difficult to prove a non existance, don't you think? Just like all my examples, astrology, alien abduction, psychic powers, etc.
If monster was audibly different, or any comparable cables for that matter, evidence would be in hand by now.

I guess he should have thought of all that before he made his claim, don't you think?

Rockwell
01-03-2004, 09:06 AM
There's nothing in that definition about "unproven". Number 3 is the closest to how you seem to be using the word. It (and really, each of the 4 different definitions) assumes as a given that what is being referred to as "myth" is fiction or half-truth. So I read your original comment as claiming that the idea that two cables can sound different is fiction or half-truth. I believe that is a claim. Here is what Pat D. said about claims in another thread:

"Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim."

I'm not yanking your chain. I'm simply asking that science and rationality be applied evenly. People who make claims about the difference in cables here are routinely categated for lacking proof. I say that if proof is a prerequisite on this board for stating claims, that ought to apply across the board.


Here is the definition I used(Merriam Webster):
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

I think that 2b and 3 are applicable. These defintions have a finality and absoluteness to them, which is what I think you are asking me to prove is true. As I explained in my previous post, I cannot prove a negative. I would not use that word if this was a fresh notion, but after decades without anything to show for cable sonics, I think the prospects are dim. At what point does something move from unlikely but still viable idea to myth?

Beckman
01-03-2004, 02:21 PM
Check out the bode plot shown at:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/CrossCoax_vs_ZipCord-p3.htm

The attenuation and frequency response of 12 AWG can't be improved audibly. There is nothing to argue here. Simply stated 12 AWG does not take anything away from the signal that can be heard. The only thing a cable can change the sound is by attenuating the signal for a range of the frequency. This is not rocket science. It is not astrology. It is undergraduate electrical engineering and physics.

skeptic
01-03-2004, 04:14 PM
"3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology."

Truth; there ARE definite differences in the electrical properties between one wire and another. Where the myth of course comes in is where it infers or implies that these differences can lead to audible improvements. The ideology is the credo that superior quality cables, whatever that means are an indespensible item in a fine home sound reproduction system. The apostles or priests of this ideology are the people who manufacture it or advocate it in public forums like JR. The missionaries are the retail sales reps. As you said, it is up to the people who make claims to prove them. But when the claims are only implied or inferred or suggested without outright statement, the enterprise travels the gray shadowland of what is legal and what isn't. On the other hand, it is well into the territory of what is unethical. It is not for the consumer to prove that Monster Cable isn't better than 16 gage lamp cord, it is for Monster Cable to prove that it is. And as far as I can tell, in about 25 years they haven't. Which brings us to the question of why then are they apparantly so profitable? And the answer is...."NOBODY ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

mtrycraft
01-03-2004, 05:56 PM
I guess he should have thought of all that before he made his claim, don't you think?


How so?

The idea that you can hear the difference between two proper* cables is a myth.

How is it not a myth but has merits to consider otherwise?

I guess then we cannot claims elephants don't fly or psychics are a myth too.

pctower
01-04-2004, 05:59 AM
"3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology."

Truth; there ARE definite differences in the electrical properties between one wire and another. Where the myth of course comes in is where it infers or implies that these differences can lead to audible improvements. The ideology is the credo that superior quality cables, whatever that means are an indespensible item in a fine home sound reproduction system. The apostles or priests of this ideology are the people who manufacture it or advocate it in public forums like JR. The missionaries are the retail sales reps. As you said, it is up to the people who make claims to prove them. But when the claims are only implied or inferred or suggested without outright statement, the enterprise travels the gray shadowland of what is legal and what isn't. On the other hand, it is well into the territory of what is unethical. It is not for the consumer to prove that Monster Cable isn't better than 16 gage lamp cord, it is for Monster Cable to prove that it is. And as far as I can tell, in about 25 years they haven't. Which brings us to the question of why then are they apparantly so profitable? And the answer is...."NOBODY ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

To state that sonic differences are unproven is an accurate statement. To state that sonic differences are a myth is a statement that sonic differences have been disproven. First, it is impossible to prove a negative. Secondly, to the extent someone is relying on those DBTs that have been reported to reach a general conclusion, I say they are violating the very scientific principles they think they are advancing. I doubt they would accept the testing protocol, underlying assumptions and statistical analysis that has been employed in those reported DBTs for any other scientific issue.

Cables generate a lot of emotions on both sides, driving each side to make claims that are not valid scientific conclusions.

skeptic
01-04-2004, 07:59 AM
Somebody must believe it. A lot of money is paid out to buy these products. Considering that most people don't buy them for display they must be expecting an audible improvement. That's what the advertising of all of these companies would lead you to conclude even though they never state it explicitly. So the myth is not directly advanced by the manufacturer but by the retailers in verbal communications and the customers themselves rationalizing their purchase. Dancing around this issue doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who buy or make these cables themselves for their own use in DIY projects expect an audible improvement. Only a DBT for every cable in every sound system under every conceivable circumstance could conclusively prove that it isn't so. A clear impossibility.