Calling BS on Overpriced Cables

[arth]

Pretty sad that the audio world seems to have become a magnet for con artists.

I think it's even more sad that many of them believe in what they do, and are unable to grasp that what they're doing is no different from healing cancer with crystals or sharpening razor blades by placing them in a pyramid.

That some rich idiots fool themselves into spending thousands of dollars on snake oil means nothing to me, but when regular stores won't even sell "good enough" cables, but only snake oil ones at inflated prices, something is seriously wrong. Don't you Californians have some state mandated consumer protection that can look into this? Up here, it's caveat emptor territory, I'm afraid...

[James Steele]

Ok, that does it. Bring the pitchforks and lanterns...

All I have is a torch? Is that cool or is this a lanterns-mandatory mob gathering?

[Shooshie]

Ok, that does it. Bring the pitchforks and lanterns...

All I have is a torch? Is that cool or is this a lanterns-mandatory mob gathering?

Sure, torches are ok, but did you know that for a mere $4249.97 you can get the lantern mod torch upgrade with titanium bale-handle? The fiber-optic flicker-simulator add-on will make your torch look like those in Lord of the Rings, but it never runs out of fuel, and it lights an entire acre of even the darkest forest. Just an additional $2799.97!


Shoosh

[HCMarkus]

I bought a small TV at Circuit City for my daughter to use at college. The salesman advised me the TV did not include a coax hook up cable in the box, and suggested that I buy one. I asked the sales guy if he sold anything other than Monster Cable. "No we only sell Monster brand, and a three foot coax cable is $24.95."

My wife was somewhat embarassed as the steam erupted from my ears. I noted for the salesman's edification that I could purchase several hundred feet of high quality coax cable (and connectors, too) for this amount of money.

While I completely concur with the sentiments expressed in this thead, I believe many of us have inadvertantly supported the slightly less dramatic distortion (and I don't mean signal distortion, I mean advertising hype) perpetuated by Monster, a company that has managed to gain a virtual stranglehold on the retail cable market with retailers' complicity. Store owners realized a few years back that as long as their shelves don't hold any reasonably-priced cables, equipment buyers will fork over more than they should to get the cables they need to hook up their new gear right away. And the claims made by Monster - as in the now infamous "purpose-built" cables ("jazz", "keyboard", "rock"... yeccch!) have been, in my opinion, just as ridiculous as those asserted by the dancing audiophile noted at this thread's outset.

Thankfully, many online and mail-order retailers sell excellent quality, reasonably priced cables. I encourage musicians and engineers to avoid supporting the Frankenstein® Cable and its ilk hype machines.

So I bought the TV from Circuit City (no one else in Santa Barbara had a TV that was suitable) and took it to the dorm. It connected very nicely to the captive coax cable dangling from the wall. The modest, black coax had been stretched and crimped over the years, painted here and there; it was a tired specimen indeed. The picture looked great anyway. But I couldn't believe the improvement when I patched a three foot, $4,947.50 coax cable with battery bias and skin effect coagulators on the end...

[Shooshie]

You mean...

my Monster Cables...

...are not...

DANCEABLE???


Well, damn! I've never been so pissed off in my life!


Seriously, you do bring up a good point. We act as though anything BEYOND a monster cable is excessive. I don't think I've got a single Monster Cable, but I did buy a very expensive set of RCA cables once, and I can't tell a bit of difference between them and my other cables. I have bought most of my cables second-hand on eBay. Thousands of feet of cable for practically pennies. Snakes, balanced, unbalanced, XLR, TRS, 1/4", TT, and more. I A/B my interfaces all the time, and I can't tell a damn bit of difference. I guess I need one of those bricks.

We need to emphasize that unless you buy the el-cheapo kinds, with the connectors falling off or corroding, and with no shielding, then cables are cables. And I'm not ready to prove that a cable with corrosion and loose connectors functions any worse than a Monster Cable!

Shooshie

[monkey man]

My $0.02: if you can afford $43k speaker cables, you either have too much money, not enough common sense, or a combination of both.

That about sums it up right there.
This is Twighlight Zone stuff to me; I haven't pinched myself, but I have had the odd look around me to varify that I'm awake.

Surely someone could expose these slime-balls by passing signal through both a control and the "knobbed" or "snake-oiled" components and inverting one of them, summing them and showing a zero result?
That'd be real science - testable, provable and repeatable.
Fair dinkum, this is way too much for my typically super-duper-sensitive BS detector to bear.
I need a sense-dep break at this point.

Final thought: If we can take on the pirates, why not these suckas?
There's no money in taking on the pirates, but we do it out of our convictions that the truth is worth suffering for.
The sheer amounts of money involved here give these things major rip-off-value status, and the sooner someone stands up to 'em, the better; you know - nip it in the bud before...

Crikey. Dang. Damn. Geez. Wow.

[Monkey pinches himself, as the subject's now become too surreal for his 24 bit brain to process].

[Jim]

Randi has another $1 Million Challenges issued. You can bet that if he's offering a mil to prove whatever, it can't be done. He offers the reward to draw attention to bogus claims. He's famous for exposing televangelists, spoon benders, dowsers and stigmatists.

It's very effective, but not effective enough. He's offered a million to any "psychic" or "mind-reader" to prove their paranormal powers, nobody's claimed his reward, and yet people still go to psychics.

Hell, I'll do the same thing. I offer a million to anybody who can prove that buying an iPhone makes you cool.

[Matcher]

Randi has another $1 Million Challenges issued. You can bet that if he's offering a mil to prove whatever, it can't be done. He offers the reward to draw attention to bogus claims. He's famous for exposing televangelists, spoon benders, dowsers and stigmatists.

It's very effective, but not effective enough. He's offered a million to any "psychic" or "mind-reader" to prove their paranormal powers, nobody's claimed his reward, and yet people still go to psychics.

This video shows Daniel Tammet playing blackjack http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1292772054

Today's brain research has not been able to explain something like that scientifically, yet it's not considered paranormal. We all know, it could be luck, but judging by the whole document it seems unlikely. If someone had to be given the mil, I'd probably give my vote for Daniel.

Another interesting candidate would be the remote viewers. Here's a document describing scientific research on the subject http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/air2.html

I'm not trying to be Fox Mulder here, but just to give food for thought

[Jim]

This video shows Daniel Tammet playing blackjack http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1292772054

No, this video shows Leonard Nimoy singing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggens. Jokes on us, eh?

You didn't actually read that whole remote viewing page, did you? I browsed it, and even that made my head hurt. This part seemed to sum it up for me:

"For instance, if a few people each night happen to dream of plane crashes, then some will obviously do so on the night before a major plane crash. Those individuals may interpret the coincidental timing as meaningful. This is undoubtedly the reason many people think the reality of psychic functioning is a matter of belief rather than science, since they are more familiar with the provocative anecdotes than with the laboratory evidence."

Humans are easily fooled and are notoriously unreliable witnesses. Ask any cop or DA. Whatever powers one is attempting to prove must be repeatable and empirically observable.

I did find a clip of Daniel Tammet, and he is a savant, which is exceptional, but hardly paranormal or supernatural in the sense that some "divine" force is at play, which is proven by the fact that other savants exist, have existed, and will exist with varying degrees of abilities, and that his talent seems to be confined to the field of math and computing. And it's no small thing that he readily discloses that his powers likely are a side-effect from having epilepsy as a child.

Now, if he could predict the winning lottery numbers in ten guesses out of ten tries, or predict other non-coincidental future events, that'd be more compelling evidence of supernaturalism.



.

[Matcher]

This video shows Daniel Tammet playing blackjack http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1292772054

No, this video shows Leonard Nimoy singing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggens. Jokes on us, eh?

Sorry...I didn't do that on purpose Here's the right link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLzoiVzEY8

..now to read the rest of your post..

[Matcher]

You didn't actually read that whole remote viewing page, did you? I browsed it, and even that made my head hurt. This part seemed to sum it up for me:

"For instance, if a few people each night happen to dream of plane crashes, then some will obviously do so on the night before a major plane crash. Those individuals may interpret the coincidental timing as meaningful. This is undoubtedly the reason many people think the reality of psychic functioning is a matter of belief rather than science, since they are more familiar with the provocative anecdotes than with the laboratory evidence."

It's been a year or so since I spend some hours looking into this stuff, but yes, I read this and a few other documents and articles. There are also better documents that have statistical facts for example, but of course, everything can be argued and I have no problem with that. Just to reply to your quote from the paper, here's a quote from the conclusion:

"It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade."

I did find a clip of Daniel Tammet, and he is a savant, which is exceptional, but hardly paranormal or supernatural in the sense that some "divine" force is at play, which is proven by the fact that other savants exist, have existed, and will exist with varying degrees of abilities, and that his talent seems to be confined to the field of math and computing. And it's no small thing that he readily discloses that his powers likely are a side-effect from having epilepsy as a child.

Yes, this brings us to an interesting subject, what is paranormal-- where to draw the line? Does it require somekind of a divine unique form? I suspect all the instances promising the money for paranormal stuff have their terms and conditions pretty well defined, so that even though something can not be explained, it can be labeled as being normal by a subjective interpretation of the available facts. I mean, there are no scientific hard facts to support the theory that for example Daniel Tammet's abilities are not supernatural, there are only assumptions and beliefs, and those can be argumented with contrary mambo jambos, which draws the line between the ideals of normal and paranormal into water. And if we think of what math and numbers in general have enabled man to do, it's not easy to overestimate the power of it. With Daniel's number memory, he can probably run a kind of binary code through his brain that can carry almost any information he wants, like with the chess board memorizing task in the document.

Now, if he could predict the winning lottery numbers in ten guesses out of ten tries, or predict other non-coincidental future events, that'd be more compelling evidence of supernaturalism.

Yes I agree.

[rentadrummer]

Hell, I'll do the same thing. I offer a million to anybody who can prove that buying an iPhone makes you cool.

No offense, but from what you've said in the past, you're still using a crank phone and have to ask Sarah the operator to connect you to Aunt Bee. I'm not sure you'd be the best judge of iPhone coolness.

And, no, I don't have an iPhone.

[HCMarkus]

You mean...

my Monster Cables...

...are not...

DANCEABLE???


Well, damn! I've never been so pissed off in my life!


Seriously, you do bring up a good point. We act as though anything BEYOND a monster cable is excessive. I don't think I've got a single Monster Cable, but I did buy a very expensive set of RCA cables once, and I can't tell a bit of difference between them and my other cables. I have bought most of my cables second-hand on eBay. Thousands of feet of cable for practically pennies. Snakes, balanced, unbalanced, XLR, TRS, 1/4", TT, and more. I A/B my interfaces all the time, and I can't tell a damn bit of difference. I guess I need one of those bricks.

We need to emphasize that unless you buy the el-cheapo kinds, with the connectors falling off or corroding, and with no shielding, then cables are cables. And I'm not ready to prove that a cable with corrosion and loose connectors functions any worse than a Monster Cable!

Shooshie

Monster cables will make a nice, sturdy noose with which one may hang him or herself out to dry. By holding onto one of those bricks or, better yet, one in each hand while hanging, the hangee enhances the harmonic resonance of his/her death throes. If the observer squints, it almost looks like dancing.

[monkey man]

Monster cables will make a nice, sturdy noose with which one may hang him or herself out to dry. By holding onto one of those bricks or, better yet, one in each hand while hanging, the hangee enhances the harmonic resonance of his/her death throes. If the observer squints, it almost looks like dancing.

HC, I'm concerned that this place is a bad influence on you.
I mean, you started out as such a decent sort of a chap...

[Phil O]

We've got a few young rock ensembles at the school where I teach. The guitar players come with their guitars, but we supply the amps and cords. These kids are rough on cords. One of the guitar teachers at the school thought it would be a good idea to buy Monster cables at Guitar Center with their lifetime guarantee. Buy them once and never have to buy cables again! Sounded good. Well it was costing him too much time and gas money driving to GC every week with a hand full of broken cables. I made him up some cables with Canare GS6 ($ .69/foot at Markertek) and Neutrik plugs. That was two years ago - still going strong, without a single failure.

Phil