The reason I ask is because want pre-made Speakon -> Banana terminated speaker cable and neither Bluejeans nor Monoprice offer it. I need three 6’ cables. Guitar Center has them in 10’ lengths for $29 (16 gauge, model s-100). I’m not a fan of Monster because of the way they operate, but am thinking of buying them for convenience. Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?

The reason I ask is because want pre-made Speakon -> Banana terminated speaker cable and neither Bluejeans nor Monoprice offer it. I need three 6’ cables. Guitar Center has them in 10’ lengths for $29 (16 gauge, model s-100). I’m not a fan of Monster because of the way they operate, but am thinking of buying them for convenience. Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?




no...they will work fine

No technical reasons. Only financial reasons. However, if selection is tight, and Monster is all you have, then financial reasons are moot.

I got the cables. On the box it says "Enhanced Low-End Punch and Clarity" :confused:

Considering cables aren't active, that sounds sketchy. The only way to perceptively do that would be to restrict, roll-off, or otherwise attenuate all the other frequencies except bass. Hopefully that's just something the marketing department came up (bold face lie) to help sell cables.

there are active cables? :eek:

That sounds like Marketing talk to me.

For 3x$29, it's just at that point where it's hard to decide the value of buying tools, connectors, and bare cable to make your own. It is very convenient to buy ready make cables from a local store.

There's nothing wrong with Monster cable from a technical standpoint IMHO. I would rather make my own.

- Steve O.

there are active cables? :eek:
Oh man! Gotta replace the double-A batteries on my cable again! :D

Not a joke:

Most higher-end cables require a break-in period before they perform their best. A charge builds up in the insulation through continual use, increasing the efficiency of the cable. This charge can dissipate when the cable's not in use, giving you less than optimal performance until it builds up again.

AudioQuest's Dielectric-Bias System (DBS) eliminates this break-in period. A small battery pack attached to the cable polarizes the insulation with a 36-volt charge, giving you clear, expressive sound from your system every time you turn it on. This also helps eliminate the time delay that can create audio jitter.

Not a joke:
While I am happy to supply phantom power for my condenser microphones, I absolutely refuse to do so for my cables. :eek::D

Boy, just when you think they can't shovel out any more manure! Now, where was that perpetual motion patent to mail in ...

Not a joke:Yes, those are the exact type of cables Terry was referencing with his "joke".

The reason I ask is because want pre-made Speakon -> Banana terminated speaker cable and neither Bluejeans nor Monoprice offer it. I need three 6’ cables. Guitar Center has them in 10’ lengths for $29 (16 gauge, model s-100). I’m not a fan of Monster because of the way they operate, but am thinking of buying them for convenience. Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?

Why pre-made? Making those cables from bulk wire and connectors is as simple as the recipe for ice cubes, and a lot faster.

Why pre-made? Making those cables from bulk wire and connectors is as simple as the recipe for ice cubes, and a lot faster.
And if you have three thumbs, companies like Blue Jeans will make cables for you to order for a reasonable price. Again, because it's not hard to cut wire to a desired length and attach connectors.

Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?


Not particularly for the type of cables you're looking for. But, I find that some of their RCA plugs are way too tight and put a "death grip" on the shell of the RCA jack. I've actually had to replace a couple of jacks that were damaged when unplugging the cables.

there are active cables? :eek:

Got to love it, huh? They finally figured out how to have cables produce a sound of their own.

The reason I ask is because want pre-made Speakon -> Banana terminated speaker cable and neither Bluejeans nor Monoprice offer it. I need three 6’ cables. Guitar Center has them in 10’ lengths for $29 (16 gauge, model s-100). I’m not a fan of Monster because of the way they operate, but am thinking of buying them for convenience. Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?

Both Speakon and bannana plugs come with some form of screw terminals.

Why pre-made? Making those cables from bulk wire and connectors is as simple as the recipe for ice cubes, and a lot faster.

So you're saying I'm a girlie man, eh? That my Kung Fu is weak?

Well, you're right. I didn't try to make my own cables because I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I never even heard of Speakon cables for amps until it was my only option on the QSC 1104's I bought. I actually considered buying a pair of 1802's instead just so I could get familiar 5 way binding posts. :o

Bluejeans said they would do it but I would have to e-mail and get a quote for a custom order. For a low quantity, short run, it didn't sound worth it to either of us. I do my own ethernet cables because the cost savings is huge, but for $29 it just didn't seem worth it.

If you've got any links that explain how it's done, let me know.

If you've got any links that explain how it's done, let me know.

well markertek sells the parts. Speakons for 2.80, Bananas for 1.50 each and 16 gauge speaker wire for .26 cents a foot.

Lets see thats about 10 bucks for each run. More than half the price.

Ordering the parts is the easy half of DIY. How do you put them together?

Are the terminators crimped on? Soldered? Some type of physical interlock? Which wires go where? Do I need to make an upfront investment in tools of the trade? If so, what do I need to look for in said tool, how much does it cost, and where can I buy it from?

I'm sure it's easy if you're in the business or done it before. I've done my own bananas on bulk cable and honestly question if it's worth my time. The Monster cables look nice and are easy to handle. They work right out of the box without me needing to do any research, trial & error, or waste my time with labor typically handled by 10 year olds in China.

Ordering the parts is the easy half of DIY. How do you put them together?

Are the terminators crimped on? Soldered? Some type of physical interlock? Which wires go where? Do I need to make an upfront investment in tools of the trade? If so, what do I need to look for in said tool, how much does it cost, and where can I buy it from?

I'm sure it's easy if you're in the business or done it before. I've done my own bananas on bulk cable and honestly question if it's worth my time. The Monster cables look nice and are easy to handle. They work right out of the box without me needing to do any research, trial & error, or waste my time with labor typically handled by 10 year olds in China.



Oh well, you are exactly the kind of customer Monster looks for. Not sure how screwing cables into banana is any harder than making cat5 cable like you said you do.

Local Guitar Center was having a sale on used cables this week. Grabbed 6 pairs of rca to 1/4" for 'bout $20. Some looked like old stock, still in the package, Live Wire brand.

Not sure how screwing cables into banana is any harder than making cat5 cable like you said you do.

It's not, and I said I've done bananas too, but the cost savings isn't as great with them. I usually just use bare wire if I've got a 5 way binding post.

The problem I had this time was the Speakon terminators and my unfamiliarity with them. Unlike bananas & cat6, there's not a whole lot of readily available reference material for DIY Speakon cables. Case in point... you talk like you've done them yourself, but would rather take shots at me instead of answering my questions.

I first noticed the name Monster Cable® when I saw the first screening of Star Trek V at the Empire Leicester square 70mm Dolby SR THX 19 years ago on the end credits. Here is screen capture, from the end credits, circled it in red.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/Evolution3417/StarTrekVmonstercable.jpg

It's not, and I said I've done bananas too, but the cost savings isn't as great with them. I usually just use bare wire if I've got a 5 way binding post.

The problem I had this time was the Speakon terminators and my unfamiliarity with them. Unlike bananas & cat6, there's not a whole lot of readily available reference material for DIY Speakon cables. Case in point... you talk like you've done them yourself, but would rather take shots at me instead of answering my questions.



A simple google of "how to wire a speakon" got me these 2 right away.

http://www.pastudio.net/attachments/month_0612/c02f_Guide_to_Neutrik_Speakon.pdf


http://www.neutrik.com/client/neutrik/media/downloads/Media_1895839708.pdf

Ha ha... I just noticed (put new banana plugs on all my cables last night) that the cables I bought in 1990 were Monsters ha ha. The plain clear plastic covered Dielectric. Looks like about 10ga. Oh well, they work. I got the idea to change the connectors (originally without) after a friend returned them with the insulation blackend at the crimp on gold connectors. Guess i didn't put them on well enough.:)

It's not, and I said I've done bananas too, but the cost savings isn't as great with them. I usually just use bare wire if I've got a 5 way binding post.

The problem I had this time was the Speakon terminators and my unfamiliarity with them. Unlike bananas & cat6, there's not a whole lot of readily available reference material for DIY Speakon cables. Case in point... you talk like you've done them yourself, but would rather take shots at me instead of answering my questions.


The wiring scheme for Speakons is usually right on the back of the amp, and the terminal connections are numbered correspondingly.

Speakons are easy, they're just screw down contacts inside the body of the connector after you remove the outside. They don't require any tools beyond a basic screwdriver. I can understand reticence for soldering or crimping line level audio or video cables etc, since you need to buy the tools and know a bit about how to do it, but the speakons are very straightforward. I don't prefer the connector, I prefer using binding posts if available, but you should have no problems.

Parts Express has them for less than $5 each:

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=092-050&ctab=14

and here's some decent banana plugs:

http://www.speakerrepair.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BR10&Category_Code=safe_connect

http://www.speakerrepair.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BS10&Category_Code=black_chrome

Compare to Monster's version, do a search at Amazon for "Monster Cable QL GMT-H" (I can't get the link to work directly)

Speaker Repair also has the speakon connectors but are a little more expensive, but I like either of these banana plugs better than the ones at Parts Express.

I will say this. I have had more defective cables from Monster than I have from any other manufacturer.

I ain't buyin' anything from Monster until they stop this crap:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/monster-cable-mini-golf

Craig

check these 5m Monster interconnnects:

http://cgi.*********/Monster-Cable-201-XLN-Car-Audio-Interconnect-5M_W0QQitemZ140234971745QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item140234971745&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C65%3A12&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

********* = ebay. com

@ $13.99 plus shipping, pretty nice deal if you need 5m


http://biggerbids.com/members/images/5354/public/323580_159672.jpg



Parts Express has the 1m length for $14.95

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=185-236

I don't mind Monster products if you can get them cheap, but the RCA cables I've used are rediculously tight connections. I swear I thought I was gonna pull the RCA port out of my sub before the cable would come out. Even twisting back and forth didn't loosen it. I would avoid Monster RCA's at any price.

Yeah, I've heard some nightmare stories about damaging the RCA ports of some pretty high end pre/pros by Monsters tight fitting connections.

The faulty cables that I have experienced from Monster has been their Toslink and Digital Coax cables as well as one pair of their standard RCA interconnects.

I'm not pushin' Monster, but I have never had an issue with their cables. I have not bought any in a long time (my last cable purchases have been BJC), and would probably not buy them if I needed cables today (unless I needed a 5m interconnect! :D), but I have some Monster cables that are probably close to 20 years old.

...........but I have some Monster cables that are probably close to 20 years old.

Got a box full of those. With the amount of cables I have, I could probably open up a used cable store;)

I LOVE the arrows like they mean something!!

curse the one way flow of copper! ;)

I LOVE the arrows like they mean something!!

curse the one way flow of copper! ;)


monster is great at knowing that the bulk of big-box store consumers need their hands held thru everything.

I LOVE the arrows like they mean something!!They DO mean something. It has to do with to which end of the cable the shielding is grounded. So, one end of the cable IS different than the other.

Whether it really affects anything, though, is definitely arguable. This is "supposed" to assist in preventing unwanted noise from entering and flowing through the shielding and into the signal path. The shield is not connected on the end that goes away from the source (the end the arrows point to).

They DO mean something. It has to do with to which end of the cable the shielding is grounded. So, one end of the cable IS different than the other.

Whether it really affects anything, though, is definitely arguable. This is "supposed" to assist in preventing unwanted noise from entering and flowing through the shielding and into the signal path. The shield is not connected on the end that goes away from the source (the end the arrows point to).


Correct about the shield part. Except I do not think Monster advertises that way.

Except I do not think Monster advertises that way.

http://www.monstercable.com/faqs/

search on "directional arrows"

And contrary to the way that SOME believe around here, your computer will NOT blow up if you log into either the Monster site or Bose's site. ;)

Now, now...
Lay off the sarcasm. ;)

Correct about the shield part. Except I do not think Monster advertises that way.

Some of these things wouldn't even be on anyone's radar without Monster carrying forth the banner of cable education. Unfortunately that same education through marketing is causing some to go a little overboard with their condemnation. I will admit the explanations are dumbed down and colored to be more imperative and interesting, but there's only so much space on a package.

I also tire of the Bose comparisons. Bose actively avoids a straight answer on any technical question, while Monster simply "oversaturates" the explanation. Put a Monster cable on a scope and put Bose speakers on an analyzer, and tell me if you see anything interesting.;)

I know some people are afraid of marketing and salespeople, for fear they'll be taken advantage of. That's a personal issue that doesn't imply any wrongdoing on the ones advertising.

[QUOTE=schticker;13975006]Some of these things wouldn't even be on anyone's radar without Monster carrying forth the banner of cable education. Unfortunately that same education through marketing is causing some to go a little overboard with their condemnation. I will admit the explanations are dumbed down and colored to be more imperative and interesting, but there's only so much space on a package.

QUOTE]

Thats why this is a excellent source http://rane.com/note110.html not ANYTHING monster does. Even though monster may have some technical correct things on the adverts, they have a ALOT of false info as well. That alone is reason to not use them for anything.

Thats why this is a excellent source http://rane.com/note110.html not ANYTHING monster does. Even though monster may have some technical correct things on the adverts, they have a ALOT of false info as well. That alone is reason to not use them for anything.

I suppose the point is, does it really matter how the information is conveyed, as long as a positive result comes of it? Education on noise, interference, etc is boring. Polishing it up to make it interesting and to bring under the light is not a problem. It's only a factor if the brand in question is not liked.

I suppose the point is, does it really matter how the information is conveyed, as long as a positive result comes of it? Education on noise, interference, etc is boring. Polishing it up to make it interesting and to bring under the light is not a problem. It's only a factor if the brand in question is not liked.

It matters when noobs go looking for real info and get false info along with it. I mean monster charges 120 bucks for a 20 ft "sub" cable. The same can be made for less than 20 bucks with high quality parts and do the same thing without the ******** ads.

Some of these things wouldn't even be on anyone's radar without Monster carrying forth the banner of cable education.
Oh, please. Calling Monster ads educational is like calling Pepsi nutritious.

Of course, those ads are very advantageous for high-end snake-oil salesmen. Years of reading B.S. about cables from Monster primes the suckers for the really big rip-offs.

Oh, please. Calling Monster ads educational is like calling Pepsi nutritious.

They are the ones that brought most of these topics to the public eye, away from white papers. Something as simple gauge was overlooked by consumers for years prior to their introduction.

Of course, those ads are very advantageous for high-end snake-oil salesmen. Years of reading B.S. about cables from Monster primes the suckers for the really big rip-offs.

:rolleyes:

Learn a new trick there old dog.

They DO mean something. It has to do with to which end of the cable the shielding is grounded. So, one end of the cable IS different than the other.

Whether it really affects anything, though, is definitely arguable. This is "supposed" to assist in preventing unwanted noise from entering and flowing through the shielding and into the signal path. The shield is not connected on the end that goes away from the source (the end the arrows point to).


Not necessarily. While it is true that some cables may lift the shield at one end, there are cables, and I suspect Monster is among them, that include the directional arrows for completely spurious reasons. Audioquest does this for instance, because they claim the wire is oriented in a particular direction and the electrons flow that way better or some such nonsense, thus the arrows are the direction the cable sounds better. And that's totally ridiculous.

Oh, please. Calling Monster ads educational is like calling Pepsi nutritious.

Of course, those ads are very advantageous for high-end snake-oil salesmen. Years of reading B.S. about cables from Monster primes the suckers for the really big rip-offs.

I think that's quite true. Looking to snake-oil cable companies for technical "education" about wire is bizarre.

Not necessarily. While it is true that some cables may lift the shield at one end, there are cables, and I suspect Monster is among them, that include the directional arrows for completely spurious reasons.
No, it's not there for spurious reasons and Monster has never claimed it has anything to do with "electron flow". It is there for the exact reasons the I stated and you specified, here.

Go HERE (http://www.monstercable.com/faqs/) and read the relevant FAQs:



Why do the cables have directional arrows?
This is done for shielding purposes only, a design where we do not solder the shield on the signal’s destination. This ensures that any noise picked up by the shield will not be transmitted into your signal path.


Will I notice a difference if I hook up my cables in the wrong direction?
You probably will not, but if you think that you are experiencing noise problems, check that they are. Cables are directional for shielding purposes only. Should you not see these arrows, remember that the signal flow should go in the same direction of the print on the cable jacket, reading left to right away from the source (source to destination)

;)

It matters when noobs go looking for real info and get false info along with it. I mean monster charges 120 bucks for a 20 ft "sub" cable. The same can be made for less than 20 bucks with high quality parts and do the same thing without the ******** ads.

if the same can be made for 20 bucks, i'm curious as to what you expect monster to sell their cables at. do you know how business works? i guess all the people in between the assembly line and the consumer don't need to get paid, right? they choose to do business through reps retailers and distributors, meaning theres a ton of people in the middle that need to get paid. they're don't do business like monoprice, which is why they don't have monoprice prices. I'm sure monster gets rocked on prices by best buy just as hard as you get rocked on prices by monster.

if the same can be made for 20 bucks, i'm curious as to what you expect monster to sell their cables at. do you know how business works? i guess all the people in between the assembly line and the consumer don't need to get paid, right? they choose to do business through reps retailers and distributors, meaning theres a ton of people in the middle that need to get paid. they're don't do business like monoprice, which is why they don't have monoprice prices. I'm sure monster gets rocked on prices by best buy just as hard as you get rocked on prices by monster.
The problem with Monster isn't that it charges too much. That's just business, like buying garden tools from Smith & Hawken instead of Lowes. The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception.

.
The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception.

As most business models are. The purpose of their marketing and advertising is to present their product in the MOST favorable light (true or not) while staying within the law.

Here's but only one example. Car manufacturers. The law requires that all of their television adds INCLUDE the disclaimers regarding their warranties and financing. Have you EVER tried to read that paragraph or two that is composed in a really small font and only on the screen for about 3 seconds?

What about the claims made by vitamin manufacturers, mattress manufacturers, work out equipment, etc etc etc etc etc, and so on and so on.

The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception.

As most business models are.
No, they aren't. There's a difference between making claims that are nominally true and making claims that are demonstrably false. Putting your product in the best light is not deceptive.

Here's but only one example. Car manufacturers. The law requires that all of their television adds INCLUDE the disclaimers regarding their warranties and financing. Have you EVER tried to read that paragraph or two that is composed in a really small font and only on the screen for about 3 seconds?
But they aren't trying to deceive you. They're just trying to abide by an ineffectual regulation in the cheapest way possible. That isn't in the same league with false claims.

But they aren't trying to deceive you. They're just trying to abide by an ineffectual regulation in the cheapest way possible.

IF you really believe that, than they have done their job well. Do you actually think that the reason that they put that in such small print and that the reason that they only show it for a matter of seconds is because they want to save money on their commercials and doesn't have anything to do with them NOT wanting you to read it?

The fact of the matter is, is that it has EVERYTHING to do with deception.

The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception.I think that is pretty strong statement. Taking advantage of unwitting consumers is certainly nothing that is reserved for Monster.

Examples?

The fact of the matter is, is that it has EVERYTHING to do with deception.

Taking advantage of unwitting consumers is certainly nothing that is reserved for Monster.
If the best defense of Monster is that they aren't the only company that practices deception, I think I'll declare victory and go home.

If the best defense of Monster is that they aren't the only company that practices deception, I think I'll declare victory and go home.

"The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception."
-----mcnarus

If you reworded the above statement to say that "The problem with the majority of advertising and marketing in the business world is that it is built around consumer deception", than I would have no issue with it.

I'm not defending Monster. I'm just making the statement that, for the most part, they are not doing anything different than most large companies do with their advertising and marketing efforts.

If the best defense of Monster is that they aren't the only company that practices deception, I think I'll declare victory and go home.Don't let the door bump your booty on the way out. http://home.comcast.net/~nickbuckeye/Smiley2/waving.gif

I'm just making the statement that, for the most part, they are not doing anything different than most large companies do with their advertising and marketing efforts.
You're drawing a moral equivalence between printing the truth in small type and printing lies in big type. I think those things are qualitatively different.

................printing lies in big type.Examples?

.
The problem with Monster isn't that it charges too much. That's just business, like buying garden tools from Smith & Hawken instead of Lowes. The problem with Monster is that its business model is built around consumer deception.

you're obviously not arguing for the masses because all the complaints i've read about monster is that they are overpriced crap. A giant chunk of these people have never bought a monster product in their life and are just jumping the bandwagon marked for monster hate.

Their new hdmi marketing campaign, for example, is very similar to car advertisements, imo. They speed rate their cables. 100 dollars for a cable with data rates that you will probably never need. Sound familiar to you? The lexus is-f is advertised to hit 0-60 in under 5 seconds. why the hell would you need to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds?

You're drawing a moral equivalence between printing the truth in small type and printing lies in big type. I think those things are qualitatively different.

Small type AND only showing it on the screen for 3 to 5 seconds when NO ONE can read it in that amount of time.

And yes, I AM drawing a moral equivalence, because the "intent" is EXACTLY the same, and that intent is to...................deceive.

You calling out Monster on deceptive advertising is akin to me saying that I hate Mobile because "their" gas is sooooo expensive.

Their new hdmi marketing campaign, for example, is very similar to car advertisements, imo. They speed rate their cables. 100 dollars for a cable with data rates that you will probably never need. Sound familiar to you? The lexus is-f is advertised to hit 0-60 in under 5 seconds. why the hell would you need to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds?

That is a terrible example. HDMI 'speed' is limited by the totality of the equipment you are using. If your source devices doesn't need the speed then the cable is a waste. The only way to make your analogy stick is to say that the speed of a car is limited by its source, the driver, which means that you are admitting you are such a bad driver that you are unable to drive a capable car to 60 faster than 5 seconds. And while I probably only get my car to 60 in under 5 seconds once a week, having that headroom is great for when you need to do 30-60 as fast as possible or you want to actually enjoy your morning commute.

you're obviously not arguing for the masses because all the complaints i've read about monster is that they are overpriced crap.
But there's nothing wrong with selling your product for more than the next guy. If you can pull it off, that's just good business. The Rolex analogy fits.

The lexus is-f is advertised to hit 0-60 in under 5 seconds. why the hell would you need to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds?
But at least that Lexus can do 0-60 in 5 secs. Monster patch cords can't make your system sound better.

That is a terrible example. HDMI 'speed' is limited by the totality of the equipment you are using. If your source devices doesn't need the speed then the cable is a waste. The only way to make your analogy stick is to say that the speed of a car is limited by its source, the driver, which means that you are admitting you are such a bad driver that you are unable to drive a capable car to 60 faster than 5 seconds. And while I probably only get my car to 60 in under 5 seconds once a week, having that headroom is great for when you need to do 30-60 as fast as possible or you want to actually enjoy your morning commute.

You need to read up on the subject before you dissect my comparison. Monster advertises the speed not as a necessity for current equipment, but for future proofing, so your argument is null. Your argument could have also applied when the hdmi 1.3 was released and no sources supported it. But there seem to be plenty receivers that have that ability now, requiring people to also upgrade their cables. You could ALSO argue that one is a cable and another is a car. Holistically, it may not be an accurate analogy, but in the context I'm using it for, I think it sticks just fine. My point is that both industries boast features that are unecessary. Monster never claimed that you NEED 10.2 gbps for your display to output HD. You seem to have missed the aim of my argument and gone off on a tangent.

But there's nothing wrong with selling your product for more than the next guy. If you can pull it off, that's just good business. The Rolex analogy fits.


But at least that Lexus can do 0-60 in 5 secs. Monster patch cords can't make your system sound better.

there is truth and fabrication in every marketing campaign. Who's to say Monster HDMI can't hit 10.2 gbps? im sure they've sued enough people to know the legalities of advertisement....and i'm sure claiming a certain data rate without the ability to perform is not legal.

No, my argument it completely valid. You compared the bandwidth of a monster cable to the acceleration capability of a car. Even at first blush, those are completely different. One is the maximum amount that can flow at a constant velocity while the other is the rate at which one can increase velocity.

As to your argument that both are unneccessary, again, the comparison doesn't stick. Monster cable's speed abilities are unneccessary because source equipment can take advantage of the capacity; whereas, a fast 0-60 time, while unnecessary for everyday driving, is completely acheivable on just about any road and can at times be very useful. Also, there is no outside limiting factor on the Lexus's sub-5 0-60, like there is to Monster's throughput. Again, the analogy fails.

I understand you are trying to make the point of similar deceptive advertising. My point is, cable 'speeds' are deceptive because the speed they are advertising is useless, but 0-60 is in no way deceptive because the car can easily do that time, and it is a primary characteristic of the car, whether needed or not.

You need to read up on the subject before you dissect my comparison. Monster advertises the speed not as a necessity for current equipment, but for future proofing, so your argument is null. My point is that both industries boast features that are unecessary. Monster never claimed that you NEED 10.2 gbps for your display to output HD. You seem to have missed the aim of my argument and gone off on a tangent.

No, my argument it completely valid. You compared the bandwidth of a monster cable to the acceleration capability of a car. Even at first blush, those are completely different. One is the maximum amount that can flow at a constant velocity while the other is the rate at which one can increase velocity.

As to your argument that both are unneccessary, again, the comparison doesn't stick. Monster cable's speed abilities are unneccessary because source equipment can take advantage of the capacity; whereas, a fast 0-60 time, while unnecessary for everyday driving, is completely acheivable on just about any road and can at times be very useful. Also, there is no outside limiting factor on the Lexus's sub-5 0-60, like there is to Monster's throughput. Again, the analogy fails.

I understand you are trying to make the point of similar deceptive advertising. My point is, cable 'speeds' are deceptive because the speed they are advertising is useless, but 0-60 is in no way deceptive because the car can easily do that time, and it is a primary characteristic of the car, whether needed or not.

Did you miss my hdmi 1.3 comment? Monster's speed capabilities are unecessary now, since there are no sources available for it, but so was hdmi 1.3a. i don't remember hdmi 1.3 getting such heat. How do you know you won't need that extra bandwith in the future. Again, monster cable never claimed that you need such data rates in the present, nor does it claim that there are sources available that will support it. So, no the speed they are advertising is NOT completely useless.

I don't know why youre schooling me on the difference between speed vs. bandwith, you've lost me here. You're still arguing along your tangent. :confused: You're pretty much implying that the common saying "he's the michael jordan of X" is invalid because X is unrelated to basketball. If i had known analogies had to be so tightly wound, I would have written "these things have nothing to do with each other" in my SAT's.

And you say that lexus can hit those speeds without a problem, but are you also implying that monster hdmi can't hit their stated speeds? If you can find me published tests on that, I'll bend over for you. ;)

If you want to go off on tangents, I could also say that car acceleration/speed ads are worse than monster cable in that they subliminally promote speeding. 160 mph top speeds? 0-60 in mere seconds? The former will have you cuffed and thrown in jail, and the latter will get you pulled over depending on where you are.

don't get me wrong, i would rather pay 60k for an is-f over $100 for an hdmi cable any day of the week.

Who's to say Monster HDMI can't hit 10.2 gbps?
It probably can. But just because Monster makes the occasional true statement doesn't exonerate it.

Besides, the deception here would not be the claim of data speed. The deception would be the implication that this higher data speed can improve the quality of what you see and hear on today's audio and video equipment.

It probably can. But just because Monster makes the occasional true statement doesn't exonerate it.

Besides, the deception here would not be the claim of data speed. The deception would be the implication that this higher data speed can improve the quality of what you see and hear on today's audio and video equipment.

well you got me there.

hi my name is denzel washington. i win every argument

An argument CAN be made that "deception" and "advertising/marketing" are synonymous. Hell, I don't think that there is any advertising or marketing campaign, be it for a product or a presidential candidate that doesn't have "deception" at it's core.

The deception would be the implication that this higher data speed can improve the quality of what you see and hear on today's audio and video equipment.An implication is, by definition, not explicit. A perceived implication would require some sort of assumption, presumption, and/or (mis)interpretation on the part of the consumer, correct? So, although it may be implied, does Monster actually explicitly state that because it is capable of the higher data rate, it IS a better cable. (They may. I don't know. I'm still waiting for the examples of this blatant deception which you claim.)

Hell, I don't think that there is any advertising or marketing campaign, be it for a product or a presidential candidate that doesn't have "deception" at it's core.
This strikes me as a wild exaggeration. Many campaigns may have elements of deception (though I would still argue that most don't—I haven't seen too many deceptive ads for CDs or books or grocery stores or movies or...). But to claim that deception is at the core of most campaigns? I wouldn't even say that of most political campaigns.

An implication is, by definition, not explicit. A perceived implication would require some sort of assumption, presumption, and/or (mis)interpretation on the part of the consumer, correct?
"We're shocked, shocked that consumers are getting that message from our ads!"

C'mon. These guys know exactly what they're doing.

"We're shocked, shocked that consumers are getting that message from our ads!"What is that quote from?


C'mon. These guys know exactly what they're doing.Of course they do. Your point?

This strikes me as a wild exaggeration. Many campaigns may have elements of deception (though I would still argue that most don't—I haven't seen too many deceptive ads for CDs or books or grocery stores or movies or...). But to claim that deception is at the core of most campaigns? I wouldn't even say that of most political campaigns.

"Spin" IS deception, and I know of NO political campaign that doesn't "spin".

I can come up with a plethora of deceptive ads for CD's, books, grocery stores, movies, etc etc etc if you really want me to. ALL advertising campaigns are designed to deceive you into thinking that you desire their product and or candidate (only mentioning candidate because it is so timely). It is at the core of advertising itself.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded because I spent 20 years as an Executive VP in Marketing/Advertising for a large local consumer electronics chain and had a 4 million dollar annual advertising budget that I used in both the LA Times as well as local Television. Promoting cellular in one of the most competitive markets (Los Angeles), when cellular was in it's infancy, was a study in deceptive advertising. Trying to get a customer to come to us while dealing with the constraints of the carriers as to what we could or could not say was a study in frustration.

ALL advertising campaigns are designed to deceive you into thinking that you desire their product...............That's not deception! That's kind, courteous, well-intentioned concern that you, the consumer, are getting the best product possible.

ALL advertising campaigns are designed to deceive you into thinking that you desire their product
But that's not deception. Deception is telling you that the product has X characteristic when it doesn't.

Besides, I didn't simply state that Monster's advertising was deceptive. I stated that their entire business model was built on deception. And it is. Every word they write and everything they do is designed to drive home the point that the technology of their products will improve the quality of the sound you hear. And that is horsepucky.

Here's a good example of the distinction. Here are the main stereo audio cable pages of Blue Jeans (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm) and Monster (http://www.monstercable.com/home_av/audio_cables/stereo_audio_rca.asp). Anyone who can say that these two pages are similarly deceptive has a reading comprehension problem.

When a grocery store states in their advertising that you WILL save money by shopping at their store, but in very, very small print buried in an inch of the right hand corner of their double truck full page ad states that the low price is based upon a small survey of specific product, would you say, that THAT is deceptive?

Regarding the advertising of Blue Jeans and Monster, the are attacking two different segments of the market. Monster is the 800lb gorilla and is advertising as such. Blue Jeans is the little company that is trying to deferentiate itself by targeting it's marketing to a smaller niche. How do they do this. By not only offering different cable at different price points, but also by defining it's marketing strategy and philosophies as something that is completely different from Monsters. There is no way that Blue Jeans can outspend Monster in the advertising arena. So how do they compete? By appealing to those that are wary of any 800lb. gorilla, and they are doing an excellent job of it.

Anyone who can say that these two pages are similarly deceptive has a reading comprehension problem.What is deceptive? I've asked several times for specific examples.

"Z200i Reference™ Advanced Audiophile Interconnect Cable
Advanced performance audiophile interconnect for connecting audiophile components. Z200i's extra-heavy gauge low and mid frequency conductors give you deeper, tighter bass and a precise midrange for powerful music reproduction."

Does that bother you? It doesn't say what the bass is "deeper, tighter" than. It just says the bass is "deeper, tighter" and the midrange is "precise".


"Interlink® Reference™ - Reference Quality Audio Interconnect
Ultimate performance audiophile interconnect cable for connecting precision audiophile components. Multiple gauge wire networks with precision Time Correct® windings let Interlink Reference deliver the most accurate possible music reproduction with full bandwidth frequency response, ultimate clarity and imaging, and an ultra-wide dynamic range."

Again, "most accurate possible music reproduction". So what? Any decent cable will do this, right? And they never said that they wouldn't. "Full bandwidth frequency response". Same thing. "Ultimate clarity and imaging", "ultra-wide dynamic range". Same thing.


"Interlink® 400 MkII Advanced Bandwidth Balanced® Audio Interconnect
Ultra-high performance interconnect for connecting high-end stereo components. Bandwidth Balanced® dual solid core center conductors with Time Correct® windings make Interlink 400 MkII the best choice for audio and home theater enthusiasts who want smoother, more natural audiophile-quality sound at an excellent value."

OK. "...............the best choice for audio and home theater enthusiasts who want smoother, more natural audiophile-quality sound at an excellent value." Sounds like most any advertising to me.


"Interlink® 300 MkII Solid Core Technology Audio Interconnect
High performance audio interconnect for connecting audio and home theater components. Interlink 300MkII has solid core technology with dual balanced conductors to enhance midrange and vocals, making it an ideal sonic upgrade for audio and home theater systems."

"....to enhance midrange and vocals.............". So what? Technically, that IS what they do. With no cable, there would be no midrange and vocal. All cables enhance the midrange and vocals. Again, this is no different from any other advertising we see where a product is touted to do this or that. For example, ALL soap is anti-microbial, not just those labeled as such.


I could go on and on and on.


I would posit that if there had never been a Monster, then there never would have been a company like BJC.


I would also posit that there are much worse forms of deception than Monster's claims. FOX News, for example. :eek:

[QUOTE=sivadselim;13981221]What is deceptive? I've asked several times for specific examples.

"Advanced performance audiophile interconnect for connecting audiophile components. Z200i's extra-heavy gauge low and mid frequency conductors give you deeper, tighter bass and a precise midrange for powerful music reproduction."

Does that bother you?
QUOTE]


Yes it bothers me. What proof do they have of deeper bass? Tighter bass? Precise midrange?

I would also posit that there are much worse forms of deception than Monster's claims. FOX News, for example. :eek:

And CNN on the flip side.

EVERYONE spins their product to the market that they are targeting.

Yes it bothers me. What proof do they have of deeper bass? Tighter bass? Precise midrange?

the argument is that there is no standard with regards to that statement....like contrast ratios on tv's. All companies advertise in a manner that set themselves apart from others...and they do so by boasting immeasurable features. Your favorite brand(s) probably do(es) the same thing.

[QUOTE=sivadselim;13981221]What is deceptive? I've asked several times for specific examples.

"Advanced performance audiophile interconnect for connecting audiophile components. Z200i's extra-heavy gauge low and mid frequency conductors give you deeper, tighter bass and a precise midrange for powerful music reproduction."

Does that bother you?
QUOTE]


Yes it bothers me. What proof do they have of deeper bass? Tighter bass? Precise midrange?

I can bring up a gazillion ads from just about every manufacturer in the consumer electronics business that states that THEIR tv puts out the most lifelike picture, or that their speaker is the most accurate, or that their system brings home the experience of being at a movie theater...............ALL of which is no more or less deceptive than what Monster says about their cables.

My point is, is again, singling out Monster for deceptive advertising is like singling out Mobile for selling expensive gasoline.

What is deceptive? I've asked several times for specific examples.

"Advanced performance audiophile interconnect for connecting audiophile components. Z200i's extra-heavy gauge low and mid frequency conductors give you deeper, tighter bass and a precise midrange for powerful music reproduction."

Does that bother you?


Yes it bothers me. What proof do they have of deeper bass? Tighter bass? Precise midrange?"Tighter" than what? "Deeper" than what? And they didn't even say "more precise"; just "precise midrange".

Bigger soundstage. Better gas mileage. Fewer weeds. Better handling. Cleaner clothes. Whiter whites. Brighter brights. :D

Get over it.

Bigger soundstage. Better gas mileage. Fewer weeds. Better handling. Cleaner clothes. Whiter whites. Brighter brights. :D

Get over it.

"...unsurpassed sonic fidelity..." <- and that's not a Monster quote. ;)

"Tighter" than what? "Deeper" than what? And they didn't even say "more precise"; just "precise midrange".

Bigger soundstage. Better gas mileage. Fewer weeds. Better handling. Cleaner clothes. Whiter whites. Brighter brights. :D



What I wanna know is, does the same detergent that gives you whiter whites also give you blacker blacks or do I have to buy a different detergent for that?:rolleyes:

No, they aren't. There's a difference between making claims that are nominally true and making claims that are demonstrably false. Putting your product in the best light is not deceptive.


But they aren't trying to deceive you. They're just trying to abide by an ineffectual regulation in the cheapest way possible. That isn't in the same league with false claims.

True.

Please read post #55 and explain to us why you say that the above statement is "true".

bolder flavor

"....to enhance midrange and vocals.............". So what? Technically, that IS what they do. With no cable, there would be no midrange and vocal. All cables enhance the midrange and vocals.
If you have to stretch this far to justify something, it can't be justified.

Again, c'mon. These guys have lawyers who know how to walk the line. No statement on the page can be definitively disproven, mostly because when they claim their cables are better, they don't say "better than what." But if you can read, you cannot read that page without getting the message that Monster technology makes Monster patch cords sound better than other patch cords. And it's the intended message. And it's a crock.

But back to my pont. Go look at the Blue Jeans page. Where are the deceptive statements that require this kind of lame rationalization? They aren't there. The argument that "everybody does it" is both pathetic and wrong. Everybody doesn't do it. And when it comes to audio snake oil, Monster pioneered it.

But back to my pont. Go look at the Blue Jeans page. Where are the deceptive statements that require this kind of lame rationalization? They aren't there. The argument that "everybody does it" is both pathetic and wrong. Everybody doesn't do it. And when it comes to audio snake oil, Monster pioneered it.

Using words like "lame" and "pathetic" is getting a bit personal, no?

LOL. Monster didn't pioneer audio snake oil. This was done WAYYYYYYY before there ever was a Monster Cable.

Using words like "lame" and "pathetic" is getting a bit personal, no?
No, because the adjectives were not applied to persons. They were applied to statements.

I notice that you have no response to my substantive point: Everybody does not do it.

No, because the adjectives were not applied to persons. They were applied to statements.

I notice that you have no response to my substantive point: Everybody does not do it.

Does not do what?

Monster Cable has/had over 650 employees. Blue Jeans has 6.

Monster Cable has an enormous advertising and marketing budget. Blue Jeans has virtually none, outside of their web site.

Basically, Monster sells it's products through its marketing and advertising efforts. Blue Jeans sells it's products by word of mouth.

Blue Jeans basically does not advertise products at all. They just offer their products for sale on a very basic web site.

IF Blue Jeans decided to go big time, and sell their products through brick and mortar stores and compete with Monster on the same economies of scale, than they would have to resort to advertising along with all the spins that advertising entails.

But, here is one statement off of Blue Jeans site regarding their HDMI cables:

".........their exceptional performance at high frequencies and long distances is unrivalled by any other HDMI cable available on the market today."

Is that a deceptive statement? The ONLY way to know that is to test EVERY HDMI cable that is available and to continue to test when new cables come to market, which they have not done. They have only stated that they have tested their own. So to me, saying that their cable is unrivaled at high frequencies and long distances by any other HDMI cable available, is a deceptive statement that is primarily designed to get you to purchase THEIR cable over any others by saying that it is better than all others.

When it comes to advertising and marketing, just about everyone DOES do it.

Monster Cable exists by suing competitors out of existence. This includes and attempt to sue Blue Jeans out of existence. In effect, Monster Cable attempts to "scare" competition away by threatening to sue them.

http://gizmodo.com/380055/blue-jeans-cable-calls-bs-on-monster-cable-patent-suit-vows-to-fight-to-bloody-death

Personally, I wouldn't feel right purchasing from a company like Monster Cable.

If you have to stretch this far to justify something, it can't be justified.

Again, c'mon. These guys have lawyers who know how to walk the line. No statement on the page can be definitively disproven, mostly because when they claim their cables are better, they don't say "better than what." But if you can read, you cannot read that page without getting the message that Monster technology makes Monster patch cords sound better than other patch cords. And it's the intended message. And it's a crock.

But back to my pont. Go look at the Blue Jeans page. Where are the deceptive statements that require this kind of lame rationalization? They aren't there. The argument that "everybody does it" is both pathetic and wrong. Everybody doesn't do it. And when it comes to audio snake oil, Monster pioneered it.

EVERY big company has lawyers that do the same. it's a legitimate profession.

i'm curious as to what companies you support, because i'm confident that if they do any advertising, it sure as hell doesn't say "our product is the same as any other in the industry, but we'd like you to buy ours because we enjoy the money". Monster's claim that their cables will yield tighter base is no different than a claim that hyundai will turn heads, or a certain speaker company has unsurpassed sound, etc. etc.

Monster Cable exists by suing competitors out of existence. This includes and attempt to sue Blue Jeans out of existence. In effect, Monster Cable attempts to "scare" competition away by threatening to sue them.

http://gizmodo.com/380055/blue-jeans-cable-calls-bs-on-monster-cable-patent-suit-vows-to-fight-to-bloody-death

Personally, I wouldn't feel right purchasing from a company like Monster Cable.

right, because the the companies they sue, like monster mini golf and bjc (who does zero business in retail stores) is a giant threat to monster's market share. :rolleyes:

Monster Cable has/had over 650 employees. Blue Jeans has 6.
So what? It's OK for big companies to deceive consumers?

".........their exceptional performance at high frequencies and long distances is unrivalled by any other HDMI cable available on the market today."

Is that a deceptive statement?
Don't know. Neither do you. Might be true. Monster makes many true statements about its products, as well. But apparently I have to keep reminding you what it is that Monster claims that's so deceptive. Monster claims that its patch cords can produce all sorts of audible benefits, due to their design. That is false, and Monster knows it is false (otherwise their ad copy wouldn't be so lawyerly). But a lot of audiophiles believe it, and they believe it in no small part because of one single company's decades of deceitful marketing.

i'm curious as to what companies you support
I don't support companies. I buy products. This idea that we "support" companies suggests an unhealthy dependence—that we have to believe the bull**** they feed us because otherwise they'd go out of business, and it's our job as audiophiles to keep these companies in business.

Monster's claim that their cables will yield tighter base is no different than a claim that hyundai will turn heads
First of all, Monster's claim, unlike Hyundai's, is provably false. Second, Monster doesn't just claim that their cables will yield tighter base, but also claims that specific elements of its design are responsible for this. So it isn't just a boast, which we expect (and can discount) in advertising. It's a technical claim that is deliberately miseducating the public.

Monster Cable exists by suing competitors out of existence.

It's statements like this that make me wonder why I even bother to debate issues here at all............:rolleyes:.

Here's a little tidbit for you. Monster has over 200 patents. ANY company that has that many patents, and has annual revenues over 500 million dollars has their corporate attorneys who's job it is to protect those patents, i.e...........lots of cease and desist orders and some litigation.

I'm not defending Monster in their business practices or their product. Personally, I don't like their product, even though I used to sell them, and used to advertise and market them for a major consumer electronics chain. They offer no appreciable benefit to me considering the price one pays for them, and I think their law suit against BJ is a bit silly, but not nearly as silly as the quote above.

First of all, Monster's claim, unlike Hyundai's, is provably false.

"Tighter bass" is not demonstrably false, since there is no comparison. It could be tighter than what you have now, but they don't specify. And while that might be an incomplete statement, it isn't untrue necessarily.

Hyundai will turn heads of those in adjacent vehicles that want to see who actually bought one.http://www.scottwax.com/rice/videos/smilies/ohno.gif

I would like to have someone find where Monster actively deceives people. I don't mean a slick turn of a phrase that is technically true that someone disagrees with; I seek actual, demonstrably false claims. I'll wait patiently.

I think much of this has to do with a certain psychological type that utterly lacks any creativity, and is threatened by marketers, advertisers, and salespeople because they really don't know enough to know when they're being buffaloed. In turn, they assume anyone in those professions is doing just that. It's a safety mechanism. One wonders how they own anything.

But if you can read, you cannot read that page without getting the message that Monster technology makes Monster patch cords sound better than other patch cords. And it's the intended message. And it's a crock.If you are unbiased and objective you can certainly read it and not get that message.

Monster Cable exists by suing competitors out of existence. This includes and attempt to sue Blue Jeans out of existence. In effect, Monster Cable attempts to "scare" competition away by threatening to sue them.I assure you that Monster would still exist if they did not sue their competitors. They pioneered what was at the time low cost, high-quality audio cables. When they first hit the scene years ago people were grateful that they existed. And they sold like hot cakes. They are a very successful, well-established, and large company and along with that come some unpleasantries. This is true with all businesses. All big businesses have plenty of lawyers on their staffs.

And unless you are a lawyer and/or engineer who has intimate knowledge of their lawsuits, you do not really know whether they are legitimate lawsuits or not. As consumers of BJC products (I have been, anyway) we can very easily and subjectively take issue with what Monster cable does, but we really do NOT know if they had (or still have) legitimate grievances or not.


Personally, I wouldn't feel right purchasing from a company like Monster Cable.And that is perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with you, as a consumer, making that decision. That is one of the major features of a capitalism. As you said, this is a personal choice. I guarantee you that Monster cannot eliminate its competitors with lawsuits. You will always have a choice.

But a lot of audiophiles believe it..............No, they don't. It is the unwitting novice, the non-audiophile, who may believe it. At least get straight who it is you are concerned with protecting. I assume that consumer protection is your motivation. OR has your hatred trumped your idealism?

Hyundai will turn heads of those in adjacent vehicles that want to see who actually bought one.http://www.scottwax.com/rice/videos/smilies/ohno.gifThey make a very good product, actually. If you don't want to buy it, just as it is with audio cables (and everything else), you do not have to. ;)


I'll wait patiently.I would go and do something. It is a beautiful day out. :) (if only I could practice what I preach:o)


I think much of this has to do with a certain psychological type that utterly lacks any creativity, and is threatened by marketers, advertisers, and salespeople because they really don't know enough to know when they're being buffaloed. In turn, they assume anyone in those professions is doing just that. It's a safety mechanism. One wonders how they own anything.I think you are over analyzing it. :D

People are inherently subjective and they like to both love and hate things in groups; they jump on the bandwagon.

mcnarus et al,

Your posts, like all the many others who take your stance, seethe with your own animosity toward Monster. Your distaste for them is very apparent. If you could make your argument with some degree of objectivity, it would be more effective. I understand your motivation, but your posts are filled more with your hostility toward the company than they are with your concern for the consumer.

IMO... Mon$ter is overpriced.
You have a choice. Caveat Emptor

This continual volley is nothing more than:
a) pissing in the wind
b) preaching to the choir
c) telling your child not to touch the hot stove.

Move on folks... nothing see (read) here. ;

This continual volley is nothing more than:

d) an attempt to promote balance and objectivity

;)

e) All of the above.

But if you can read, you cannot read that page without getting the message that Monster technology makes Monster patch cords sound better than other patch cords. And it's the intended message. And it's a crock.

If you are unbiased and objective you can certainly read it and not get that message.
I wouldn't call that an objective reading so much as a naive one. Do you believe that Monster wrote that copy without intending people to read it as I have suggested?

It is the unwitting novice, the non-audiophile, who may believe it.
Now that is naive. Robert Harley certainly believes it. Is he an unwitting novice?

Your posts, like all the many others who take your stance, seethe with your own animosity toward Monster. Your distaste for them is very apparent. If you could make your argument with some degree of objectivity, it would be more effective. I understand your motivation, but your posts are filled more with your hostility toward the company than they are with your concern for the consumer.
I'll gladly cop to animosity towards Monster, but that doesn't necessarily make me unobjective. I have nothing against Monster or anyone else trying to charge a premium price for a commodity product, nor do I have anything against people buying such products. I don't even begrudge them the right to defend their trademarks and patents aggressively.

I have one very specific objection to Monster's business practices, and that is this: I believe that products that do not affect the sound you hear should not be sold under the pretense that they do. That's fraud in my book, even if your lawyers know how to keep you on the right side of the consumer protection laws.

Monster is neither the first nor the only company to engage in this practice, but they are the company that brought this fraudulent message to the masses, so I think they bear a responsibility beyond the immediate effect of improperly promoting their own products. That's why people like me are harder on Monster than on other companies selling this stuff.

I also think that Monster and its followers and cheerleaders have done serious harm to audio as a hobby, both by making audiophilia something of a laughingstock in the broader culture and by promoting the idea that better sound requires an esoteric approach beyond the means of the average consumer. That's just an impression, and I'm not interested in defending it at length. But I throw it out there to make clear where I'm coming from.

I wouldn't call that an objective reading so much as a naive one.Do you really believe that I gave it a naive reading? Suit yourself.


Now that is naive. Robert Harley certainly believes it. Is he an unwitting novice?Audiophiles are buying much more exotic cables than Monster. ;)


I'll gladly cop to animosity towards Monster, but that doesn't necessarily make me unobjective. I have nothing against Monster or anyone else trying to charge a premium price for a commodity product, nor do I have anything against people buying such products. I don't even begrudge them the right to defend their trademarks and patents aggressively.

I have one very specific objection to Monster's business practices, and that is this: I believe that products that do not affect the sound you hear should not be sold under the pretense that they do. That's fraud in my book, even if your lawyers know how to keep you on the right side of the consumer protection laws.

Monster is neither the first nor the only company to engage in this practice, but they are the company that brought this fraudulent message to the masses, so I think they bear a responsibility beyond the immediate effect of improperly promoting their own products. That's why people like me are harder on Monster than on other companies selling this stuff.

I also think that Monster and its followers and cheerleaders have done serious harm to audio as a hobby, both by making audiophilia something of a laughingstock in the broader culture and by promoting the idea that better sound requires an esoteric approach beyond the means of the average consumer. That's just an impression, and I'm not interested in defending it at length. But I throw it out there to make clear where I'm coming from.Well said, but please be aware that I am neither a follower nor a cheerleader. Nor naive. It is the vocalness of the detractors that actually grants MORE import and credence to Monster than they really merit.

It is the vocalness of the detractors that actually grants MORE import and credence to Monster than they really merit.

It is Monster's advertising budget and marketing strategy that grant it the import and credence it has. A few voices on the Internets are no match.

It is Monster's advertising budget and marketing strategy that grant it the import and credence it has.deserves :eek: ;)

http://home.comcast.net/~nickbuckeye/Smiley1/bolt.gif

deserves :eek: ;)

http://home.comcast.net/~nickbuckeye/Smiley1/bolt.gif

nice;)

I think people tend to dislike certain cable vendors because of snake oil marketing; I don't think they accuse the companies of snake oil marketing because they first dislike them.

I think people tend to dislike certain cable vendors because of snake oil marketing; I don't think they accuse the companies of snake oil marketing because they first dislike them.

But they dislike them for equally unreasonable reasons and pile on the lawsuit issue as icing, knowing full-well the general disdain for frivolous lawsuits.

You cannot indict a company for using flowery yet accurate language, simply because you disagree. Nor is it fair to call a company unworthy of someone else's dollar based on conjecture and bandwaggoning. Try some objectivity.

sivadselim nailed it again with the "bolder flavor" comment. Either it's better than many of its competitors, or of a previous iteration of their own product. Either way it's accurate, legally and semantically.

BTW - The only reason the director of BJC allowed that letter to Monster get posted is pure marketing. The man knows full-well his market (even says as much shortly into the letter), and knew his followers would repost that anywhere they had the opportunity. Do not confuse his cause as righteous; it's simply business.

Do not confuse his cause as righteous; it's simply business.

Well, I will readily admit that "business" dictated both a stiff response to Monster and a public release of that response. But how does that lead to the conclusion that it is not righteous? Have you reviewed the design patents and trademarks in question? Do you think there is a meritorious claim there? Monster evidently doesn't, as it has decided to slink away into the night....

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

Well, I will readily admit that "business" dictated both a stiff response to Monster and a public release of that response. But how does that lead to the conclusion that it is not righteous? Have you reviewed the design patents and trademarks in question? Do you think there is a meritorious claim there? Monster evidently doesn't, as it has decided to slink away into the night....

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

If there's no cause there's no cause. I'm not here to debate that. What I am saying though it that what is normally treated as internal business matter was waived as the banner of revolution all over the web, designed to rally supporters of BJC to further their cause.

The best advertising is publicity.

But they dislike them for equally unreasonable reasons and pile on the lawsuit issue as icing, knowing full-well the general disdain for frivolous lawsuits.

You cannot indict a company for using flowery yet accurate language, simply because you disagree. Nor is it fair to call a company unworthy of someone else's dollar based on conjecture and bandwaggoning. Try some objectivity.

sivadselim nailed it again with the "bolder flavor" comment. Either it's better than many of its competitors, or of a previous iteration of their own product. Either way it's accurate, legally and semantically.

BTW - The only reason the director of BJC allowed that letter to Monster get posted is pure marketing. The man knows full-well his market (even says as much shortly into the letter), and knew his followers would repost that anywhere they had the opportunity. Do not confuse his cause as righteous; it's simply business.

No, I think the companies are just disliked mostly for their snake oil marketing.

Certainly you might find some who dislike them unreasonably, but there are surely more who like and defend them unreasonably.

So, schticker, in other words, you were wrong to say "do not confuse his cause as righteous." Correct?

Further, I do not know why anyone would ordinarily treat a threat of frivolous litigation as an "internal business matter" when the only thing silence does is aid Monster in making frivolous threats. We certainly did not wave it "as the banner of revolution" (whatever that may mean) as you indicate--far from it. I wrote it as a straightforward response to Monster, and was asked by various web a/v and news outlets, including Audioholics, to provide a copy and comment on it. We made a number of statements about the situation which were factual in nature, and the web being the web, all manner of people weighed in with their opinions, including a handful who thought I was a blithering idiot for writing that letter. To my gratification, there were few of those.

The best advertising isn't publicity; the best advertising is happy customers. But publicity is assuredly a good thing, and I don't know why I would turn that down when Monster dropped it in my lap. Nothing we did caused that situation to come into being, and nothing we said or did was out of the ordinary given the threat with which we were faced.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

Well said, Kurt.

Brilliant marketing strategy, Kurt. Took Monsters attack and turned it into an anti-Monster weapon, and it worked.

But it still amazes me how easily that we, the buying public, can be lead around by our noses. So many got blinded by Monsters marketing expertise and actually bought into their cable claims, and yet, so many here also bought into the "good cop versus bad cop" marketing strategy of BJC. (and yeah, I AM a bit jaded)

As an ex marketing/advertising VP, I can appreciate BOTH efforts.

Well done.

As a former technical marketing guy, I only appreciate BJC's illumination of the situation (which hardly seems a "strategy") and also their refraining from making misleading performance claims.

But it still amazes me how easily that we, the buying public, can be lead around by our noses. So many got blinded by Monsters marketing expertise and actually bought into their cable claims, and yet, so many here also bought into the "good cop versus bad cop" marketing strategy of BJC.
The two uses of the word "many" in this statement do not mean the same thing. :)

I would say that many people have been taken in by Monster's marketing, but relatively few people even know that Kurt's company exists. And once again, you draw an equivalence between BJC's truthful marketing and Monster's dishonest marketing.

As a former technical marketing guy, I only appreciate BJC's illumination of the situation (which hardly seems a "strategy") and also their refraining from making misleading performance claims.

And that's EXACTLY why I said what I said regarding being led around by our noses.

Of COURSE it was a strategy. It probably wasn't when Kurt first got their cease and desist order, but I am sure that after some reflection, it became the catalyst for a marketing strategy that would further differentiate BJC from Monster. "Illuminating the situation" just became the vehicle in which to do that.

BJC gained a bunch of public awareness here on the internet without having to spend a dime, and yet you say that wasn't a strategy? What was it then? A byproduct of illumination?

As an ex marketing/advertising VP, I can appreciate BOTH efforts.

Well, as we have a "marketing guy" in the room, I can elaborate on my thoughts here....

I have thought it very interesting that in the world of consumer products the word "marketing" is so often taken to be equivalent to "B.S." I think that what happens is that people equate "marketing" with "advertising," and when they speak of "marketing" they mean not simply advertising, but the very worst that advertising has to offer.

People ask me all the time things like "that Monster Cable--that's all just marketing, isn't it?" and I am not always sure how to answer. When I went to business school back during the Paleolithic, my Marketing professor made it very clear that as far as he was concerned, every aspect of business was at least in part "marketing." Yes, when we're changing the oil in our air compressor or sweeping wire debris from the production floor, that's a truly non-marketing occupation, but everything else we do is pretty well in the category of "marketing" more broadly conceived--the process of bringing a product to market, finding and addressing a need in the market, getting that product to the attention of the customer and delivering it on time, at a reasonable price, and at a level of quality and reliability that will make the customer happy with it. So I am always inclined to answer the question something like "yes, Monster is all about marketing--but isn't everyone?" However, I never do answer the question that way because I know that this usage of the word is not what is meant by the person asking.

My wife and I entered this business six years ago with a question which needed an answer: can one make a living selling audio and video cable without having to make outrageous claims to promote the product? We decided that in a market where everybody has a "schtick" (and what company does not?) our "schtick" would be that we try to rely on actual technical data and quality assembly rather than on weird claims about the power of cable to do odd things to the electrons that pass through it. We did not know whether this would work, and the fact that it has worked for us is a delightful surprise.

My point is that not all sales talk is equally cynical to all other sales talk. We always decided to behave as though the customer could not be led around by the nose, despite much evidence to the contrary. We also decided that in a world where electrical engineers post on message boards, we would like to avoid being humiliated by the collision between extravagant product claims and the knowledge of people with expertise. We certainly do think, as everybody does, about how the language we use helps or harms the cause of selling goods, but we also think that there is a long-term benefit to credibility with the customers that outweighs the short-term benefit one might get from saying things that aren't really true. This is why, when a customer asks whether replacing his Monster SPDIF cable with ours will improve his sound, we tell him, "no, not unless the Monster cable you have is broken." So, while there is much in the world of marketing to account for a person becoming, as you say, "jaded," do remember that sometimes people actually do try to render a good product and a good service, and actually do try to let that effort be the loudest part of their marketing approach.

The Monster Cable thing was the sort of thing that happens when a big company gets very, very bad legal advice. They're suing Monster Mini Golf now--it would be hard to come up with a marketing scheme that would do more harm to Monster Cable than what Monster Cable willingly does to itself.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

And once again, you draw an equivalence between BJC's truthful marketing and Monster's dishonest marketing.

The only equivalence is that I tip my hat to both Monsters AND BJC's marketing efforts, for they are both very successful in attacking their target markets and in some perverted way, BJC owes Monster a debt of gratitude, for as siv has said before, if it wasn't for Monster making cable such a viable after market item, BJC may not ever exist.

They're suing Monster Mini Golf now
Do the golf balls bounce around like Monster's electrons?

Of COURSE it was a strategy. It probably wasn't when Kurt first got their cease and desist order, but I am sure that after some reflection, it became the catalyst for a marketing strategy that would further differentiate BJC from Monster. "Illuminating the situation" just became the vehicle in which to do that.

BJC gained a bunch of public awareness here on the internet without having to spend a dime, and yet you say that wasn't a strategy? What was it then? A byproduct of illumination?

Can I interject to try to resolve this argument?

What you've said is basically right--but there is one aspect to it that you haven't got quite right. It may be a matter of relative emphasis more than a basic disagreement.

I actually started to write the "marketing" version of the letter back to Monster, and the lawyer in me stopped me cold there. I used to work for a great fellow back in Philadelphia named Joe Goldberg, and I now joke that when I write legal correspondence or briefs, I am "channeling my inner Goldberg." He was an extraordinary mentor to me. My "inner Goldberg" told me that the "marketing" version of this letter, which was designed to attract publicity, was unprofessional and was liable to backfire. It was a mistake to respond in a way targeted first to publicity and only secondarily to the legal issues. Rather, it was important that the letter illuminate the situation. It was critically important to show Monster Cable that I was right and they were wrong, and it was of nearly equal importance to show that I was ready to fight a vigorous fight over these issues.

What my "inner Goldberg" said was that if I wrote the letter as a piece of legal correspondence, the opportunity would take care of itself well enough, and what's more, I would not have said anything I should not have said or made myself look like a nut.

In other words, while I was mindful of the publicity value of the Monster Cable threat, and while I was interested in making some use of that, I did not really allow it to factor significantly in how I wrote back. If I had, the letter would have been fire and brimstone. Marketing strategy was on my mind, but legal strategy, and a basic desire to minimize the exposure to a litigation threat, predominated. So in a very real sense, the marketing impact of the letter (which, by the way, turned out to be orders of magnitude greater than I would have imagined) was, in fact, a "byproduct of illumination."

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

My wife and I entered this business six years ago with a question which needed an answer: can one make a living selling audio and video cable without having to make outrageous claims to promote the product? We decided that in a market where everybody has a "schtick" (and what company does not?) our "schtick" would be that we try to rely on actual technical data and quality assembly rather than on weird claims about the power of cable to do odd things to the electrons that pass through it. We did not know whether this would work, and the fact that it has worked for us is a delightful surprise.

My point is that not all sales talk is equally cynical to all other sales talk. We always decided to behave as though the customer could not be led around by the nose, despite much evidence to the contrary. We also decided that in a world where electrical engineers post on message boards, we would like to avoid being humiliated by the collision between extravagant product claims and the knowledge of people with expertise. We certainly do think, as everybody does, about how the language we use helps or harms the cause of selling goods, but we also think that there is a long-term benefit to credibility with the customers that outweighs the short-term benefit one might get from saying things that aren't really true. This is why, when a customer asks whether replacing his Monster SPDIF cable with ours will improve his sound, we tell him, "no, not unless the Monster cable you have is broken." So, while there is much in the world of marketing to account for a person becoming, as you say, "jaded," do remember that sometimes people actually do try to render a good product and a good service, and actually do try to let that effort be the loudest part of their marketing approach.

I totally understand. Please read post #81.


The Monster Cable thing was the sort of thing that happens when a big company gets very, very bad legal advice. They're suing Monster Mini Golf now--it would be hard to come up with a marketing scheme that would do more harm to Monster Cable than what Monster Cable willingly does to itself.
Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

Corporate lawyers lookin for a bit of job security maybe? I've seen this same thing happen in the cellular carrier business where the legal departments begin running the show. I think it happens when fear becomes a priority over competition.

The only equivalence is that I tip my hat to both Monsters AND BJC's marketing efforts, for they are both very successful in attacking their target markets
So you admire their success and I condemn their dishonesty. Guess we've been talking past each other. ;)

BJC owes Monster a debt of gratitude, for as siv has said before, if it wasn't for Monster making cable such a viable after market item, BJC may not ever exist.
If it weren't for Monster and its ilk, we'd all be buying our cables from Parts Express, and Kurt might still have a viable niche offering better build quality—at a premium price!

So in a very real sense, the marketing impact of the letter (which, by the way, turned out to be orders of magnitude greater than I would have imagined) was, in fact, a "byproduct of illumination."

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable


Well said, Kurt. Hats off to Goldberg.

So you admire their success and I condemn their dishonesty. Guess we've been talking past each other. ;)


If it weren't for Monster and its ilk, we'd all be buying our cables from Parts Express, and Kurt might still have a viable niche offering better build quality—at a premium price!

Yes, I admire the success of BOTH companies as well as admire their polar opposite ways of marketing and advertising their product. For me, it's great to see a market get created from nothing (as Noel Lee did) and have that company become the 800lb gorilla, and then see a mom and pop operation open up and begin to successfully market against them.

I totally understand how people here jump on the BJC bandwagon as the cable alternative. The same passion existed a few decades ago when Apple, in the early days, was going against Microsoft with their first television ads (fighting against Big Brother). The underdog, the little guy, garners a lot of the passion in these instances.

If it weren't for Monster and its ilk, we'd all be buying our cables from Parts Express, and Kurt might still have a viable niche offering better build quality—at a premium price!I disagree. Perhaps your only choices would be the spaghetti-thin cable that comes packaged with so many electronics versus some really high-priced BS. Yes, I am suggesting that Parts Express, BJC's, Monoprices, and everyone else's "better" cables did stem from Monster's success at selling the same. Would someone else have done it were it not Monster? Of course. But it WAS Monster who got the ball rolling.

BTW, the spaghetti-thin cables MAY be just fine. In which case, all the "better" cable offerings are a rip-off.

And with all due respect to Kurt (and I have bought several cables from him), BJC's cables ain't that cheap, either.

Yes, I admire the success of BOTH companies
I feel the same way about the makers of Fen-phen. :)

I feel the same way about the makers of Fen-phen. :)

Why? They didn't create the Diet Pill industry like Monster created the high end cable market. All they did was create a me-too product that caused major health issues. I understand the analogy, but it was a poor one.

Have you reviewed the design patents and trademarks in question? Do you think there is a meritorious claim there? Monster evidently doesn't, as it has decided to slink away into the night....As I have said several times here and elsewhere, we still do not know if their claims were legitimate or not. Maybe that remains to be seen. Maybe they were legitimate, but Monster's strategy is to threaten litigation with no real intention of following through with their threats. So, we may never know.

Honestly, if I was the owner of a company that was threatened and ignoring the threat was my intention, that is what I would have simply done. I do not know if I would have responded so boldly, thus drawing more attention to myself. To me, that seems to be asking for trouble. I presume that Kurt sought some additional legal, patent, and engineering counsel prior to his response.

And that's EXACTLY why I said what I said regarding being led around by our noses.

Of COURSE it was a strategy. It probably wasn't when Kurt first got their cease and desist order, but I am sure that after some reflection, it became the catalyst for a marketing strategy that would further differentiate BJC from Monster. "Illuminating the situation" just became the vehicle in which to do that.

BJC gained a bunch of public awareness here on the internet without having to spend a dime, and yet you say that wasn't a strategy? What was it then? A byproduct of illumination?

Speak for yourself. If you feel led around by your nose, by all means tell us how it feels.

Kurt handled the situation quite deftly, and in a way that shed light on Monster's practices. If you want to call that a strategy, go ahead. To me, "strategy" would actually involve strategizing, like perhaps goading Monster into making an allegation of design patent infringement, or at least hoping that they would.

Speak for yourself. If you feel led around by your nose, by all means tell us how it feels.

Kurt handled the situation quite deftly, and in a way that shed light on Monster's practices. If you want to call that a strategy, go ahead. To me, "strategy" would actually involve strategizing, like perhaps goading Monster into making an allegation of design patent infringement, or at least hoping that they would.He made a conscious effort to publicize it. Motivation? Who knows? But there was a reason.

As for goading them, I think you COULD consider his response and the publicization (< is that a word?) of it to be just that. As I just said, he must have had very good reason to believe that they would not follow through on their threat, be it legitimate or not. But he could have responded identically without publicizing the whole affair.

It has been entertaining, though. :)

Speak for yourself. If you feel led around by your nose, by all means tell us how it feels.

Kurt handled the situation quite deftly, and in a way that shed light on Monster's practices. If you want to call that a strategy, go ahead. To me, "strategy" would actually involve strategizing, like perhaps goading Monster into making an allegation of design patent infringement, or at least hoping that they would.

I'm speaking for ALL of us, INCLUDING you, Mr. Lee. Hopefully, we all open our eyes a little wider every once in awhile and notice what's goin' on. You feeling that this doesn't happen to you further substantiates my argument that it happens to ALL of us.

BTW, I have no doubt, and I am sure that Kurt can answer this himself, that one of the LAST things that he would want is go into litigation, for that could prove to be VERY expensive, both in dollars spent as well as time and forcing Kurt to take his eye off the BJC business.

And believe me, I KNOW what litigation can do to a business. I was the General Manager and VP of Sales and Marketing for a 42 store local electronics chain. The worst mistake that I ever made was when I was asked by the President if we should go ahead with our law suit. The time and effort that it took to fight that battle literally put us out of business................

Well, as we have a "marketing guy" in the room, I can elaborate on my thoughts here....

Careful, you have a few more than you think;)

I have thought it very interesting that in the world of consumer products the word "marketing" is so often taken to be equivalent to "B.S." I think that what happens is that people equate "marketing" with "advertising," and when they speak of "marketing" they mean not simply advertising, but the very worst that advertising has to offer.

This is at the crux of my confusion with the Monster bashing. All companies are actively "selling" which is the other side of the marketing equation. Marketing exists to sell products, period.

People ask me all the time things like "that Monster Cable--that's all just marketing, isn't it?" and I am not always sure how to answer. When I went to business school back during the Paleolithic, my Marketing professor made it very clear that as far as he was concerned, every aspect of business was at least in part "marketing." Yes, when we're changing the oil in our air compressor or sweeping wire debris from the production floor, that's a truly non-marketing occupation, but everything else we do is pretty well in the category of "marketing" more broadly conceived--the process of bringing a product to market, finding and addressing a need in the market, getting that product to the attention of the customer and delivering it on time, at a reasonable price, and at a level of quality and reliability that will make the customer happy with it. So I am always inclined to answer the question something like "yes, Monster is all about marketing--but isn't everyone?" However, I never do answer the question that way because I know that this usage of the word is not what is meant by the person asking.

Monster led the way and, despite the sheer irony of your business model (which of course appeals to anti-Monster types), is the reason for your success. Without Monster doing the marketing research for the category, you would have to work much harder to move your inventory.

Please note that I do not feel marketing is bad, provided it isn't astroturfing (marketing disguised as a grass roots type of thing--hence the fake grass term). In other words, please spare us the idea that "the letter" is nothing more than appealing to your fan base. That's actually brilliant, as well as transparent.

My wife and I entered this business six years ago with a question which needed an answer: can one make a living selling audio and video cable without having to make outrageous claims to promote the product? We decided that in a market where everybody has a "schtick" (and what company does not?) our "schtick" would be that we try to rely on actual technical data and quality assembly rather than on weird claims about the power of cable to do odd things to the electrons that pass through it. We did not know whether this would work, and the fact that it has worked for us is a delightful surprise.

Again, thank the companies that get bashed on a regular basis--they paved the path you now walk. Additionally, they have taken the hits on what does and doesn't resonate with consumers. Companies like yourselves should thank your lucky stars you weren't the first on the beach, and get to use what has already proven to work.

My point is that not all sales talk is equally cynical to all other sales talk. We always decided to behave as though the customer could not be led around by the nose, despite much evidence to the contrary. We also decided that in a world where electrical engineers post on message boards, we would like to avoid being humiliated by the collision between extravagant product claims and the knowledge of people with expertise. We certainly do think, as everybody does, about how the language we use helps or harms the cause of selling goods, but we also think that there is a long-term benefit to credibility with the customers that outweighs the short-term benefit one might get from saying things that aren't really true. This is why, when a customer asks whether replacing his Monster SPDIF cable with ours will improve his sound, we tell him, "no, not unless the Monster cable you have is broken." So, while there is much in the world of marketing to account for a person becoming, as you say, "jaded," do remember that sometimes people actually do try to render a good product and a good service, and actually do try to let that effort be the loudest part of their marketing approach.

The only reason why people look to you and Monoprice is price, not quality. This isn't an insult, just reality. Please realize too that your market is already segmented--people cultured to believe that Monster is all hype and that the high end is really the deep end. In the glitz that is your average store (where many come in thoroughly uneducated), the Monster packaging campaign helps, in layman's terms, why a cable should be better. Understand also that true professional salespeople not only understand why they're promoting a more expensive cable, but when. Again, this isn't a science, it's purely business. And, you would be shocked how many clients will only buy the high end for reasons other that performance. This might confuse the mcnarus' of the world, but it is a factor that good businesses cannot overlook.

The Monster Cable thing was the sort of thing that happens when a big company gets very, very bad legal advice. They're suing Monster Mini Golf now--it would be hard to come up with a marketing scheme that would do more harm to Monster Cable than what Monster Cable willingly does to itself.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

The only people that care are the ones predisposed to not buy them to begin with. Naturally, those are the ones that assume there is no causation without really knowing what's going on. I suspect further that "the letter" is designed to stifle future attempts by Monster against other companies that they feel are profiting from their name.

This is an interesting thing. People will assert that because Monster Cable rarely shares the same markets as some of the other entities they legally assault that there is no harm. You of all should know that isn't necessarily true. MC is a hugely profitable organization that, frankly, pioneered the Monster name as a business identity associated with quality.

I disagree. Perhaps your only choices would be the spaghetti-thin cable that comes packaged with so many electronics versus some really high-priced BS. Yes, I am suggesting that Parts Express, BJC's, Monoprices, and everyone else's "better" cables did stem from Monster's success at selling the same. Would someone else have done it were it not Monster? Of course. But it WAS Monster who got the ball rolling.
Rot and nonsense. There was decent-gauge speaker cable long before Monster came on the scene, and Stereo Review and the other non-wacko audio journals regularly advised their readers to use it.

Monster's innovation wasn't the cable. Monster's innovation was lying about the cable. (And that's what lwien finds so admirable.)

BTW, I have no doubt, and I am sure that Kurt can answer this himself, that one of the LAST things that he would want is go into litigation, for that could prove to be VERY expensive, both in dollars spent as well as time and forcing Kurt to take his eye off the BJC business.I think the same can actually be said of Monster, too. Making threats, legitimate or not, is a lot less expensive strategy than actually following through on those threats. In light of the competition that BJC probably represents, I doubt that Monster would find it cost effective to follow through on their threats. Now, if BJC affected Monster's market share more significantly, the "case" may be different.

There was decent-gauge speaker cable long before Monster came on the scene...........Of course there was. But there was no one single company that had so brilliantly carved out such a niche as to be universally recognized as a purveyor of audio cabling. I don't think you can dispute this. As I said, yes, someone else would probably have done it had it not been Monster. But it WAS Monster.


Monster's innovation wasn't the cable. Monster's innovation was lying about the cable.Lying about the cable, even if that is what they do, was not their innovation.

Monster's innovation wasn't the cable. Monster's innovation was lying about the cable. (And that's what lwien finds so admirable.)

And of course, it has nothing to do with the packaging, nothing to do with their distribution channels , nothing to do with their sales incentive programs, nothing to do with their national and global advertising efforts, nothing to do with their THX certification efforts, etc etc etc. Where Monster excelled is how well they have marketed their product, and writing advertising copy is just one facet of those marketing efforts.

I actually started to write the "marketing" version of the letter back to Monster, and the lawyer in me stopped me cold there. I used to work for a great fellow back in Philadelphia named Joe Goldberg, and I now joke that when I write legal correspondence or briefs, I am "channeling my inner Goldberg." He was an extraordinary mentor to me. My "inner Goldberg" told me that the "marketing" version of this letter, which was designed to attract publicity, was unprofessional and was liable to backfire. It was a mistake to respond in a way targeted first to publicity and only secondarily to the legal issues.

Nonetheless the lemmings in the crowd all applauded in unison to not only the letter, but nearly everything you posted here in defense on it.

People are terrified by litigation. As a result, much of what you wrote was glossed over and taken as gospel--people terrified by things often are so through a lack of understanding on a subject.

However, there are a few of us that read that letter and chuckled to ourselves how brilliant it was to author it in the manner you did. You know exactly who that document resonates with. The fact that it was written in faux-legalese only made the marketing aspect of it stronger.

I'm not attacking the strategy; only hoping that people are willing to call a spade a spade.

However, there are a few of us that read that letter and chuckled to ourselves how brilliant it was to author it in the manner you did. You know exactly who that document resonates with. The fact that it was written in faux-legalese only made the marketing aspect of it stronger.

I'm not attacking the strategy; only hoping that people are willing to call a spade a spade.

+1 !!!

I'm not only not attacking it, but applauding it. But the irony here, schtickler, is that if everyone was willing to call a spade a spade, it wouldn't have worked, or at least not worked nearly as well. ;)

I presume that Kurt sought some additional legal, patent, and engineering counsel prior to his response.

You presume correctly. If there were a shred of merit in the threat, I would not have responded in the same manner. My view of it is that caution and timidity are two completely different things, and what I have discovered in reading the comments of some of the attorneys who consider me a blithering idiot is that some attorneys consider them to be the same thing.

I consider my response to be extremely cautious, but not at all timid. It is cautious because it solicits supplemental information on the off-chance that the apparently meritless claim has some hidden merit, and it is cautious because it is designed to ward off the threat of litigation. A timid response would have drawn Monster Cable in and given it the impression that there was easy prey to be had, and that is the last impression one wants to give, especially when it is an inaccurate impression. I am utterly resigned to the fact that if Monster Cable wants litigation, it can have litigation for the cost of a filing fee; but I am downright determined that if that happens, I will show that the judgment to commence litigation was a terrible mistake.

By the way, sivadselim, everything you need to evaluate the claims is on the web. There's no obstacle to knowing how illegitimate the claims were, assuming Monster Cable isn't inexplicably hiding some really good evidence in its own support. I have posted their letter and their supporting exhibits, and my letter and supporting exhibit, and you can see that there simply isn't a resemblance between their marks and patents sufficient to give rise to a nonfrivolous infringement claim.

And, lwien and mcnarus: it is an interesting question, which I've spent many an hour contemplating, just what the "aftermarket cable" market might have looked like without Monster. The whole picture, from sales approach to pricing to retail placement, might well be different. A great deal of what we do at BJC falls in the customization category--for example, if you need a 34.5 foot long RGBS cable in yellow, we're your guys. That market already existed independent of the consumer a/v market (see the broadcast-house websites), and we might well be in it regardless of whether Monster ever existed. But many things might well be different. The existence of high-priced retail brands makes it possible to make broadcast-quality assemblies at sub-retail prices, and that certainly opens a niche for someone like us which might not have been there had the world been full of more modestly-priced Chinese-made patch cables. Who knows?

What is clear is that this market is changing very rapidly, and has changed rapidly over just the last few years. HDMI is remaking the business, and reshaping consumer expectations. The Internet has made snake-oil marketing both easier (in the sense that it's easy to reach the audience) and harder (in the sense that good contra-snake-oil information is readily available). The consolidation of consumer audio/video stores to the point where a few national chains do a huge amount of the business is squeezing out the traditional kings of retail placement (e.g., Monster) because large-scale retailers are fully capable of buying their own Chinese-sourced cables rather than buying them from a reseller, so store brands like Rocketfish are moving in on the market. We have been watching some of our old competitors suffer in the face of the rise of HDMI, unable to raise their volume or produce unique product to compete, while other companies that we had barely heard of a couple of years ago are doing very good a/v cable volume. As a company we go back only to March 2002, and yet the market seems as though it bears almost no resemblance to the market we entered then.

We are in that scary "middle" place. Our assembly is, as far as we can make it, American-based and therefore high-cost, but our pricing is heavily constrained by the high cost of broadcast-quality parts. We are constantly under siege from low-cost Chinese goods which often cost less, finished and at retail, than the wholesale price of the parts we use to make a product for the same application. At the same time, we are in a range where audiophiles by and large turn their noses up at our lack of esoteric design and materials and our inability or unwillingness to claim "buttery midrange" and "musical but not excessively bright highs." Our market is, as we see it, people with more sense than money--but with enough money that they aren't compelled to buy the very cheapest thing available. We are accused of being overpriced by the devotees of cheap Chinese goods, and we are accused of having extremely pedestrian offerings by the audiophile set. We draw enormous consolation, in this middle place, from the fact that we do sell a great deal of cable to engineers.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

We are in that scary "middle" place. Our assembly is, as far as we can make it, American-based and therefore high-cost, but our pricing is heavily constrained by the high cost of broadcast-quality parts. We are constantly under siege from low-cost Chinese goods which often cost less, finished and at retail, than the wholesale price of the parts we use to make a product for the same application. At the same time, we are in a range where audiophiles by and large turn their noses up at our lack of esoteric design and materials and our inability or unwillingness to claim "buttery midrange" and "musical but not excessively bright highs." Our market is, as we see it, people with more sense than money--but with enough money that they aren't compelled to buy the very cheapest thing available. We are accused of being overpriced by the devotees of cheap Chinese goods, and we are accused of having extremely pedestrian offerings by the audiophile set. We draw enormous consolation, in this middle place, from the fact that we do sell a great deal of cable to engineers.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

"American based"
"our.....unwillingness to claim "buttery midrange" and "musical but not excessively bright highs."
"Our market is, as we see it, people with more sense than money....."
".....we do sell a great deal of cable to engineers."

Kurt with his marketing hat on.:p

Nothing wrong with that, and while I really do appreciate Kurt's presence here in this thread, we need to understand that it is NOT just an effort to engage us in dialog but is also a marketing effort aimed at his target audience. Don't hold it against him, though. He can't help it, for after all, he IS a business man.

By the way, sivadselim, everything you need to evaluate the claims is on the web. There's no obstacle to knowing how illegitimate the claims were, assuming Monster Cable isn't inexplicably hiding some really good evidence in its own support. I have posted their letter and their supporting exhibits, and my letter and supporting exhibit, and you can see that there simply isn't a resemblance between their marks and patents sufficient to give rise to a nonfrivolous infringement claim.The obstacle is my ignorance.:o I do not have the legal nor engineering knowledge necessary to ascertain the legitimacy of their threats (or not).


..............so store brands like Rocketfish are moving in on the market.Why on earth would you direct me to your competitor? :confused: :D

The only reason why people look to you and Monoprice is price, not quality. This isn't an insult, just reality.

Well, no. Actually, take component video cable, for example. One reason our customers buy that is that there is not a better video coax built in the world than Belden 1694A. If we were selling solely on price, we'd be in deep trouble because Chinese goods routinely underprice us by large margins. It's a good deal more complex than you allow here.


The fact that it was written in faux-legalese only made the marketing aspect of it stronger.

I don't know what you mean by "faux-legalese" here. If you'd spent much time around my law office in my lawyering days, you'd recognize that that letter was very much in the line of my ordinary writing.

As I indicated (and I think you may be confused on this), I discarded the "marketing" version of this letter because it was too hostile and flamboyant. The letter I sent was not much unlike what I would have written for a client, the main difference being that because I was the client, I did not need to cope with a client's fears.

I think that you are mistaken in thinking, as you seem to, that we market to a Monster-hating reactionary audience. We actually try very hard to produce the best products which are technically feasible; in the case of things like component video, we are able to do that from stock parts and so we do, while in areas like analog audio and HDMI we have had to design products and have Belden custom-manufacture them for us, and so we do that instead. The object is to produce the absolute best thing we can, and then price it reasonably. I think that by trying to market extremely high-quality products at the best feasible prices, we appeal to the technically-knowledgeable, quality-sensitive segment of the market. Now, some customers who have a low opinion of Monster Cable may look at someone like us and see us as the "anti-Monster." But that is not what we try to do--I think that marketing oneself toward a segment driven by its hostility to a competitor would be a crazy thing to do.

We are very proud, for example, when we see people who have independent qualifications for understanding product quality (e.g., audio engineers, EEs, broadcast professionals) recommend us. Bob Lee, who has been participating in this thread, recommended us a while back to someone who was looking for affordable balanced audio cables (thanks, Bob!). We get recommendations like that because of a good blend of high quality and reasonable pricing, not because Bob Lee wants to punish Monster for some perceived sin by referring people to one of their competitors.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

Why on earth would you direct me to your competitor? :confused: :D

Because their cable is Chinese and still costs more than mine....

Kurt
BJC

Because their cable is Chinese and still costs more than mine....What a scam! ;)

But, seriously, your cables' country of origin never influenced my purchase of it. I wonder for how many of your customers this is an important factor. That said, I CAN definitely see how country of origin MIGHT have an influence upon the quality of a cable. Or not.

But, seriously, your cables' country of origin never influenced my purchase of it. I wonder for how many of your customers this is an important factor. That said, I CAN definitely see how country of origin MIGHT have an influence upon the quality of a cable. Or not.

Or a perceived sense of patriotism by the consumer for purchasing something that is made here.

What a scam! ;)

But, seriously, your cables' country of origin never influenced my purchase of it. I wonder for how many of your customers this is an important factor. That said, I CAN definitely see how country of origin MIGHT have an influence upon the quality of a cable. Or not.

It generally does, but of course to what extent depends very much on the particular product. Our Belden HDMI is bonded-pair, and that's a patented process, so one won't find that from a Chinese supplier. When it comes to coax, it's more or less a case of manufacturing tolerances and the predictability of quality of raw material (there's a lot of variability in things like PE and PVC)--the good American stuff is better than the cheap Chinese stuff, but the good Chinese stuff is getting closer to the good American stuff all the time. The problem, as often as not, is that it's hard to know whether you're getting the cheap Chinese stuff or the good Chinese stuff.

We're not much for jingoism or protectionism over here. The only thing that's unsettling about Chinese goods is the political environment over there, and the treatment of the workers in the ironically-dubbed "workers' paradise." However, right now for wire and cable there aren't a lot of overseas suppliers who actually do their manufacturing in non-authoritarian states. Even the Taiwanese companies are, as often as not, simply marketing arms of mainland Chinese companies.

Kurt
BJC

--the good American stuff is better than the cheap Chinese stuff, but the good Chinese stuff is getting closer to the good American stuff all the time.

Kurt
BJC

But how does the cheap American stuff compare to the cheap Chinese stuff? And is the good Chinese stuff BETTER than the cheap American stuff? Beginning to sound like a George Carlin routine...........stuff.:D

Actually, at least in the world of coax for baseband video applications, there almost isn't any such thing as the "cheap American stuff." The only cheap American video coax generally is CATV drop cable, with a low-coverage aluminum braid and copper-coated steel center conductor, and people don't usually use that stuff for baseband video applications because the CCS conductor tends to make it stiff. American CATV drop cable is pretty good quality--the impedance tolerance isn't as tight as on the fancier stuff, but at least the impedance is going to actually be within that tolerance range (typically +/- 3 ohms), while cheap Chinese coax is often wildly off (anybody want some 65 ohm coax?). The cheap Chinese stuff in some cases, when sweep-tested, produces some fantastically awful return loss figures--if it were used for CATV drops, it'd cause some trouble because one thing CATV cable needs is decent bandwidth.

The good Chinese stuff no doubt is sometimes better than the cheap American stuff. When we get to that point, it's all really a bit more application-specific and so harder to make any categorical statements. Monster, for example, uses some of the better Chinese coax, and I understand (though I haven't ever done the testing) that some of it is excellent where impedance tolerance and return loss are concerned. LTK makes some--I know they do some (or perhaps all) of Monster's HDMI cable, and I'm not sure whether they do the coaxial products as well.

There is, of course, also always the question whether the quality difference makes a perceptible difference to image quality in a given application. The answer to that will often be "no" even when there is a clear and measurable difference in product quality.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

Or a perceived sense of patriotism by the consumer for purchasing something that is made here.It's not just that. Some have moral and ethical reasons as well. And, misguided or not, I can respect that.

It's not just that. Some have moral and ethical reasons as well. And, misguided or not, I can respect that.

Ditto.

Not a joke:

and if you can hear the difference in that, I have some of that water front property in HELL to sell you.

I'm speaking for ALL of us, INCLUDING you, Mr. Lee. Hopefully, we all open our eyes a little wider every once in awhile and notice what's goin' on. You feeling that this doesn't happen to you further substantiates my argument that it happens to ALL of us.

BTW, I have no doubt, and I am sure that Kurt can answer this himself, that one of the LAST things that he would want is go into litigation, for that could prove to be VERY expensive, both in dollars spent as well as time and forcing Kurt to take his eye off the BJC business.

And believe me, I KNOW what litigation can do to a business. I was the General Manager and VP of Sales and Marketing for a 42 store local electronics chain. The worst mistake that I ever made was when I was asked by the President if we should go ahead with our law suit. The time and effort that it took to fight that battle literally put us out of business................

Again, I feel you should speak for yourself and not make up substantiation out of thin air. Much of audio [cable] marketing is like the children's story "Stone Soup," with the villagers amazed at the power of the vistors' "magic" stone to make the best soup they've ever had--it's largely about the power of suggestion combined with expectation bias. An informed consumer can ignore the hype and expect a wire to be a wire, or a stone to be a stone …

I appreciate that BJC markets cables as interconnection solutions and not as some kind of performance boosters. I would gladly buy from BJC if I needed cabling (having been an audio geek for several decades, though, I've made or accumulated a large surplus of cables).

Please note that I do not feel marketing is bad, provided it isn't astroturfing (marketing disguised as a grass roots type of thing--hence the fake grass term).

I also do not feel that all marketing is bad, but I would also label that which is misleading or promotes ignorance as bad.

Again, I feel you should speak for yourself and not make up substantiation out of thin air. Much of audio [cable] marketing is like the children's story "Stone Soup," with the villagers amazed at the power of the vistors' "magic" stone to make the best soup they've ever had--it's largely about the power of suggestion combined with expectation bias. An informed consumer can ignore the hype and expect a wire to be a wire, or a stone to be a stone …

Cute, typical, and irrelevant. I really don't know how you can assume so many people are this dumb, but it seems to have a following around here.

I appreciate that BJC markets cables as interconnection solutions and not as some kind of performance boosters. I would gladly buy from BJC if I needed cabling (having been an audio geek for several decades, though, I've made or accumulated a large surplus of cables).

Better cables are market as "performance boosters" over lesser ones. This has been said before. Looking through the hatred of successful marketing will allow you to see this.

Nonetheless the lemmings in the crowd all applauded in unison to not only the letter, but nearly everything you posted here in defense on it.

:confused: The lemmings (I assume you are calling to mind their mythical trait of mindless mass suicide) do not seem to be applauding BJC's letter, but condemning it.

Cute, typical, and irrelevant. I really don't know how you can assume so many people are this dumb, but it seems to have a following around here.

Is it irrelevent? I learned something valuable from that story when I was a kid.

I don't assume that people are dumb, just that many don't know what wire is and therefore may be susceptible to put-ons. I've learned also that many people choose to not know what wire is. It's better that they have that choice than to not have it.

Better cables are market as "performance boosters" over lesser ones. This has been said before. Looking through the hatred of successful marketing will allow you to see this.

I don't hate successful marketing, just misleading marketing. I'm surprised that I have to repeat that over and over again. If you know what makes a "better" cable, you know that such cables aren't necessarily expensive and won't exhibit magic properties.

I really don't know how you can assume so many people are this dumb, but it seems to have a following around here.
Expectation bias is not "dumb."

"Dumb" is denying that you're subject to expectation bias, or thinking there's some simple way to make yourself immune to it.

:confused: The lemmings (I assume you are calling to mind their mythical trait of mindless mass suicide) do not seem to be applauding BJC's letter, but condemning it.

Condemning it? Who in this thread has condemned BJC's letter. As far as I can see, EVERYONE here has applauded it, including me.

I've learned also that many people choose to not know what wire is. It's better that they have that choice than to not have it.


What a great line...you could insert so many things into that statement instead of "wire"

ie.....Religion, Global Warning and so on... its just human nature .... Please dont go into a Religous debate I was just think that statement is so true for so many things!!

:confused: The lemmings (I assume you are calling to mind their mythical trait of mindless mass suicide) do not seem to be applauding BJC's letter, but condemning it.who condemned it?

who condemned it?

We did face a fair bit of unfavorable and disparaging comment over it. I don't recall any here on AVS, but on some of the news and blog sites there was a lot of "these people are idiots" comments, ranging from "is this guy so stupid that he doesn't realize Monster doesn't have to give him this stuff until he's in discovery" to "Monster's counsel will have a good laugh at this guy's expense" to "this letter gives Monster lots of information and ammunition." There were also numerous people who criticized us as being just as overpriced as Monster, and the like.

As it always is with the internet, of course, it was hard to be sure who originated these kinds of comments. Many of those commenting unfavorably claimed to be lawyers--if they were, they were a bunch of sissies and defeatists, in my opinion. I think that's what Bob Lee means when he speaks of the mass-suicidal aspect of "lemmings"--the criticism seemed to come from people who felt that the only way to handle a threat of litigation from a large corporation is to pre-emptively jump into the water and drown. Great lawyers to have on your side, I'm sure.

Now, these comments were certainly outnumbered. We were pleased not only that they were greatly outnumbered, but that when the commenter was a lawyer of known skill and reputation, the comments were always positive, while "lawyer" comments on the negative side were always the "some guy or other about whom nothing, not even a name, is known" sort.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

I don't assume that people are dumb, just that many don't know what wire is and therefore may be susceptible to put-ons. I've learned also that many people choose to not know what wire is.So? Does anyone participating in THIS thread fit that bill? There is no one participating in this thread who doesn't understand that.


It's better that they have that choice than to not have it.And they do have that choice. Just like with any other consumer product.

No, I think the companies are just disliked mostly for their snake oil marketing.

Certainly you might find some who dislike them unreasonably, but there are surely more who like and defend them unreasonably.

"surely more" seems like a bit of a stretch, imo. This thread is actually the first instance i've read of people actually defending monster....and even they are not defending the company so much as the marketing behind the company. i've seen FAR more unreasonable monster bashing in my experience. these people read on one forum that monster is "overpriced crap" and then spread it to other sectors of the internet. I've seen it in car audio forums, deal forums, blog comments, etc. The only people I've seen go against the grain are those that have actually purchased the product and were happy with it. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. :confused:

This thread is actually the first instance i've read of people actually defending monster....and even they are not defending the company so much as the marketing behind the company.Hmmm? This happens often, here, actually. And this is the usual way it unfolds. And you are exactly right. No one here is "defending Monster". But there are certainly people here who are specifically attacking them. I'm really not that vehement a free-marketer, usually, but this is one case where I am.

Bunch of commies. :p

(Watch. Now that I've injected a bit of light-hearted political humor, the thread will be shut down.)

Bunch of commies. :p

(Watch. Now that I've injected a bit of light-hearted political humor, the thread will be shut down.)

"Pinko" commies. If you're not a Pinko Commie, than you are a psuedo- commie at best.:p

Achhh...........don't shut it down. This and the "Cat Proofing your Speakers" thread are my two favorites atm.

And they do have that choice. Just like with any other consumer product.

It's good that there are opportunities to actually learn about wire--actual information to counter the effects of snake oil--so that consumers have that choice. Without those opportunities, with only snake oil marketing to rely on, there is no choice for the consumer.

"surely more" seems like a bit of a stretch, imo. This thread is actually the first instance i've read of people actually defending monster....and even they are not defending the company so much as the marketing behind the company. i've seen FAR more unreasonable monster bashing in my experience. these people read on one forum that monster is "overpriced crap" and then spread it to other sectors of the internet. I've seen it in car audio forums, deal forums, blog comments, etc. The only people I've seen go against the grain are those that have actually purchased the product and were happy with it. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. :confused:

From what I've seen on many web forums, it's not a stretch at all. I've seen lots of snake oil bashing, but I wouldn't say it's unreasonable or irrational. I've seen lots of "obviously your hearing isn't very good" or "your system must not have good resolution" comments directed at persons who resist the snake oil. That's reminiscent of another childhood story, of the emperor and his new suit.

So? Does anyone participating in THIS thread fit that bill? There is no one participating in this thread who doesn't understand that.

I'm not so sure that there is no one. Some admire the marketing of wire with supposed magic, woo-woo characteristics. That seems to suggest that they feel the market image of the wire is important, but the actual electrical characteristics aren't.

I'm not so sure that there is no one. Some admire the marketing of wire with supposed magic, woo-woo characteristics. That seems to suggest that they feel the market image of the wire is important, but the actual electrical characteristics aren't.

Hmmm...........guess that must be me.

But your conclusion is wrong. Ya see, I see it as two different issues. While I DO admire Monsters success as a business, I don't purchase their cables because I don't feel that they offer me any value for the money spent.

So when are we going to start talking about bass management ? I have a feeling that this subject is going to change soon. . .I can feel it. . .

--Regards,

There is no one participating in this thread who doesn't understand that.
I'm sure there's no one here who would admit to it. :)

I've seen lots of "obviously your hearing isn't very good" or "your system must not have good resolution" comments directed at persons who resist the snake oil.Not in this thread. This may happen for components, but rarely will this happen here in these forums with wire or cable. And when it does happen, the poster is "shot down" almost immediately.

It is useful to educate the truly ignorant, but when someone insists upon using what you call "snake-oil" wire or cable, I see absolutely no reason to waste any time and effort dissuading them. That's their choice.


I'm not so sure that there is no one.I am.

Hmmm...........guess that must be me.I don't think so. I don't know who he is referring to.

I'm sure there's no one here who would admit to it. :)Well, since everyone here understands it, I guess you are right. ;)

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with Monster cable from a technical perspective. Yet. Unless someone can cough up a technical claim that is illegitimate.

I don't feel that Monster cables offer anything new over other cables of lower price. Except for their AV receiver-destroying-cable connectors, I see little merit in buying Monster cable. But if I do buy Monster cable and their rca connectors damage my equipment then I'll sue their asses.

--Regards,

Or a perceived sense of patriotism by the consumer for purchasing something that is made here.

Why is that perceived patriotism? Seems more patriotic than buying Chinese made wire......unless you're Chinese.:D

Mon$ter products are overpriced. ;)

Or a perceived sense of patriotism by the consumer for purchasing something that is made here.Why is that perceived patriotism?He didn't necessarily imply that it isn't, indeed, patriotism.

Mon$ter products are overpriced. ;)Aren't most products? ;)

Seriously, though, no one is twisting any arms.

Well, since everyone here understands it
You said it; I didn't. ;)

Mon$ter products are overpriced. ;)

Not as far as Monster is concerned. They priced their product to what they think that their market (brick and mortar retail) can bear. That's what successful businesses do, unless they are in the mode of seeding the market with a new product in an effort to gain market share.

If BJC decided to go into brick and mortar retailers and incur all of the associated costs that go along with that, and then add to that the markup that the retailer needs to see, BJC product would be MUCH more expensive than what it is now.

So when you say that Monster is overpriced, I think you need to put that in the right context. And when you compare Monster to some other cables out there, they are not overpriced at all, but in fact, are being sold at bargain basement prices.

(wait. just noticed the winking smiling face................nevermind)

That they could be considered to be overpriced is actually the best argument against buying it. That they may have deceptive marketing practices is really not a good argument against buying it. That would be boycotting it.

Not in this thread. This may happen for components, but rarely will this happen here in these forums with wire or cable. And when it does happen, the poster is "shot down" almost immediately.

Sometimes. At least there's always someone who'll challenge such remarks.

It is useful to educate the truly ignorant, but when someone insists upon using what you call "snake-oil" wire or cable, I see absolutely no reason to waste any time and effort dissuading them. That's their choice.

Nor do I, but I do believe that people should be informed of the choices available, and not just be left to feel that the must opt for some pricy cable because of questionable marketing claims. I don't believe in leeching anyone, including newbies.

I am.

Well, um … thank you for identifying yourself as such.

That they may have deceptive marketing practices is really not a good argument against buying it. That would be boycotting it.

Which I am sure that many here do.

Mon$ter products are overpriced. ;)

Compared to what? Besides the internet wood companies, whom? Tributaries? AQ? These are all direct competitors and I don't see Monster above that pricing in most cases.

I've said this many times, but it still holds true: You can stop complaining about the "high priced" cabling out there once you allow margins in the industry to eclipse 20% for video again. Of course that won't happen, so make do. Or continue to connect your stuff together with Chinese dental floss, your call.

Point is, if you have an axe to grind with someone, anything sounds like a reasonable point of attack. Monster's overpriced, is lawsuit-happy, is sold by idiots, whatever whatever. If you just can't bring yourself to pay for that just say so and stop the smokescreening.

Aren't most products? ;)

Seriously, though, no one is twisting any arms.

All products are overpriced. Not the point.
They take advantage of the 'novice' consumer. Especially in the B&M stores.

Price vs. performance, they are overpriced. Plain and simple.

I don't assume that people are dumb, just that many don't know what wire is and therefore may be susceptible to put-ons. I've learned also that many people choose to not know what wire is.There is no one participating in this thread who doesn't understand that.I'm not so sure that there is no one.I am.Well, um … thank you for identifying yourself as such.LOL! :D I knew when I typed that, that was going to happen. ;)

They take advantage of the 'novice' consumer. :rolleyes: So? :p


Price vs. performance, they are overpriced. Plain and simple.Knowing the price of other cables, certainly can't deny that.

Compared to what?
Others than those you mentioned. There are comparable products in spec and build quality. What is it with you and Mon$ter? Stockholder perhaps? Please... if it's not too much work for you, tell everyone WHY they are better than (from what you defend) all other cables?

I've said this many times, but it still holds true: You can stop complaining about the "high priced" cabling out there once you allow margins in the industry to eclipse 20% for video again. Of course that won't happen, so make do. Or continue to connect your stuff together with Chinese dental floss, your call.
I'm not complaining at all. I just feel bad for the uninformed that are misled to buy a NAME and not a cable.

Point is, if you have an axe to grind with someone, anything sounds like a reasonable point of attack. Monster's overpriced, is lawsuit-happy, is sold by idiots, whatever whatever. If you just can't bring yourself to pay for that just say so and stop the smokescreening.
Never said they were sold by idiots. I only imply that there may some (that adamantly condone this practice) could fit that bill. I can afford a cable at any price as long as it visually and/or audible outperforms another cable/wire. I have yet to see this in my experiences.

Overpriced... they are
Lawsuit happy.. they are

Which I am sure that many here do.
I'm not boycotting Monster, and I don't care whether anyone else does, either. If people want to buy expensive cables, that's their business. But I would like to see that consumers, especially those with limited budgets, are well informed before making that decision.

Given the shape of the marketplace, people are much more likely to hear Monster's message than to hear accurate information about the role of wire in an audio or AV system. For you believers in the free market, that's a market failure.

I'm not boycotting Monster, and I don't care whether anyone else does, either. If people want to buy expensive cables, that's their business. But I would like to see that consumers, especially those with limited budgets, are well informed before making that decision.

Ditto


Given the shape of the marketplace, people are much more likely to hear Monster's message than to hear accurate information about the role of wire in an audio or AV system. For you believers in the free market, that's a market failure.

I see it as a consumer failure, especially now that we have something called the internet. If a consumer fails to do any research before making a purchase, than ya have to blame the consumer, NOT the market.

And THIS has been at the crux of my discussions here. You can't blame Monster any more than you can blame any other manufacturer. It has always been, and always will be a "buyer beware" market and that is NOT a free market failure. If anything, it is the consumer who has failed to understand how the market works.

Others than those you mentioned. There are comparable products in spec and build quality. What is it with you and Mon$ter? Stockholder perhaps? Please... if it's not too much work for you, tell everyone WHY they are better than (from what you defend) all other cables?


not one person here has even implied that monster is better than anything. i'm not even sure where this challenge came from.

All products are overpriced. Not the point.
They take advantage of the 'novice' consumer. Especially in the B&M stores.

Price vs. performance, they are overpriced. Plain and simple.

this would be the fault of the 'novice' consumer more so than the company selling the product. it is the choice of the consumer to be ignorant, and i don't see any grounds for sympathy because of this.

I just feel bad for the uninformed that are misled to buy a NAME and not a cable.But I would like to see that consumers, especially those with limited budgets, are well informed before making that decision.It is perfectly fine to have those concerns. Bickering in this thread does not really address those concerns.


For you believers in the free market, that's a market failure.Perhaps. Do you prefer the alternative, comrade? ;)

Maybe we should regulate it.

Anything wrong with Monster Cable from a technical perspective? NO

"Everything else is commentary".

All products are overpriced. Not the point.
They take advantage of the 'novice' consumer. Especially in the B&M stores.



No, this is a misplaced responsibility. It is the responsibility of the company to make as much money as it can. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make a wise purchasing decision. Most of the time, these two concepts are at odds with one another, so who is responsible for what depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.

If a consumer gets taken advantage of, who's fault is that?

Most of the time, these two concepts are at odds with one another...

You said you were "jaded," and I can see that. Well, I'll admit that I'm a bit cynical at times, too; I certainly see a lot of nonsense in the world and whatever else people produce, nonsense is always sure to be a key component.

But it actually is possible that a seller and a buyer can have mutuality of interest. I think it's true more often than not, but for that to happen, it's very helpful for the parties to a sale to be well-informed.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

I see it as a consumer failure, especially now that we have something called the internet. If a consumer fails to do any research before making a purchase, than ya have to blame the consumer, NOT the market.
Guess you've forgotten your economics. If it costs more to get full information, then some people will act without full information. And that is a market failure—one we try to correct for life-and-death matters like medicine, but tend not to worry about for things like cables.

And that's why the folks who say Monster is overpriced are correct. If every consumer knew everything there was to know about cables (or even the piddling amount I know!), Monster would sell fewer cables and would have to cut its prices.

You can't blame Monster any more than you can blame any other manufacturer.
You keep saying this as if the content of the advertising didn't matter. It does. I can blame Monster but not BJC for miseducating consumers.

BTW, if that's not a statement defending Monster, I don't know what is.

Do you prefer the alternative, comrade?
No, I'd prefer a free market, if one existed. I don't think a free market exists in the real world, however. Some markets come close enough that allowing them to operate freely is optimal. In other cases, regulation of the market is preferable, despite the inefficiencies introduced by regulation. I'd put cables in the former category, of course.

No, this is a misplaced responsibility. It is the responsibility of the company to make as much money as it can. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make a wise purchasing decision. Most of the time, these two concepts are at odds with one another, so who is responsible for what depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.

If a consumer gets taken advantage of, who's fault is that?

You're not being realistic...
I guess if your Mom or Dad went to a B&M store and spent more on cables than the TV, you would provide them the same explanation? Would you criticize your parents for being irresponsible?

I guess if your Mom or Dad went to a B&M store and spent more on cables than the TV, you would provide them the same explanation? Would you criticize your parents for being irresponsible?

Yup. Just like I would criticize my own kids if they did the same thing. Just like I would criticize myself for making any ill informed decision.

Guess you've forgotten your economics. If it costs more to get full information, then some people will act without full information. And that is a market failure—one we try to correct for life-and-death matters like medicine, but tend not to worry about for things like cables.


There's always a cost to being informed, but most of that cost is a cost in time. Each of us has to decide if that time is time well spent. Again, I don't see this as a market failure at all. I see it as someone who would rather put the responsability on someone else rather than accepting it themselves.

And, I would think it wise to consider getting more information than just in life and death matters, as you say, unless of course, one is sooooo wealthy, that they don't have to look at the price tags anymore.

You said you were "jaded," and I can see that. Well, I'll admit that I'm a bit cynical at times, too; I certainly see a lot of nonsense in the world and whatever else people produce, nonsense is always sure to be a key component.

But it actually is possible that a seller and a buyer can have mutuality of interest. I think it's true more often than not, but for that to happen, it's very helpful for the parties to a sale to be well-informed.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

I too think that a buyer and a seller can have mutuality of interest, but I don't think that it happens "more often than not", as you say, only because of the lack of initiative of the buyer, not only in arming himself/herself with information about the product that they are planning to purchase, but also their lack of initiative in being willing to negotiate.

Saying that it happens more often than not, but that the parties need to be well-informed is kind of an oxymoron being that most consumers are not well-informed.

Just an addition of substance to the thread as to the OP's question:

YES some monster cables have RCA ends that fit very snugly on the connector. This can be a problem because the force to insert or remove the plug is significant, and this can and does rip RCA connections out of gear. Certainly a good firm contact is advantageous, but not so tight that it could potentially damage equipment. There are some other RCA connectors out there that are too loose such that the shield part of the male RCA doesn't contact the female jack's shield connection, and that is irritating too. Anyway, issues to consider...

This is by no means unique to monster, but it is something that you may run into.

As for the rest of the cable discussions, well, it's well tread territory. The search function is useful in that regard.

But it actually is possible that a seller and a buyer can have mutuality of interest. I think it's true more often than not, but for that to happen, it's very helpful for the parties to a sale to be well-informed.

+1 on that.

it's largely about the power of suggestion combined with expectation bias. An informed consumer can ignore the hype and expect a wire to be a wire, or a stone to be a stone …
Cute, typical, and irrelevant. I really don't know how you can assume so many people are this dumb, but it seems to have a following around here.

It's funny when people think that pointing out FACTS about the nature of human cognition are synonymous with calling people "dumb". I know facts don't mean much to you, but the various perceptual biases that plague all aspects of sensory cognition do not just "have a following around here", they are well-established truths of the way our brain works. Or do you think people who believe in well-established science are "AVS lemmings" also?



The fact that it was written in faux-legalese only made the marketing aspect of it stronger.
I don't know what you mean by "faux-legalese" here. If you'd spent much time around my law office in my lawyering days, you'd recognize that that letter was very much in the line of my ordinary writing.

Don't worry about schitcker, he's a walking bottle of irony. It's also funny that he calls it "faux legalese" when it is pretty much normal, everyday legalese. Unless you think all legalese is "faux". Or, schticker, do you think you are a lawyer now too? What exactly was "faux" about it, he seemed to directly adress the claims with specific references to patents, trademarks, construction methodology, etc. I know you like to think you are the all-knowing expert, but that is what IP lawyers actually do.


I'm not attacking the strategy; only hoping that people are willing to call a spade a spade.

I don't quite get what you are looking for. Kurt freely admitted earlier in this thread that he was happy to take the free publicity that fell in his lap - that's pretty much calling it a spade. I don't know how anyone could criticize him for doing so. What you seem to be insinuating is that the marketing aspect of the letter is mutually exclusive with it being truthful and/or sincere.

However, just because that was the case doesn't invalidate the content or message of his letter, nor the meritoriousness of Monster's class. Just because he took the free publicity does not mean that we was NOT legitimately defending his business against frivolous, predatory litigation from a bully of a company.

I don't quite get what you are looking for. Kurt freely admitted earlier in this thread that he was happy to take the free publicity that fell in his lap - that's pretty much calling it a spade. I don't know how anyone could criticize him for doing so. What you seem to be insinuating is that the marketing aspect of the letter is mutually exclusive with it being truthful and/or sincere.

However, just because that was the case doesn't invalidate the content or message of his letter, nor the meritoriousness of Monster's class. Just because he took the free publicity does not mean that we was NOT legitimately defending his business against frivolous, predatory litigation from a bully of a company.

batpig, I don't think anyone here was criticizing Kurt for writing his letter, nor do I believe that anyone here was invalidating it's content.

I do, however, believe that when it was suggested to call a spade a spade, it was meant to suggest that we need to realize that there were other motives at play here other than just defending his business against frivolous litigation. I know Kurt freely admitted this, as you said, but before he did, it sure seemed that there were many here who never realized that there were marketing intentions that were also considered when drafting that letter.

In my opinion, the letter WAS truthful and sincere as well as being a nice marketing/advertising/publicity move and NOT mutually exclusive on either of it's intentions. (Did that last sentence make any sense. I hope it did. Not quite sure if I worded it right though.....)

Made total sense, and I agree with you -- I was specifically responding to schticker, who seems to be implying that they WERE mutually exclusive. I also believe schticker was attempting to invalidate the content -- why else would he refer to it as "faux-legalese" if he wasn't implying something pejorative?

I do take issue with a general sentiment in this thread (not you specifically), which was pointed out several times, that people seem to be making this moral equivalence argument where all business are equally deceptive and cynical in their marketing and business practices, thus it is not fair to indict any of them. I don't think this generalization is accurate, and the logic is not sound. There ARE businesses out there that operate ethically and attempt to grow by establishing trust with their customers, and there ARE business that operate in an unethical, predatory, and/or overly litigious manner.

When Kurt says (paraphrasing), "sure, I took the publicity, but this wasn't a marketing stunt, it was a forthright legal response much like I would have written for a client when I was a practicing attorney", there is this immediate cynical reaction (again not you specifically) of, "yeah, SURE it was", and the accompanying explicit comment that it was crafted for his target audience. Just because it happened to appeal to a particular target audience doesn't mean it was a devious marketing ploy specifically crafted as such.

Just because some are naive, doesn't mean that swinging the pendulum to the other extreme of absolute cynicism is any better. As with all things, the truth is typically somewhere in between.

Agreed.

I know you mentioned a few times that your points were not aimed at me specifically, but for some odd reason;), I still feel like I should respond.

I don't believe that I ever said that, "....all business are equally deceptive and cynical in their marketing and business practices". If I did or gave that impression that that is what I believe, than I must retract and apologize. However, I DO believe that at some level in their sales, marketing and/or advertising efforts, all businesses practice deceit to some extent or another.

I'll use BJC as an example here (which I am SURE will rattle a few cages ;)). While Kurt admitted that there was some marketing concerns and efforts in drafting up that letter, he never mentioned it as an addendum in any of the publications where that letter was reproduced. On some level, was not that omission a practice of deceit?

Now you may say, "Well, why should he?" And my response is "Why didn't he?" From a marketing perspective, I know the answer to the second question.

And to any medium to large business manager who disagrees with what I am saying, I have only one question. If, by some kind of magic, you could transport your whole customer base into your sales, advertising and marketing meetings so that they could be privy to everything that goes into making your business decisions, from the grass roots on up, would you?

Am I jaded or do I just know too much? Beats me. Probably a combination of both.

Agreed.

I know you mentioned a few times that your points were not aimed at me specifically, but for some odd reason;), I still feel like I should respond.

i don't believe that I ever said that, "....all business are equally deceptive and cynical in their marketing and business practices". If I did or gave that impression that that is what I believe, than I must retract and apologize. However, I DO believe that at some level in their sales, marketing and/or advertising efforts, all businesses practice deceit to some extent or another.

I'll use BJC as an example here (which I am SURE will rattle a few cages ;)). While Kurt admitted that there was some marketing concerns and efforts in drafting up that letter, he never mentioned it as an addendum in any of the publications where that letter was reproduced. On some level, was not that omission a practice of deceit?

Now you may say, "Well, why should he?" And my response is "Why didn't he?" From a marketing perspective, I know the answer to the second question.

And to any medium to large business manager who disagrees with what I am saying, I have only one question. If, by some kind of magic, you could transport your whole customer base into your sales, advertising and marketing meetings so that they could be privy to everything that goes into making your business decisions, from the grass roots on up, would you?

Am I jaded or do I just know too much? Beats me. Probably a combination of both.

Perfect.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the approach; in his shoes I may have done the same, hard to say. Probably not though, because it strikes me as distasteful. Regardless, you have two choices in a case like this: Handle the situation internally through your legal team before letting the public in on it (the standard PR approach); or airing it out. Well, if you air it out there's really only one reason you'd do that, since it's doubtful you'd gain much from a potential litigation standpoint.

Marketing and free advertising to your fanbase.

Also helps to tangentially reinforce what Monster haters around the web have to say about them, but of course superficially.

It's funny when people think that pointing out FACTS about the nature of human cognition are synonymous with calling people "dumb". I know facts don't mean much to you, but the various perceptual biases that plague all aspects of sensory cognition do not just "have a following around here", they are well-established truths of the way our brain works. Or do you think people who believe in well-established science are "AVS lemmings" also?

Science in this realm looks at people as test subjects, forgetting about the fact that expectation bias often is rendered moot by a result that is opposite of the expectation. People (usually) are smart enough to at least know what they don't like; they have to live with the product so that's the relevant issue in the real world.

Don't worry about schitcker, he's a walking bottle of irony. It's also funny that he calls it "faux legalese" when it is pretty much normal, everyday legalese. Unless you think all legalese is "faux". Or, schticker, do you think you are a lawyer now too?

It was clearly diluted so people would understand it, but that's part of the marketing element of this whole thing.

What is "everyday legalese"? You see people walking around talking like that?

What exactly was "faux" about it, he seemed to directly adress the claims with specific references to patents, trademarks, construction methodology, etc. I know you like to think you are the all-knowing expert, but that is what IP lawyers actually do.

In private, not airing dirty laundry for the constituency to lap up.

I don't quite get what you are looking for. Kurt freely admitted earlier in this thread that he was happy to take the free publicity that fell in his lap - that's pretty much calling it a spade. I don't know how anyone could criticize him for doing so. What you seem to be insinuating is that the marketing aspect of the letter is mutually exclusive with it being truthful and/or sincere.

Well yes and no. One has to wonder had the opposition not been Monster how readily he would have posted that (or allowed it to leak). People like yourselves of course you never criticize anyone on an anti-Monster crusade to use an opportunity to make them look bad, but it strikes me as unprofessional.

However, just because that was the case doesn't invalidate the content or message of his letter, nor the meritoriousness of Monster's class. Just because he took the free publicity does not mean that we was NOT legitimately defending his business against frivolous, predatory litigation from a bully of a company.

*sniff big bully, defending your interests sniff*

Please. It may not invalidate the facts (which I'm not sure we're entirely aware of, since this legal issue is part and parcel of a marketing campaign), but the manner in which it was disclosed. I question some of the validity, due to the very fact that it was disclosed at all.

The reason I ask is because want pre-made Speakon -> Banana terminated speaker cable and neither Bluejeans nor Monoprice offer it. I need three 6’ cables. Guitar Center has them in 10’ lengths for $29 (16 gauge, model s-100). I’m not a fan of Monster because of the way they operate, but am thinking of buying them for convenience. Is there any technical reason to avoid Monster?


That was the original post....its was a simple question too.

The answer is actually pretty simple also.....There is NOT ONE technical reason to avoid Monster products!!

Marketing issues, Moral misguided tendancies and so on are NOT technical issues AND WHO CARES!! Dont buy Monster products if you dont like the company, just stop tell others what they should do too....I find Monster products cheap on Ebay sometimes and I will buy them. I will never buy monster products at the regular price unless there an immediate need like a "RIGHT NOW" solution.


8 pages later people are still arguing whatever flips their boat :D....just shows how boring the real world is for most people!! ;)


Btw, I do believe people in general are very uneducated about many, many things in life. You can just watch Fox and CNN for a couple of hours to find out how dumb people are. You can just audit a couple of first year courses at your local college to find out how much kids DONT KNOW these days. You can walk down the street with 10 questions and find out that people score probably 20% on the quiz!! Its freaking scary!!!!

You want to define that is "dumb" so be it.

Gee, you sure have changed your tune, penngray. What flipped your boat?

I do take issue with a general sentiment in this thread (not you specifically), which was pointed out several times, that people seem to be making this moral equivalence argument where all business are equally deceptive and cynical in their marketing and business practices, thus it is not fair to indict any of them. I don't think this generalization is accurate, and the logic is not sound. There ARE businesses out there that operate ethically and attempt to grow by establishing trust with their customers, and there ARE business that operate in an unethical, predatory, and/or overly litigious manner.

Are you some sort of Monster hater, on some anti-Monster crusade??????? :D

It was clearly diluted so people would understand it, but that's part of the marketing element of this whole thing.
Wrong again. It was written, as I have said, very much in the ordinary style of legal correspondence. If I'd wanted to make it easy for everyone to understand, I would have had to define a lot of terms and explain a lot of legal doctrine. The letter differs very little, if at all, from what I would have sent if I had not anticipated publishing it.

In private, not airing dirty laundry for the constituency to lap up.
Well, here again, you've ignored what I've said. What is the benefit of silence? What is the benefit of disclosure? There is nothing wrong with making a dispute public, so long as there is not some privileged information that's going to be disclosed by doing so. Monster Cable wants to threaten people out of the public eye and quietly, privately, extort concessions. Why on earth would anyone in his right mind allow Monster Cable to do so? Keeping the matter quiet plays right into their strategy.

I think that there is an undercurrent here that says that Monster Cable, when making false claims and frivolous threats of litigation, is just doing what it does--ordinary business, nothing at all wrong with that. But when I rebut its false claims, answer its frivolous threats, and call public attention to the matter, that is somehow morally questionable behavior on my part. So be it. If you live in an ethically inverted world where frivolous claimants are virtuous and those who answer them are evil, then I am evil. But if those are the ethical presuppositions you bring to this, it would be well to state them at the outset.

Please. It may not invalidate the facts (which I'm not sure we're entirely aware of, since this legal issue is part and parcel of a marketing campaign), but the manner in which it was disclosed. I question some of the validity, due to the very fact that it was disclosed at all.
And to question it on that basis, when the documentation supporting Monster's claim and the documentation rebutting it are readily available to you online, is silly. The merits are the merits, and Monster is egregiously, frivolously wrong when it comes to the merits. There is nothing "private" about a legal dispute; the parties are entitled to publish the facts, barring some confidentiality agreement. That someone does so has nothing to do with the merits of the dispute, which are there, open for anyone to see. If Monster had one single useful word to say in defense of its obnoxious behavior, surely it would have spoken to the subject by now.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

Well, if you air it out there's really only one reason you'd do that, since it's doubtful you'd gain much from a potential litigation standpoint.

Marketing and free advertising to your fanbase.

I disagree that there's only one reason -- another legitimate reason to publicize an internal legal matter is the one which Kurt described, where other business in your industry may be facing identical frivolous threats and the publicizing of the situation may perform the "public good" of casting light on the unethical practices.

Plus, like I said above, I don't think Kurt has at all been un-forthright in his admission that he wasn't going to turn down the free publicity. However, as I said above, it is possible for the cause to be legitimate while simultaneously also providing positive publicity. As you state explicitly above, you think the publication invalidates (or at least undermines) the legitimacy, again implying this mutual exclusivity.

And while you like to falsely posit it as such, this isn't just lemming-like Monster hatred. I don't just hate big companies or overpriced products blindly, but there is plenty of evidence of their lack of business ethics upon which to form judgment.

What is "everyday legalese"? You see people walking around talking like that?

Well, no, of course not, that's why it's called "legalese". However, I absolutely see lawyers write like that. And, as Kurt legitimately points out, that was in no way "diluted" for public consumption. You hand that letter to anybody with less than exceptional reading comprehension ability (i.e. 90%+ of americans), and their eyes will glaze over after the first two paragraphs.

The merits are the merits, and Monster is egregiously, frivolously wrong when it comes to the merits. There is nothing "private" about a legal dispute; the parties are entitled to publish the facts, barring some confidentiality agreement. That someone does so has nothing to do with the merits of the dispute, which are there, open for anyone to see. If Monster had one single useful word to say in defense of its obnoxious behavior, surely it would have spoken to the subject by now.

Fair enough.

So we are to assume they have not provided you with the information you requested to clarify/reinforce their claims? If so, would you post those as well?

So we are to assume they have not provided you with the information you requested to clarify/reinforce their claims? If so, would you post those as well?

They have provided no information, and indeed no response, at all; I asked them to get back to me within 14 days, and that was almost eight weeks ago. I will publish any response they provide, but at this point I will be surprised if there is one.

I think that the reason there probably will be no response is made fairly clear if you examine the design patent I attached to my response letter. That patent, which is expired, has fewer dissimilarities from the Tartan connector than do any of the five patents that Monster Cable attached to its letter. Consequently--and this is really a case of Monster Cable getting caught trying to fabricate a case when it knows full well that it has no legitimate basis for proceeding--it is impossible for Monster Cable to have a valid patent claim unless it, in turn, can show that it has yet another patent which was not among the five (!) it sent and which bears a closer resemblance to the Tartan connector than this expired patent does.

So, while "lawyerly caution" called for me to solicit any further information Monster Cable may have which supports its claims, it is pretty clear that, unless they're hiding the ball, the claim is logically precluded from having any merit by the existence of this expired patent. The trademark claims are distinct from that, but the registered marks they sent look nothing like the connector in question and so I cannot imagine that even they took the trademark claims seriously.

The cease-and-desist letter was not merely meritless. It was deceptive. There is no way on earth that Monster Cable's attorneys did not know about the expired design patent, and there is no way they could possibly not have realized that it barred their claims. It is one thing to charge into a debatable legal conflict, taking a side of an issue that could reasonably be argued either way. If Monster Cable had raised such a debatable legal issue, even if I thought I had a somewhat better argument, I would have backed down; who needs litigation over something like this? Instead, Monster Cable had raised a wholly frivolous claim, knowing of the facts which rendered that claim frivolous, in the hopes that I would not have the time, ability or insight to investigate it properly. Whether that was driven by foolishness, knavery, or some blend of the two, I cannot say for sure.

I see a lot of people in discussions on this subject trying to make excuses for them. In particular, the old saw that often comes up (though not in this thread) is that Monster Cable must defend its IP rights or it may lose them. That's true, of course, but all that means is that Monster Cable must defend its ACTUAL property rights, not that it must assert broad-ranging frivolous claims against every competitor or against every business (like Monster Mini Golf) which has the word "Monster" in its name. There is no excuse for Monster Cable's behavior.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-cables/index.htm)

And to any medium to large business manager who disagrees with what I am saying, I have only one question. If, by some kind of magic, you could transport your whole customer base into your sales, advertising and marketing meetings so that they could be privy to everything that goes into making your business decisions, from the grass roots on up, would you?

Am I jaded or do I just know too much? Beats me. Probably a combination of both.

I think that example is totally fair, but I think there's this implication of moral equivalence embedded in it, the "well, they all do the same thing" generalization.

For example, when you say you do think that "all businesses practice deceit to some extent or another", you've got this equivalence through semantics thing going on, where you've taken this loose definition of the word "deceit" that is broad enough to encompass all the subjects in the category in question, and the resulting implication is that of equivalence of "deceit" across the spectrum, and a dilution of the word's meaning.

Now, I'm not attacking you at all or implying that you are incapable of understanding the nuance of the word "deceipt", it's just a general observation of the loaded semantics of a statement like that.

I think there is a real, substantive, qualitative difference between the "deceipt" of various companies.

As an analogy, many corporations engage in charitable projects and fundraising. Obviously, there is a public relations aspect to this. However, saying that "all companies do it for publicity" implies an equivalence of motives. In reality, there are some companies who cynically engage in charity strictly for PR reasons; there are some companies run by honest, good people who do the charity for legitimate reasons out of the goodness of their hearts and the publicity, while nice, is an afterthought; most companies are somewhere in the middle.

I think that example is totally fair, but I think there's this implication of moral equivalence embedded in it, the "well, they all do the same thing" generalization.

For example, when you say you do think that "all businesses practice deceit to some extent or another", you've got this equivalence through semantics thing going on, where you've taken this loose definition of the word "deceit" that is broad enough to encompass all the subjects in the category in question, and the resulting implication is that of equivalence of "deceit" across the spectrum, and a dilution of the word's meaning.

Now, I'm not attacking you at all or implying that you are incapable of understanding the nuance of the word "deceipt", it's just a general observation of the loaded semantics of a statement like that.

I think there is a real, substantive, qualitative difference between the "deceipt" of various companies.

As an analogy, many corporations engage in charitable projects and fundraising. Obviously, there is a public relations aspect to this. However, saying that "all companies do it for publicity" implies an equivalence of motives. In reality, there are some companies who cynically engage in charity strictly for PR reasons; there are some companies run by honest, good people who do the charity for legitimate reasons out of the goodness of their hearts and the publicity, while nice, is an afterthought; most companies are somewhere in the middle.

I TOTALLY agree that "there is a real, substantive, qualitative difference between the "deceipt" of various companies."

Please understand, I am not trying to imply moral equivalence, but rather to state that marketing/advertising has, at it's core, an element of deceit regardless of WHO is doing the advertising or marketing.

Cool, we're on the same page. ;)

Everyday life... interaction with your job, family, friends, grocery shopping, TV ads, etc. includes an element of deceit in some fashion. Where does one draw the line between a "white lie" and "blatant deception". That doesn't make it "acceptable" IMO. A lie is a lie and eventually it will bite you in the arse. Unfortunately, no one will ever know the difference until the liar is "caught/exposed".

And yet again... Mon$ter manufactures technically sound products. But, they are grossly overpriced. ;)

That was the original post....its was a simple question too.

The answer is actually pretty simple also.....There is NOT ONE technical reason to avoid Monster products!!

You must have missed my previous post #213. I listed one such very real reason why monster products can be difficult to deal with.

And in installations, their speaker wire can be very annoying to deal with as well. Some of their speaker wire with clear jacketing is very soft and almost sticky. It's messy and frustrating to strip and terminate that wire. If I had a choice, I would use a different speaker wire with a speaker jacket that is easier to deal with. May not be an issue for a home user, but for someone doing installations all day long, some of their wire is a nightmare to deal with. Maybe "pain in the ass" is not a 'technical reason,' but it's certainly a negative motivation when it comes to choosing some Monster cabling products. As for ripping out the connectors of equipment, that's an even stronger motivation.

And to add to this, even though I mentioned it before, I have received some defective cables from Monster (2 Toslinks and a Digital Coax), which I have never experienced from any other manufacturer.

Good thing they have a lifetime warranty! ;)

You must have missed my previous post #213. I listed one such very real reason why monster products can be difficult to deal with.


I did miss that and I didnt know the jacket has that problem....good to know although I would never buy monster speaker wire since HD has bundles of speaker wire :D

I've actually experienced that super-tight RCA problem. I have some random Monster RCA's and speaker wire that were throw-ins on used audio gear I've bought over the years, and when I tried to remove the Monster RCA interconnects from this Yamaha CD player I came darn close to ripping out the connectors! Them things is tight!

I also have the Monster component video cables for my old Xbox, and they are also very, very tight on the RCA connections. Not quite the connector-ripping death grip of the audio interconnects, but definitely difficult to get off.

On a side note, I agree with another poster on this thread who mentioned the Monster speaker wire with the clear plastic insulation (Monster XP I think?). I currently use it and it was indeed a PITA to strip and terminate, the insulation is so "gummy" that when you try to strip it it doesn't separate cleanly and sticks a bit, often yanks out some of the copper threads. I could see how that would be annoying doing installs all day.

Gee, you sure have changed your tune, penngray. What flipped your boat?

Hmmm....Damn, I better start drinking again :eek: :D

Monster is a joke, they make good cables but they are overpriced.

I saw some Youtube clip about someone going to BestBuy and the salesman recommend Monster HDMI prior to their own HDMI cable.

The difference being that Monster wanted $262 and their own BB brand wanted $12.

After some analyze of a expert with a spektrum analyzer they said the $12 was as good as the Monster at $262.

What i don't understand the people who buys these Monster cables and become part of their religion.

Monster is a joke, they make good cables but they are overpriced.

I saw some Youtube clip about someone going to BestBuy and the salesman recommend Monster HDMI prior to their own HDMI cable.

The difference being that Monster wanted $262 and their own BB brand wanted $12.

After some analyze of a expert with a spektrum analyzer they said the $12 was as good as the Monster at $262.

What i don't understand the people who buys these Monster cables and become part of their religion.Thanks for your input. :)

After some analyze of a expert with a spektrum analyzer they said the $12 was as good as the Monster at $262.



You need to be analyzed by an expert with a speculum analyzer. Get a little different view point on things.;)

Thanks for your input. :)

You can watch it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDw2ZSDzlMw

The reason i buy from Monoprice or Blue Jeans, Monster is a joke how they fool other people who can't think by themself.

A lie is a lie and eventually it will bite you in the arse. Unfortunately, no one will ever know the difference until the liar is "caught/exposed".


Why do people actually believe this? Because your parents scared you with it growning up?

People lie/cheat/steal their whole lives sometimes and never get caught. Those who continue to take bigger and bigger risks are the ones that get caught.

Politicians lie daily to get re-elected and they get re-elected over and over and over but still play the game of deceptions and spin.

A large number of companies, spin the books to please stockholders quarterly (look at all those companies that screwed thousands and thousands of stockholders and employees).

I go to 3 golf trips a year (80 player tournaments), the stuff that goes on there......:eek: Lets just say "What happens in.....Stays in....."

In the end the majority of people that lie/cheat/steal actually do not get caught. Please dont bring up some sort of religious end game either, it doesnt fly with most people.

You can watch it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDw2ZSDzlMw

The reason i buy from Monoprice or Blue Jeans, Monster is a joke how they fool other people who can't think by themself.

Thanks for your contribution! :)

Why do people actually believe this? Because your parents scared you with it growning up?

People lie/cheat/steal their whole lives sometimes and never get caught. Those who continue to take bigger and bigger risks are the ones that get caught..

Huh??? Beacuse my parents "scared" me????? It's called ethics/morals. Surely your parents tried to raise you with the same expectation(s).:rolleyes:

Read the first part of my post again. I know it happens, but it doesn't justify the practice. Eventually, Mon$ter (and other that follow this type of ad campaign) will get bit as they seem to take "bigger risks" as time goes on.

In the end the majority of people that lie/cheat/steal actually do not get caught. Please dont bring up some sort of religious end game either, it doesnt fly with most people.
IMO... you have some personal issues. So, I guess if you get away it lies/cheating/stealing, it's okay? Religion has nothing to do with the discussion and no one brought it up. But... no matter your religion, those things will always be considered unacceptable.

I'm a Raelian and we are against lying, stealing, and cheating.

IMO... you have some personal issues. So, I guess if you get away it lies/cheating/stealing, it's okay? Religion has nothing to do with the discussion and no one brought it up. But... no matter your religion, those things will always be considered unacceptable.

lol, never said I do it..Im just saying people get away with it daily and its simply wrong to say that it catches up with people.

Monster will continue to have a marketing budget and vision the same as yesterday, last week and last year because its succesful. A couple of people online complaining about it isnt going to change a damn thing and it is NOT ILLEGAL.

People need to get off any moral high ground too, one persons morals has nothing too do with corporate greed. Simply dont buy their products, educate others on why they should buy monster products and move on. To actually argue that they are liers and cheaters does what? Also, to actually post thinking that liers/cheaters actually get caught at some point is also invalid because while some do get caught a higher percentage get away with it forever.

Eventually, Mon$ter (and other that follow this type of ad campaign) will get bit as they seem to take "bigger risks" as time goes on.


Maybe but Monster has yet to actually lie about anything.

You know anyone can market that their products "Improve low end frequencies", right? Monster has never ever marketed a DIRECT comparison because they know they can not win that one.

Its simple to prove, Monster can take a VERY BAD coax cable and then compare it vs their monster Coax cable. Look at all the Monster gimmicks in BB stores....10 feet monster speaker wire (12 gauge) vs 100 feet of 18 gauge no name wire, lol!! Monster component video vs no name COMPOSITE VIDEO, I love that one.

Its simple to prove any marketing spin....ever seen those adds....."Houses from $250,000...." you go there and the lowest price house is $400,000 and you wonder wtf? How about "as low as $59.95....", imagine that, that ONE product was sold in the first two minutes..you can buy that $95.95 product over their if you want.

Monster spins its products as best it can to entice non-educated shoppers into buying their products. That is what marketing really is and there is NOTHING wrong with it. I come from the Buyer Beware, if someone is dumb to buy into the hype, they deserve to lose their money.

I come from the Buyer Beware, if someone is dumb to buy into the hype, they deserve to lose their money.

Yeah like i said, most people on this planet are stupid, not anything wrong taking advantage of that.;)

Yeah like i said, most people on this planet are stupid, not anything wrong taking advantage of that

I wouldnt say stupid, I would say they simply dont have the time or choose not to learn about many things. I dont blame them, because they dont really care that much about it, they just want it to work and they have the money allocated. My one friend puts it another way, he doesnt have to learn squat about AV or computers because he can just call me! :eek:

All I can do is tell them there are much cheaper alternatives. If they still choose to buy then that is cool because we all waste money on something and its not like its a really, really huge mistake...lets remember there are more important things for 99% of the population.

Your parents should be very proud.