[c. leeds]

Here in Ohio wrote:

So it's all in the connectors, huh? The only reason you buy Monster
cables is because of the connectors?

Largely.

They could use any old wire and
you'd still be a loyal Monster fan?

I wouldn't call myself "a loyal Monster fan," although I think calling
them "junk" and "snake-oli" is absurd.

...I haven't seen any evidence that some RCA
connectors allow RFI into the audio system, nor any evidence that the
connectors Monster uses prevent the entry of RFI into the audio
system.

You've never heard of RFI problems in audio systems?

[Walt]

c. leeds wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

What about the dubious claims that Monster makes for the 'sound' of its
cables?

Examples, please.

Here ya go:

From http://www.monstercable.com/home_av/...cables/rca.asp

"The secret of the superb performance of Monster's Interlink
interconnect cables is the precision windings. These windings accurately
control and minimize the amplitude and phase problems caused by
electromagnetic fields."

"M Series audio interconnects are for serious music listeners who want
to enjoy every last nuance of their favorite recordings. They provide
maximum performance down to the last detail-especially in the areas of
soundstage, imaging resolution of inner detail, dynamic range, transient
response, reduction of intertransient noise and overall tonal and
harmonic structure of the music."

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

"Interlink CD was specifically designed to add warmth to digital
recordings, while simultaneously increasing frequency response and
dynamic range for the smoothest, most natural sound from digital
components."

Of course, this is all meaningless technobabble, except for the parts
that are just plain false. For instance, is there any evidence that a
larger gauge for *line level* cables gives deeper bass? Or "tighter"
bass, whatever that may be?

Snake oil. Pure unadulteraded snake oil.

And then there's their outright abuse of standard terminology:

"twisted-pair dual balanced conductors for low noise music
reproduction with fuller, more natural sound."

Sorry, but describing an RCA to RCA cable as "balanced" is bordering on
consumer fraud. How many consumers buy it thinking that they're getting
the benefits of balanced interconnects?

//Walt

[Walt]

Harry Lavo wrote:
If somebody has several thousand dollars involved in a good system, and
wants to spend $35 a cable for Monster as opposed to $10 a cable for some
lesser brand, because they seem to be better built and look and sound good,
and might sound better, what skin is it off your back?


And if somebody spends $50,000 on a system and feels he needs $200
cables to
match that quality, what skin is it off your back?

None whatsoever. Especially if they're honest and say that they're
buying them for the looks.

But if they claim that they are doing it for *auditory* reasons, I'll
take issue. And if someone with a fixed budget for a stereo system is
about to waste 25% of it on cables, I think I'm doing them a favor by
stepping in and telling them to spend their money where it matters.

Sure, it's nice to buy a product that comes is a hand made laquered
mahogany box. Just don't have any illusions that the box makes any
difference to the *functionality* of the product.

If you prefer expensive designer cables for some non-functional fashion
reason, fine. Go for it. Just don't tell me that they *sound* different.

Let's look at it another way.

Do you really think store brand gelatin is much different from Jell-O?

Do you really think store brand american cheese slices are substantially
different from Kraft?

Yet people pay 50%+ for these products every day and are happy.....for a
variety of reasons. And I could name countless hundreds of food products of
a similar nature.

Your analogy breaks down because in most of these cases if you sample
these foods side by side you can actually taste a difference. (I
haven't eaten Jell-O or Kraft American cheese in decades, so I can't
speak to those particular prodects.)

A better analogy is my brother throwing an absolute hissy fit because my
aunt served Welch's grape jelly from the 16 oz jar instead of the 8 oz
Howdy Doody glass. You like the Howdy Doody glass? Fine. But please
admit it ain't about the jelly.

//Walt

[Here in Ohio]

On 14 Nov 2006 23:25:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On 12 Nov 2006 15:38:38 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:


Sounds like over-priced crap to me. As I said in another post, try
some cables from Blue Jeans if you want
higher-quality cables.

That's a subjective judgment, and not proof of nabob's claim that
Monster is "junk" and "snake-oil."

No, it's an objective observation. I can readily get an idea of the
cost of the components that Blue Jeans uses, and I have a very good
idea of their production methods and tooling.

Blue Jeans uses very high-quality components and their production
methods and tooling are superb.

I've taken a few Monster ICs apart, and they were on the "soldering
iron and electrical tape" level of production methods. It looked like
typical cheap crap made somewhere in China.

Yes, and you could wear Blue Jeans to the next Presidential Ball.

But a tuxedo would be more appropriate.

If somebody has several thousand dollars involved in a good system, and
wants to spend $35 a cable for Monster as opposed to $10 a cable for some
lesser brand, because they seem to be better built and look and sound good,
and might sound better, what skin is it off your back?

And if somebody spends $50,000 on a system and feels he needs $200 cables to
match that quality, what skin is it off your back?

I don't care unless they start claiming that Monster Cable stuff is
superior when it objectively is not.

I even pointed out a rational alternative if people need "higher
quality."

Blue Jeans is selling you a quality product for a reasonable price.
Too many of the other vendors are selling you mostly advertising and
smoke and mirrors.

Monster's out of spec connectors that damage things makes it even
worse.

It's really easy to then simply state that Monster sells over-priced
crap. But don't mind me, go ahead and buy their crap if you like it.

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
wrote:
No I gave you the information you needed and you snipped it and ignored
it as I predicted. why Bob? Why does it bother you so much that this
niche market is a strong growth market so much that you would snip the
access to the relevent sources of information and then claim no
evidence was provided?

Doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that people are willing to
make claims they can't back up. And you can't. All you can do is post a
bunch of links to sites of companies that make or sell recordings, with
some vague promise that 'the proof is there' if only I'll go looking
for it. Well, I went--not to all of them, but to a handful. There's not
a shred of data on any of those sites that can support a claim that the
market is growing. If you think there is, please point to it
specifically and explain your reasoning. Otherwise, stop making a claim
you can't support.

One wonders if this putative 'strong growth market' will survive the
final passing of the baby boom generation.

(One doubts it.)

One also has to put a 'growth market' in context of what it's growing
*from* and *to*, not to mention *in comparison with*. To take a wholly
hypothetical example, if wax cylinder sales went from 10 to 100 in a year,
wax cylinder fans could point to that as 'strong growth'...
within an impovershed, miniscule market sector. Brave words like
'strong growth' that help the faithful keep the faith in the face of
such dismal realities.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

[ Moderator's note: This subthread is ended unless something new is
posted. -- deb ]

bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:

Simply, really. If the audiophile labels put out 200 releases 5 years
ago, and they are putting out 200 releases this year, that is not
evidence of a growing market. Just because there are now 1000 titles in
the catalog doesn't mean the market's bigger.

OK this is a fair mistake but a mistake none the less.

I wasn't stating it as a fact. That's what "if" means.

What "if" really tells us in this case is that you are completely out
of touch with this particular niche market. If you were at all familiar
with the patterns of releases over the years you wouldn't have to deal
in hypotheticals.


Some but very
few titles stay in print and available for such extended periods. Many
of them are licenced for limited periods of time and disappear in a
couple years. It's a fair mistake for one to make if they are not
familiar with the rotation patterns of titles in this market. There are
examples of companies like Classics reissuing their own reissues but
they are pretty good about making it clear that is what they are doing.
No need to do that if the original reisssue did not sell out. Titles
regularly sell out and are no longer available or get reissued. That
tells us they are not sitting on the shelves unsold. There are other
companies that manag to keep their back catalog in print and make no
anouncements of second and third runs like Speaker's corner.

Thanks for the info, but it's off point. The point was that a steady
rate of issues is not evidence of a growing market. Neither is a large
current catalog.

No more off point than your assertion since it does not reflect the
reality of the situation. there hasn't been a steady rate of issues but
a substantial increase. so much so that anyone who follows the market
would know this without needing any numbers. Anyone who has followed
the market would no more need numbers to know that the market has grown
substantially than one would ned hard numbers to know there are more
people on the freeways of L.A. than all of Idaho.


Whereas, if there were 100 releases a year 5 years ago, and 200 a year
now, that would be suggestive of a larger market, or at least that the
producers think there's a larger market. (It's only suggestive, of
course, because it says nothing about sales.)

Well, that is more or less what has been happening but by a larger
margin.

Asserted without evidence.

Sorry but that reply is just getting boring. I also asserted that L.A.
has more cars on the freeways than Idaho without evidence. Does that
make the assertion wrong? If you reaaaaaaally want the evidence why not
check the sources? I gave you more than enough leads to find out for
yourself.


It is suggestive of sales unless these companies are being
sponsered by deep pockets. You can't grow a small business over an
extended period of time without sales. Unless someone is digging into
their pockets.



However, an increase over time in
the annual number of releases would constitute evidence of growth in
the market.

Which is exactly what has happened over the past ten to fifteen years
and in a substantial amount.

Asserted without evidence. As usual.

No I gave you the information you needed and you snipped it and ignored
it as I predicted. why Bob? Why does it bother you so much that this
niche market is a strong growth market so much that you would snip the
access to the relevent sources of information and then claim no
evidence was provided?

Doesn't bother me at all.

Really? Then why did you snip the information yet a second time?
hmmmmm. Guess i'll just have to post it again.
http://www.speakerscorner.de/
http://store.acousticsounds.com/sear...ue&LabelID=507

http://www.ciscomusic.com/store/Catalog.html
http://www.sundazed.com/store/
http://www.classicrecords.com/
http://www.recordtech.com/contact.htm
http://www.musicdirect.com/Default.asp
http://www.recordtech.com/customers.htm
http://hollywoodandvine.com/
http://concordmusicgroup.com/
http://www.groovenote.com/
http://www.mofi.com/
http://www.mosaicrecords.com/
email
http://www.warnerbrosrecords.com/

What bothers me is that people are willing to
make claims they can't back up.

So my claim that there are more cars on the freeway in L.A. than Idaho
bothers you too? Let's clear something up right now. There is a big
difference between "can't" and won't. i won't because it would be a
lot of work. now if you want to make a substantial wager and make it
worth my time I'll get you the numbers. If not why should I bother?

And you can't.

I got a thousand bucks say I can!

All you can do is post a
bunch of links to sites of companies that make or sell recordings, with
some vague promise that 'the proof is there' if only I'll go looking
for it.

That's all I can do? Take my bet then.

Well, I went--not to all of them, but to a handful. There's not
a shred of data on any of those sites that can support a claim that the
market is growing.

Actually there is but it would require some math on your part. of
course my suggestion was to actually ask the people at these businesses
for the numbers.

If you think there is, please point to it
specifically and explain your reasoning.

I already suggested that you actually talk to the people that would
have the numbers. I have already explained my reasoning.

Otherwise, stop making a claim

Nope, not gonna stop making a true claim no matter how much it bothers
you.

you can't support.

Wanna bet?


Look, I'm not asking you to renounce Jesus here.

No need, I am an atheist

The audiophile vinyl
market MAY be growing. I've said that.

So what? You don't follow the market, you have no idea either way. I do
follow the market. I have told you the patterns are clear as day and
obvious as the traffic in L.A. v. Idaho. You can believe me or not. I
don't care. Your beliefs have no impact on that market. If you
reaaaaaally wanted to know you would do as I suggested and "ommunicate"
with the people at the links I provided. Did you really expect to find
sales graphs for the previous 15 years at the websites? C,mon, do you
really need me to tell you the obvious way to get the information is to
ask for it ? Jeez.

What I won't concede is that the
market IS growing, based only on your say-so, which is all you've given
me.

And why is that? Do you doubt my claim about traffic? Do you really
think I don't know what I am talking about here?

You've made the claim. You know where the burden of proof lies.

Make it worth my while.........

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

If none or very few of those past records sold and are just sitting in
inventory as you claim, why have those companies been in business for ten
or
more years?

I never said that none have sold. The existence of a back catalog
means that at least *some* have not sold. Obviously, enough have sold
to keep these companies in business. But the fact that enough have sold
to keep these companies in business is not evidence that sales are
growing.


Conversely, the fact that RIAA sales have declined with Sony pulling out of
SACD doesn't provide evidence that SACD is a dead market, as you seem to
always wish to trumpet. Particularly with the most vital part of this
market unlikely to be reflected in the RIAA stats.

[Harry Lavo]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
c. leeds wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

What about the dubious claims that Monster makes for the 'sound' of its
cables?

Examples, please.

Here ya go:

From http://www.monstercable.com/home_av/...cables/rca.asp

"The secret of the superb performance of Monster's Interlink interconnect
cables is the precision windings. These windings accurately control and
minimize the amplitude and phase problems caused by electromagnetic
fields."

"M Series audio interconnects are for serious music listeners who want to
enjoy every last nuance of their favorite recordings. They provide maximum
performance down to the last detail-especially in the areas of soundstage,
imaging resolution of inner detail, dynamic range, transient response,
reduction of intertransient noise and overall tonal and harmonic structure
of the music."

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

"Interlink CD was specifically designed to add warmth to digital
recordings, while simultaneously increasing frequency response and dynamic
range for the smoothest, most natural sound from digital components."

Of course, this is all meaningless technobabble, except for the parts that
are just plain false. For instance, is there any evidence that a larger
gauge for *line level* cables gives deeper bass? Or "tighter" bass,
whatever that may be?

Snake oil. Pure unadulteraded snake oil.

And then there's their outright abuse of standard terminology:

"twisted-pair dual balanced conductors for low noise music
reproduction with fuller, more natural sound."

Sorry, but describing an RCA to RCA cable as "balanced" is bordering on
consumer fraud. How many consumers buy it thinking that they're getting
the benefits of balanced interconnects?


Nobody who would want truly balanced interconnects, as they would know what
they are looking for and know you can't get it with RCA jacks. But these
cables often can be outfitted with XLR connectors and sold as true balance
cables.

I think Monster is refering to the fact that they double intertwine both
positive and negative strands. The effects they ascribe might be
attributable to reduced RFI but it is not clear why the described design
would be superior in this regard.

[Walt]

c. leeds wrote:
Here in Ohio wrote:

...I haven't seen any evidence that some RCA
connectors allow RFI into the audio system, nor any evidence that the
connectors Monster uses prevent the entry of RFI into the audio
system.

You've never heard of RFI problems in audio systems?

I've tracked down and solved thousands of RFI problems. None were
solved by "magic cables." Many were solved by replacing a *broken*
cable, but that's different.

Yes, RFI problems occur. No, monster cables won't make you immune
from them, any more than spreading around chicken bones and gris gris.

If you want RFI immunity, go balanced* and pay a lot of attention to
grounding. In seriously bad RFI environments you may need *gasp* a
transformer. This is proven technology, not the superstitious crap
from the boutique cable vendors.

So, please stop it with the RFI boogeyman. Do you get RFI with
commodity cables? If not, then give it a rest.

// Walt

*real balanced (i.e. a differential input), not marketing-speak "balanced"

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On 14 Nov 2006 23:25:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On 12 Nov 2006 15:38:38 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:


Sounds like over-priced crap to me. As I said in another post, try
some cables from Blue Jeans if you want
higher-quality cables.

That's a subjective judgment, and not proof of nabob's claim that
Monster is "junk" and "snake-oil."

No, it's an objective observation. I can readily get an idea of the
cost of the components that Blue Jeans uses, and I have a very good
idea of their production methods and tooling.

Blue Jeans uses very high-quality components and their production
methods and tooling are superb.

I've taken a few Monster ICs apart, and they were on the "soldering
iron and electrical tape" level of production methods. It looked like
typical cheap crap made somewhere in China.

Yes, and you could wear Blue Jeans to the next Presidential Ball.

But a tuxedo would be more appropriate.

If somebody has several thousand dollars involved in a good system, and
wants to spend $35 a cable for Monster as opposed to $10 a cable for some
lesser brand, because they seem to be better built and look and sound
good,
and might sound better, what skin is it off your back?

And if somebody spends $50,000 on a system and feels he needs $200 cables
to
match that quality, what skin is it off your back?

I don't care unless they start claiming that Monster Cable stuff is
superior when it objectively is not.

A preference, stated experience, or an opinion is not a "claim". A "claim"
is presented as fact for scientific evaluation or verification, and you are
in no position to do so....unless you want to go to his house, use his gear,
set up an abx test using white noise, and "prove" to him that he can hear no
difference. And even then, you can only prove this case...his ears, his
test signal and equipment, this test.

You cannot legitimately from this claim that Monster is fraudulent...because
you don't know that somebody, somewhere might hear a difference on an abx
test, using their equipment, and using white noise.

You cannot prove a "negative" on a universal basis using abx. Not if you
are a true scientist or statistician.

I even pointed out a rational alternative if people need "higher
quality."

Blue Jeans is selling you a quality product for a reasonable price.
Too many of the other vendors are selling you mostly advertising and
smoke and mirrors.

That's your preference based on your evaluation of the competing brands.
Fine to make the recommendation. Not fine to insist any other choice is
invalid for the prospective purchaser.


Monster's out of spec connectors that damage things makes it even
worse.

It's really easy to then simply state that Monster sells over-priced
crap. But don't mind me, go ahead and buy their crap if you like it.

As long as you state it as your opinion. But you should also note that as
you state it just above, it is also a put-down.

[Here in Ohio]

On 15 Nov 2006 23:54:01 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:


They could use any old wire and
you'd still be a loyal Monster fan?

I wouldn't call myself "a loyal Monster fan," although I think calling
them "junk" and "snake-oli" is absurd.

You've been defending them pretty hard. It's almost as if they were
paying you to post good things about their products.


...I haven't seen any evidence that some RCA
connectors allow RFI into the audio system, nor any evidence that the
connectors Monster uses prevent the entry of RFI into the audio
system.

You've never heard of RFI problems in audio systems?

Yes, what does that have to do with it?

[Here in Ohio]

On 16 Nov 2006 00:00:07 GMT, Walt wrote:


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

I've always loved this claim of theirs.

At a CES show in the early to mid '80s, Monster was exhibiting their
cables and touting that the various sizes of conductors were there
because high frequencies would only follow the thin conductors and
bass frequencies would only follow the thick conductors.

Frank Van Alstine suggested that they strip some of their cable, take
some of the thin conductors and plug them into the wall socket while
holding onto the other end. If their theory was true, the low
frequencies (60 Hz) wouldn't be conducted by their "high frequency"
wires. If not...

They promptly threw him out of their room.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
wrote:
No I gave you the information you needed and you snipped it and ignored
it as I predicted. why Bob? Why does it bother you so much that this
niche market is a strong growth market so much that you would snip the
access to the relevent sources of information and then claim no
evidence was provided?

Doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that people are willing to
make claims they can't back up. And you can't. All you can do is post a
bunch of links to sites of companies that make or sell recordings, with
some vague promise that 'the proof is there' if only I'll go looking
for it. Well, I went--not to all of them, but to a handful. There's not
a shred of data on any of those sites that can support a claim that the
market is growing. If you think there is, please point to it
specifically and explain your reasoning. Otherwise, stop making a claim
you can't support.

One wonders if this putative 'strong growth market' will survive the
final passing of the baby boom generation.

(One doubts it.)

One also has to put a 'growth market' in context of what it's growing
*from* and *to*, not to mention *in comparison with*. To take a wholly
hypothetical example, if wax cylinder sales went from 10 to 100 in a year,
wax cylinder fans could point to that as 'strong growth'...
within an impovershed, miniscule market sector. Brave words like
'strong growth' that help the faithful keep the faith in the face of
such dismal realities.

Well then, how about 70-80 releases a month and growing....that good enough
for you to accept it as a viable niche market?

[c. leeds]

Here in Ohio wrote (about preference for Monster Cable):

I don't care unless they start claiming that Monster Cable stuff is
superior when it objectively is not.

Sorry, but we've already shown that Monster Cable is superior - in some
respects - to the flimsy, freebie cable nabob prefers. Monster uses
tighter, more robust connectors, for example. This superioirty may not
have value to you, of course. And it's been pointed out here that
Monster may not be suitable for use on equipment that has flimsy jacks.
But to say that Monster is "objectively" not superior (to flimsy freebie
cables) is a false claim.

I even pointed out a rational alternative if people need "higher
quality."

So only your preference is "rational?"

Monster's out of spec connectors that damage things makes it even
worse.

So do you have any data to support this claim, or is it that you just
prefer loose, ill-fitting, flimsy connectors?

It's really easy to then simply state that Monster sells over-priced
crap. But don't mind me, go ahead and buy their crap if you like it.

Yes, it's easy to state your claim, but that doesn't mean much.

[c. leeds]

Walt wrote:

I've tracked down and solved thousands of RFI problems. None were
solved by "magic cables."

No one here has recommended "magic cables." You've invented the quote as
part of a straw man argument.

Yes, RFI problems occur. No, monster cables won't make you immune from
them, any more than spreading around chicken bones and gris gris.

Another straw man argument. No one here has made the claim you cite.

So, please stop it with the RFI boogeyman.

Please stop the phoney quotes and straw man techniques.

Do you get RFI with
commodity cables?

Yes, I have.

[c. leeds]

Here in Ohio wrote (about Monster Cable):

You've been defending them pretty hard.

No, I've only claimed that they are not "junk" or "snake-oil," as nabob
claimed.

It's almost as if they were
paying you to post good things about their products.

Nothing of the sort. But since you raised the issue, did Blue Jeans
Cable pay you for your recommendation?

[Walt]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

I don't care unless they start claiming that Monster Cable stuff is
superior when it objectively is not.

A preference, stated experience, or an opinion is not a "claim". A "claim"
is presented as fact for scientific evaluation or verification, and you are
in no position to do so....unless you want to go to his house, use his gear,
set up an abx test using white noise, and "prove" to him that he can hear no
difference. And even then, you can only prove this case...his ears, his
test signal and equipment, this test.

You cannot legitimately from this claim that Monster is fraudulent...because
you don't know that somebody, somewhere might hear a difference on an abx
test, using their equipment, and using white noise.

You cannot prove a "negative" on a universal basis using abx. Not if you
are a true scientist or statistician.

Sorry, Henry, but you have the burden of proof exactly backwards.
Monster makes the claim that their cables make an audio difference.
(Really, they do. It's not an opinion, or a preference. They say flat
out that their cables make things sound better.) Hence they're the ones
who need to back up their claims; the onus is not on the skeptics to
disprove those claims.

Nobody can disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, either. If
you want to convince people that it does, provide some evidence. Simply
stating that nobody can prove it doen't exist isn't enough.

If "somebody, somewhere might hear a difference on an abx test, using
their equipment, and using white noise" then let's see it. Until
somebody provides some evidence along these lines, I'll continue to say
that Monster's claims are without basis.

//Walt

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Conversely, the fact that RIAA sales have declined with Sony pulling out of
SACD doesn't provide evidence that SACD is a dead market, as you seem to
always wish to trumpet.

When? Where? Quote me saying this.

For the record, my position is and always has been that SACD is and
probably will remain a niche market. I don't think it'll grow much
beyond where it is now, but it'll be around for a while.

BTW, its market *share* (as well as that of vinyl) may well increase
somewhat, as the bottom continues to fall out of physical media
generally. Indeed, one can imagine a not-too-distant future when the
*only* people buying physical media are audiophiles. Everybody else
will have a $10/month subscription to all the music ever made--and I
don't see hi-rez becoming a download product. (Though I hope Blu-Ray or
whatever brings us to CD-quality surround, which will be downloadable
once the pipes get big enough.)

bob

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

You cannot legitimately from this claim that Monster is fraudulent...because
you don't know that somebody, somewhere might hear a difference on an abx
test, using their equipment, and using white noise.

Only in the sense that you don't know that somebody, somewhere might
hear a 30kHz tone.

bob

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Well then, how about 70-80 releases a month and growing....that good enough
for you to accept it as a viable niche market?

Good enough for me. Now just give us a source for those numbers, and
for the claim that they are growing.

bob

[c. leeds]

Walt wrote:

If RFI is a problem (and it isn't in the vast majority of home
installations), the way to deal with it is through 1) balanced inputs,

That's not always an option.

2) proper grounding,

That doesn't always work, although sometimes better-built cable helps.

3) replacing components that are RF succeptable,

Sometimes it's the connection that's susceptible, not the equipment.
Why should users replace perfectly fine equipment when all that's at
fault is a flimsy connector cable?

and 4) better shielding. Roughly in that order

"Better shielding" sometimes equals "better cable."

Buying a "magic cable" isn't going to do squat.

Who here has recommended "magic" cable? Who are you pretending to
quote here?

You might as well say that Monster cable helps keep elephants away
because you don't have any elephants in your house.

You're not making any sense here at all.

As I said, anti-snake oil. This group is about *audio* - and things
that make no audible difference should be identified as such so that
we can focus on the things that do make a difference.

Please don't decide for me what I should focus on, because quality of
construction is part of high-end audio. If you like flimsy freebie
cables like nabob, that's fine. I prefer better built, higher quality
product.

Quite the contrary; the question of whether there is an audible
difference is exactly the crux of the matter. Since there is neither
empirical evidence nor a sound theoretical basis of such a difference,
I'll assume that there is none until such evidence is presented

You're free to cling to your assumptions and pronouncements. They
don't have anything to do with high end audio, though.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Well then, how about 70-80 releases a month and growing....that good
enough
for you to accept it as a viable niche market?

Good enough for me. Now just give us a source for those numbers, and
for the claim that they are growing.


I already have....they came from Sony and SACDnet.

As to growth...1150 titles in 15 months, vs. 3000 in prior70 months. Fair
enough?

If RFI is a problem (and it isn't in the vast majority of home
installations), the way to deal with it is through 1) balanced inputs,

RFI means Radio Frequency Interference. Balanced inputs on audio equipment
almost never have significant common mode rejection at radio frequencies.
My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input. Better
shielding might be a help, as would filtering out the high frequencies. If
the signal is digital, RFI can be eliminated by using an optical
interconnect.

Norm Strong

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Well then, how about 70-80 releases a month and growing....that good
enough
for you to accept it as a viable niche market?

Good enough for me. Now just give us a source for those numbers, and
for the claim that they are growing.


I already have....they came from Sony and SACDnet.

As to growth...1150 titles in 15 months, vs. 3000 in prior70 months. Fair
enough?

No, because you were responding to a post about VINYL sales. (That may
not have been clear unless you traced the thread back several posts.)
So we're sort of a cross purposes here.

But since you've brought up SACD, you do stack the deck a bit when you
count back to the very introduction of the format. From zero,
everything is a growth market. And a good deal of the early non-growth
was, I suspect, a function of inadequate production capacity rather
than non-existent demand.

So, growing demand? Not sure, but maybe. Viable niche market?
Absolutely.

Which, as you know, is what I've always said!

bob

[Walt]

wrote:

If RFI is a problem (and it isn't in the vast majority of home
installations), the way to deal with it is through 1) balanced inputs,

Balanced inputs on audio equipment
almost never have significant common mode rejection at radio frequencies.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Do you have a
cite?

My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input.

My guess is otherwise. Of course, I'm not really guessing.

// Walt

[Here in Ohio]

On 16 Nov 2006 23:51:17 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


I don't care unless they start claiming that Monster Cable stuff is
superior when it objectively is not.

A preference, stated experience, or an opinion is not a "claim". A "claim"

He was claiming that Monster is superior because of the connectors
they use, because said connectors are more "robust." and because said
connectors reduce RFI.

I don't see that any of those claims are valid and I've said so
repeatedly in this thread.


Monster's out of spec connectors that damage things makes it even
worse.

It's really easy to then simply state that Monster sells over-priced
crap. But don't mind me, go ahead and buy their crap if you like it.

As long as you state it as your opinion. But you should also note that as
you state it just above, it is also a put-down.

In this case, buying their junk is enough of a put down. :-)

[Here in Ohio]

On 19 Nov 2006 15:49:13 GMT, Walt wrote:

wrote:

If RFI is a problem (and it isn't in the vast majority of home
installations), the way to deal with it is through 1) balanced inputs,

Balanced inputs on audio equipment
almost never have significant common mode rejection at radio frequencies.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Do you have a
cite?

My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input.

My guess is otherwise. Of course, I'm not really guessing.

Unless the RFI signal is predominantly positive or negative
(assymetrical), I would think that it would effect the + and - signal
and conductors in a balanced cable equally.

The differential input would then eliminate most of the RFI since it
is common to both legs of the signal path.

[Chung]

Here in Ohio wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 15:49:13 GMT, Walt wrote:

wrote:

If RFI is a problem (and it isn't in the vast majority of home
installations), the way to deal with it is through 1) balanced inputs,
Balanced inputs on audio equipment
almost never have significant common mode rejection at radio frequencies.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Do you have a
cite?

My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input.
My guess is otherwise. Of course, I'm not really guessing.

Unless the RFI signal is predominantly positive or negative
(assymetrical), I would think that it would effect the + and - signal
and conductors in a balanced cable equally.

The differential input would then eliminate most of the RFI since it
is common to both legs of the signal path.


Norman's point is that the balanced audio amplifiers are typically not
very effective in cancelling out common-mode signals at RF frequencies.
For example, if you have a common-mode signal in the + and the - paths
at 1 KHz, the amplifier may subtract it out very well. But if the signal
is at 100 MHz, the amplifier will not subtract it well at all.

[Walt]

Here in Ohio wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 15:49:13 GMT, Walt wrote
wrote:

Balanced inputs on audio equipment almost never have significant
common mode rejection at radio frequencies.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Do you have
a cite?

My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input.

My guess is otherwise. Of course, I'm not really guessing.

Unless the RFI signal is predominantly positive or negative
(assymetrical), I would think that it would effect the + and - signal
and conductors in a balanced cable equally.

In theory, they are induced equally in the two conductors and are
removed when you take the difference. This is true regardless of the
symetry or non-symetry of the interference.

The differential input would then eliminate most of the RFI since it
is common to both legs of the signal path.

Yes. But conventional transistors/IC's reject common mode up to a
certain level, above that level they "break down" and no longer reject
common mode interference. Perhaps that is what normanstrong is alluding to?

Anyway, stubborn interference problems can be cured with a transformer,
which does not have a breakdown voltage.

//Walt

[Here in Ohio]

On 22 Nov 2006 15:57:30 GMT, Walt wrote:

Here in Ohio wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 15:49:13 GMT, Walt wrote
wrote:

Balanced inputs on audio equipment almost never have significant
common mode rejection at radio frequencies.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this. Do you have
a cite?

My guess is that RFI will not be reduced by using a balanced input.

My guess is otherwise. Of course, I'm not really guessing.

Unless the RFI signal is predominantly positive or negative
(assymetrical), I would think that it would effect the + and - signal
and conductors in a balanced cable equally.

In theory, they are induced equally in the two conductors and are
removed when you take the difference. This is true regardless of the
symetry or non-symetry of the interference.

The differential input would then eliminate most of the RFI since it
is common to both legs of the signal path.

Yes. But conventional transistors/IC's reject common mode up to a
certain level, above that level they "break down" and no longer reject
common mode interference. Perhaps that is what normanstrong is alluding to?

Ok, that makes sense, as did Chung's comment.