(again) Monster cable alternatives, and is it all worth it anyway.

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this, because
variations have been asked a million times here. I've read through a number
of them, but would like another stab at it.

AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.

1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
2. Acoustic Research
3. Monster

Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.

One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each situation
is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand from which all
things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the vaguest of vague
notions that monster is probably a little better than AR, but only in some
situations and not really worth it.


--
"Realtor" and "realty" are pronounced "reel'-tor" and
"reel'-tee", *not* "reel'-a-tor" and "reel'-i-tee" !!!!
If you pronounce them when the extra syllable, you will
sound like a complete idiot.

[ScottW]

Whats the Home Depot brand... RCA?

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:Ke2ne.5436$zb.4004@trndny06...
>
> Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this,
because
> variations have been asked a million times here. I've read through a
number
> of them, but would like another stab at it.
>
> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.
>
> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
> 2. Acoustic Research
> 3. Monster
>
> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
> loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.
>
I'm afraid you've been taken in by advertising. The AR brand is available as
a generic from
Parts Express: http://www.partsexpress.com/
There is no apparent brand difference, even though the manufacturers spend
millions of dollars on branding exercises to brainwash you, nor is there any
reason to believe that Monster is "better".

In my experience, there are some sonic differences, but these have to do
with the specific, unusual construction of the cable that is not found in
mainstream product such as you are considering. It is not related to general
quality. I have heard a rather unusual cable, made of twisted pair embedded
in Kapton, but it is not priced to interest either you or me.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:42:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
om> wrote:

>
>One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
>determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each situation
>is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand from which all
>things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the vaguest of vague
>notions that monster is probably a little better than AR, but only in some
>situations and not really worth it.

Assuming well-fitting, clean connectors and cable of adequate robust
construction, it's probably the same as in the audio world. The
difference between utility connections and premium ones is the price.
Period.

Monster have a particular reputation for being way overpriced and
rather tatty.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 5/31/2005, Laurence Payne managed to type:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:42:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote:
>
>>
>> One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
>> determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each situation
>> is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand from which all
>> things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the vaguest of vague
>> notions that monster is probably a little better than AR, but only in some
>> situations and not really worth it.
>
> Assuming well-fitting, clean connectors and cable of adequate robust
> construction, it's probably the same as in the audio world. The
> difference between utility connections and premium ones is the price.
> Period.
>
> Monster have a particular reputation for being way overpriced and
> rather tatty.

For us on the other side of the pond, Was bedeutet 'tatty'?

Oh, sorry - What does 'tatty' mean?

I looked it up in the only dictionary of British slang I know about,
but it wasn't there (and I would love to add it to my ammunition
against Monster!).

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

[David Harper]

"Gene E. Bloch" > wrote in message > For us on the
other side of the pond, Was bedeutet 'tatty'?
>
> Oh, sorry - What does 'tatty' mean?
>
> I looked it up in the only dictionary of British slang I know about, but
> it wasn't there (and I would love to add it to my ammunition against
> Monster!).

Google is your friend. Enter "Define: tatty", without the quotes.

- David Harper

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 5/31/2005, David Harper managed to type:
> "Gene E. Bloch" > wrote in message > For us on the
> other side of the pond, Was bedeutet 'tatty'?
>>
>> Oh, sorry - What does 'tatty' mean?
>>
>> I looked it up in the only dictionary of British slang I know about, but it
>> wasn't there (and I would love to add it to my ammunition against
>> Monster!).
>
> Google is your friend. Enter "Define: tatty", without the quotes.
>
> - David Harper

Google is more my friend than I knew :-)

Thanks for the pointer.

But now I have to decide which of two meanings was meant (just kidding
- it's clear from the context).

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

[Trevor Wilson]

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:Ke2ne.5436$zb.4004@trndny06...
>
> Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this,
> because variations have been asked a million times here. I've read
> through a number of them, but would like another stab at it.
>
> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.

**There are many hundreds of different types of interconnects.

>
> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars

**Nope. Figure on about US$0.50.

> 2. Acoustic Research
> 3. Monster

**+ Several hundred others.

>
> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
> loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.

**Try Apature. The trick to buying cables, is to find a manufacturer who
does NOT advertise. Ultimately, it is the consumer who pays for advertising.
When I used Apature, they were very low profile and thus, hard to find. They
manufactured an identical cable (different printing on the covering) to a
major manufacturer, but at around 20% of the price. Another of my
favourites, albeit quite expensive and relatively high profile is Cardas. I
don't, for one milisecond, buy their storyline, but the stuff does sound
nice. I have no idea why.

>
> One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
> determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each
> situation is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand
> from which all things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the
> vaguest of vague notions that monster is probably a little better than AR,
> but only in some situations and not really worth it.


**Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects, will
depend on several factors:

* The type and impedances of the sources and loads.
* The 'transparency' of the equipment used.
* The hearing acuity of the listener.

For instance: If you're using standard HT gear and watching movies, spend
US$0.50 on cables. There is no point spending any more. If you have good
sound only system (not SET crap) and you like listening to quality music,
which has been well recorded, then you MIGHT hear a difference between SOME
cables.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:42:50 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote:
>
> >
> >One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
> >determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each situation
> >is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand from which all
> >things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the vaguest of vague
> >notions that monster is probably a little better than AR, but only in some
> >situations and not really worth it.
>
> Assuming well-fitting, clean connectors and cable of adequate robust
> construction, it's probably the same as in the audio world. The
> difference between utility connections and premium ones is the price.
> Period.
>
> Monster have a particular reputation for being way overpriced and
> rather tatty.

I call 'em tighty... an overly tight monster interconnect cost me a
solder joint on my preamp. They suck.

ScottW

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Trevor Wilson coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote in
> message news:Ke2ne.5436$zb.4004@trndny06...
>>
>> Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this,
>> because variations have been asked a million times here. I've read
>> through a number of them, but would like another stab at it.
>>
>> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
>> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction
>> here.
>
> **There are many hundreds of different types of interconnects.

I said "essentially". By far the greatest collection are the three
categories I listed, or so I think. I'm just as likely to be wrong here I
suppose, because I am not an av-phile.


>
>>
>> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
>
> **Nope. Figure on about US$0.50.

I didn't say "the most inexpensive is 6 to 12 dollars". I was talking about
the breed of cable that is for the most part inexpensive and around 6 to 12
dollars.

Besides, the absolute cheapest of the cheapest I could find for a/v was $3
for a 6 footer. Where can I get even a 3' for $0.50???



>
>> 2. Acoustic Research
>> 3. Monster
>
> **+ Several hundred others.

Are there really several hundred others? Several /hundred/ above $12 and
below $6? Even if so, I'm talking about the most common ones.


>> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone
>> particularly loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or
>> M.
>
> **Try Apature. The trick to buying cables, is to find a manufacturer
> who does NOT advertise. Ultimately, it is the consumer who pays for
> advertising. When I used Apature, they were very low profile and
> thus, hard to find. They manufactured an identical cable (different
> printing on the covering) to a major manufacturer, but at around 20%
> of the price. Another of my favourites, albeit quite expensive and
> relatively high profile is Cardas. I don't, for one milisecond, buy
> their storyline, but the stuff does sound nice. I have no idea why.

INTERESTING!


>> One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational)
>> metric for determining the quality difference between the 3. Of
>> course, each situation is going to be different, but I pine for a
>> stake in the sand from which all things are measured. Right now,
>> all I have to go on is the vaguest of vague notions that monster is
>> probably a little better than AR, but only in some situations and
>> not really worth it.
>
>
> **Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects,
> will depend on several factors:
>
> * The type and impedances of the sources and loads.
> * The 'transparency' of the equipment used.
> * The hearing acuity of the listener.
>
> For instance: If you're using standard HT gear and watching movies,
> spend US$0.50 on cables. There is no point spending any more. If you
> have good sound only system (not SET crap) and you like listening to
> quality music, which has been well recorded, then you MIGHT hear a
> difference between SOME cables.

Thanks for the information---it helps.


--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...

[Peter]

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in
> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.
>
> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
> 2. Acoustic Research
> 3. Monster
>
> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
> loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.

Look in the Calrad catalog, since they have cables quite similar to Monster
at much, much lower prices, and they even offer "locking" RCA type cables.

But best of all why not purchase your own cable from a store that carries
Belden, Alpha Wire, etc., and make your own cables? This is surely one of
the last ways where DIY still applies with our hobby.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:46:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>**Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects, will
>depend on several factors:

Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
(Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)

[Laurence Payne]

On 31 May 2005 18:53:53 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

> I call 'em tighty... an overly tight monster interconnect cost me a
>solder joint on my preamp. They suck.

Did your preamp have a socket supported only by the circuit board, not
firmly mounted to the chassis? This happens a lot on domestic
equipment. Even expensive audiophile stuff. You'd think the price
would cover a few pennies for a proper mounting.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:11:50 -0700, "Peter" <reply to newsgroup only>
wrote:

>But best of all why not purchase your own cable from a store that carries
>Belden, Alpha Wire, etc., and make your own cables? This is surely one of
>the last ways where DIY still applies with our hobby.

You feel brand-name cable is required?

[Arny Krueger]

ScottW wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:

>> Monster have a particular reputation for being way
overpriced and
>> rather tatty.

Agreed.

> I call 'em tighty... an overly tight monster interconnect
cost me a
> solder joint on my preamp.

We used to hear this same song re: RS Gold interconnects.

> They suck.

Nope crappy preamps and people who don't know how to mate
and unmate connectors...

[George Middius]

'Borgma Alert! Take cover!

Laurence Payne said:

>Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
>(Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)


Greetings, greatly stupid little 'borg. Today's language lesson is designed to
edify you and your craven ilk.

Interconnects are the ***finished*** cables that human beings used to connect
electronic hardware.

Cable is one of the components of interconnects. In addition to cable, the
materials list for interconnects also includes terminations (little pieces of
fabricated metal) and methods of attachment. The terminations take a variety of
forms and the attachments are either chemical or mechanical.

You may now resume picking your nose in Macy's front window.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> I call 'em tighty... an overly tight monster interconnect
>cost me a
>> solder joint on my preamp.

>We used to hear this same song re: RS Gold interconnects.

>> They suck.

>Nope crappy preamps and people who don't know how to mate
>and unmate connectors...


The Monster "Turbine" connectors are a disaster.
Better use Neutrik or WBT.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Laurence Payne]

On 1 Jun 2005 06:39:18 -0700, George Middius
> wrote:

>'Borgma Alert! Take cover!
>
>Laurence Payne said:
>
>>Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
>>(Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)
>
>
>Greetings, greatly stupid little 'borg. Today's language lesson is designed to
>edify you and your craven ilk.
>
>Interconnects are the ***finished*** cables that human beings used to connect
>electronic hardware.
>
>Cable is one of the components of interconnects. In addition to cable, the
>materials list for interconnects also includes terminations (little pieces of
>fabricated metal) and methods of attachment. The terminations take a variety of
>forms and the attachments are either chemical or mechanical.
>
>You may now resume picking your nose in Macy's front window.


Yes dear.
The professional audio world has never heard of interconnects.
Neither had the domestic hi-fi world until a few years ago. We
connected our components with .....now what was the word.......? :_)

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Peter coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote in
>> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
>> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction
>> here. 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
>> 2. Acoustic Research
>> 3. Monster
>>
>> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone
>> particularly loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or
>> M.
>
> Look in the Calrad catalog, since they have cables quite similar to
> Monster at much, much lower prices, and they even offer "locking" RCA
> type cables.
> But best of all why not purchase your own cable from a store that
> carries Belden, Alpha Wire, etc., and make your own cables? This is
> surely one of the last ways where DIY still applies with our hobby.


Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm in the
middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.

I'm assuming that rca is as easy/uneasy as (rf) coax to mount connectors on?
At least RG6 and the like I make myself, but would love to get into making
composite/svideo/component. Are they reliable (if done correctly)?

By the way: svideo seems a dicey thing for a DIYer. There are two coaxes in
there (as I've been educated here.) Doesn't seem to lend itself to crimp
connectors on one connector.....ICBW...



--
"It's easier to be terrified by an enemy you admire."
-Thufir Hawat, Mentat and Master of Assassins to House Atreides

[Trevor Wilson]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:46:05 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>**Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects, will
>>depend on several factors:
>
> Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
> (Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)

**Do you have anything of use to add to the discussion? Or do you wish to
show everyone that you are a moron, incapable of holding a reasonable,
rational discussion?

Thought so.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

It was a weird propietary connector with plastic body that was screwed
to the chassis but the contacts have enough flex in the body along with
the flex in the rear panel that the solder joint at the CCA cracked. I
reflowed it and haven't had a problem since with different
interconnects. The Monsters were are a real bitch to remove.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> >> Monster have a particular reputation for being way
> overpriced and
> >> rather tatty.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I call 'em tighty... an overly tight monster interconnect
> cost me a
> > solder joint on my preamp.
>
> We used to hear this same song re: RS Gold interconnects.
>
> > They suck.
>
> Nope crappy preamps

Yamaha C-70

>and people who don't know how to mate
> and unmate connectors...


I hope this made you feel better. Now go tell your therapist what you
just did.

ScottW

[Laurence Payne]

On 1 Jun 2005 12:38:53 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Nope crappy preamps
>
>Yamaha C-70
>
>>and people who don't know how to mate
>> and unmate connectors...

A quick Google reveals that Yamaha make (or made) a C-70 guitar, a
C-70 electric piano, a C-70 boat motor...

And also a preamp that has sockets with no mounting other than the
soldered connection to the circuit board? Shame!

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:22:38 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>>>**Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects, will
>>>depend on several factors:
>>
>> Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
>> (Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)
>
>**Do you have anything of use to add to the discussion? Or do you wish to
>show everyone that you are a moron, incapable of holding a reasonable,
>rational discussion?
>
>Thought so.


Temper temper! :-)

"Interconnect" is a term invented in audiophile circles. People who
make music, record music professionally find it slightly amusing.

You must be used to having audiophile ideas mocked? Deal with it :-)

[Sander deWaal]

Laurence Payne > said:


>And also a preamp that has sockets with no mounting other than the
>soldered connection to the circuit board? Shame!


Common practice in consumer gear.
The recessed holes in the backpanel are counted upon to keep the
connectors in place, but as Scott noted, there's always some room to
wiggle.

Especially with Monster connectors.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Trevor Wilson]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:22:38 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>**Whether it is worth paying any more than US$0.50 for interconnects,
>>>>will
>>>>depend on several factors:
>>>
>>> Whoops! He calls them interconnects, not cables. Audiophile alert!
>>> (Or he sells them, so must not QUITE state they're snake-oil:-)
>>
>>**Do you have anything of use to add to the discussion? Or do you wish to
>>show everyone that you are a moron, incapable of holding a reasonable,
>>rational discussion?
>>
>>Thought so.
>
>
> Temper temper! :-)
>
> "Interconnect" is a term invented in audiophile circles. People who
> make music, record music professionally find it slightly amusing.

**'Interconect' is a perfectly descriptive, perfectly understandable term,
which is widely used by professionals and amateurs alike.

>
> You must be used to having audiophile ideas mocked?

**Actually, I am acoustomed to wiping the smug smile from the faces of
alleged professionals.


> Deal with it :-)

**I do. Daily.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2005 12:38:53 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Nope crappy preamps
> >
> >Yamaha C-70
> >
> >>and people who don't know how to mate
> >> and unmate connectors...
>
> A quick Google reveals that Yamaha make (or made) a C-70 guitar, a
> C-70 electric piano, a C-70 boat motor...
>
> And also a preamp that has sockets with no mounting other than the
> soldered connection to the circuit board? Shame!

Never heard an RCA receptacle called a socket. In any case there is a
plastic body to a pair of sockets which is screwed to the rear plate
but it doesn't provide enough support to overcome a Monster turbine.

Where could you determine if there is or isn't a mechanical mount to
the RCA jack on the net? I can't see the screws on any photos...black
on black and the manual doesn't show them.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
>
>
> The Monsters were are a real bitch to remove.
>
>

Was this a Monster "Turbine" connector? As Sander noted, they are a
real disaster. A friend had an experience similar to yours (the RCA
jack gave up before the connector did) with an upper end Denon (IIRC)
pre-amp about 10 years ago. It's the bad design of the connector, _not_
user error.

[Laurence Payne]

On 1 Jun 2005 15:07:02 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> And also a preamp that has sockets with no mounting other than the
>> soldered connection to the circuit board? Shame!
>
> Never heard an RCA receptacle called a socket.

Well, you have now :-)

> In any case there is a
>plastic body to a pair of sockets which is screwed to the rear plate
>but it doesn't provide enough support to overcome a Monster turbine.
>
> Where could you determine if there is or isn't a mechanical mount to
>the RCA jack on the net? I can't see the screws on any photos...black
>on black and the manual doesn't show them.

By the op's statement that withdrawing a tight connection caused
stress on a solder joint.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
> and people who don't know how to mate
> and unmate connectors...
>
>

Take it from Arny, he practices mating connectors with the boys in the
basement.

Note, he uses 'RCA' plugs (real cheap ass plugs)



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Jun 2005 12:38:53 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> Nope crappy preamps
>>
>>Yamaha C-70
>>
>>>and people who don't know how to mate
>>> and unmate connectors...
>
> A quick Google reveals that Yamaha make (or made) a C-70 guitar, a
> C-70 electric piano, a C-70 boat motor...
>
> And also a preamp that has sockets with no mounting other than the
> soldered connection to the circuit board? Shame!


Google lies, ask Arny.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> **Actually, I am acoustomed to wiping the smug smile from the faces of
> alleged professionals.
>
>

ok, you're an income tax auditor, big deal!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:11:50 -0700, "Peter" <reply to newsgroup only>
> wrote:
>
>>But best of all why not purchase your own cable from a store that carries
>>Belden, Alpha Wire, etc., and make your own cables? This is surely one of
>>the last ways where DIY still applies with our hobby.
>
> You feel brand-name cable is required?

No, as long as you are able to obtain a detailed description of the raw
cable that you are planning to purchase, and it is fabricated by a
trustworthy manufacturing company. However I do not believe that there will
be large cost differences between brand-name and "unknown manufacturer" raw
cables.

[C what I mean]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> **Actually, I am acoustomed to wiping the smug smile from the faces of
>> alleged professionals.
>>
>>
>
> ok, you're an income tax auditor, big deal!
ROFLMAO!!!!!

Ok.. that was pretty good!

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:36:16 -0700, "Peter" <reply to newsgroup only>
wrote:

>
>"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:11:50 -0700, "Peter" <reply to newsgroup only>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>But best of all why not purchase your own cable from a store that carries
>>>Belden, Alpha Wire, etc., and make your own cables? This is surely one of
>>>the last ways where DIY still applies with our hobby.
>>
>> You feel brand-name cable is required?
>
>No, as long as you are able to obtain a detailed description of the raw
>cable that you are planning to purchase, and it is fabricated by a
>trustworthy manufacturing company.

You mean like Belden?

[Larry Caldwell]

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm in the
> middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.

Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit of
soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.

Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any better
than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.

The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.

[Laurence Payne]

On 2 Jun 2005 11:01:54 -0700, "Larry Caldwell" >
wrote:

>Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit of
>soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>
>Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
>metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
>anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any better
>than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>
>The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.

I am amazed that audiophiles in search of the ultimate connection
don't use tag strips and solder. Difficult to make it expensive
enough to be truly beneficial I suppose :-)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:17:03 +0100, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2005 11:01:54 -0700, "Larry Caldwell" >
>wrote:
>
>>Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit of
>>soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>>
>>Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
>>metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
>>anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any better
>>than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>>
>>The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.
>
>I am amazed

Yes, that much is apparent.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Larry Caldwell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>
>> Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm in the
>> middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.
>
> Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit of
> soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>
> Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
> metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
> anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any better
> than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>
> The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.

**Really? Examples? Evidence?

BTW: I retail cables. I make the most profit margin from the cheapest
cables. Some of my competitors mark up cheap cables to levels which approach
absurdity. I had rectify a bunch of faults in an extremely complex AV system
a few years ago. All the faults were caused by the installer's use of VERY
cheap, crappy cables, which had been manufactured to LOOK like expensive
cables. I buy those cables (more correctly: I CAN buy those cables) for
about AUS$1.60/1 Metre pair. I don't buy them, because they're carp. They
sound like crap (in good systems), they exhibit high levels of capacitance,
have poor shielding and are very poorly terminated. My client showed me his
invoice. He had been charged AUS$167.00 for those cables! I replaced them
with moderately high grade cables, which I charged out at AUS$40.00 each. I
pay $22.00 for those cables. The REALLY exotic cables I sell provide me with
around 30% profit margin.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[severian]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

> BTW: I retail cables. I make the most profit margin from the cheapest
> cables. Some of my competitors mark up cheap cables to levels which
approach
> absurdity. I had rectify a bunch of faults in an extremely complex AV
system
> a few years ago. All the faults were caused by the installer's use of VERY
> cheap, crappy cables, which had been manufactured to LOOK like expensive
> cables. I buy those cables (more correctly: I CAN buy those cables) for
> about AUS$1.60/1 Metre pair. I don't buy them, because they're carp.


Sounds fishy to me...


They
> sound like crap (in good systems), they exhibit high levels of
capacitance,
> have poor shielding and are very poorly terminated. My client showed me
his
> invoice. He had been charged AUS$167.00 for those cables! I replaced them
> with moderately high grade cables, which I charged out at AUS$40.00 each.
I
> pay $22.00 for those cables. The REALLY exotic cables I sell provide me
with
> around 30% profit margin.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Trevor Wilson coughed up:
> "Larry Caldwell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm
>>> in the middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.
>>
>> Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit
>> of soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>>
>> Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
>> metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
>> anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any
>> better than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>>
>> The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.
>
> **Really? Examples? Evidence?
>
> BTW: I retail cables. I make the most profit margin from the cheapest
> cables. Some of my competitors mark up cheap cables to levels which
> approach absurdity. I had rectify a bunch of faults in an extremely
> complex AV system a few years ago. All the faults were caused by the
> installer's use of VERY cheap, crappy cables, which had been
> manufactured to LOOK like expensive cables. I buy those cables (more
> correctly: I CAN buy those cables) for about AUS$1.60/1 Metre pair. I
> don't buy them, because they're carp. They sound like crap (in good
> systems), they exhibit high levels of capacitance, have poor
> shielding and are very poorly terminated. My client showed me his
> invoice. He had been charged AUS$167.00 for those cables! I replaced
> them with moderately high grade cables, which I charged out at
> AUS$40.00 each. I pay $22.00 for those cables. The REALLY exotic
> cables I sell provide me with around 30% profit margin.


I don't think this speaks to the manufacturers markup. When he (larry
caldwell, laurence paine?) was referring to markup, I took that to mean the
profit differences from a manufacturer's cost to his wholesale price. After
all, he *was* talking about the *construction* cost of cables, not the
*resale* cost of cables.



--
With knowledge comes sorrow.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:k5Lne.6612$Sl5.230@trndny08...
> Trevor Wilson coughed up:
>> "Larry Caldwell" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm
>>>> in the middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.
>>>
>>> Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit
>>> of soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>>>
>>> Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
>>> metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
>>> anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any
>>> better than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>>>
>>> The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.
>>
>> **Really? Examples? Evidence?
>>
>> BTW: I retail cables. I make the most profit margin from the cheapest
>> cables. Some of my competitors mark up cheap cables to levels which
>> approach absurdity. I had rectify a bunch of faults in an extremely
>> complex AV system a few years ago. All the faults were caused by the
>> installer's use of VERY cheap, crappy cables, which had been
>> manufactured to LOOK like expensive cables. I buy those cables (more
>> correctly: I CAN buy those cables) for about AUS$1.60/1 Metre pair. I
>> don't buy them, because they're carp. They sound like crap (in good
>> systems), they exhibit high levels of capacitance, have poor
>> shielding and are very poorly terminated. My client showed me his
>> invoice. He had been charged AUS$167.00 for those cables! I replaced
>> them with moderately high grade cables, which I charged out at
>> AUS$40.00 each. I pay $22.00 for those cables. The REALLY exotic
>> cables I sell provide me with around 30% profit margin.
>
>
> I don't think this speaks to the manufacturers markup. When he (larry
> caldwell, laurence paine?) was referring to markup, I took that to mean
> the profit differences from a manufacturer's cost to his wholesale price.

**Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because he did not spell it out. Since he
was speaking about jewellery, we can only assume that he was talking about
retail prices, since few people pay wholesale, or manufacturer's cost for
jewellery. Nevertheless, he has yet to provide the evidence I requested. His
words:

"The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry."

I look forward to seeing the evidence.

After
> all, he *was* talking about the *construction* cost of cables, not the
> *resale* cost of cables.

**Assuming that most people here have to buy through retail outlets for
their cables, it is the retail price which is of most import. And it is with
very cheap cables that retailers have their largest margins.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>**Assuming that most people here have to buy through retail outlets for
>their cables, it is the retail price which is of most import. And it is with
>very cheap cables that retailers have their largest margins.

So you buy for $1, sell for $5. Or you buy for $70, sell for $100.
Which item does you most good?

[Schizoid Man]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>**Assuming that most people here have to buy through retail outlets for
>>their cables, it is the retail price which is of most import. And it is with
>>very cheap cables that retailers have their largest margins.
>
>
> So you buy for $1, sell for $5. Or you buy for $70, sell for $100.
> Which item does you most good?

That would depend on how you analyze your investment. If you use a
logarithmic scale (such as stock charts) it would be the former. If you
use a simple linear scale it would be the latter.

[David]

The cable business is a huge rip-off with prices a factor of 10 higher =
than they should be.

Go to www.monoprice.com to see what cables should really cost. Belkin =
and Monster are outrageous. Others are cashing in also.
I have no affiliation with Monoprice other than a satisfied customer.

David

[Larry Caldwell]

In article >,
(Trevor Wilson) says...

> **Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because he did not spell it out. Since he
> was speaking about jewellery, we can only assume that he was talking about
> retail prices, since few people pay wholesale, or manufacturer's cost for
> jewellery. Nevertheless, he has yet to provide the evidence I requested. His
> words:
>
> "The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry."
>
> I look forward to seeing the evidence.

I think the comparison between cables and jewelry was apt. Jewellers
take a polished rock and a stamped piece of metal, put them together,
and sell them for a minimum of 3x the total cost of parts and labor.
Cable manufacturers take a hunk of wire and a couple press fit fittings,
put them together, and sell them for a similar markup. If they really
want to charge a premium, they dust the connections with solder powder
and hit them with a heat gun before they mold the plastic on. That and
the half cent of gold plating ends up costing the consumer $100.

I don't know what you thought you were doing, but you weren't selling
cables, you were just providing them as an accessory to whatever you
were really selling. If you were dumb enough to get ripped off like
Clueless Joe Consumer, it's no wonder you are out of the business.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

[Slalomguy]

go to harvey norman and see what they are
pushing,monster,monster.................

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote in message
> news:k5Lne.6612$Sl5.230@trndny08...
>> Trevor Wilson coughed up:
>>> "Larry Caldwell" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I checked that at RS, and they have no way to do it, and I'm
>>>>> in the middle of nowhere, so It'll have to be internet.
>>>>
>>>> Check again, though the RCA plugs that fit coax require quite a bit
>>>> of soldering for a good connection. RS does sell them.
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to popular mythology, the best connectors are metal to like
>>>> metal. Plain tin plugs in a plain tin jack will work as well as
>>>> anything. Monster cables may look cute, but they don't work any
>>>> better than soldering iron specials that only cost a few pennies.
>>>>
>>>> The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry.
>>>
>>> **Really? Examples? Evidence?
>>>
>>> BTW: I retail cables. I make the most profit margin from the cheapest
>>> cables. Some of my competitors mark up cheap cables to levels which
>>> approach absurdity. I had rectify a bunch of faults in an extremely
>>> complex AV system a few years ago. All the faults were caused by the
>>> installer's use of VERY cheap, crappy cables, which had been
>>> manufactured to LOOK like expensive cables. I buy those cables (more
>>> correctly: I CAN buy those cables) for about AUS$1.60/1 Metre pair. I
>>> don't buy them, because they're carp. They sound like crap (in good
>>> systems), they exhibit high levels of capacitance, have poor
>>> shielding and are very poorly terminated. My client showed me his
>>> invoice. He had been charged AUS$167.00 for those cables! I replaced
>>> them with moderately high grade cables, which I charged out at
>>> AUS$40.00 each. I pay $22.00 for those cables. The REALLY exotic
>>> cables I sell provide me with around 30% profit margin.
>>
>>
>> I don't think this speaks to the manufacturers markup. When he (larry
>> caldwell, laurence paine?) was referring to markup, I took that to mean
>> the profit differences from a manufacturer's cost to his wholesale price.
>
> **Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because he did not spell it out. Since
> he was speaking about jewellery, we can only assume that he was talking
> about retail prices, since few people pay wholesale, or manufacturer's
> cost for jewellery. Nevertheless, he has yet to provide the evidence I
> requested. His words:
>
> "The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry."
>
> I look forward to seeing the evidence.
>
> After
>> all, he *was* talking about the *construction* cost of cables, not the
>> *resale* cost of cables.
>
> **Assuming that most people here have to buy through retail outlets for
> their cables, it is the retail price which is of most import. And it is
> with very cheap cables that retailers have their largest margins.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:44:50 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion , Laurence
Payne > in
> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:17:19 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>
>>**Assuming that most people here have to buy through retail outlets for
>>their cables, it is the retail price which is of most import. And it is with
>>very cheap cables that retailers have their largest margins.
>
>So you buy for $1, sell for $5. Or you buy for $70, sell for $100.
>Which item does you most good?

Depends on what is the limiting factor in your business. If your
problem is capital, the first item can be great.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Larry Caldwell" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> (Trevor Wilson) says...
>
>> **Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because he did not spell it out. Since
>> he
>> was speaking about jewellery, we can only assume that he was talking
>> about
>> retail prices, since few people pay wholesale, or manufacturer's cost for
>> jewellery. Nevertheless, he has yet to provide the evidence I requested.
>> His
>> words:
>>
>> "The mark-up on cables is even worse than the 300% mark-up on jewelry."
>>
>> I look forward to seeing the evidence.
>
> I think the comparison between cables and jewelry was apt. Jewellers
> take a polished rock and a stamped piece of metal, put them together,
> and sell them for a minimum of 3x the total cost of parts and labor.

**Good. Show us the actual evidence. Show me the trail which leads you to
believe that there is a 300% markup. After you do that, show us the evidence
that (ALL) cable manufacturers make more than 300%.

> Cable manufacturers take a hunk of wire and a couple press fit fittings,
> put them together, and sell them for a similar markup. If they really
> want to charge a premium, they dust the connections with solder powder
> and hit them with a heat gun before they mold the plastic on. That and
> the half cent of gold plating ends up costing the consumer $100.

**Does it? Show us your costings, with some actual evidence. I make cables
for my clients, when they require custom lengths. I make around 50% profit
on materials + my labour (AUS$80.00+tax/hour). Some cables may cost
consideraby more than $100.00. At no time do I make 300% on any fancy
cables. OTOH, I make considerably more on cheap cables. I buy cheap cables
for AUS$1.50 ~ $2.00. I then retail them for 5 or 6 Bucks. Fancy cables may
typically cost me around AUS$100.00 in materials (Nuetrik connectors, et al)
and about AUS$40.00 in labour. I would sell such a cable for about
AUS$200.00. Where is the 300%+ you speak of? Show us the actual evidence.

>
> I don't know what you thought you were doing, but you weren't selling
> cables, you were just providing them as an accessory to whatever you
> were really selling. If you were dumb enough to get ripped off like
> Clueless Joe Consumer, it's no wonder you are out of the business.

**Out of what business?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Slalomguy" > wrote in message
...
> go to harvey norman and see what they are
> pushing,monster,monster.................

**So? what's your point? They don't make 300% on Monster products. Nothing
even close to 300%.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Thomas G. Marshall]

David coughed up:
> The cable business is a huge rip-off with prices a factor of 10
> higher than they should be.
>
> Go to www.monoprice.com to see what cables should really cost. Belkin
> and Monster are outrageous. Others are cashing in also.
> I have no affiliation with Monoprice other than a satisfied customer.
>
> David


Hey thanks for the tip!

--
Enough is enough. It is /not/ a requirement that someone must google
relentlessly for an answer before posting in usenet. Newsgroups are
for discussions. Discussions do /not/ necessitate prior research. If
you are bothered by someone asking a question without taking time to
look something up, simply do not respond.

[Slalomguy]

100% profit on a $150 sale ie $75 bucks is more than 300% profit on a $50
sale
I actually bought monster component cable from HN because I wanted the best
for my new plasma
I have since compared it with a cheap component cable from Tricky Dicky and
for the life of me I cant see the difference
So do I think that expensive cables are a con...yes



"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Slalomguy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> go to harvey norman and see what they are
>> pushing,monster,monster.................
>
> **So? what's your point? They don't make 300% on Monster products. Nothing
> even close to 300%.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

[dave weil]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:29:31 GMT, "Slalomguy" >
wrote:

>100% profit on a $150 sale ie $75 bucks is more than 300% profit on a $50
>sale

Properly expressed, the latter case is a 33% profit margin. That's
about normal for MANY goods. Do you complain about the price of a
McDonald's hamburger? Well, you should, since their profit margin on
that burger is probably somewhere around 30%, give or take a few
bucks. Are you complaining about that cheap component cable from
Tricky Dicky? Because the profit margin on that cable is probably
about the same. How about those skiis that you like so much? I'll bet
the markup is about the same.

If you want to REALLY see what cheap goods cost, print yourself up a
business card and go to a trade show and get some quotes on Taiwanese
audio products for your "business". You'd be amazed what goes for
pennies, even blisterpacked and drop shipped to your "warehouse",
especially when you commit to a certain number of cases.

For the manufacturer of those cables, their profit margin is probably
more like 5%, but it's an economy of scale and we're comparing the
difference between manufacturing/wholesale and wholesale/retail. The
wider the distribution and the less narrow the products surveyed, the
lower the profit margin becomes. For instance, to take a simple
example, the profit margin OVERALL for a supermarket chain is somthing
south of 5%. However, if you take a specific product...say bulk coffee
beans...the profit margin IS probably about 30% or even higher. It
pays for all of the coupons that you use for Kraft's Macaroni and
Cheese.

Another more narrow example would be a typical wine list, where the
bottles that you would consider affordable and a 'good value" (all of
those $30 and less bottles), are probably marked up 3.5 - 4 times,
especially when you take case discounts into account. This keeps the
prices of the $100+ bottles from being astronomical. That $300 bottle
of Sassicaia probably cost the establishment $150, whereas that $24
bottle of White Zinfandel only cost $6. However, they know that the
guest would balk at paying $450-500 for that same bottle, while paying
$6 for a glass of wine isn't even blinked at.

Also, the next time you order a $6 Absolut on the rocks - consider
this - that bottle of Abolut holds about 19 such drinks. Priced a
retail bottle of Absolut lately? It's all about what the market can
bear and a look at the overall cost of running the business and
setting pricing structures that make it possible to run that business
in the red.

You might find paying an extra $15 for the name on a set of
interconnects onerous and that's your right. Another wouldn't blink at
paying $100 for a name and that's their right as well, and they're not
crazy for buying a product for reasons OTHER than pure utility, just
as you aren't crazy for not caring what name is on a product or what
the product looks like as long as it performs to your expectation.
That product marketing is the very reason that you can actually buy
whatever you want, because without marketing propping up businesses,
you have no CD player, you have no transistor, you have no plasma TV.
because you wouldn't have companies like Phillips, GE and JVC
reserving mass quantities of development dollars for new and untried
technologies. I'd even argue that without niche companies like Monster
Cable, you probably wouldn't have much of a retail sector, because
it's those billions of "impulse sales" and "relatively" low dollar
items that drives retail sales. You aren't going to keep a store open
by selling plasma TVs.


>I actually bought monster component cable from HN because I wanted the best
>for my new plasma
>I have since compared it with a cheap component cable from Tricky Dicky and
>for the life of me I cant see the difference
>So do I think that expensive cables are a con...yes

Since looking at a cable has little worth other than seeing if the
connectors are different colors and *maybe* you can deduce something
about the coating, it has about as much effectiveness about judging
the efficacy of the product as a printed claim that this cable
"outperforms the cometition", so I think we can discard this as
nothing more than a personal preference based on little basis in fact.
Nothing wrong with THAT, of course.

[Hugh Candlin]

"Slalomguy" > wrote in message
...

> 100% profit on a $150 sale ie $75 bucks is more than 300% profit on a
$50
> sale

For the record, 100% profit on a $150 sale is $150.

100% markup yields 50% profit.
200% markup yields 66% profit.
300% markup yields 75% profit.

100% profit is very rare. Your cost would have to be zero.

[Dave de Villiers]

For clarification:

GPM% is calculated as follows:

GPM% = Profit Value / Sale Value
or: ( Sale Value - Cost Value ) / Sale Value
or: 1 - (Cost Value / Sale Value)

From these:

Profit Value = Sales Value x GPM%
Cost Value = ( 1 - GPM% ) x Sale value
Sale Value = Cost Value / ( 1 - GPM% )

MARK-UP is simple:

For a Mark-Up of 50% where Cost is $100:

Sale Value = Cost Value x ( 1 + Mark-Up %) or 100 x 1.5 = $150.00
For a Mark-Up of 50%, the GPM% is 33.33% ( 1 - ( 100 / 150 ) as %)

These terms are often used interchangeably - a big mistake!

[George Middius]

Dave de Villiers said:

>For clarification:
>Sale Value = Cost Value x ( 1 + Mark-Up %) or 100 x 1.5 = $150.00
>For a Mark-Up of 50%, the GPM% is 33.33% ( 1 - ( 100 / 150 ) as %)
>These terms are often used interchangeably - a big mistake!


Cost of dedication to aBxism: Total embrace of full-on class envy and gouging
out your eyeballs.

Cost of apologizing for the Krooborg: Years and years of being shunned by decent
people on account of the stench of feces.

Value of buying whatever you want to listen to your music: priceless.

[Schizoid Man]

Hugh Candlin wrote:

> "Slalomguy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>100% profit on a $150 sale ie $75 bucks is more than 300% profit on a
>
> $50
>
>>sale
>
>
> For the record, 100% profit on a $150 sale is $150.
>
> 100% markup yields 50% profit.
> 200% markup yields 66% profit.
> 300% markup yields 75% profit.
>
> 100% profit is very rare. Your cost would have to be zero.

Hugh, I hate to be pedantic, but if your costs are zero your profit
won't be 100%, it would be infinite.

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:19:46 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion , Schizoid
Man > in > wrote:

>Hugh Candlin wrote:
>
>> "Slalomguy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>100% profit on a $150 sale ie $75 bucks is more than 300% profit on a
>>
>> $50
>>
>>>sale
>>
>>
>> For the record, 100% profit on a $150 sale is $150.
>>
>> 100% markup yields 50% profit.
>> 200% markup yields 66% profit.
>> 300% markup yields 75% profit.
>>
>> 100% profit is very rare. Your cost would have to be zero.
>
>Hugh, I hate to be pedantic, but if your costs are zero your profit
>won't be 100%, it would be infinite.

No, it would be 100%. That is, 100% of the sale is (gross) profit.
Infinite markup, but only 100% profit.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

[Slalomguy]

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:29:31 GMT, "Slalomguy" >
> wrote:
>>>I actually bought monster component cable from HN because I wanted the
>>>best
>>for my new plasma
>>I have since compared it with a cheap component cable from Tricky Dicky
>>and
>>for the life of me I cant see the difference
>>So do I think that expensive cables are a con...yes
and
dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> Since looking at a cable has little worth other than seeing if the
> connectors are different colors and *maybe* you can deduce something
> about the coating, it has about as much effectiveness about judging
> the efficacy of the product as a printed claim that this cable
> "outperforms the cometition", so I think we can discard this as
> nothing more than a personal preference based on little basis in fact.
> Nothing wrong with THAT, of course.

I did not make myself clear obviously ,but what I intended to say that I
tested the two cables and could see no difference in the pic quality.
As far as looks go Monster wins hands down.

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Slalomguy coughed up:

....[rip]...

> I did not make myself clear obviously ,but what I intended to say
> that I tested the two cables and could see no difference in the pic
> quality. As far as looks go Monster wins hands down.

Nah, I like the AR blue...

--
I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
error and tries to cover it up by thinking
fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
only succeeds in looking worse.

[[email protected]]

Dave Weil wrote:

<snip>
Also, the next time you order a $6 Absolut on the rocks - consider
this - that bottle of Abolut holds about 19 such drinks. Priced a
retail bottle of Absolut lately? It's all about what the market can
bear and a look at the overall cost of running the business and
setting pricing structures that make it possible to run that business
in the red.
<snip>

I think you mean 'black'. ; )
Only the government seems to succeed at running things in the red.

[Mike]

www.ramelectronics.net = very high quality products and excellent service
and delivery.
Call them. cost is 20% - 30% of monster cable.


Mike

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:Ke2ne.5436$zb.4004@trndny06...
>
> Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this,
> because variations have been asked a million times here. I've read
> through a number of them, but would like another stab at it.
>
> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.
>
> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
> 2. Acoustic Research
> 3. Monster
>
> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
> loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.
>
> One of the things I'm missing is a useful (yet conversational) metric for
> determining the quality difference between the 3. Of course, each
> situation is going to be different, but I pine for a stake in the sand
> from which all things are measured. Right now, all I have to go on is the
> vaguest of vague notions that monster is probably a little better than AR,
> but only in some situations and not really worth it.
>
>
> --
> "Realtor" and "realty" are pronounced "reel'-tor" and
> "reel'-tee", *not* "reel'-a-tor" and "reel'-i-tee" !!!!
> If you pronounce them when the extra syllable, you will
> sound like a complete idiot.
>
>

[Mike]

do they sell more than speaker cable?

Mie

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Whats the Home Depot brand... RCA?
>
> ScottW
>

[Mike]

digital connections and cables either work or they don't work unless the
the connector(s) are defective.
some high end cables distortn an analog signal which some prefer.

Mike

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om>
> wrote in message news:Ke2ne.5436$zb.4004@trndny06...
>>
>> Note: I'm expecting to be flamed from here to china for asking this,
> because
>> variations have been asked a million times here. I've read through a
> number
>> of them, but would like another stab at it.
>>
>> AFAICT, the /universe/ uses essentially three kinds of
>> AV/audio/s-video/component cables. I'll gladly accept correction here.
>>
>> 1. The mostly inexpensive ~6 to 12 dollars
>> 2. Acoustic Research
>> 3. Monster
>>
>> Is there a lesser known manufacturer out there than anyone particularly
>> loves that is cheaper, but of similar quality at AR or M.
>>
> I'm afraid you've been taken in by advertising. The AR brand is available
> as
> a generic from
> Parts Express: http://www.partsexpress.com/
> There is no apparent brand difference, even though the manufacturers spend
> millions of dollars on branding exercises to brainwash you, nor is there
> any
> reason to believe that Monster is "better".
>
> In my experience, there are some sonic differences, but these have to do
> with the specific, unusual construction of the cable that is not found in
> mainstream product such as you are considering. It is not related to
> general
> quality. I have heard a rather unusual cable, made of twisted pair
> embedded
> in Kapton, but it is not priced to interest either you or me.
>
>
>
>
>

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:05:43 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:

>digital connections and cables either work or they don't work unless the
>the connector(s) are defective.

Explain that again please? It's an on/off situation except for
connector faults, which can cause other problems? :-)

[Mike]

bad connection(s) can cause intermittent problems.

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:05:43 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>digital connections and cables either work or they don't work unless the
>>the connector(s) are defective.
>
> Explain that again please? It's an on/off situation except for
> connector faults, which can cause other problems? :-)

[Mike]

monoprice has very low prices. have you bought from them? good quality
equipment? good customer service?

Mike

"David" > wrote in message
...
The cable business is a huge rip-off with prices a factor of 10 higher than
they should be.

Go to www.monoprice.com to see what cables should really cost. Belkin and
Monster are outrageous. Others are cashing in also.
I have no affiliation with Monoprice other than a satisfied customer.

David

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Mike coughed up:
> bad connection(s) can cause intermittent problems.

So can top posting after others have bottom posted ;)


>
> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in
> message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:05:43 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>> digital connections and cables either work or they don't work
>>> unless the the connector(s) are defective.
>>
>> Explain that again please? It's an on/off situation except for
>> connector faults, which can cause other problems? :-)



--
Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmal luntilsomeoneramsitupyournose.

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Mike coughed up:
> www.ramelectronics.net = very high quality products and excellent service
> and delivery.
> Call them. cost is 20% - 30% of monster cable.


How come their cheapest "budget" S-Video cables are more expensive then
their better quality "good" S-Video cables ?

http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/s-video.html



--
Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmal luntilsomeoneramsitupyournose.

[Eric]

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:

> How come their cheapest "budget" S-Video cables are more expensive then
> their better quality "good" S-Video cables ?
>
> http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/s-video.html

Gold plated contacts?

[David]

"Mike" > wrote in message =
news:2qpre.10693$lb5.2170@trnddc04...
> monoprice has very low prices. have you bought from them? good =
quality=20
> equipment? good customer service?
>=20
> Mike
>=20
> "David" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> The cable business is a huge rip-off with prices a factor of 10 higher =
than=20
> they should be.
>=20
> Go to www.monoprice.com to see what cables should really cost. Belkin =
and=20
> Monster are outrageous. Others are cashing in also.
> I have no affiliation with Monoprice other than a satisfied customer.
>=20
> David

I have bought video and computer cables from them. Good prices, mostly =
made in China cables, fair shipping costs, and fast delivery. I bought a =
DVI to HDMI cable from them for about $12 that Monster wants $125 for. =
Works great!

David

[Mike]

t.m.t.o.y.h.?

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:vzsre.5009$Nx1.2677@trndny05...
> Mike coughed up:
>> bad connection(s) can cause intermittent problems.
>
> So can top posting after others have bottom posted ;)
>
>
>>
>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:05:43 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> digital connections and cables either work or they don't work
>>>> unless the the connector(s) are defective.
>>>
>>> Explain that again please? It's an on/off situation except for
>>> connector faults, which can cause other problems? :-)
>
>
>
> --
> Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmal luntilsomeoneramsitupyournose.
>
>

[Mike]

What do you use s video connections for? It's been many many years since I
had a component that used a S Video connection.
so I haven't checked those prices in many moons. Actually, I don't know
anybody who uses
S video conmnections. You can call them re: the pricing structure. Maybe
it's a misprint.

Mike



"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:CHsre.809$qr1.166@trndny07...
> Mike coughed up:
>> www.ramelectronics.net = very high quality products and excellent service
>> and delivery.
>> Call them. cost is 20% - 30% of monster cable.
>
>
> How come their cheapest "budget" S-Video cables are more expensive then
> their better quality "good" S-Video cables ?
>
> http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/s-video.html
>
>
>
> --
> Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmal luntilsomeoneramsitupyournose.
>
>

[Mike]

This is good, I'll check themm out.

Mike

"David" > wrote in message
...

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:2qpre.10693$lb5.2170@trnddc04...
> monoprice has very low prices. have you bought from them? good quality
> equipment? good customer service?
>
> Mike
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> The cable business is a huge rip-off with prices a factor of 10 higher
> than
> they should be.
>
> Go to www.monoprice.com to see what cables should really cost. Belkin and
> Monster are outrageous. Others are cashing in also.
> I have no affiliation with Monoprice other than a satisfied customer.
>
> David

I have bought video and computer cables from them. Good prices, mostly made
in China cables, fair shipping costs, and fast delivery. I bought a DVI to
HDMI cable from them for about $12 that Monster wants $125 for. Works great!

David

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Mike coughed up:

> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> om> wrote in
> message news:vzsre.5009$Nx1.2677@trndny05...

>> Mike coughed up:

>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in
>>> message ...

>>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:05:43 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:

>>>>> digital connections and cables either work or they don't work
>>>>> unless the the connector(s) are defective.

>>>> Explain that again please? It's an on/off situation except for
>>>> connector faults, which can cause other problems? :-)

>>> bad connection(s) can cause intermittent problems.

>> So can top posting after others have bottom posted ;)

> t.m.t.o.y.h.?

Yep. :)

--
Sometimes life just sucks and then you live.

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Mike coughed up:
> What do you use s video connections for? It's been many many years
> since I had a component that used a S Video connection.

Many mid-level tv's have that as the *highest* quality connector. Mine
does.

....[rip]...

--
Sometimes life just sucks and then you live.

[Mike]

Yeah, but do you use it for anything?

Mike'
"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:6C4se.3937$kl1.2258@trndny08...
> Mike coughed up:
>> What do you use s video connections for? It's been many many years
>> since I had a component that used a S Video connection.
>
> Many mid-level tv's have that as the *highest* quality connector. Mine
> does.
>
> ...[rip]...
>
> --
> Sometimes life just sucks and then you live.
>
>

[Dave Martindale]

"Mike" > writes:
>Yeah, but do you use it for anything?

I use an S-video connection from DVD player to TV.

The DVD player supports progressive scan and component output, but the
(older) TV supports neither of those. The only options are interlaced
scan via S-video or plain old composite input. S-video is the better of
the two options, so that's what I use.

It should at least avoid some luminance/chroma errors. It might even
allow full-bandwidth luma, without a notch in the luma around the colour
subcarrier frequency. Someday I'll have to get a test disc to check.

Dave

[Mike]

Oohhh, thats's brutal.

Good luck,

Mike

"Dave Martindale" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike" > writes:
>>Yeah, but do you use it for anything?
>
> I use an S-video connection from DVD player to TV.
>
> The DVD player supports progressive scan and component output, but the
> (older) TV supports neither of those. The only options are interlaced
> scan via S-video or plain old composite input. S-video is the better of
> the two options, so that's what I use.
>
> It should at least avoid some luminance/chroma errors. It might even
> allow full-bandwidth luma, without a notch in the luma around the colour
> subcarrier frequency. Someday I'll have to get a test disc to check.
>
> Dave

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Mike coughed up:
> Oohhh, thats's brutal.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Mike
>
> "Dave Martindale" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mike" > writes:
>>> Yeah, but do you use it for anything?
>>
>> I use an S-video connection from DVD player to TV.
>>
>> The DVD player supports progressive scan and component output, but
>> the (older) TV supports neither of those. The only options are
>> interlaced scan via S-video or plain old composite input. S-video
>> is the better of the two options, so that's what I use.
>>
>> It should at least avoid some luminance/chroma errors. It might even
>> allow full-bandwidth luma, without a notch in the luma around the
>> colour subcarrier frequency. Someday I'll have to get a test disc
>> to check.

I was so frustrated by a recent composite->svideo fuzziness that I was
experiencing (before I learned that it was due to a lack of a comb filter)
that I was honestly considering cutting off my nose to spite my face by
seeing if I couldn't tunnel everything via 300 Ohm 2-conductor cable, like
the old days. ;)

--
Having a dog that is a purebred does not qualify it for breeding. Dogs
need to have several generations of clearances for various illnesses
before being bred. If you are breeding dogs without taking care as to
the genetic quality of the dog (again, being purebred is *not* enough),
you are what is known as a "backyard breeder" and are part of the
problem. Most of the congenital problems of present day dogs are
traceable directly to backyard breeding. Spay or neuter your pet
responsibly, and don't just think that you're somehow the exception and
can breed a dog without taking the care described.

[Mike]

Treat yourself and buy a HD TV w/ HDMI.

Mike

"Thomas G. Marshall" om>
wrote in message news:7bHse.5899$eC1.182@trndny04...
> Mike coughed up:
>> Oohhh, thats's brutal.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> "Dave Martindale" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mike" > writes:
>>>> Yeah, but do you use it for anything?
>>>
>>> I use an S-video connection from DVD player to TV.
>>>
>>> The DVD player supports progressive scan and component output, but
>>> the (older) TV supports neither of those. The only options are
>>> interlaced scan via S-video or plain old composite input. S-video
>>> is the better of the two options, so that's what I use.
>>>
>>> It should at least avoid some luminance/chroma errors. It might even
>>> allow full-bandwidth luma, without a notch in the luma around the
>>> colour subcarrier frequency. Someday I'll have to get a test disc
>>> to check.
>
> I was so frustrated by a recent composite->svideo fuzziness that I was
> experiencing (before I learned that it was due to a lack of a comb filter)
> that I was honestly considering cutting off my nose to spite my face by
> seeing if I couldn't tunnel everything via 300 Ohm 2-conductor cable, like
> the old days. ;)
>
> --
> Having a dog that is a purebred does not qualify it for breeding. Dogs
> need to have several generations of clearances for various illnesses
> before being bred. If you are breeding dogs without taking care as to
> the genetic quality of the dog (again, being purebred is *not* enough),
> you are what is known as a "backyard breeder" and are part of the
> problem. Most of the congenital problems of present day dogs are
> traceable directly to backyard breeding. Spay or neuter your pet
> responsibly, and don't just think that you're somehow the exception and
> can breed a dog without taking the care described.
>
>