My Secret Plan To Ruin High End A/V Part 463.

[Arny Krueger]

Just after the first of the year, I received a call from one of the staff
for this CBC show.

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/

We talked for a while and I gave them some names and numbers to talk to and
confirm what I told them.

Here's a web page that described the show that resulted from that
conversation:

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/

Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of legwork.

Just about everything that many of us so-called objectivists have said about
cables is confirmed by what they found.

Here's a link to the video of the show:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv

Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the high end A/V
ragazines treat you like this.

[[email protected]]

Interesting story. Although I'm not sure if those testing instruments
were able to adequately measure the "air" around the picture and sound,
or the spatial quality of the bits themselves.


Arny Krueger > wrote:
: Just after the first of the year, I received a call from one of the staff
: for this CBC show.

: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/

: We talked for a while and I gave them some names and numbers to talk to and
: confirm what I told them.

: Here's a web page that described the show that resulted from that
: conversation:

: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/

: Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of legwork.

: Just about everything that many of us so-called objectivists have said about
: cables is confirmed by what they found.

: Here's a link to the video of the show:

: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv

: Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the high end A/V
: ragazines treat you like this.

[Clyde Slick]

On Feb 21, 5:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Just after the first of the year, I received a call from one of the staff
> for this CBC show.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/
>
> We talked for a while and I gave them some names and numbers to talk to and
> confirm what I told them.
>
> Here's a web page that described the show that resulted from that
> conversation:
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/
>
> Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of legwork.
>
> Just about everything that many of us so-called objectivists have said about
> cables *is confirmed by what they found.
>
> Here's a link to the video of the show:
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv
>
> Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the high end A/V
> ragazines treat you like this.

the video file was messed up, only played partway through
videeo was probably made with cheap cables!

anyway, when i got my setup, i used 2 HDMI cables, costing
$50 each. One went bad, can't cary a signal, maybe a connector,
I replaced it with a $100 cable that hasn't broken YET.
the other $50 cable is still going strong.
can't compare videeo quality though, one runs from blue ray,
the other form the cable box.

[Clyde Slick]

On Feb 21, 5:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Just after the first of the year, I received a call from one of the staff
> for this CBC show.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/
>
> We talked for a while and I gave them some names and numbers to talk to and
> confirm what I told them.
>
> Here's a web page that described the show that resulted from that
> conversation:
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/
>
> Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of legwork.
>
> Just about everything that many of us so-called objectivists have said about
> cables *is confirmed by what they found.
>
> Here's a link to the video of the show:
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv
>
> Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the high end A/V
> ragazines treat you like this.

I also think it depends on the tv.
the SONY XBR4 and XBR5 46" was so much better picture quality than any
of the
other 1080p's, so i would get a good cable for that, why
spend 3 grand and risk degredation.
for one of the other 1080p tv's, i
wouldn't care so much.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On Feb 21, 5:03 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> Just after the first of the year, I received a call from
>> one of the staff for this CBC show.
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/
>>
>> We talked for a while and I gave them some names and
>> numbers to talk to and confirm what I told them.
>>
>> Here's a web page that described the show that resulted
>> from that conversation:
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/
>>
>> Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of
>> legwork.
>>
>> Just about everything that many of us so-called
>> objectivists have said about cables is confirmed by what
>> they found.
>>
>> Here's a link to the video of the show:
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv
>>
>> Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the
>> high end A/V ragazines treat you like this.
>
> the video file was messed up, only played partway through
> videeo was probably made with cheap cables!

Interesting. The file has played perfectly from end to end here in Grosse
Pointe.

> anyway, when i got my setup, i used 2 HDMI cables, costing
> $50 each. One went bad, can't cary a signal, maybe a
> connector, I replaced it with a $100 cable that hasn't
> broken YET.

If the CBC followed my suggestions, the $12.95 cable they tested came from
Parts Express. I have some of my own that seem to be holding up just fine.
They are being used to drive some 1920 x 1200 LCDs.

> the other $50 cable is still going strong.
> can't compare videeo quality though, one runs from blue
> ray, the other form the cable box.

I'm building a HTPC for a friend with a Mitsubishi 72" DLP RPTV. It will
have a Blu-Ray reader.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 21, 5:21*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just after the first of the year, I received a call from one of the staff
> > for this CBC show.
>
> >http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/
>
> > We talked for a while and I gave them some names and numbers to talk to and
> > confirm what I told them.
>
> > Here's a web page that described the show that resulted from that
> > conversation:
>
> >http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2008/02/20/packing_the_deal/
>
> > Obviously the show's staff did an amazing amount of legwork.
>
> > Just about everything that many of us so-called objectivists have said about
> > cables *is confirmed by what they found.
>
> > Here's a link to the video of the show:
>
> >http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/marketplace/packing_the_deal.wmv
>
> > Needless to say, don't hold your breath until any of the high end A/V
> > ragazines treat you like this.
>
> the video file was messed up, only played partway through
> videeo was probably made with cheap cables!

Hee are a couple of things I notice:

1. There's no mention that this show ever talked to GOIA anywhere. I
think he's lying about that. I could pick some political topic that
bushie was making a speech about and claim, with equal proof, that
he'd called me to discuss it first.

2. Did you notice the marketing professor saying that the margins
these stores were operating on for the TVs were "pretty close to the
bone"? So what GOIA and others like him want is "something for
nothing". They want the lowest price on everything. While that may
sound like a great idea, if that was the case, who would actually be
the biggest losers? The consumer.

If the store does not make profit margin somewhere, the store will go
away. It's as simple as that. And there are differences between TV
brands as far as picture quality, build quality, and so on. Not all
$1500 LCD TVs are the same. So the big-ticket item is close to a zero
margin. The store makes its money on accessories. Anybody who has any
experience in the consumer electronics business could've told you that
20 years ago. It's the same for cameras, cars, computers, or nearly
anything else. Now some insane fools want to try to eliminate that
"for the good of the buying public".

OK, now the store has closed and you have to buy things online where
the overhead is very low. Where do you go to see that $1500 TV before
you buy it? You can't. You see a picture of it on your monitor. So the
consumer, in the name of 'saving' a couple of hundred dollars, loses
the ability to see a product before buying it, costs many people their
jobs, and also loses local service. And what do you end up doing?
Buying a name-brand with a good reputation, which is exactly the kind
of thing these boneheads are bitching about in the first place. LOL!

Thankfully, not many people take GOIA and his ilk too seriously.
That's just one of the many reasons they're relegated to the
"crackpot" heap here and elsewhere. They can't think things through
very well.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii, you cheap *******! Have you been diluting your BorgSmugSnot?

> Interesting.

I'm sure we all agree it's a crime that poop-throwing isn't an Olympic
event. You may lick your plate now.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 4:05�pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Arnii, you cheap *******! Have you been diluting your BorgSmugSnot?
>
> > Interesting.
>
> I'm sure we all agree it's a crime that poop-throwing isn't an Olympic
> event. You may lick your plate now.

Any thread started by Arny should contain exactly one message...his.

Boon

[Andrew Barss]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:

: 2. Did you notice the marketing professor saying that the margins
: these stores were operating on for the TVs were "pretty close to the
: bone"? So what GOIA and others like him want is "something for
: nothing". They want the lowest price on everything. While that may
: sound like a great idea, if that was the case, who would actually be
: the biggest losers? The consumer.

: If the store does not make profit margin somewhere, the store will go
: away. It's as simple as that. And there are differences between TV
: brands as far as picture quality, build quality, and so on. Not all
: $1500 LCD TVs are the same. So the big-ticket item is close to a zero
: margin. The store makes its money on accessories. Anybody who has any
: experience in the consumer electronics business could've told you that
: 20 years ago. It's the same for cameras, cars, computers, or nearly
: anything else. Now some insane fools want to try to eliminate that
: "for the good of the buying public".


Great. Feel free to pay more than the asking price if you like -- heck, why
not toss some $20 bills to the store manager as a way of saying thanks for
staying in business?

Your argument is preposterous. Stores have to mke profit somewhere (agreed), and
this justifies having aggressive salespeople push cables on ignorant
customers that they don't need, and which aren't any better than
cheap cables?

-- Andy Barss

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 26, 9:11*am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:
>
> : 2. Did you notice the marketing professor saying that the margins
> : these stores were operating on for the TVs were "pretty close to the
> : bone"? So what GOIA and others like him want is "something for
> : nothing". They want the lowest price on everything. While that may
> : sound like a great idea, if that was the case, who would actually be
> : the biggest losers? The consumer.
>
> : If the store does not make profit margin somewhere, the store will go
> : away. It's as simple as that. And there are differences between TV
> : brands as far as picture quality, build quality, and so on. Not all
> : $1500 LCD TVs are the same. So the big-ticket item is close to a zero
> : margin. The store makes its money on accessories. Anybody who has any
> : experience in the consumer electronics business could've told you that
> : 20 years ago. It's the same for cameras, cars, computers, or nearly
> : anything else. Now some insane fools want to try to eliminate that
> : "for the good of the buying public".
>
> Great. *Feel free to pay more than the asking price if you like -- heck, why
> not toss some $20 bills to the store manager as a way of saying thanks for
> staying in business? *

That wasn't my point.

> Your argument is preposterous. Stores have to mke profit somewhere (agreed), and
> this justifies having aggressive salespeople push cables on ignorant
> customers that they don't need, and which aren't any better than
> cheap cables?

So where do you propose these stores make their margins? If the store
is going to survive they need to make $250 (assuming that the TV cost
is $1000 and assuming they can survive on a 20% margin, which IME is
low).

It's no different than selling leather cell phone holders (which are
no better than vinyl ones. Maybe you don't even need one!) or car
chargers, extra batteries or cases or extra memory for cameras (all of
which are available far cheaper online), or extended warranties.

You claim you agree that stores need profit margin to stay in
business. I ask again: where do you propose they get it? New car
dealers offer rustproofing, floormats, and so one, to try to build
theirs up. Their salespeople are aggressive. Are they evil too?

Say, here's an idea: why don't you sponsor investigations on those?
The margins on those are at least as high.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Feb 26, 9:11 am, Andrew Barss
> > wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Did you notice the marketing professor saying that
>>> the margins these stores were operating on for the TVs
>>> were "pretty close to the bone"? So what GOIA and
>>> others like him want is "something for nothing". They
>>> want the lowest price on everything. While that may
>>> sound like a great idea, if that was the case, who
>>> would actually be the biggest losers? The consumer.
>>
>>> If the store does not make profit margin somewhere, the
>>> store will go away. It's as simple as that. And there
>>> are differences between TV brands as far as picture
>>> quality, build quality, and so on. Not all $1500 LCD
>>> TVs are the same. So the big-ticket item is close to a
>>> zero margin. The store makes its money on accessories.
>>> Anybody who has any experience in the consumer
>>> electronics business could've told you that 20 years
>>> ago. It's the same for cameras, cars, computers, or
>>> nearly anything else. Now some insane fools want to try
>>> to eliminate that "for the good of the buying public".
>>
>> Great. Feel free to pay more than the asking price if
>> you like -- heck, why
>> not toss some $20 bills to the store manager as a way of
>> saying thanks for staying in business?
>
> That wasn't my point.

No, the obvious point of your post is that you wanted to libel me.

>> Your argument is preposterous. Stores have to mke profit
>> somewhere (agreed), and this justifies having aggressive
>> salespeople push cables on ignorant
>> customers that they don't need, and which aren't any
>> better than
>> cheap cables?

> So where do you propose these stores make their margins?

Sales price of the products they sell.

> If the store
> is going to survive they need to make $250 (assuming that
> the TV cost is $1000 and assuming they can survive on a 20% margin,
> which IME is low).

Not all stores rely on packs to survive.