"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4b9311a1977651427220e2710@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than 
>> the
>> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's 
>> like
>> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
>> ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables
>> meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the 
>> signal
>> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really 
>> crappy
>> quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't.
>
> Perfect analysis.  You know how software makers are able to get a lot of 
> money
> from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works?  Audio-video 
> industry
> is just about as horrendous.
>

I suppose that if I spent $100 for a 3-foot cable, I'd delude myself too, 
though.  Admitting that I just paid 20 times more than a reasonable price 
would just be too difficult for me.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message