Originally posted by: zion
I also discovered there is no difference between the cheapest RCA cable and Monster Cable's near-top-of-the-line fancy-ass thing.
Ok buddy, you've just crossed the line with that remark. There is no way in hell that a 2 dollar video cable from Radio Shack is going to transfer the video signal as efficiently as a high quality dual-shielded Monster Cable. If you're not seeing a difference, it's because you're lucking out and not getting any noise introduced into your signal.
Nothing more to see here. Move along.
I also discovered there is no difference between the cheapest RCA cable and Monster Cable's near-top-of-the-line fancy-ass thing.
Ok buddy, you've just crossed the line with that remark. There is no way in hell that a 2 dollar video cable from Radio Shack is going to transfer the video signal as efficiently as a high quality dual-shielded Monster Cable. If you're not seeing a difference, it's because you're lucking out and not getting any noise introduced into your signal.
Nothing more to see here. Move along.
It was more like a free cable from Apex! You're right: in theory, and in the lab, I think the MC is measurably better. Good construction, large amount of signal path, great shielding. For a high-quality HD signal or something, I think the MC cable would make a difference. But LD (any LD) is already so noisy and soft (and composite to boot) that I don't think the miniscule amount of noise introduced by a poorly-shielded cable makes any difference at all in a setup where outside RF noise isn't already an issue.
I can post some screen caps taken with the two cables, but believe me, there's no difference. The HQ/no HQ thing Moth3r and I have been discussing makes way more difference.
If you're seeing a difference in your setup with a MC cable, then that's what you should be using! For me, I wanted to believe MC was demonstrably better, but strictly-controlled A/B testing and a completely uninterested third-party opinion (my wife's) showed me the extra $60 or so wasn't worth it.