Old Monster v. New Blue Jeans

kevhed72

I am currently using several pairs of Monster Interconnects (250) and 2 Monster s-Video cables which were purchased around 12 years ago. I also have 2 pairs of interconnects from Radio Shack that are heavy-duty w/ gold screw-on RCA plugs which are even older than that.

Will there be any improvement w/ Blue Jeans interconnects and S-video,
or even Signal Cable Analog 1 for the interconnects? I don't want to spend a ton of $.

I now alot of this is subjective, but I'm not sure how far cables have come in 10 years..

broncsrule21@

I believe most people will say that Monster stuff is overprice but the quality is OK. Since you already own them keep using them. On the other hand never hurts to give another product a whirl and find out how they sound on your gear.

And I don't believe it would be worth it to replace the s-video cables if they work fine.

steveinaz

It depends. Is your equipment high enough resolution to exploit cable changes; and, is there any differecne in how these cables will sound?

jinjuku

I wouldn't spend the $$. One quality cable is going to sound like the next: Transparent.

The only time quality copper based cable will sound different from another is if a designer did something intentional to make the cable sound different and then market that 'difference'.

F1nut

One quality cable is going to sound like the next: Transparent.

Those that know, know that your statement couldn't be further from the truth.

disneyjoe7

For the cost of replacing those cables why not, and you may like them. I couldn't be happier with a S-Video cable that I have from BlueJean Cables, it could be the source but for 480i it looks like an 1080i video signal.

WilliamM2

The cables you have are fine.

Face

WilliamM2 wrote: »

The cables you have are fine.

What happened to your previous response, I thought you had an epiphany.

Btw, nice tag William.

NJPOLKER

What I don't understand is why these same old questions continue to be asked.
Use the "Search" function and you'll find plenty of Q&A's on this subject. Damn, is everyone that lazy?

zingo

NJPOLKER wrote: »

Damn, is everyone that lazy?

Sometimes.

jinjuku

F1nut wrote: »

Those that know, know that your statement couldn't be further from the truth.

Want to put some money on that in a blind test?

davidk0512

jinjuku wrote: »

I wouldn't spend the $$. One quality cable is going to sound like the next: Transparent.

The only time quality copper based cable will sound different from another is if a designer did something intentional to make the cable sound different and then market that 'difference'.

This argument sure is popping up alot here lately! Is this one going to go for a 1000 posts? It should be entertaining.

F1nut

jinjuku wrote: »

Want to put some money on that in a blind test?

Why, it's worthless test. Besides, you'd never go thru with it, so it's an easy question for you to ask.

Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.

I'll ask a better question. What experience do you have with what brand of cables and on what gear?

jinjuku

So is:

Monster Cable



Going to sound 'better' than:

Blue Jeans



Again any company can make a cable sound 'different'. Fools and their money. Is Pear Cable still in business?

A good read from Audioholics (of which I am a member, just like AVSForum and Hometheatershack).

From the article " Ideally, cables should have no effect on audio quality whatsoever; they should be a transparent transmission medium. Any movement towards this ideal due to cable interaction with other system components only reduces detrimental effects to sound quality, a subtle but important distinction from the idea of improvement that is bandied about. Because of the massive number of possible permutations in available amplifier/loudspeaker combinations, it is essentially a random phenomenon. This means that there is no single cable design that could work with every possible combination to minimize deleterious effects to sound quality through complimentary properties. It far more likely that a particular cable design will not have any effect on audio quality at all and, although a remote possibility either way, at least as likely that the cable properties are not complimentary to a particular system as it is likely that they are complimentary. This is most certainly not what high priced cable manufacturers are claiming when they try to sell their wares.

This leads back to the Audioholics stance that any properly designed cable is as good as any other. The basis of the statement is supported in probability.

ben62670

jinjuku wrote: »

...This leads back to the Audioholics stance that any properly designed cable is as good as any other. The basis of the statement is supported in probability.[/B]

Thanks for all your experience in cables:rolleyes: Use your ears.

F1nut

This leads back to the Audioholics stance that any properly designed cable is as good as any other. The basis of the statement is supported in probability.

Hmmmm......based on that theory every properly designed amp, CDP or turntable will be as good as any other. Yeah right! Your quoted statement isn't supported by probability, it's pure BS.

jinjuku

F1nut wrote: »

Hmmmm......based on that theory every properly designed amp, CDP or turntable will be as good as any other. Yeah right! Your quoted statement isn't supported by probability, it's pure BS.

How many components make up?:

Pre-amp/Processor

Power-amp

AVR

Cable

The theory was dealing with CABLES. Not amps, not pre-pros. How thick (or disingenuous) can you be...

F1nut

By classifying cables as somehow different/separate in the total equation of an audio system (key words) you have just proven your ignorance.

Thanks for playing, but the game is over....you lost.

jinjuku

ben62670 wrote: »

Thanks for all your experience in cables:rolleyes: Use your ears.

Totally agree. But we are talking cables here. Not a piece of gear with 1200 parts...

One properly made cable with quality copper, snug fitting interconnects, shielding will be indistinguishable from another cable.

jinjuku

F1nut wrote: »

By classifying cables as somehow different/separate in the total equation of an audio system (key words) you have just proven your ignorance.

Thanks for playing, but the game is over....you lost.

Hahaha... You and your absurd interpretations. Cables are part of the the equation. When did I say they were not?

They happen to be the least part intensive part of the equation. Never mind your inability to answer the question, what amazes and stuns: The inability to GRASP the concept.

Talk about ignorance. Yes the game is over. Too bad you didn't get to play.

What is really funny is no one has bothered to even answer post #15

ben62670

jinjuku wrote: »

Want to put some money on that in a blind test?

If you can't pick out the MIT's vs some cheap cable you are in the wrong hobby. Different dielectrics, cable construction, and conductor material all have sonic effects on SQ.
What tests with what gear have you tried?

kevhed72

NJPOLKER wrote: »

What I don't understand is why these same old questions continue to be asked.
Use the "Search" function and you'll find plenty of Q&A's on this subject. Damn, is everyone that lazy?

This website has a "search" function? I did not know that...

jinjuku

So you actually post nothing of real consequence. Ask someone to put up or shut up and all you hear is: chirp... chirp...

I wonder what interconnects Denon is using between its pre-amp and amp section on this $7500 (MSRP) receiver.

You must know something they don't.

I wonder what interconnects Sunfire is using between its pre-amp and amp section on this $4000 (MSRP) receiver.

You MUST know something Bob Carver doesn't.

WilliamM2

ben62670 wrote: »

If you can't pick out the MIT's vs some cheap cable you are in the wrong hobby. Different dielectrics, cable construction, and conductor material all have sonic effects on SQ.
What tests with what gear have you tried?

Then I guess MIT is in the wrong hobby, and business:


http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=60159.msg539789#msg539789

jinjuku

ben62670 wrote: »

If you can't pick out the MIT's vs some cheap cable you are in the wrong hobby. Different dielectrics, cable construction, and conductor material all have sonic effects on SQ.
What tests with what gear have you tried?

Where did I say some 'cheap cable'? I just posted a link to bluejeans patch cable...

I'm in the right 'hobby'. I worked at an A/V firm for 7 years setting up studios with Mac's/Atari ST's/Amiga's/PC's etc (I did most of the computer stuff).

Everything from $25K to over a million. Used to make interconnects on site using Belkin and Canare

I mean we are talking items like the Panasonic D1 1 inch decks that clocked in at 50K per.

The real issue is we are both trying to argue opinion. What I would rather see is this stuff hooked up to a scope. I never said a cable couldn't sound 'different' and then that difference marketed.

What I am arguing is when mastering something in the edit suite and performing final mix down for mastering: What is it that was intended. Components will add color, no question about it. But quality interconnects should be transparent.

ben62670

jinjuku wrote: »

So you actually post nothing of real consequence. Ask someone to put up or shut up and all you hear is: chirp... chirp...

I wonder what interconnects Denon is using between its pre-amp and amp section on this $7500 (MSRP) receiver.

You must know something they don't.

I wonder what interconnects Sunfire is using between its pre-amp and amp section on this $4000 (MSRP) receiver.

You MUST know something Bob Carver doesn't.

WOW what a ****. Way to welcome yourself into a forum. I speak from experience with different cables side by side. The differences are very easy to hear with different cables. Most everyone that comes to events I have hosted says the same exact changes when we swap cables. Plain simple hard fact is some can hear a difference, and some can't. Do you think I am here to serve every jackass that comes in to start crap in a cable thread. If you came here to share and learn thats cool, but you just want to start crap. Crawl back in the hole you crawled out of.

ben62670

jinjuku wrote: »

Where did I say some 'cheap cable'? I just posted a link to bluejeans patch cable...

I'm in the right 'hobby'. I worked at an A/V firm for 7 years setting up studios with Mac's/Atari ST's/Amiga's/PC's etc (I did most of the computer stuff).

Everything from $25K to over a million. Used to make interconnects on site using Belkin and Canare

I mean we are talking items like the Panasonic D1 1 inch decks that clocked in at 50K per.

The real issue is we are both trying to argue opinion. What I would rather see is this stuff hooked up to a scope. I never said a cable couldn't sound 'different' and then that difference marketed.

What I am arguing is when mastering something in the edit suite and performing final mix down for mastering: What is it that was intended. Components will add color, no question about it. But quality interconnects should be transparent.

Silly silly boy. You really think a scope is going to tell you how good a cable will sound. I am sorry about the accident.
Ben

cnh

We're running in to way too many cable threads guys. I'm chilling to some mid-quality I/Cs and speaker wire (12 gauge) from my Adcom. I cannot imagine 'any' cable will do...but I'm tired of all this.

Turn on your system and 'listen' to it and forget about all the 'noise' in these threads!

cnh

ben62670

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Then I guess MIT is in the wrong hobby, and business:


http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=60159.msg539789#msg539789

Oh joy a link to someone who can't hear the differences:rolleyes: We all heard the same exact thing when we hooked up the MIT's compared to mine, and some AR BB units.
Thanks again William. We all know you can't hear a difference.
Ben

WilliamM2

ben62670 wrote: »

Oh joy a link to someone who can't hear the differences:rolleyes: We all heard the same exact thing when we hooked up the MIT's compared to mine, and some AR BB units.
Thanks again William. We all know you can't hear a difference.
Ben

You obviously didn't read the link, it wasn't just "someone", it was representatives of MIT that couldn't hear the difference. Really makes you wonder how they "designed" the cables, since they can't tell them apart.

And you have yet to show that you can hear a difference. At least I tried, and have done legitimate blind testing.

Face

From what I hear about Salk speakers, that's no surprise.