jzoz01 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 dynamat alreay makes a plate holder that does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave217 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I think we all have had that heppaen to us. I tell you once my dad and myself had that happen we went in after a reciever. a simple reciever! Reciever =200 wires=400 wehn the saleman finaly shutup right in front of his eyes we litterly threw the stuff back and left the store not buying anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxultraman Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I really wish you had any idea what you are talking about. Most cables especially Best buy cables have no more than 50% in them. I work for a monster dealer and know what they do and dont cost. If they were that much i would sell audio at all. Know what you are talking about first before you make a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxultraman Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 i hope everyone understands that when you purchase a tv from Best buy you will get no service if you dont buy their way to expensive warranty. Their service, especially on TV's sucks. I work for a samsung, mits, pioneer elite sony dealer and sony calls us all the time to fix tv's under warranty from best buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 MBM135, I can't believe that you've also been to the BB in Fort Collins, CO! I drive an hour from Laramie to visit Fort Collins for my hifi needs, and I've gotten nothing but rude sales reps and poor customer service from them, which is why I don't do business with them anymore. Also, the never know anything. I would recommend that evceryone stay as far away from BB as possible. Buy from the net if you have to; you get roughly the same level of waranty protection as you do from BB if you don't buy their overpriced protection plan (I have a nasty story about that too!). Also, while Monster is overpriced in general, dvi and hdmi cables are especially overpriced. Digital signals are not very suceptible to EMF interference (that's one of the main advantages of digital information), so the cables don't require extensive shielding. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schouse13 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 You should check out www.bestbuysux.org You can read horror stories from employees and customers. It's pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 ---------------- On 2/11/2005 6:56:45 PM thxultraman wrote: I really wish you had any idea what you are talking about. Most cables especially Best buy cables have no more than 50% in them. I work for a monster dealer and know what they do and dont cost. If they were that much i would sell audio at all. Know what you are talking about first before you make a claim. ---------------- Dude, please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I worked for Best Buy. I know exactly what they pay for their cables, because I had direct access to that information in their ordering system. The gross margin is 60% on Monster, 65-75% on Acoustic Research, and upwards of 85% on Recoton and Belkin. These people sell all their cabling at full retail, and constantly beat up the suppliers for better prices a la Wal-Mart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 ---------------- On 2/11/2005 7:13:59 PM ottscay wrote: Digital signals are not very suceptible to EMF interference (that's one of the main advantages of digital information), so the cables don't require extensive shielding. Scott ---------------- Ummmmmmm - sounds like someone needs to do some homework about digital bitstream transfer. Electromagnetic interference will only cause extraneous noise in an analog transfer. It can literally destroy a digital signal via massive interpolation of the data bits. I'll grant you, the extremely high frequencies of digital video tend to make them less susceptible to traditional household EMI than digital audio transfers, but invulnerable? Hardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Griff, You are right, I was just leaving out the technical bits (pun intended) and discussing it relative to normal household settings. If you have an EMF large enough to destroy the digital signal over a meter long hdmi connection, you're gonna have bigger problems than poor reception. At least, if it's sustained. Living in Wyoming, I am all to0 familiar with the benefits of analog signals (say, in cell phones, which still only work in half of our state), e.g. they are harder to totally degrade, although they degrade from perfect much quicker. It's true that you can't used balanced (e.g. xlr) connections to preserve the igital signal the way you can with analog signatures, but again, in normal HT situations, it shouldn't matter, as the digital signal should be intact over a decent range of cabling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 ---------------- On 2/12/2005 2:43:55 PM ottscay wrote: It's true that you can't used balanced (e.g. xlr) connections to preserve the igital signal the way you can with analog signatures, but again, in normal HT situations, it shouldn't matter, as the digital signal should be intact over a decent range of cabling. ---------------- Actually, the AES/EBU digital transfer standard for professional digital audio is transmitted via XLR cables, and those I know who have implemented such systems have said repeatedly that it's a dramatic improvement over SPDIF and ADAT (optical) transfers... As to your point about the three-foot cable - As long as you're not using CRT tubes, you're right. However, the hefty shielding is absolutely necessary when you mix those big bulbs into the equation, because they emit an incredible amount of EMI at close distances... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I know that professional digital audio is transferred over xlr, but I assumed that was more for backwards compatability with existing cables. After all, balanced audio works by subtracting the difference between the two inputs, which works with analog audio, because interference tends to distort the two signals to the same degree...I'd be suprised if digital signals benefitted from this error correction, since digital interference results in a loss of the signal, not a weakening of it. Are your friends sure it isn't just the fact that digital audio equipment with xlr inputs happen to also be of a higher quality overall (i.e. the benefit comes from premium equipment, and the xlr cables are coincidental rather than the cause of signal improvment?). If not, how you you/they propose that works? I used to do work with professional video post production, although I've never been too heavily involved in the audio side of it (which is why I'm loving learning about the technical side of audiophile wonkery...and I say that with the highest level of reverence!). So my understanding of professional audio is peripheral. I may not correctly understand balanced cables and digital audio, but from what I do know it shouldn't make a significant improvement...??? Unless the shielding is simply better? But in most professional situations, would this matter, since the video is split from the digital audio recording anyways (unless it's al being recorded into a camera, but that's a fairly low-end solution to pro audio recording). Thanks! Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 ---------------- On 2/13/2005 12:04:26 AM ottscay wrote: So my understanding of professional audio is peripheral. I may not correctly understand balanced cables and digital audio, but from what I do know it shouldn't make a significant improvement...??? Unless the shielding is simply better? ---------------- Actually the shielding is the most significant improvement. Recall that in a properly constructed XLR cable, the three wires are twisted together, with a secondary shield around the outside. While this would, as many forum members have pointed out, increase capacitance within the line, digital signals are essentially impervious to capacitance, so that problem is rendered irrelevant. The signal quality delivery of XLR vs. SPDIF is demonstrated in the maximum run limitations - AES/EBU basically can be run a quarter mile before signal degradation becomes problematic, where SPDIF is good only out to around 20-30 feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottscay Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks Griff! I should point out that I wasn't implying that hdmi cords don't need any shielding at all, just that the basic specifications do an adequate job, including (in my case) with a largeish hi-def crt tv. The designers of the original specifications weren't fools, and the shielding that is found in essentially all hdmi cables should be plenty, so no need to plunk down $150 for a Monster version. Since digital signals are essentially lossless if they aren't destroyed, the basic shielding should be just as good as a really expensive cable with tons of extraneous shielding for most home theater owners. Analog signals degrade more easily, so at least in theory Monster cables are an inprovement (although whether or not they are worth the cost relative to other cables is another matter). It just irks me that Monster is using the same marketing hype on their dvi and hdmi cables as they do for their analog a/v connections, when the same principals don't hold. This is me being foolish, really, since my life would be pretty miserable if I got upset everytime I saw marketing that gets basic science wrong (or misleads with it, or whatever). One thing that may not follow this rule is hdmi/dvi adapters. I've read some reviews that really knocked low-end converters. I don't know enough about the wiring of those to know why this is, but I've seen it often enough to assume there's some validity to it. Anyone know why that is? Also, sorry for the threae hijack... Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.