Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The HDMI cable scam...


TheSaint

Recommended Posts

Yep. Same with the 1080 issue. Once you get 50' or higher, THEN you need 1080.

And don't get me started on surround sound scam

By all means P, please start. What's up with surround sound other than the fact that you need to build your media room around your surround system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my cable from newegg for like $5. Bits are bits. They make it through the wire or they don't. Simple as that.

Also, there are pics all over the internet of Monster displays in stores where customers can 'see the difference' and the other TV is hooked up with composite cables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means P, please start. What's up with surround sound other than the fact that you need to build your media room around your surround system?

2 channels. Surround sound is a myth. Go read up on any expert sound technician.

You have two ears. The signal can be in stereo or mono. That is IT.

Dual or single. That is IT.

The surround sound is a funky little thing to get people to buy stuff they don't really need.

So you have speakers behind you. That still produce sound in stereo.

To be technically correct on sound meshed with the video signal, two high quality speakers beside your tv is really all you need.

The brain is not going to recognize 4 channel in it's true sense. So you have two in front, two in the back. The brain will not be able to simultaneously "understand" the bicameral sounds that are going on.

One more or less washes the other out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just bought a Monster12ft gold plated, gas filled Composite cables that retail for $70....bought mine for $15.

I can actually tell the difference b/w the old crappy composite cables and these monster cables FTW. (I know everyone is talking about HDMI though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 channels. Surround sound is a myth. Go read up on any expert sound technician.

You have two ears. The signal can be in stereo or mono. That is IT.

Dual or single. That is IT.

The surround sound is a funky little thing to get people to buy stuff they don't really need.

So you have speakers behind you. That still produce sound in stereo.

To be technically correct on sound meshed with the video signal, two high quality speakers beside your tv is really all you need.

The brain is not going to recognize 4 channel in it's true sense. So you have two in front, two in the back. The brain will not be able to simultaneously "understand" the bicameral sounds that are going on.

One more or less washes the other out.

I agree for the most part, but there's nothing like watching football and having the announcers coming from in front of you, and crowd noise behind you.

I've tried to tell my friend for years who's worked at best buy for years about the hdmi/speaker wire scam but to no avail. He's heard so much propaganda that he's completely bought into the lie.

"Dude, I can get an $80 monster hdmi cable for $25 bucks with my discount! 6 feet!"

Did you ever wonder why that is? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Best Buy with a co-worker a while back to look at TVs. He ended up getting one and the sales rep starts in on all these cables he's going to need. I told my buddy to get the TV but get the cables elsewhere and the BB kid starts getting real confrontational about how nothing will work and it's a waste of his new tv to not get them from BB. I calmly told my buddy he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about or else he would have been this passionate about the $3K TV and not the $80 cables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...