Not entirely true. Someone else in this thread posted a good summary. The "it's just 1s and 0's" argument is not correct.
Even at 50 ft. lengths when the cable matters you're still getting ripped off by Monster since you can get a decent 50 ft. HDMI cable for 30-60 compared to the 250 that Monster would charge.
Bose does appeal to the ear that does not distinguish accurate sounds from muted, dumbed-down sound. They are HORRIBLE. However, what Bose does do right is dominate their niche market so well with great advertising and "pleasing" sounds, that competitors are hard to find.
The challenge I always issue to those considering Bose is to try to find the frequency range, nominal impedance, distortion and sensitivity figures for ANY of their speakers. This is available for EVERY speaker produced by EVERY company except Bose. Isn't that odd. (Caveat: I haven't looked in a couple years, but they didn't release such figures as of 12/2010).
I'm sure your Bose headphones sound good. But if you compared them to equally-priced headphones from other companies, you'd see just how muted and muddy the Bose sound is. If you want muted/muddy music, which never sounds harsh even if the music is meant to be harsh, then Bose is the company.
I think I will only post a couple more times in this thread because I feel like the stupidity by those capping on Best Buy is giving me a headache. But how much do you think the company that is producing these expensive cables is charging Best Buy? Don't you think that is really more of the issue than what Best Buy is charging? If someone is finding the same cable, made by the same company, somewhere else for MUCH less than that, then it's Best Buy's margins, advertising, salaries and rent that is driving up the price. But Best Buy does offer much cheaper cables! Audioquest cables (and their overpriced competitor, Monster) are expensive everywhere, and they're nowhere near the most expensive.
You're correct to an extent. But before out discount got changed about a year ago, we got items for cost +5% as employees. Monster I could get a $100 cable for around $25. If I went store brand, like insignia that cost $40-60 retail, I could get it for around $4 employee price. It's the same with every cable...Ethernet, auxiliary, optical, or phone charger. That's how they stay in business.
Ok. You are right about cable length. But interference is not the primary issue.
First, what I meant by "binary" was the test to see if your cable works is binary. I.e. either it works or it doesn't - either you have a picture or you don't.
From the article you linked:
"The signals could get so weak that they cannot operate the equipment at the other end."
That was my point. Your equipment will simply not pick up the signal. However this is technically incorrect. I am wrong about that.
First, the "crosstalk" distortion that your article is referring to is misleading. Because the hdmi signal no longer drives analog inputs. Distortion in the traditional since is not an issue. The issue with long hdmi cables is not interference, but increased impedance. This manifests in 2 ways: 1.) Reflection of the square wave becomes more pronounced. 2.) the edges of the square wave become rounded. The net effect is that bits become lost. But this may or may not happen to the entire bitstream. Partial bit loss is seen as artifacts or "sparkle" in the picture. As the cable gets longer eventually the entire bitstream is lost.
Even though this is not "binary", as I described in my previous post; it is damn near. The distance that a given cable will go from performing adequately, to producing artifacts, to not performing at all is relatively short. So much so that it is commonly referred to as the "digital cliff".
Interestingly at longer runs, analog cables, such as component video cables, become more reliable than HDMI. And industry professionals use impedance matched coax cables to transmit digital singals over longer runs - a design element that was lost on the twisted pair hdmi standard where it seems the design goals were integration and convenience more than anything.
So to correct my first post. Surf that digital cliff as far as you can with an inexpensive cable. If you start to see artifacts or you don't get a picture, go buy a higher quality cable with lower impedance or switch to analog.
In either case I now know way too much about hdmi. Haha!
Or any "high quality" HDMI cable which will "maximize" the picture quality of that high priced big screen TV investment that you made? Just curious. "Yes or no" will suffice.
I'm sure your Bose headphones sound good. But if you compared them to equally-priced headphones from other companies, you'd see just how muted and muddy the Bose sound is. If you want muted/muddy music, which never sounds harsh even if the music is meant to be harsh, then Bose is the company.
I am willing to be converted! What are some examples of ear bud type headphones that will give me better sound quality than Bose? (I want ear buds because I don't like carrying around bulky headphones for use with an iPod.) Also keeping in mind that I really like to hear the bass, even in rock/metal songs where the bass is not a heavy standout element.
If they're truly better sound quality than Bose and at a better price, I'll try them out.
I am willing to be converted! What are some examples of ear bud type headphones that will give me better sound quality than Bose? (I want ear buds because I don't like carrying around bulky headphones for use with an iPod.) Also keeping in mind that I really like to hear the bass, even in rock/metal songs where the bass is not a heavy standout element.
If they're truly better sound quality than Bose and at a better price, I'll try them out.
These are the earphones I use, and have used for a decade or more.
They're inexpensive and sound great. But I go through 3 or 4 a year as a result of stepping on them or getting stuck in my bike.
I am willing to be converted! What are some examples of ear bud type headphones that will give me better sound quality than Bose? (I want ear buds because I don't like carrying around bulky headphones for use with an iPod.) Also keeping in mind that I really like to hear the bass, even in rock/metal songs where the bass is not a heavy standout element.
If they're truly better sound quality than Bose and at a better price, I'll try them out.
Try http://www.headphonereviews.org/. You might get information overload, but it's a great site. I don't use ear buds very often myself so sadly I don't have any to personally recommend.
Try http://www.headphonereviews.org/. You might get information overload, but it's a great site. I don't use ear buds very often myself so sadly I don't have any to personally recommend.
The site seems a bit thin on ear bud reviews, sadly. Anyway, if there's a company who makes great ear buds I'd love to try them out. So far I've felt like Bose's give me the fullest sound -- many ear buds make the music sound tinny.
