OT - Boycott Monster Cables

"Brian" wrote in message

> And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
> about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
> supports that claim?

And more to the claim of MC, and reasons for trademarks ... how is their
advertising going to benefit Monster Anything else?

That, IMO, should be the VERY basis for this type of frivolous, make-work
for the legal profession.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:58:54 -0500, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.

Playing Devil's Avocado for a moment...

Monster Cable have a legal duty to do this, as the law permits them to
issue these vexatious suits and their duty to their shareholders
requires them to extort money from all possible avenues. Don't blame
Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.

The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.


For a UK version of this, take a look at "EasyJet" and the owner's
ferocious pursuit of Easy* names

--
Smert' spamionam

> I was using cheap RCA cables WAY
> back with success and see no reason to switch.

Well, there are legitimate reasons to use quality cables for audio and
video, just no legitimate reason to charge what Monster Cable and
similar companies charge. Radio Shack cables are junk and *do* degrade
your sound/picture, but interconects at an equal or similar quality
level to Monster, et al., are readily available for half the price or
less.

> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
> his business.

I think you're out of your mind. How does "Monsters Inc." or "Monster
Garage" in any way confuse you as to their relation (or lack thereof,
which is the reality of the situation) to Monster Cable?

"Monster" is a general-purpose word in the English language that far
predates Monster Cable; so I guess in your eyes Apple Computer has a
right to trademark the word "apple" and then sue or extort the pants
off of every apple farmer or supplier in the land?

And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
supports that claim?

> Companies like Monster Cable depend on people's
> ignorance
> for their continued success.

or, to put it another way, Monster Cable is to cabling as Bose is to
speakers.
8^)

> (unfortunately, i couldn't read the original story,
> the link was broken, or taken down or something...)

It's still there, but here's the text:


The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html


Monsters battle it out
A California firm has tried to keep scores of U.S. companies from using
the word "monster." Now a Durango entrepreneur has launched a
pre-emptive strike.
By Jason Blevins
Denver Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 -

Monster Cable, a company that makes high-performance audio and visual
cables, is at war.

The Brisbane, Calif.-based company has filed trademark lawsuits across
the country against companies using the word "monster." Discovery
Channel has felt Monster's wrath for its show "Monster Garage." Bally
Gaming is under Monster's glare because of its Monster slot machine.
Monster sued Walt Disney Co., maker of the animated flick "Monsters,
Inc." Even the Chicago Bears, a.k.a. "The Monsters of the Midway," once
were eyed by Monster.

But Jack Turner is taking the offensive. The Durango businessman, who
six years ago started a video company called Snow Monsters, aiming to
get kids on skis, said Monster Cable has filed formal opposition to his
2-year-old trademark application. So he's suing Monster Cable.

"I run the most clean-cut business in the country," said Turner, whose
videos feature costumed skiers such as Powder Pig and Snow Snake
teaching kids how to be safe and have fun on the ski hill.

"I mean, why don't you go beat up on the March of Dimes?"

Assuming he will one day be sued by Monster Cable, Turner is asking a
Colorado district court judge to rule that Snow Monsters does not
infringe on Monster Cable's trademark. It's a pre-emptive move to foil
what could be years of legal wrangling that would break Turner's bank.

Monster Cable, which makes cables and wires for home, car and computer
audio and video equipment, has filed more than 250 oppositions to
trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Most
of the filings were simply requests for additional time so Monster
Cable attorneys could study various trademark applications. Others were
formal oppositions. Some ended in lawsuits.

Monster Cable sued Monster.com, the online résumé site. It sued Disney
and Discovery Channel. In all three suits, Monster reached a
confidential settlement. The company's general counsel, David Tognotti,
said the company is now involved in "great partnerships" with all three
companies.

Monster got its first trademark in 1978. It now has more than 300 marks
in categories from computer and audio equipment to marine electronic
equipment to educational and training services.

Tognotti said Monster Cable is simply doing what many "premium" brand
companies do: protecting a hard-earned image.

"We have spent millions of dollars and countless hours trying to build
a quality premium brand in the marketplace, and there are individuals
trying to leverage off that for their own gain," said Tognotti, noting
that Turner's trademark applications are in categories in which Monster
Cable has business interests. "It would be harmful to us for him to
have a "monster" trademark in those classes. We have a duty to protect
our trademark."

Like Turner, Cathy West is weathering Monster's glare. Her tiny
MonsterVintage.com in Camas, Wash., sells vintage clothing including
striped bell-bottoms and 1970s-era Grateful Dead concert shirts over
the Net.

She thought someone was joking with her two years ago when she got a
licensing agreement package from Monster Cable suggesting that she pay
the wire-maker $1,000 a year and 1 percent of gross sales in exchange
for use of the word "monster."

She threw the packet out, thinking it was junk mail. Now she has an
attorney who estimates legal fees could reach $50,000 in a trademark
fight.

"We don't have the money to fight this," said West, who named the
company after her cat, Monster. "We tried to negotiate with them, but
let me tell you, these guys are not nice characters. It's just bizarre.

"All we are doing is turning old rags into a decent way to pay the
bills. I'd never even heard of Monster Cable before."

Turner said he is shouldering the load for the little guys, much as he
has done for the next generation of skiers with his videos. He is
asking visitors to his website, snowmonsters.com, to boycott Monster
Cable products. He calls his fight a battle against "corporate
bullies."

Earlier this year, he told Monster Cable attorneys he would never
dabble in the speaker- and stereo-wire business. The company countered
with its own idea for Turner's company: give up all rights to the word
'monster,' sign a licensing agreement and give Monster Cable the right
to approve or reject Turner's marketing plan.

So now Turner is paying $500 an hour to two law firms - one in Boulder
and one in New York. He thinks Monster, with a stable of lawyers on
staff, would happily wile away months in court. That's not an option
for him. He said a favorable ruling in his Denver lawsuit would
eliminate the potential of a protracted legal fight.

"They say they own the name 'monster,"' Turner said. "They are big.
They are mean. They play dirty. It's time for someone to stand up to
the bullies and say enough is enough."

Staff writer Jason Blevins can be reached at 303-820-1374 or
[email protected] .

Scare tactics: Other companies Monster Cable has targeted

Disney

Settled a trademark- infringement suit over the animated movie

"Monsters, Inc."

Monster.com

The online résumé service settled; like Disney and Discovery Channel,
deal is confidential

MonsterVintage.com

The online seller of Grateful Dead and other concert T-shirts faces a
$50,000 battle.

Chicago Bears

Football's "Monsters of the Midway" were a potential target for a
Monster suit.

> Sooooooooooooo, let's see now. Has the death toll topped
> the 150,000 mark yet? How many more will die from the after
> affects/disease/malnutrition?
>
> You white guys in the 'burbs with nothing else to do need to
> rearrange your perspective a wee bit.
>
> UA100, who really thinks the OP is Darwin Award class
> material or just an idjit...

You know, fuck you. I knew some moron was going to make this comment...
Just so you know I have donated more to the Red Cross tsunami relief
fund that you probably make in a month, assuming you have a job at all.

Just because a tragedy of unthinkable proportions is going on doesn't
mean the rest of the world stops, you know. It's exactly that kind of
one-track-mind thinking that's gotten this damn country into the sad
state that it's in.

> He does, indeed. I snipped the second part of his message in the
> interests of insult. UA irritated me somewhat with his message (I don't
> think we should overlook the little things just because big things are
> afoot) but the reply I find quite egregious. For some reason, "Brian"
> too serious, apparently personal, insult which I do find a little
> baffling. I was somewhat unfair as his other messages seem reasonable
> and obviously his panties got in a serious knot for some reason over
> this. Everyone has their buttons I guess.

You know what, you're absolutely right, and in that regard I apologize.

Still, I take extreme offense that I was accused of being an "idjit"
and "Darwin Award material", not to mention the all-too-apparent
inference that I don't care about what happened in Indonesia. All from
someone who wouldn't know me if he passed me on the street, or sat next
to me at the bar. The nerve of him to make such an assumption
definitely hit my button; I just hope he's half as good a woodworker as
he is an assumer.

> Actually, the country is fine Brian. Way better than most
> any other nation in the world. OK, way better than 99% of
> the population of the world.

No, the country is *not* fine, and Monster Cable's actions and legal
system's acceptance are a perfect example of one of the many ways we
are *not* fine. I take it you approve of their actions, then? That this
is the way the system is *supposed* to work?

I never said that we didn't have it good, and I agree with you
wholeheartedly that we do, in fact, have it much better than
*everywhere* else. Doesn't mean we don't have problems, or that we're
perfect in every way. Blind patriotism is still a blindness.




> It's people who say that it's
> being dragged down that are the problem.

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh talking there. There is *nothing* wrong with
dissent, *nothing* wrong with accepting our faults and *nothing* wrong
with trying to improve upon ourselves. We are not a perfect country, we
are not a perfect society, we do not have a perfect form of government
or commerce. It might be the best that's come along so far but it's
*far* from unimproveable.

(And before I am inevitably accused, to make it clear I am neither a
liberal nor a conservative. I am an independent thinker and voter, but
Rush and his ilk (on both sides of the ideological aisle) do this
country no good whatsoever. All they're good for is spouting their
rhetoric off hatered and intolerance and close-mindedness to other
points of view.)



> (1) Damn it!!! I can't lie to you Brian. I/we all think

Perhaps you should stick to speaking for yourself, there. You don't
seem to be too good at speaking for others, because you've got me all
wrong.




> (2) OK, I lied again. I/we don't think you can be topped.

Whatever... if you think I'm somehow the worst you have or will
encounter then you must live in a nice bubble somewhere.



Brian

> It'll get thrown out.

But the sad thing is, before half of these cases even get to court the
accused are giving in and paying Monster Cable to avoid the legal fees
and hassles of a court case. It happens all the time; it's often
cheaper to settle than to stand your ground for what you know is right.

> >or, to put it another way, Monster Cable is to cabling as Bose is to
> >speakers.
>
> Ridiculously overpriced?

Bingo. They don't make bad speakers, but they place themselves in a
market niche (both in terms of quality and price) that they don't
belong. You can get ten times the speaker for the same price, but you
won't find them in Best Buy or Circuit City.

> For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but don't have
> the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the brands that rival
> Bose in sound?

I have to answer that two different ways. If you're looking to make a
jump into the audiophile range (sorry for being a bit vague here, if I
could define this term I would!) and thinking Bose might be
entry-level, you couldn't do wrong with looking at Paradigm, B&W, or
NHT. (I have an all-Paradigm setup and couldn't be happier -- and I'm a
very picky guy when it comes to music and for home theater they are
very impressive also.)

If, however, you're not looking to move into the audiophile category
and are looking for the best consumer-level speakers (where Bose is
certainly better than a lot of stuff out there) I'd pick Polk or
Infinity over Bose any day. You might spend a little bit more but the
upgrade in sound is well worth it.

In the end I think there are two basic rules to follow when choosing
speakers:

1.) The speakers should be considered the *most* important choice when
purchasing or upgrading a system. Not that the amplifier has no impact
on sound, but the speakers have way more influence over how your system
ultimately performs, and too manyh people purchase their receiver/amp
first and then look for speakers to "fit it." And *never* buy the
all-in-one boxes (you know, where you can get a complete home theater
for $299 or whatever). Figure out your budget, select your speakers
first and then worry about the receiver, etc.

2.) If it sounds good in *your room* then it is good. And if that means
Bose, then by all means buy Bose. Look for a dealer that offers in-home
trial (hint: you won't get this from a Big Box retailer like Best Buy
or Circuit City) of either the speakers you purchase, or demo loaners.
Reputable audio dealers understand and accomodate this important
practice.

> > What was that one show making fun of one of the Simpson girls ( or teen
> > idol similar.) She sounds horrible so one of the engineers reaches for
> > a dial to select from a filter labeled "Madonna", "Brittany Spears" or
> > "Christina Aguilera"!

Or when Bart Simpson, Milhouse, Nelson and Ralph were molded into the
Party Posse (or, as their logo demonstrated, PP, hahahaha) but they
couldn't sing worth a damn without their vocal gizmo (I forgot what it
was called right now, and I don't think that episode is out on DVD
yet...)

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal,

F*ck "legal" .. this example of hijacking a word in common usage for
_exclusive_ commercial purposes is a "wrong" that needs to be "righted".

Recall the tired old comeback that it was once "perfectly legal" to own
slaves, or in your case, to abuse a serf.

Lawyers (and law schools where "legal" always takes precedence over "moral",
if the latter is ever mentioned at all) and politicians decide what's
"legal" .. often an indictment from the very getgo, as this example
illustrates.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0600, Secret Squirrel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Don't blame
>>>> Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.
>>>>
>>>> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
>>>> don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
>>>> Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.
>>>
>>> It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is
>>> immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is
>>> unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how.
>>
>> Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the
>> legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you
>> know.
>>
>> I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time,
>> and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that
>> because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny
>> minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be
>> disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he
>> simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody
>> comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my
>> coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't
>> talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even
>> if he doesn't want to.
>>
>
>That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not discriminate
>based on race, gender, religion etc. However they certainly have the
>right to decline a client for any legitimate reason. One perfectly
>legitimate reason is that a case has no merit.


ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person who
approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit can
then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have merit
and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and since the
client is a member of one of society's "specially protected" classes, thus
the original lawyer discriminated based upon r,g,r,etc. If you were a
lawyer knowing this scenario could occur, would you ever turn away a
client? Couple that with the fact that by shopping venues, you can pretty
much find a judge somewhere who will find for your client, there is a very
strong incentive to take cases and a very strong dis-incentive not to.

... although the thought of a lawyer sueing another lawyer does have some
appeal.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I think it is B.S.!
Maybe he should go after Porter Cable, after all the name of his company
also uses the word "cable"!
He should be able to protect the combination of words, "Monster Cable", but
not the individual words!
By the way, I don't need to boycott them, never have bought any of their
over priced lampcord!
Greg


"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
> his business.
>
>
> Len
> "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
> >I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
> > far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
> >
> > I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
> > Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
> > which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
> > flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
> >
> > Read on, and spread the word...
> >
> > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> > www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
> >
> > What a bunch of greedy assholes.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
> > www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
> >
> > I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
> > request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
> > classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
> > done with printing.allready...
> > I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
> > zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
> >
> > Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
> > a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
> > anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
>
>

> I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
> none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
> other high priced brands, and lamp cord.

More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin ears.
Probably a combination of both.

> For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but don't have
> the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the brands that rival
> Bose in sound?

Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get free in
cereal boxes.

> Of course you wouldn't because you'd still have 20k feet of cable.
> Cable is cable. Monster doesn't use magical pixies to make special
> cables in the middle of the night. One piece of 14-gauge wire is
> going to be EXACTLY THE SAME as another piece of 14-gauge wire of the
> same length. Deal with it.

I take it you've never heard any differences between speaker wires. The
sonic differences between speaker wires or interconnects is not that hard to
demonstrate on a good system.

>> Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get
>> free in cereal boxes.
>
> Bullsh*t. ;-)

Ok, ya got me. Scratch the cereal boxes.

> "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill in
> Stereo Review.

Stereo Review is hardly the magazine for meaningful reviews. If they
couldn't hear any differences between speaker cables it's probably because
they were listening to Bose speakers.

Good doesn't have to be expensive. I have some home-made cables and
interconnects that sound better than others I've tested in the several
hundred dollar range.

>> More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin
>> ears. Probably a combination of both.
> No. they forgot to put the magnets on the wires. You get 25 decibels more
> per mile, per room, with magnets.

Speaking of magnets, very thin (and cheap) pure copper magnet wire assembled
with decent plugs and the correct topology makes for some dammed fine
interconnects.

> And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and
> insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant
> differences. Sure you have.

One doesn't need to do a chemical analysis to notice that wire is available
in many different configurations: stranded, tinned, solid, copper, silver,
etc.. Same with insulation materials, which can range from rubber to teflon.
Different configurations will yield different electrical characteristics
which are easily measured, such as resistance, capacitance, and inductance.
Whether or not you can hear the differences is another story.

I suppose it doesn't matter much what wiring you use if you're playing mp3s
through Radio Shack electronics hooked up to Bose speakers.

Gotta make money somehow. Why not sue everybody who's ever used the
name "Monster" to keep money rolling through the bank. If you can't
make money selling wires they might as well sue and hope for a
settlement. meanwhile shut down anybody trying to make an honest
living. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Brian.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:41:59 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:


>I take it you've never heard any differences between speaker wires. The
>sonic differences between speaker wires or interconnects is not that hard to
>demonstrate on a good system.
>


"...So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring and listening to
speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster
cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be
superior to the 24 gauge wire commonly sold or given away as 'speaker
cable.' Remember, however, that it was a measurable
characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound
different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead
of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and
our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the
three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits
claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord. We
can only conclude, therefore, that there is little advantage besides
pride of ownership in using these thick, expensive wires"

"Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill in
Stereo Review.


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Oh I know the point!...I did graphic design for a living for about 5
> years....It's like the client saying, "I like the idea, but can you make
it
> edgier and more hip, without it being brash?"

Reminds me of a friend who does Mac support. He relaed a story to me where
a client asked a designer if he could just make the design "prettier". The
designer told my friend "oh, sure...I'll just hit the Apple 'pretty'
button".

todd

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>
>> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal,
>
> F*ck "legal" .. this example of hijacking a word in common usage for
> _exclusive_ commercial purposes is a "wrong" that needs to be "righted".
>

Snip,


I think we just demonstrated Good Cop, Bad Cop, in responding to "Its
Legal". LOL

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:23:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
>none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable, other
>high priced brands, and lamp cord.

Audiophiles get off on these things, but as you said, they're really
overpriced crap.

I hope the courts make them pay everyones legal costs then fine them
for their nuisance suit. It is not like Disney, who built the name. If
this is allowed to continue, all names and words will be registered
trademarks in very short order - not dissimilar to the domain name
squatting of yesteryear.

For pro audio (AKa not home or car audio most of the time) monaster cable
makes 100% lifetime guaranteed stuff don't they?

For a traveling band or high traffic studio / stage environment, that is
worth it alone IMHO.

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
http://www.autodrill.com
http://www.multi-spindle-heads.com

V8013

My eBay: http://tinyurl.com/4hpnc

Mike in Mystic wrote:

> man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
> over
> my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
> bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe

You could cut them up and mail them to the Monster home office with a letter
to leave the poor hippy lady alone. But it would be an expensive way to
make a statement.

If this thing goes the way it could, I look for either K-Mart or Wal-Mart to
sue the other one's pants off. Whoever grabbed it first. I'm not quite
sure. Wal-Mart seems new to me because we didn't have one anywhere around
here until 1989, but they've been around since the '70s. I'm not sure how
old K-Mart is. Rather older, I think.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Lobby Dosser wrote:

> WalMart started as one store in the 50s or 60s in Arkansas. Harrisonvile,
> IIRC.

1962. Rogers. My bad. I was exactly 10 years off.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Robatoy wrote:

> Will I get a better cut on my TS if I park it on pennies? It is a moving
> coil, after all...

You will get a better cut on your TS if you park it on pennies colored with
a green magic marker.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Robatoy wrote:

> It's immoral. Marketing based on lies.

Yeah, but the alternative is that movie... I think it was called "Funny
People." Or maybe "Crazy People." That was one of the funniest movies
I've ever seen.

Jaguar - for men who like getting hand jobs from women they barely know

Porsche - too small to get laid in, but you'll get laid the moment you step
out of it

American - fewer people die in plane crashes on our airline than any other

Volvo - boxy, but good

I wish I could remember more of these. It's amazing that I can remember
this many though. Man, I haven't seen that since about three lifetimes
ago.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Wes Stewart wrote:

> I can't help myself and must ask; what is "the correct topology" for
> an audio frequency interconnect?

Hopefully a nekkit wimminz interconnecting the audio with her topology off.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:31:33 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah, they have to protect their trademark, but their trademark is "Monster
>Cable". If somebody started selling cable as "Monsters Cable" or "Mobster
>Cable" or "Monster Wire" or something else that could be easily confused
>with their trademark then they'd have a legitimate case, but no sane person
>is going to confuse snowboarding videos or an animated feature film with
>overpriced glorified lamp cord.

Sure, but how the hell is Disney's "Monsters Inc." going to be
confused with Monster Cable? Or Monster.com? Or any of the other
companies they are throwin frivilous lawsuits at? How are they
protecting their trademark?

You are aware that in order for the suit to be valid, there has to be
a chance that an individual would MISTAKE one company or their
products for another, right?

It'll get thrown out.

mark wrote:
>> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
>> and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that
>> same music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about
>> all those spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the
>> difference. If the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable,
>> we'd get the same good sound.


Perhaps the difference might be found in the typical length of stereo cables are
somewhere between 3 and 6 feet while the telephone company runs cables for
miles.

Just a thought....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

"bkr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Most people don't even know what Monster
> cables are...unless they're audiophiles or professional musicians/video
> production types.


Umm, they are large diameter transparent insulators with tiny wires running
through them.

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "Eugene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike in Mystic wrote:
>>
>> > man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
>> > over
>> > my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money,
>> > the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe
>> >
>> >
>> There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
>> example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
>> or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.
>>
>
> A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
> restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
> trademark infringement.
That doesn't stop them from trying.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 00:24:29 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
>> none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
>> other high priced brands, and lamp cord.
>
>More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin ears.
>Probably a combination of both.

More likely that the reviewers had very good ears but not
a whole heck of a lot of imagination.

Monster cables have always been ridiculously over priced. They are good
quality, but they aren't that much better than the $10 cables you can
buy with RCA plugs on them.

As for the lawsuit, anybody that fights back against big corporations
trying to dominate a market (that they don't have any real business with
especially) has my vote. Most people don't even know what Monster
cables are...unless they're audiophiles or professional musicians/video
production types.

I've forwarded the article to everyone I know.


bkr

leonard wrote:

> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
> his business.
>
>
> Len
> "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>
>>I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
>>far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>>
>>I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
>>Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>>which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>>flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>>
>>Read on, and spread the word...
>>
>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>>
>>What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
>>www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
>>
>>I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
>>request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
>>classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
>>done with printing.allready...
>>I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
>>zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
>>
>>Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
>>a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
>>anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
>
>
>
First of all nice troll. Second, if you're going to troll, at least get
the facts straight...this is a trademark case, not a copyright case.

bkr

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:16:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally I think Best Buy ought to drop that product line, but making
>money on cables seems to be a successful marketing strategy at this point
>(go down to CompUSA, find any Belkin cable, write down the price, the name,
>and the SKU, then plug those into Froogle).

I personally go to Wal-Mart for most of my cable needs (I don't do any
heavy duty editing or have an expensive speaker system right now. so I
don't care about the quality so much). What I don't get is why $15 USB
cable at Wal-Mart costs $30 in BestBuy/Circuit
City/CompUSA/OfficeMax/Depot/Staples. That's a *HUGE* price difference
for the exact same product. Most other things are only about 10-30%
cheaper in Wal-mart than they are in bigger stores.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:04:53 -0500, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
>> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
>> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
>> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
>> his business.

Hum...I think he is doing it for exactly the reason he
states...to try and avoid getting smashed by a big, non-related
company, with too many lawyers.

>I think you're out of your mind. How does "Monsters Inc." or "Monster
>Garage" in any way confuse you as to their relation (or lack thereof,
>which is the reality of the situation) to Monster Cable?
>
Not the point for Monster Cable.

>"Monster" is a general-purpose word in the English language that far
>predates Monster Cable; so I guess in your eyes Apple Computer has a
>right to trademark the word "apple" and then sue or extort the pants
>off of every apple farmer or supplier in the land?
>
As a matter of fact, Apple computer DID get sued...by Apple
Records (the Beatle's recording company) quite some years ago, for
exactly this sort of trademark violation. As part of the settlement,
Apply Computer had to agree to NOT go into the music publishing
industry. Of course, recent events have caused some upset at
Apple Records and some renegotiation.
However, this sort of thing has happened before and
will happen again.

>And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
>about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
>supports that claim?

Again...does not matter. The fact of the matter is that
the way the laws are interpreted these days, a given company can
acquire exclusive ownership for the use of a word. This is far
too broad a net, and, I think should be addressed by the courts.
However, this is another case of the golden rule...i.e. the man
with the gold makes the rules.
It is akin to the intellectual property suit that SCO
has been chasing for years over Linux. The fact of the matter
is that they have not proven they have a leg to stand on. yet...
the lawyers continue to make millions, and, the stockholders
make big bucks off selling the SCO stock (artificially pumped
by the heavily spun news of the progress of the suit).

Regards
Dave Mundt

"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
> far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>
> I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
> Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
> which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
> flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>
> Read on, and spread the word...
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html


Actually I always thought Monster Cable was all about marketing anyway. The
cable looks pretty limp once you strip away the quadruple magnification
insulation.

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:58:54 -0500, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
> >which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
> >flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>
> Playing Devil's Avocado for a moment...
>
> Monster Cable have a legal duty to do this, as the law permits them to
> issue these vexatious suits and their duty to their shareholders
> requires them to extort money from all possible avenues. Don't blame
> Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.
>
> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
> don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
> Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.
>
>
> For a UK version of this, take a look at "EasyJet" and the owner's
> ferocious pursuit of Easy* names
>

Suits like this have been rejected by the courts out of hand in the US.
It's often less fun, but more practical to research a bit before slamming
the unholy mess that the US legal system is. I suppose there are holy
messes in other countries...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

> So Steve, you thinking of coming out with a "Monster Plane"?

only if I can afford the court fee's (G) hey will they go after monster trucks
too???

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:23:50 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:58:54 -0500, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>>which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>>flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>
>Playing Devil's Avocado for a moment...
>
>Monster Cable have a legal duty to do this, as the law permits them to
>issue these vexatious suits and their duty to their shareholders
>requires them to extort money from all possible avenues. Don't blame
>Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.
>
>The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
>don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
>Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.
>
>
>For a UK version of this, take a look at "EasyJet" and the owner's
>ferocious pursuit of Easy* names

Now that could be an interesting set of circumstances. It would be quite
fun to hear the arguments in court how some porno site with "Easy" in its
name was infringing EasyJet's trademark because that was an area in which
EasyJet has a business interest.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

> In the studio, every mixing console worth its salt has a "talent" button.
> The console in most cRAP studios is built around a bank of them.

They don't work too well, in that case.....

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:55:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> For monster to claim that they have a business interest in the area
>of educational ski training videos for children and that Mr. Turners use of
>the English word "monster" in his business name for that business niche
>thus infringes their business interests is ludicrous. The current state of
>affairs with various companies and corporations attempting to copyright
>and/or trademark the use of common English names or phrases is a very
>dangerous trend. Building a brand and trademark is certainly something
>that needs to be protected; attempting to assert that they have the
>exclusive use of a common word or phrase and actually successfully having
>legal actions assert that is going to lead to severe problems as our
>ability to use our language becomes more and more restricted.

(unfortunately, i couldn't read the original story,
the link was broken, or taken down or something...)

agree agree agree

copyright/trademark law is a personal pet
peeve of mine, for a number of reasons...

i have done *some* amount of esearch, legal
readings, and even consulted a trademark/
copyright lawyer several years ago...

besides being *quite* the tangled web of
regional, national and international laws and
legal precedents, it generally protects only
those big korporations who have the resources
to have teams of parasites, er, lawyers on
retainer...

while *supposedly* it offers protection to
the originator/creator/artist, in reality, li'l
peeps can not generally afford :

1. the protection officially registering trademarks
and copyrights can provide if/when legal action
is contemplated/necessary...

(yes, don't tell me how easy it is to copyright
stuff *FORMALLY*/'legally', it is *still* a pain
in the patootie that many/most independent
artists don't have the time to do assiduously...
trademarking is even more of a pain, in that it
costs a chunk of change, has to searched and
approved, has to be renewed regularly, etc...)

2. don't have the resources and manpower to
'police' their trademarks/copyrights...

(in a knockdown drag out legal brawl, it WILL
NOT metaphysically matter if you ARE the
creator of art/widget 'X'; if BigCo, Inc. steals
your idea/art, files the paperwork, and then
sics a team of lawyers on you, you WILL lose...)

3. don't have the lawyers on retainer looking
for something to justify their existence...

(trademarks in particular, are *supposed* to
be 'policed' on a constant, consistent basis
-even if you live in key west and the 'violation'
of your trademark occurs in walla walla- or
you will lose the 'right' to 'own' that trademark...)

4. most creations are done as 'work for hire'
FOR a korporation, such that -once again-
korporate interests are paramount, not
granma moses scraping out a living selling
pieces of her talent/soul...

further, korporate kreeps like disney are THE
prime copyright/trademark nazis when it comes
to 'enforcing' their 'rights' in this area...

they have and will go after people as 'innocent'
and as a nursery school who had crude
pics of goofy, mickey rat, etc painted on their
walls... (needless to say, the kids lost... *how*
this is supposed to be a feather in the cap for
dizzyworld is beyond me...)

(for the kamper who *seemed* to be saying
that disney 'deserves' their agressive protection
because of their 'creativity', i should remind him
that ALL the crap that disney (nike, whoever)
puts out that is popular and sells a zillion units of
mickey mouse crap, are popular *because* of US
MAKING IT POPULAR, not some inherent,
incredible artistic value... ULTIMATELY, disney/etc
are parasitizing OUR popular culture that WE made
popular...)

not only that, but disney has snuck through
kongress a number of extensions to the terms
that copyrights/trademarks are good for, SOLELY
to 'protect' 'their' ownership of mickey rat, donald
duck, goofy, etc, when their trademarks/copyrights
*SHOULD* have expired in the last couple years...

(in other words, the big guys change the rules of
the game when it suits their purposes... surprise...)

now, the point about this that makes me mad, is
that we STARTED out with trademark/copyright
laws that had something like 16-17 years for
'protection' (even patents on inventions have
less time protection than stupid freaking
mickey rat-type crapola ! ! ! ); then it was increased
to the lifetime of the 'artist'; then it was increased
to the lifetime of the 'artist' plus X years, now it is
lifetime plus 75 years, etc...

anyone want to guess the 'lifetime' of immortal,
fictitious legal entities we call korporations ? ? ?

(THE root of all evil, by the way; not corporations
per se, their immortal immoral status as super-citizens
who are more important than impotent li'l peeps...)

how is it that when we depended upon a
fragmented society, with (relatively) crappy,
ineffecient communications where it could take
years for ideas, inventions, text, artwork, etc
to be reproduced (if it even could be), and
spread from one end of a relatively small country
to the other, we had 'protection' periods which
are a fraction of what we have in a huge, relatively
homogenous, instant-communication, xeroxed,
pop-culture society ? ? ?

*shouldn't* the periods of protection be
DECREASING as our society speeds up and
pieces/parts of our culture are fragmented,
sampled, re-mixed, and assimilated at an
incredible pace ? ? ?

the nike swooshtika hasn't sold a gazillion
tee shirts/etc because of the inherent artfulness,
creativity, and appeal of that design; it has
sold a gazillion because THE PEOPLE MADE
IT POPULAR, IT 'BELONGS' to US...

on top of it all, greedy rat bastards in
corporations -and other public figures-
are trying mightily to remove any and
all usage for 'fair use', so that they can't be
made fun of with their own useless crap...

my two centavos...

eof

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:01:28 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Wes Stewart wrote:
>
>> I can't help myself and must ask; what is "the correct topology" for
>> an audio frequency interconnect?
>
>Hopefully a nekkit wimminz interconnecting the audio with her topology off.

I'm warning you Silvan, the case of Johnson's Wax I can handle, the case
of Windex that your posts are requiring may be a different thing entirely.
:-)



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:09:18 -0500, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but don't have
>> the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the brands that rival
>> Bose in sound?
>
>I have to answer that two different ways. If you're looking to make a
>jump into the audiophile range (sorry for being a bit vague here, if I
>could define this term I would!) and thinking Bose might be
>entry-level, you couldn't do wrong with looking at Paradigm, B&W, or
>NHT. (I have an all-Paradigm setup and couldn't be happier -- and I'm a
>very picky guy when it comes to music and for home theater they are
>very impressive also.)
>
>If, however, you're not looking to move into the audiophile category
>and are looking for the best consumer-level speakers (where Bose is
>certainly better than a lot of stuff out there) I'd pick Polk or
>Infinity over Bose any day. You might spend a little bit more but the
>upgrade in sound is well worth it.
>

If someone is looking for small speakers, I would listen to
the Infinity Primus 150's or 200's: they are outstanding speakers
and cheap. We have a set along with Paradigm Studio 20's and
Atoms. The Paradigms are very good speakers, The Primus are
a tad warmer, with considerably more detail than the Atoms, about
equal to the Studio 20's, but with less bass than the 20's.

>......Look for a dealer that offers in-home
>trial (hint: you won't get this from a Big Box retailer like Best Buy
>or Circuit City) of either the speakers you purchase, or demo loaners....

Our local Circuit City will allow speaker returns up to 30 days after
purchase, provided that you save all of the packing material.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:20:28 GMT, justme <[email protected]> calmly
ranted:

>If you've reviewed audiophile stuff than you'll probably get a kick out
>of these products.
>
>http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
>Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=RAM&Category_Code=C37

Horrible price.


>http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
>Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C

Egad! Who ARE these maroons?


==========================================================
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
==========================================================

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:01:43 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

|> And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and
|> insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant
|> differences. Sure you have.
|
|One doesn't need to do a chemical analysis to notice that wire is available
|in many different configurations: stranded, tinned, solid, copper, silver,
|etc.. Same with insulation materials, which can range from rubber to teflon.
|Different configurations will yield different electrical characteristics
|which are easily measured, such as resistance, capacitance, and inductance.
|Whether or not you can hear the differences is another story.
|
|I suppose it doesn't matter much what wiring you use if you're playing mp3s
|through Radio Shack electronics hooked up to Bose speakers.
|

But John is responding to a guy that's talking about *power cords* for
goodness sake, not microwave coax cable.

Wes

It can be a fine line. Monster Cable has to protect their trademark, but
they don't have to shut down businesses to do so. They could license the
use of the name for $1/year and everyone would be happy.

todd

"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
to
> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
> his business.
>
>
> Len
> "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
> >I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
> > far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
> >
> > I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
> > Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
> > which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
> > flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
> >
> > Read on, and spread the word...
> >
> > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> > www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
> >
> > What a bunch of greedy assholes.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
> > www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
> >
> > I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
> > request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
> > classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
> > done with printing.allready...
> > I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
> > zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
> >
> > Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
> > a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
> > anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
>
>

Really shocking. I imagine now as their "Monster" empire is expanding
because of this, they will have more of a reason to do it more as
chances increase that they will have a business interest in any given area.

What won't come up in court is how they got it.....


Reminds me of the L'il Abner and Skonkworks (Skunkworks) mess.







Brian wrote:

> I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
> far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>
> I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
> Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
> which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
> flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>
> Read on, and spread the word...
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>
> What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>
> <snip>
>
> BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
> www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
>
> I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
> request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
> classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
> done with printing.allready...
> I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
> zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
>
> Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
> a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
> anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

mp wrote:
>>I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
>>none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
>>other high priced brands, and lamp cord.
>
>
> More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin ears.
> Probably a combination of both.
>
>
No. they forgot to put the magnets on the wires. You get 25
decibels more per mile, per room, with magnets.

"Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> |More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin
> ears.
> |Probably a combination of both.
>
> Oh sure.
>
> http://www.national.com/rap/Story/0,1562,3,00.html
>

I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that same
music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about all those
spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the difference. If
the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the same
good sound.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
> and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that
same
> music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about all
those
> spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the difference.
If
> the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the same
> good sound.

LOL!!

Now, we wait and see how many will think you are serious. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> > Actually, this is quite common.
>
> Well, I don't know if I would go that far ... but Eric Johnson has proven
> that at least he can, so I am sure there are others.
>
> I mean, I've been known to be more than a bit picky about my monitor mix
and
> how I hear my bass on stage in relation to the rest of the band, but the
> "brand" of battery in an effects pedal is a wee bit over-the-top, IMO. :)
>

Check around - you'll find more than a few players who have preferences for
battery type based on what they hear. Mostly it's because of the effect
that the brand of battery's decay had on the pedal. It's more common than
you think.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Robatoy" wrote in message

> I thought it was pretty funny as well. Dudley Moore (RIP...what a shame
> we lost him as young as he was...)

I first saw Dudley Moore on a TV show called "Not only...But also" with
Peter Cook when I was living in England in the mid 60's. What a great show
that was. Early BBC had more than its share of comic genius.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

If you've reviewed audiophile stuff than you'll probably get a kick out
of these products.

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=RAM&Category_Code=C37


http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C



In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:41:59 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >I take it you've never heard any differences between speaker wires. The
> >sonic differences between speaker wires or interconnects is not that hard to
> >demonstrate on a good system.
> >
>
>
> "...So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring and listening to
> speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster
> cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be
> superior to the 24 gauge wire commonly sold or given away as 'speaker
> cable.' Remember, however, that it was a measurable
> characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound
> different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead
> of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and
> our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the
> three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits
> claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord. We
> can only conclude, therefore, that there is little advantage besides
> pride of ownership in using these thick, expensive wires"
>
> "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill in
> Stereo Review.
>
>
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)
>

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message

> What a Kroc.

LOL!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
> and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that same
> music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why?


The why is quite involved, but I can absolutely assure you these two
things are not even remotely related; a classic case of apples and
oranges. Incidently, I have worked professionally in the field of
telephony communications (digital and analog) as well as professional
sound (mixing and set-up). When I was doing profession sound I did some
outdoor set-ups with thousands of watts of power. We used heavy guage,
very ordinary copper wire.

For speaker wire in particular, Monster cable is absolutely full of
shit, there is no question. For cables carrying a much lower power
signal (mic cables especially, but also line-level stuff to some extent)
cable quality, and in particular proper impedence (for mic cables) and
top-notch shielding are quite important. However, here monster is still
full of shit. The sell short lenghts of "premium" optical cable for gods
sake.

Monster cable is ripping people off big time. Equal or better quality
cable and connectors can be had for much much less money in every single
case.

PK

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "mark" wrote in message
>
>> other in place, but there was a definite change in the dynamics of the
>> sound.
>
> First, define the phrase "dynamics of the sound".
>

Hard to explain. It sounded wider, more expanded. I'm no expert, my stereo
cost 500 bucks.

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:

> >In the studio, every mixing console worth its salt has a "talent" button.
> >The console in most cRAP studios is built around a bank of them.
>
> What was that one show making fun of one of the Simpson girls ( or teen
> idol similar.) She sounds horrible so one of the engineers reaches for
> a dial to select from a filter labeled "Madonna", "Brittany Spears" or
> "Christina Aguilera"!

That's the one. The name changes, but the effects buss remains the same ...
often routed straight to ye old "Antares Auto Tune".

Don't have one for improving the jig, though.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message

> > Oh I know the point!...I did graphic design for a living for about 5
> > years....It's like the client saying, "I like the idea, but can you make
> it
> > edgier and more hip, without it being brash?"
>
> Reminds me of a friend who does Mac support. He relaed a story to me
where
> a client asked a designer if he could just make the design "prettier".
The
> designer told my friend "oh, sure...I'll just hit the Apple 'pretty'
> button".

In the studio, every mixing console worth its salt has a "talent" button.
The console in most cRAP studios is built around a bank of them.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but don't
have
> > the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the brands that
rival
> > Bose in sound?
>
> Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get free in
> cereal boxes.
>
>

Damn - ya gotta be fast here.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"mark" wrote in message
> > In the studio, every mixing console worth its salt has a "talent"
button.
> > The console in most cRAP studios is built around a bank of them.
>
> They don't work too well, in that case.....

Acutally, its a matter of perspective ... you say that because you've only
ever heard the final mix, with the switch ON!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "mark" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> other in place, but there was a definite change in the dynamics of
>> >> the
>> >> sound.
>> >
>> > First, define the phrase "dynamics of the sound".
>> >
>>
>> Hard to explain. It sounded wider, more expanded. I'm no expert, my
> stereo
>> cost 500 bucks.
>
> LOL
>
> Not trying to gig you ... but countless hours behind a recording console
> has
> given me some experience in interpreting the sound "desires" of clients,
> and, more to the point, the terminology they use to describe what they
> hear,
> or want to hear.
>
> It's when they mix actual technical terms, as you did, like "dynamic" (the
> "dynamic" range of a recording is defined as the difference between the
> softest and the loudest passage) with terms like "wider" and "expanded",
> is
> when the fun begins.
>
> "fat", "over-the-top", "warm", "open", "wide", "expanded", "dynamic"
> "edgy",
> and even (more from females) "red", "green" and "blue", are just some of
> the
> adjectives musicians use to convey what they hear/want to hear.
>
> "Can you make that guitar a bit more/less warm, open and dynamic ... and
> can
> you make if fatter and more edgy without being boomy?"
>
> ... is one I've heard a lot.
>
> Again, I am not trying to gig you in particular, just illustrating a
> point.
> :)

Oh I know the point!...I did graphic design for a living for about 5
years....It's like the client saying, "I like the idea, but can you make it
edgier and more hip, without it being brash?" or when the optometrist
fitting your glasses asks you "Is it sharper and smaller, or just darker and
farther away?"

Besides, I'm a drummer, I just hang out with the musicians.

mark wrote:
> He's got a point tho. (reminds me of one of my favorite howard stern bits
> when he had milton berle (sp?) who was supposed to have a member of
> legendary size.

He does, indeed. I snipped the second part of his message in the
interests of insult. UA irritated me somewhat with his message (I don't
think we should overlook the little things just because big things are
afoot) but the reply I find quite egregious. For some reason, "Brian"
too serious, apparently personal, insult which I do find a little
baffling. I was somewhat unfair as his other messages seem reasonable
and obviously his panties got in a serious knot for some reason over
this. Everyone has their buttons I guess.

PK

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mark wrote:
>>> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000
>>> stereo
>>> and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that
>>> same music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about
>>> all those spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the
>>> difference. If the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable,
>>> we'd get the same good sound.
>
>
> Perhaps the difference might be found in the typical length of stereo
> cables are somewhere between 3 and 6 feet while the telephone company runs
> cables for miles.
>
I am thinking the 25 cent speaker in the hand set may factor in.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

> Actually, this is quite common.

Well, I don't know if I would go that far ... but Eric Johnson has proven
that at least he can, so I am sure there are others.

I mean, I've been known to be more than a bit picky about my monitor mix and
how I hear my bass on stage in relation to the rest of the band, but the
"brand" of battery in an effects pedal is a wee bit over-the-top, IMO. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
>
>> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000
>> stereo and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on
>> "hold", that
> same
>> music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about
>> all
> those
>> spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the
>> difference.
> If
>> the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the
>> same good sound.
>
> LOL!!
>
> Now, we wait and see how many will think you are serious. :)
>

He wasn't serious?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:-OSdnSuyVvDoiX3cRVn-
[email protected]:

>
> "Brian" wrote in message
>
>> And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking
>> about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence
>> supports that claim?
>
> And more to the claim of MC, and reasons for trademarks ... how is
their
> advertising going to benefit Monster Anything else?
>

Well it might not benefit most of the defendants, but it could pretty
easily benefit MOnster.com . While Monster.com is a very well known
website, it is not difficult to imagine that a number of consumers
looking for the monster cable site would simple type monster.com


> That, IMO, should be the VERY basis for this type of frivolous, make-
work
> for the legal profession.
>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Don't blame
>>> Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.
>>>
>>> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
>>> don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
>>> Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.
>>
>> It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is
>> immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is
>> unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how.
>
> Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the
> legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you
> know.
>
> I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time,
> and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that
> because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny
> minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be
> disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he
> simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody
> comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my
> coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't
> talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even
> if he doesn't want to.
>

That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not discriminate
based on race, gender, religion etc. However they certainly have the
right to decline a client for any legitimate reason. One perfectly
legitimate reason is that a case has no merit.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0600, Secret Squirrel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Don't blame
>>>>> Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if
>>>>> you don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand,
>>>>> them Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively
>>>>> encouraged.
>>>>
>>>> It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is
>>>> immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is
>>>> unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how.
>>>
>>> Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the
>>> legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you
>>> know.
>>>
>>> I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time,
>>> and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems
>>> that because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and
>>> deny minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could
>>> be disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that
>>> he simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So
>>> somebody comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I
>>> spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if
>>> they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take
>>> the case, even if he doesn't want to.
>>>
>>
>>That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not
>>discriminate based on race, gender, religion etc. However they
>>certainly have the right to decline a client for any legitimate
>>reason. One perfectly legitimate reason is that a case has no merit.
>
>
> ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person
> who

agreed, but you should (and I realize we're talking about lawyers here)
exercise some judgement in accepting cases. After all you only have so much
time to spend.


> approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit
> can then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have
> merit and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and
> since the client is a member of one of society's "specially protected"
> classes, thus the original lawyer discriminated based upon r,g,r,etc.
> If you were a lawyer knowing this scenario could occur, would you ever
> turn away a client?

Absolutely, and it's not as unusual as it seems. I am not a lawyer,
but I am married to someone who is both a medical and legal professional.
She is employed by a law firm to evaluate the medical claims made by both
actual, and potential clients. They frequently, based on her analysis,
decline to accept clients based on the lack of merit of their cases.
Remember that these cases are typically taken on contingency. The attorney
has a reasonable expectation of recovery so he takes the risk. If he has no
reasonable expectation of recovery then he's just losing money for no good
reason.

Couple that with the fact that by shopping venues,
> you can pretty much find a judge somewhere who will find for your
> client, there is a very strong incentive to take cases and a very
> strong dis-incentive not to.
>
> ... although the thought of a lawyer sueing another lawyer does have
> some
> appeal.
>
>
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>
>
> Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads
> dry
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------+
>

"Eugene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike in Mystic wrote:
>
> > man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
> > over
> > my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
> > bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe
> >
> >
> There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
> example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows
> or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.
>

A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
trademark infringement.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:55:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

|On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard" <[email protected]>
|wrote:
|
|>I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
|>protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
|>looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
|>this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
|>his business.
|>
|
|Leonard,
|
| I have filed for a trademark on the letter "L", anyone else's use
|of that letter would be a violation of a mark that would devalue my
|trademark. I expect $1000 per year and 1% of your gross sales or income
|for the continued use of my trademarked letter "L". Please respond with
|your certified funds or discontinue the use of my letter "L". Is that
|clear _eonard?

Actually, the University of Arizona has a trademark on the letter "A".
I should hope so after the silly bastards spent a ton of my tax money
having some company design the new "A" logo.

http://policy.web.arizona.edu/~policy/trademark.shtml

Also, I believe it was "60 Minutes" that did a piece on some poor soul
in Scotland or Ireland, named McDonald, who had the nerve to use
his/her own name on a restaurant. McDonald's was suing to protect
their good name. I'm surprised they haven't sued the U of A too,
after all, "McDonald's" has an "a" in its name.

What a Kroc.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:18:23 -0500, "leonard" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
>protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to
>looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
>this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
>his business.
>

monster is not exactly a uncommon work. what your going to sue any parent that
tells their kids about the monster under the bed?
these companies have nothing to do with audio cables. they will get no benefit
from the name association.
in the long run monster cables will suffer from stupidity.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

mp wrote:
>> For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but
>> don't have the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the
>> brands that rival Bose in sound?
>
> Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get
> free in cereal boxes.

Bullsh*t. ;-)

-- Mark

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:20:25 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Suits like this have been rejected by the courts out of hand in the US.
>
> Well that's alright and Monster aren't actually doing this then,
> are they ?
>

I didn't say that Andy. Please re-read what I wrote.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:35:50 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
>and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that same
>music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about all those
>spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the difference. If
>the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the same
>good sound.

Of course you wouldn't because you'd still have 20k feet of cable.
Cable is cable. Monster doesn't use magical pixies to make special
cables in the middle of the night. One piece of 14-gauge wire is
going to be EXACTLY THE SAME as another piece of 14-gauge wire of the
same length. Deal with it.

You're just pissed because you got ripped off by those Monster
shysters.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
>
> I've boycotted them for years. Their cables are very over-priced wire.
>

Hey, hey hey hey.......It costs big money to manufacture insulation that
makes the wire inside look 4 times larger in diameter.

> I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
> none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
> other high priced brands, and lamp cord.

I was once told that the electrons really do not care how they get to the
speaker.

12 gauge lamp cord works great for me.

On 08 Jan 2005 01:25:04 EST, Mark and Kim Smith
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long
>before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though!

So Porter Cable should sue Moster Cable then! As you say. BS.

"Eugene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > "Eugene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Mike in Mystic wrote:
> >>
> >> > man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have
all
> >> > over
> >> > my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money,
> >> > the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe
> >> >
> >> >
> >> There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for
> >> example, if your company or product, software or not has the word
Windows
> >> or something similar you can expect a lawsuit.
> >>
> >
> > A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are
> > restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a
> > trademark infringement.
> That doesn't stop them from trying.
>

Please provide the examples of Microsoft having gone after any company with
the word Windows in their name. You are correct in principle though -
that's how Monster is doing what they are - the laws allow them to sue
regardless of merit. The courts sort out the cases but the right to sue is
available to anyone for any reason.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long
before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though!

Greg O wrote:

>I think it is B.S.!
>Maybe he should go after Porter Cable, after all the name of his company
>also uses the word "cable"!
>He should be able to protect the combination of words, "Monster Cable", but
>not the individual words!
>By the way, I don't need to boycott them, never have bought any of their
>over priced lampcord!
>Greg
>
>
>"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
>>protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
>>this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
>>his business.
>>
>>
>>Len
>>"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
>>>far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>>>
>>>I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
>>>Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>>>which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>>>flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>>>
>>>Read on, and spread the word...
>>>
>>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>>www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>>>
>>>What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
>>>www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
>>>
>>>I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
>>>request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
>>>classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
>>>done with printing.allready...
>>>I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
>>>zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
>>>
>>>Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
>>>a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
>>>anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

mp wrote:

>> I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
>> none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
>> other high priced brands, and lamp cord.
>
> More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin
> ears. Probably a combination of both.

I note no smiley so I assume that you are one who actually believes that
there's something magic about sticking the name "monster" on a piece of
lamp cord that makes it perform better.

And I'm not going to go into the debate with you--if you want to worship at
the altar of Monster's bullshit that's your business, but if you're going
to proselytize join the Mormons or somebody else who's at least honest
about it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

bkr wrote:

> Monster cables have always been ridiculously over priced. They are good
> quality, but they aren't that much better than the $10 cables you can
> buy with RCA plugs on them.
>
> As for the lawsuit, anybody that fights back against big corporations
> trying to dominate a market (that they don't have any real business with
> especially) has my vote. Most people don't even know what Monster
> cables are...unless they're audiophiles or professional musicians/video
> production types.

Most people may not be aware of the brand, but a lot of people who aren't
audiophiles or professional musicians/video production types have them--it
seems to be the only brand that Best Buy sells--if not the only brand then
it's the one they're pushing.

Personally I think Best Buy ought to drop that product line, but making
money on cables seems to be a successful marketing strategy at this point
(go down to CompUSA, find any Belkin cable, write down the price, the name,
and the SKU, then plug those into Froogle).

> I've forwarded the article to everyone I know.
>
>
> bkr

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

leonard wrote:

> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
> to
> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for
> his business.

Uh, did you read the damned article? He's launching a preemptive
strike--they sued Disney and some woman who named her little hole in the
wall store after her cat. Since nobody in their right mind buys their
overpriced lamp cord they seem to be trying to salvage their dying company
by profiting on lawsuits.

Further, it's not copyright, it's trademark, and the general legal situation
is that you only have a legitimate claim if there is a reasonable
possibility that the use of the word might create confusion. There is no
possibility that someone is going to confuse, say, "Monsters, Inc", with a
cable manufacturer, but they sue anyway knowing that most folks will cave
rather than fighting it out. Unfortunately, Disney caved when Monster
Cable went after them--they would have done the world a real service by
smashing that outfit flat and forcing it into bankruptcy then buying up the
scraps and shipping them to Japan to be melted down and turned into
something useful.

> Len
> "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>>I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
>> far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>>
>> I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
>> Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>> which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>> flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>>
>> Read on, and spread the word...
>>
>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>>
>> What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
>> www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
>>
>> I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
>> request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
>> classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
>> done with printing.allready...
>> I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
>> zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
>>
>> Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
>> a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
>> anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Todd Fatheree wrote:

> It can be a fine line. Monster Cable has to protect their trademark, but
> they don't have to shut down businesses to do so. They could license the
> use of the name for $1/year and everyone would be happy.

Yeah, they have to protect their trademark, but their trademark is "Monster
Cable". If somebody started selling cable as "Monsters Cable" or "Mobster
Cable" or "Monster Wire" or something else that could be easily confused
with their trademark then they'd have a legitimate case, but no sane person
is going to confuse snowboarding videos or an animated feature film with
overpriced glorified lamp cord.

They're not suing to protect their trademark, they're doing it to make a
profit off of those who won't fight them to the end.

> todd
>
> "leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to
>> protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect
> to
>> looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about
>> this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity
>> for his business.
>>
>>
>> Len
>> "Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>> >I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
>> > far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>> >
>> > I did not write the original posting, but I share the sentiments 100%.
>> > Such a sad state the American legal system is in that these things --
>> > which IMO are in some cases out-and-out extortion, and in all cases
>> > flagrant abuse of the legal system -- are allowed to continue.
>> >
>> > Read on, and spread the word...
>> >
>>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> > www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>> >
>> > What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > BTW, anybody as offended as me should drop them a line:
>> > www.monstercable.com/company_info/contact.asp
>> >
>> > I told Mr.Graham that I would print out the Denver Post article, add a
>> > request to boycott monster cables and stick copies of that into all the
>> > classrooms I'm teaching in at the local music university. I'm actually
>> > done with printing.allready...
>> > I added that from now on out studios would be 100% monster cable free
>> > zones (they allready are, but they will remain like that as well).
>> >
>> > Seriously, this just can't go unanswered. I sincerely ask all of you to
>> > a) write Mr. Graham a reasonable but honest mail and b) don't buy
>> > anything of that company anymore until they changed their strategies.
>>
>>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Silvan wrote:

> Mike in Mystic wrote:
>
>> man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all
>> over
>> my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the
>> bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe
>
> You could cut them up and mail them to the Monster home office with a
> letter
> to leave the poor hippy lady alone. But it would be an expensive way to
> make a statement.

Not really, it's sunk cost and replacing them would cost about 20 bucks for
a roll of zip cord at Home Depot.

> If this thing goes the way it could, I look for either K-Mart or Wal-Mart
> to
> sue the other one's pants off. Whoever grabbed it first. I'm not quite
> sure. Wal-Mart seems new to me because we didn't have one anywhere around
> here until 1989, but they've been around since the '70s. I'm not sure how
> old K-Mart is. Rather older, I think.

That would be interesting--K-Mart's claim would be more legitimate than
Monster's, but I suspect the courts would toss it out on the basis that
"mart" is a well established synonym for "store" and that both are in fact
stores.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Swingman wrote:

>"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>Oh I know the point!...I did graphic design for a living for about 5
>>>years....It's like the client saying, "I like the idea, but can you make
>>>
>>>
>>it
>>
>>
>>>edgier and more hip, without it being brash?"
>>>
>>>
>>Reminds me of a friend who does Mac support. He relaed a story to me
>>
>>
>where
>
>
>>a client asked a designer if he could just make the design "prettier".
>>
>>
>The
>
>
>>designer told my friend "oh, sure...I'll just hit the Apple 'pretty'
>>button".
>>
>>
>
>In the studio, every mixing console worth its salt has a "talent" button.
>The console in most cRAP studios is built around a bank of them.
>
>
>

What was that one show making fun of one of the Simpson girls ( or teen
idol similar.) She sounds horrible so one of the engineers reaches for
a dial to select from a filter labeled "Madonna", "Brittany Spears" or
"Christina Aguilera"!

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

hehehehe..somebody has to drive the bus...



Hey, Now! Watch that..... Everyone knows drummers have to make way for the
really big heads.

Doesn't anyone think the that cable company in question just put a shyster
on the payroll and they are trying to justify their salary?
My aplogies to any shysters reading this I'm sure there is at least one of
you that doesn't live for other peoples money. I just haven't had the
experience personally

J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> rather than fighting it out. Unfortunately, Disney caved when Monster
> Cable went after them--they would have done the world a real service by
> smashing that outfit flat and forcing it into bankruptcy then buying up the
> scraps and shipping them to Japan to be melted down and turned into
> something useful.

Ah, but Disney would not want a sensible decision on trademarks on
the books. They spend a lot of time and effort threatening people
in a similar fashion, and they have a lot more trademarks to "protect."
It is clearly cheaper for Disney to pay the upstart a few pennies
than to face some *other* upstart in court somewhere using Disney's
own arguments against it.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

mp wrote:

>>> Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get
>>> free in cereal boxes.
>>
>> Bullsh*t. ;-)
>
> Ok, ya got me. Scratch the cereal boxes.

I'm not clear on how you make a speaker from bullsh*t by scratching cereal
boxes. Although I have no doubt that it would sound better than Bose.

One thing that cracked me up was the Bose speakers in my old
Corvette--between engine and wind noise the only important characteristic a
speaker needed in that car was to be _loud_--the acoustic quality was not
observable unless I parked with the engine off, which seems kind of
pointless in a Corvette.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lazarus Long wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:23:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:070120052258545989%[email protected]...
>>>I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as
>>> far as I can (and encourage you to do the same).
>>
>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>> www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E2611825,00.html
>>>
>>> What a bunch of greedy assholes.
>>
>>
>>I've boycotted them for years. Their cables are very over-priced wire.
>>
>>I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing,
>>none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable,
>>other high priced brands, and lamp cord.
>
>
> I agree completely with the point that one almost certainly cannot
> *hear* the difference between Monster's product and other interconnect
> cables.
>
> But that's where it ends. I've been heavily involved with wire issues
> in the course of my employment and I can state most emphatically that
> the other details of fabricating a cable leave Monster's and other
> quality brands, Heads, Shoulders and Torso's above the utter junk sold
> at Radio Shack or especially the shit that comes packed with whatever
> electronic item one can purchase at any mass merchandiser.
>
> Radio Shack in particular should be ashamed of what they sell as
> interconnects.
>
> Copper alloys used in making the actual wire is of critical
> importance. the manner in which any terminals attach are extremely
> important. The quality of the polymers used as insulation matters a
> great deal. Theoretically at least (in the realm of physics) the
> alloy of copper and the manner in which it makes connections does
> impact the sound, but I'm here to say I can't hear it. But this isn't
> about sound quality so much as the physical quality of the cabling.
>
> Each and every low quality cable I've ever used has failed
> mechanically and electrically. Stuff from Radio Shack in particular
> turned to unconductive junk in short order. The poor interconnects
> included with the VCR/DVD/Receiver or whatever have also failed.
>
> You say what you like about Monster not being worth the money, but
> they do without any shadow of doubt make very sturdy long lasting
> cabling. Others do to. But the low cost crap foisted on an unknowing
> public is utterly worthless in terms of physical quality.
>
> No, I DON'T WORK FOR MONSTER! I do work for a company that uses a lot
> of power cords and it is those that I am responsible for in my
> engineering job at my employer. Wire matters. The alloy matters.
> The manner in which the wire is joined to connections matter.
>
> If you don't believe it, you're only fooling yourself.

And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and
insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant
differences. Sure you have.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> |More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin
>> ears.
>> |Probably a combination of both.
>>
>> Oh sure.
>>
>> http://www.national.com/rap/Story/0,1562,3,00.html
>>
>
> I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo
> and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that
> same
> music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about all
> those
> spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the difference.
> If
> the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the same
> good sound.

I can't tell if you're being facetious here--telephone is carried digitally
these days with a frequency range typically of 300-3400 Hz--that's all that
gets encoded in the cells and all that is carried, and it's often carried
over fiber optics. The "splices and interconnections" have little effect
compared to that.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Don't blame
>> Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system.
>>
>> The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you
>> don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them
>> Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged.
>
> It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is
> immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is unethical
> lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how.

Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the legal
system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you know.

I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time, and he
was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that because
lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny minorities their
services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be disbarred for turning
down a case for any reason other than that he simply was too swamped with
work to take on another one. So somebody comes along and says "I want to
sue McDonalds because I spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them
out of it but if they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has
to take the case, even if he doesn't want to.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Brian Henderson wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:31:33 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, they have to protect their trademark, but their trademark is
>>"Monster
>>Cable". If somebody started selling cable as "Monsters Cable" or "Mobster
>>Cable" or "Monster Wire" or something else that could be easily confused
>>with their trademark then they'd have a legitimate case, but no sane
>>person is going to confuse snowboarding videos or an animated feature film
>>with overpriced glorified lamp cord.
>
> Sure, but how the hell is Disney's "Monsters Inc." going to be
> confused with Monster Cable? Or Monster.com? Or any of the other
> companies they are throwin frivilous lawsuits at? How are they
> protecting their trademark?
>
> You are aware that in order for the suit to be valid, there has to be
> a chance that an individual would MISTAKE one company or their
> products for another, right?

If you reread what I wrote you will find that that is what I said.

> It'll get thrown out.

Which, the case asking that the court rule that the snowboarding video
producer's trademark does not infringe Monster or the typical suit Monster
brings against a company that uses the name?

If the latter, Monster is banking that it will never get to court, that
whoever they go after will instead roll over and settle.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:20:25 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Suits like this have been rejected by the courts out of hand in the US.
>
> Well that's alright and Monster aren't actually doing this then,
> are they ?

I don't think you understand how the system works. They sue. It's going to
cost somebody a huge amount of money to defend even if the defense is
likely to be successful, and the wrangling will likely go on for years. So
instead the defendant caves and settles for an amount that will be less
than the cost of the defense. So Monster makes bucks, the lawyers on both
sides make bucks, and the defendant is just screwed.

If the defendant actually has the resources and determination to go to
trial, then he is very likely to win in the sort of suit that Monster has
been bringing, but most don't have the resources to do that.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bingo!

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Umm, they are large diameter transparent insulators with tiny wires
running
> through them.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> > Check around - you'll find more than a few players who have preferences
> for
> > battery type based on what they hear. Mostly it's because of the effect
> > that the brand of battery's decay had on the pedal. It's more common than
> > you think.
>
> Lots of experience with musicians, Mike? You gotta watch'em ... they'll have
> you believing anything you're gullible enough to swallow, and someone has
> definitely pulled your leg.
>
> What they didn't clue you into is that the very idea itself has been a
> source of derision and jokes amongst damn near every musician since effects
> pedals were invented.

I got a rumour started once when the Hill Plasmatronics helium
loudspeakers hit the market, that *I* could hear the difference between
medical helium and the stuff for balloons. *G*

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "mark" wrote in message
>
> > Besides, I'm a drummer, I just hang out with the musicians.
>
> LOL ... it's good to know that at last some drummers know their place!
>
> ;>)

hehehehe..somebody has to drive the bus...

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> > Actually, this is quite common.
>
> Well, I don't know if I would go that far ... but Eric Johnson has proven
> that at least he can, so I am sure there are others.
>
> I mean, I've been known to be more than a bit picky about my monitor mix and
> how I hear my bass on stage in relation to the rest of the band, but the
> "brand" of battery in an effects pedal is a wee bit over-the-top, IMO. :)

Bass, eh?..*G*..Reminded me of this joke:


An anthropologist decides to investigate the natives of a far-flung
tropical island. He flew there, found a guide with a canoe to take him
up the river to the remote site where he would make his collections.
About noon on the second day of travel up the river they began to hear
drums. Being a city boy by nature, the anthropologist was disturbed by
this. He asked the guide, "What are those drums?"
The guide turned to him and said "Drums OK, but VERY BAD when they
stop."

Then, after some hours, the drums suddenly stopped! This hit the
anthropologist like a ton of bricks, and he yelled at the guide: "The
Drums have stopped, what happens now?"

The guide crouched down, covered his head with his hands and said,
"Bass Solo".

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was once told that the electrons really do not care how they get to the
> speaker.

You KNOW they care... they ALL do...
Somewhere along the line, electrons got a bad rap for that..

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am thinking the 25 cent speaker in the hand set may factor in.

*wiping the monitor*

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Seems like instead of a subjective test, someone with the resources of
> Stereo review could have done a bona-fide quantitative measurement by using
> an audio sweep generator and a spectrum analyzer in a sound chamber. I'm
> guessing that the spectral response of equivalent gauge conductors,
> properly connected would have been nearly indistinguishable from one
> another.
>
> [but then again, I could be wrong]
>

BTDT.. you are not wrong. You're well into the MHz ranges and different
wave-forms before anything starts to show up.

r

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This type
> stuff is where the profit is for these guys,

Hell yes. Back in vinyl era, my fiend's audio store in Toronto would
make more money on the peripherals when a system was sold than on the
system itself. Record cleaners, Decca brush, Yes...wires, Antistatic
stuff, extra gummy turn-table mats and so on...

These days... he sells digital cameras. $30 dollars profit on a $300
name-brand camera....if he's lucky. $100 worth of accessories, like a
bag and a tripod, charger, yada yada $50 dollars profit.

When I was manufacturing loudspeakers, I made some decent money on my
optional stands.

So Leon..and I admit that I have difficulty saying this at the best of
times to anybody... but..you are right. <G>

And if you are right...that would make me???....waitasecond...I have to
rephrase all of this...LOL

Have a nice weekend..

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I once had a certified gold set of way better than average ears, have
> recorded and mixed over 200 albums with these same ears, and I was always of
> the opinion that anyone who falls for Monster's claims has too much spare
> change, along with a large helping of naiveté.

Say it ain't so, Swingman!!!

I have conducted and participated in many double blind listening tests
at the National Research Council in Ottawa Canada.
Dr. Floyd Toole was the head honcho there in those days. (Now, I think
he heads up research for Harman Int'l, JBL..last I heard.)
Scott Bagby (Paradigm) Paul Barton (PSB) Martin Stec & yours truly
(Ångstrom Labs) we all participated in tests that proved conclusively
that if you don't know what you're listening to, all the rules change.
Monster Cables are bullshit.
Don't just boycot Monster Cable..boycot the stores that sell their
rubbish.
I want to meet the guy who can tell me he can hear 'skin effect' at
100KHz.
Linear crystal oxygen free brains?? Maybe.
The only time we had some limited succes in statistically repeating
aubible differences between components was when we ventured into
electro-mechanical devices such as speakers and phono-cartridge/tone-arm
combos, microphones etc.
But amplifiers and wires and stuff? If you had absolute certainty that
the soundpressure levels of the tests were dead-nuts in amplitude
between components... then it become every difficult to tell
differences. Most differences were heard when amplifiers were driven to
distraction and started clipping. (Those Quad 405's sounded pretty damn
sweet just prior to destruction..*S*)
Harry Pearson can kiss my ass. 'Gravelly bass, white chocolate midrange,
pebbly top-end included.

But.. having said all that, do you have a source for green magic markers?

Will I get a better cut on my TS if I park it on pennies? It is a moving
coil, after all...

*S*

Rob----> who also had a set of golden ears once..... a Labrador. G

E=MC^2 ± 3dB

In article <wEVDd.45781$nN6.41593@edtnps84>,
"Nirodac Yar" <[email protected]> wrote:




[snipporectomy]

> because they determined that that was the minimum amount of
> bandwidth required to transmit intelligent speech.

Don't think so..... I listened to my ex-wife on the phone.. NO
intelligent speech was heard.



Rob

E=MC^2 ± 3 dB

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > For the benefit of those of us wanting to upgrade speakers, but don't have
> > the knowledge to "know what we don't know", what are the brands that rival
> > Bose in sound?
>
> Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get free in
> cereal boxes.
>
>

and even the cereal boxes themselves...Lots of snap, crackle.......

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

[pardon the snip]

Remember, however, that it was a measurable
> characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound
> different from the other cables.

That slightly higher resistance (fractions of ohms per foot) can
actually have a pleasant effect on the audio experience. Remember when
'damping' was a buzz-word?.....LOL

At Bruel & Kjaer in Denmark. IIRC, (or was it at Dynaudio...mmm) they
did an experiment with a nifty control circuit which could 'dial in'
harmonic distortion. I forgot the numbers, but the amount of even order
distortion a human being can put up with before it is noticed is
absolutely amazing...like 10% (Odd order was much more noticeable)

We are woodworkers here.. let's talk about loudspeaker cabinet design
and materials *VBS*

Rob

E=MC^2 ? 3dB