[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Happened across this analysis of sales trends...

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ndLPsales.html

Doesn't seem to jibe with claims of a 'vinyl renaissance' that occasionally
appear in the press and online, though LPs are holding on better here than in
the UK.


It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community. High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Here in Ohio wrote:
On 10 Nov 2006 17:25:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


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

Which claims are those, Steven?

You could start off with them saying that Monster cables will make
your stereo sound better.

Or simply, the claims made for each 'level' of their model lines,
which seem to imply some sort of audible improvement as you go up the
line...
absent any data, of course.

e.g.,
"Our most sophisticated four conductor audiophile speaker cable achieves
unprecedented levels of sonic accuracy."

Is this an e.g. (example) or an ie. (illustration). If an example, where
did it come from?


Oh they do, do they?

How do you prove or disprove this, except by rigorous and sophisticated
blind testing? You may feel it is snake oil, and highly unlikely, but that
is not the same as "proving" they are liars or charlatans. I'm sure they
could provide some evidence via technical measures in support of their
claims (such as lower inductance), and it would be up to you to show that it
was sonically irrelevant.

Basically what has you upset is advertising puffery, it seems to me. I
don't like it either...but our capitalistic economy is unfortunately or
fortunately (depending on your point of view) based upon it. It certainly
is not exclusive to audio, and most consumers once they leave childhood seem
able to be skeptical.

[Harry Lavo]

"Rob Tweed" wrote in message
...
Has it ever occurred to you that their rugged cables which you claim
"destroy jacks" actually only destroy cheap jacks, and that they are
designed to mate with the equally rugged female jacks used on high-end
equipment?

I can visualise the advert in the dating sites now: "rugged male jack
with high end equipment seeks equally rugged female jack" :-)

---
Rob Tweed
M/Gateway Developments Ltd

The Pursuit of Productivity : http://www.mgateway.com

Make that "jocks" instead of "jacks" and the ads already exist.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Happened across this analysis of sales trends...

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ndLPsales.html

Doesn't seem to jibe with claims of a 'vinyl renaissance' that
occasionally
appear in the press and online, though LPs are holding on better here
than in
the UK.


It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community. High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.

Scott

Certainly the antidotal evidence suggests a resurgence: number of
tables/arms/cartridges coming to/surviving in the marketplace; number of
smaller companies issuing SACDs and thriving, number of viable internet and
mail order companies catering to audiophiles, etc. Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much) so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"c. leeds" writes:
David E. Bath wrote:

I have a Toshiba TV with an RCA input that lost it's outer connector
when I was removing an extremely tight Monster RCA male.

Interesting. Do you think the failure was the result of a too-tight
Monster connector, or a too-flimsy Toshiba jack?

The Toshiba jack may have been less than optimal, but the Monster plug
was definitely more tight than is necessary for a good connection. All
Monster plugs I have require one to be very careful when removing them
as they are extremely tight and cause one to worry the jack might come
apart.

And yes, I have quite a few Monster cables, and yes, I bought them for
their rugged construction. But they do make too tight a connection in
my opinion.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message

It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community.

A fair point, but I know of no such data. Hence the arguments about the
data we do have. And from a data standpoint, it would be impossible to
define what "the audiophile community" is sufficiently to begin.

High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.

The RIAA consumer survey includes audiophiles, of course. If they were
buying LPs in significant and growing numbers, that would show up. It
doesn't, which suggests that any growth in LP sales to audiophiles is
relatively small.


Scott

Certainly the antidotal evidence suggests a resurgence: number of
tables/arms/cartridges coming to/surviving in the marketplace; number of
smaller companies issuing SACDs and thriving, number of viable internet and
mail order companies catering to audiophiles, etc.

I presume "antidotal" here means "evidence with no quantification
behind it whatsoever." Yes, there are some new brand names on the
hardware side (probably offset at least in part by old names that are
no longer around). But small companies selling small numbers of units
do not constitute evidence of resurgence.

As for internet sites, there are certainly more than there were 10
years ago! And it's certainly easier to find niche products than it
was, which is a good thing. But overall, I think it's more fair to say
that this is sustaining a market that otherwise would be shrinking.

Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much) so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

I'm not saying that the market for these products is shrinking, or even
that it cannot possibly be growing. What I am saying is that there's no
real evidence for that growth, if it's occurring. What I find strange
is the need among some to "find" such evidence, rather than just
accepting the market for what it is.

Actually, there is one piece of evidence that supports at least a bit
of what you're arguing, and I find it surprising that you never bring
it up. In the RIAA consumer survey, SACD's market share was still
growing as of 2005:

2003: 0.5%
2004: 0.8%
2005: 1.2%

That despite the fact that RIAA shipments were down 60% over the same
period--suggesting that, as for LPs, SACDs are now predominantly put
out by very small producers. If I had to bet, you won't continue to see
growth like that, precisely because the big players are basically out
of the business. Note, too, that the growth in SACD is more than offset
by the decline in DVD-A. Still, I think you can make the case that
there's a potentially stable niche market for non-CD audio, somewhere
in the 2-3% range.

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message

It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community.

A fair point, but I know of no such data. Hence the arguments about the
data we do have. And from a data standpoint, it would be impossible to
define what "the audiophile community" is sufficiently to begin.

High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.

The RIAA consumer survey includes audiophiles, of course. If they were
buying LPs in significant and growing numbers, that would show up.

Yes it does include audiophiles but i don't agree that any trends in
the audiophile market would impact RIAA consumer surveys. The ratios to
audiophile related music sales to genreal music sales is so vast that
it is pretty much impossible to get any information from RIAA figures
that relate to audiophile trends. major artists sell products in the
millions while audiophile relaeases sell in the thousands. If
audiophile Lp sales or CD sales were to increase by an order of
magnitude it would not make a noticable dent in the RIAA figures.

It
doesn't, which suggests that any growth in LP sales to audiophiles is
relatively small.

It doesn't really suggest anything either way. Like I said, the sales
could have gone up by an order of magnitude without making a
significant diffeence in the RIAA numbers. The high end market is that
small relative to the music business.



Scott

Certainly the antidotal evidence suggests a resurgence: number of
tables/arms/cartridges coming to/surviving in the marketplace; number of
smaller companies issuing SACDs and thriving, number of viable internet and
mail order companies catering to audiophiles, etc.

I presume "antidotal" here means "evidence with no quantification
behind it whatsoever."

Why would you presume that? There actually is plenty of relevant
evidence available for anyone who is interested.

Yes, there are some new brand names on the
hardware side (probably offset at least in part by old names that are
no longer around). But small companies selling small numbers of units
do not constitute evidence of resurgence.

It certainly can.


As for internet sites, there are certainly more than there were 10
years ago! And it's certainly easier to find niche products than it
was, which is a good thing. But overall, I think it's more fair to say
that this is sustaining a market that otherwise would be shrinking.

I doubt that. Niche markets are often driven by enthusiasts that are
not as easily discouraged by a lack of convenience.


Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much) so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

I'm not saying that the market for these products is shrinking, or even
that it cannot possibly be growing. What I am saying is that there's no
real evidence for that growth, if it's occurring.

No there is real evidence it just isn't good enough to draw
conclusions. There certainly isn't any evidence that I know of to
suggest the market is shrinking or in danger of extinction.

What I find strange
is the need among some to "find" such evidence, rather than just
accepting the market for what it is.

What "need" are you refering to? Are you suggesting that Steve Sullivan
has suh a need?


Actually, there is one piece of evidence that supports at least a bit
of what you're arguing, and I find it surprising that you never bring
it up. In the RIAA consumer survey, SACD's market share was still
growing as of 2005:

2003: 0.5%
2004: 0.8%
2005: 1.2%

That despite the fact that RIAA shipments were down 60% over the same
period--suggesting that, as for LPs, SACDs are now predominantly put
out by very small producers. If I had to bet, you won't continue to see
growth like that, precisely because the big players are basically out
of the business. Note, too, that the growth in SACD is more than offset
by the decline in DVD-A. Still, I think you can make the case that
there's a potentially stable niche market for non-CD audio, somewhere
in the 2-3% range.

I think we audiophiles are in better hands with small producers making
audiophile CDs, LPs, DVD-As and SACDs. So long as the market sustains
these companies.

Scott

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 11 Nov 2006 16:47:52 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:

it's not anti-high-end, it's anti-voodoo.

True enough. Monster makes a decent product.

Both of your statements can't be true. If it's "a decent product," then
it isn't "junk" or "snake oil" or "voodoo."

I see no contradiction. Both statements can easily be simultaneously
true. If I make a decent car and then advertise that it will also make
you live ten years longer, I am still making a decent car, but also
indulging in what can justifiably be called voodoo claims.

The claim is that all decently made cables sound identical. If one
makes a decently made cable and then claims it also sounds better one
can be, if the first claim is true, justifiably accusable of indulging
in voodoo claims.

[Walt]

c. leeds wrote:
Walt wrote (about calling nabob "anti-high-end" because of his claim
that Monster Cable is "junk" and "snake-oil"

Then please tell us where the "voodoo" is in Monster Cable.

They claim that their cables make an audible difference. That claim
is unsupported. Their "scientific" explanation is smoke and mirrors.

Monster makes a decent product.

Both of your statements can't be true. If it's "a decent product," then
it isn't "junk" or "snake oil" or "voodoo."

Suppose I sell you a paperweight. It's a decent paperweight, holds
the papers down quite well. So far so good. It works. But if I
claim that it makes your stereo system sound better, I'm
misrepresenting it. It's just a rock.

And if I charge you $1000 for a paperweight that only costs me $1.75
to manufacture, well, you can draw the obvious conclusion.

The problem is that they've figured out a way to market it to
gullible people who are willing to pay 8 or more times what it's
worth... There is no reason in the world why a 2 meter stereo RCA
cable should sell for over $100.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Stick and stones, pal.

So, how many recording studios have you designed?

There are many
reasons why such a product could cost over $100. You may consider that a
poor value, but that's a subjective judgment. It doesn't make the
product "voodoo."

Monster cable is just wire. At audio frequencies and at typical
lengths (i.e. less than 1000 meters) it's no better and no worse than,
say, Belden 8451 which goes for about 20 cents a foot.

If you spend more than that, you are not doing it for audio reasons.

BTW, if you are a typical CD collector, half the recordings in your
collection have passed through at least a hundred meters of 8451 or
it's equivalent. Another meter won't make a dimes worth of difference.

Walt's post is another example of the "anti-high-end" attitude that
pervades this group.

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.

// Walt

[bob]

wrote:
bob wrote:

The RIAA consumer survey includes audiophiles, of course. If they were
buying LPs in significant and growing numbers, that would show up.

Yes it does include audiophiles but i don't agree that any trends in
the audiophile market would impact RIAA consumer surveys. The ratios to
audiophile related music sales to genreal music sales is so vast that
it is pretty much impossible to get any information from RIAA figures
that relate to audiophile trends. major artists sell products in the
millions while audiophile relaeases sell in the thousands. If
audiophile Lp sales or CD sales were to increase by an order of
magnitude it would not make a noticable dent in the RIAA figures.

For "audiophile CDs" that is certainly true. The data simply can't
distinguish them. For LPs, it depends on what share of the LP market is
audiophiles vs. scratchers. If it's 10% audiophiles, an order of
magnitude increase in audiophile sales would show up as a doubling of
overall LP sales. Since you don't know the audiophile/scratcher ratio,
you have no basis for making this statement.


It
doesn't, which suggests that any growth in LP sales to audiophiles is
relatively small.

It doesn't really suggest anything either way. Like I said, the sales
could have gone up by an order of magnitude without making a
significant diffeence in the RIAA numbers. The high end market is that
small relative to the music business.

But relative to the LP portion of the business? You don't know that.

snip

I presume "antidotal" here means "evidence with no quantification
behind it whatsoever."

Why would you presume that? There actually is plenty of relevant
evidence available for anyone who is interested.

Show me.

Yes, there are some new brand names on the
hardware side (probably offset at least in part by old names that are
no longer around). But small companies selling small numbers of units
do not constitute evidence of resurgence.

It certainly can.

Only if you define "resurgence" as "any increase at all."

As for internet sites, there are certainly more than there were 10
years ago! And it's certainly easier to find niche products than it
was, which is a good thing. But overall, I think it's more fair to say
that this is sustaining a market that otherwise would be shrinking.

I doubt that. Niche markets are often driven by enthusiasts that are
not as easily discouraged by a lack of convenience.

In which case the existence of online sellers would not constitute
evidence of a growing market, because that market would find its goods
in any case.

Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much) so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

I'm not saying that the market for these products is shrinking, or even
that it cannot possibly be growing. What I am saying is that there's no
real evidence for that growth, if it's occurring.

No there is real evidence it just isn't good enough to draw
conclusions. There certainly isn't any evidence that I know of to
suggest the market is shrinking or in danger of extinction.

Good enough for me. Future claims of a resurgence of vinyl can be
dismissed as unsupported.

snip

I think we audiophiles are in better hands with small producers making
audiophile CDs, LPs, DVD-As and SACDs. So long as the market sustains
these companies.

Well, we'd be better off with big producers also making good
recordings, but that may be asking too much.

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:

The RIAA consumer survey includes audiophiles, of course. If they were
buying LPs in significant and growing numbers, that would show up.

Yes it does include audiophiles but i don't agree that any trends in
the audiophile market would impact RIAA consumer surveys. The ratios to
audiophile related music sales to genreal music sales is so vast that
it is pretty much impossible to get any information from RIAA figures
that relate to audiophile trends. major artists sell products in the
millions while audiophile relaeases sell in the thousands. If
audiophile Lp sales or CD sales were to increase by an order of
magnitude it would not make a noticable dent in the RIAA figures.

For "audiophile CDs" that is certainly true. The data simply can't
distinguish them. For LPs, it depends on what share of the LP market is
audiophiles vs. scratchers. If it's 10% audiophiles, an order of
magnitude increase in audiophile sales would show up as a doubling of
overall LP sales. Since you don't know the audiophile/scratcher ratio,
you have no basis for making this statement.

Well actually I do have "some" idea as to the ratio of
audiophile/overall LP sales. We have here in this thread a record of
over 2 million LPs sold in the U.S and U.K alone. this does not acount
for Japan, Europe, China etc. I also have some idea of the production
of audiophile LPs from talking to the makers and sellers of them. Most
audiophile rlases are done in editions of 1,000. Some are reissued some
are not and sell poorly. so if you take a look at the number of new
releases and reissues each year by these labels and the subdivisins of
the majors that are now trying to take o the audiophile market you can
get an idea of what is being produced each year. No, I don't know the
exact numbers but certainly you can get an idea that the proportions
are pretty substantial in their difference. 200 releases in one year
would amount to aproximently 200,000 units produced for one year. That
does not account for how many are sold but one could perhaps some sort
of equalibrium between production and sales since this is a mature
niche market. I would guestimate that the ratio between audiophile to
total Lp production is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/10 to 1/50.
But if we really want to know we could contact RTI which is *the*
producer of US audiophile Lps and we could contact the few pressing
plants over seas (I think there are two that produce audiophile vinyl)
and get a very good idea of anual production of audiophile vinyl. Then
we can look at world sales and get a very good idea. I don't go that
far because i have found a much simpler gauge. The number of available
titles tells the tale given that the titles have such uniform runs.
Over the past ten years that has gone up quite substantially.



It
doesn't, which suggests that any growth in LP sales to audiophiles is
relatively small.

It doesn't really suggest anything either way. Like I said, the sales
could have gone up by an order of magnitude without making a
significant diffeence in the RIAA numbers. The high end market is that
small relative to the music business.

But relative to the LP portion of the business? You don't know that.

I don't know it. But I don't think it is at all unreasonable or even
likely.


snip

I presume "antidotal" here means "evidence with no quantification
behind it whatsoever."

Why would you presume that? There actually is plenty of relevant
evidence available for anyone who is interested.

Show me.

Just ask Chad Kasem
http://news.acousticsounds.com/index...o&page=contact
I talk to these guys from time to time. I don't do formal surveys. But
even the anecdotal evidence is quite compelling. That is if you are
willing to get it from the makers and sellers of this product.


Yes, there are some new brand names on the
hardware side (probably offset at least in part by old names that are
no longer around). But small companies selling small numbers of units
do not constitute evidence of resurgence.

It certainly can.

Only if you define "resurgence" as "any increase at all."

No. There is plenty of room for there to have been a far more
substantial increase. I have talked to many of the guys that are in the
business of producing and selling audiophile LPs. They all tell me
there has been such a resurgence since the mid nineties.


As for internet sites, there are certainly more than there were 10
years ago! And it's certainly easier to find niche products than it
was, which is a good thing. But overall, I think it's more fair to say
that this is sustaining a market that otherwise would be shrinking.

I doubt that. Niche markets are often driven by enthusiasts that are
not as easily discouraged by a lack of convenience.

In which case the existence of online sellers would not constitute
evidence of a growing market, because that market would find its goods
in any case.

We are not talking about the mre "existance" of online sellers but the
increase of them. That is evidence of an increase. I know most of the
established sellers and they all tell me sales have been increasing
over the years. So I think the increase of sellers and the increase in
sales by the established selles certainly does constitute such
evidence.


Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much) so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

I'm not saying that the market for these products is shrinking, or even
that it cannot possibly be growing. What I am saying is that there's no
real evidence for that growth, if it's occurring.

No there is real evidence it just isn't good enough to draw
conclusions. There certainly isn't any evidence that I know of to
suggest the market is shrinking or in danger of extinction.

Good enough for me. Future claims of a resurgence of vinyl can be
dismissed as unsupported.

Certainly if you wish to pretend it isn't real. I don't know why one
would want to do that though. But anybody who actually is buying
audiophile vinyl is well aware of the resurgence simply based on the
substatial increase in titles. The math is really straight forward
since the runs on titles are pretty uniform. More titles means more
sales.


snip

I think we audiophiles are in better hands with small producers making
audiophile CDs, LPs, DVD-As and SACDs. So long as the market sustains
these companies.

Well, we'd be better off with big producers also making good
recordings, but that may be asking too much.

Amen to that. OTOH maybe with the increase in artists directly selling
their own product online we may see an opening for a movement in the
right direction. Cut out the suits and you get a much more pure
artistic product.

Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Here in Ohio wrote:
On 10 Nov 2006 17:25:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


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

Which claims are those, Steven?

You could start off with them saying that Monster cables will make
your stereo sound better.

Or simply, the claims made for each 'level' of their model lines,
which seem to imply some sort of audible improvement as you go up the
line...
absent any data, of course.

e.g.,
"Our most sophisticated four conductor audiophile speaker cable achieves
unprecedented levels of sonic accuracy."

Is this an e.g. (example) or an ie. (illustration). If an example, where
did it come from?

Monster's website, of course. Ever been to it?

[c. leeds]

Ed Seedhouse wrote:

The claim is that all decently made cables sound identical.

No, the claim in this thread is nabob's that Monster cable product is
"junk" and "snake oil." I simply pointed out that Monster uses tighter
and more robust connectors than those found on the freebie cables nabob
prefers. Sometimes, those tighter connections can avoid the RFI that
results from ill-fitting connections.

You're free to prefer the flimsier product, like nabob. I prefer the
Monster product. There's really no argument, because there's no arguing
with preference. But the claim of "junk" and "snake-oil" is absurd.
There are demonstrable differences between these products.

[c. leeds]

Walt wrote (about Monster Cable):

Stick and stones, pal.

So, how many recording studios have you designed?

This has nothing to do with the obvious differences between Monster
Cables and the flimsy cables sometimes included free with audio equipment.

Monster cable is just wire. At audio frequencies and at typical lengths...

No, Monster Cable is not "just wire." Monster uses tighter, more robust
connectors than found on the flimsy free cables nabob prefers.

BTW, if you are a typical CD collector, half the recordings in your
collection have passed through at least a hundred meters of 8451 or it's
equivalent. Another meter won't make a dimes worth of difference.

It will if the connectors are flimsy and allow the introduction of RFI
into the audio system.

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.

The differences between these products are demonstrable. It's curious
that you and others (such as babob) are so bothered by this and object
so strongly to a preference for higher-quality product. It doesn't even
matter whether there's an audible difference or not. It's simply a
matter of preference.

[c. leeds]

Here in Ohio wrote:

Monster seems to have this habit of using RCA plugs with this overly
thick split center pin that then deforms the inner contact of the jack
you plug it into. They also have an outer ring that is too small and
stiff and it can literally scrape the plating off of the outside of
the jack.

I have a number of Monster Cables and have never had these problems.
Monster Cables do fit tightly - that's part of why I prefer them.

I think I even saw some kind of "locking" RCA plug from them
where you're free to apply so much force you can destroy any RCA jack.

I've never seen locking RCA connectors on any Monster product. However,
the locking RCA connectors I have used on other cables never caused a
problem.

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."

[Harry Lavo]

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

It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community.

A fair point, but I know of no such data. Hence the arguments about the
data we do have. And from a data standpoint, it would be impossible to
define what "the audiophile community" is sufficiently to begin.

High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.

The RIAA consumer survey includes audiophiles, of course. If they were
buying LPs in significant and growing numbers, that would show up. It
doesn't, which suggests that any growth in LP sales to audiophiles is
relatively small.


Scott

Certainly the antidotal evidence suggests a resurgence: number of
tables/arms/cartridges coming to/surviving in the marketplace; number of
smaller companies issuing SACDs and thriving, number of viable internet
and
mail order companies catering to audiophiles, etc.

I presume "antidotal" here means "evidence with no quantification
behind it whatsoever." Yes, there are some new brand names on the
hardware side (probably offset at least in part by old names that are
no longer around). But small companies selling small numbers of units
do not constitute evidence of resurgence.

As for internet sites, there are certainly more than there were 10
years ago! And it's certainly easier to find niche products than it
was, which is a good thing. But overall, I think it's more fair to say
that this is sustaining a market that otherwise would be shrinking.

Of course, the internet
makes the entire world a single market (an exageration but not by much)
so
perhaps what we are seeing is the a niche market can now be successful
and
vibrant and no longer fodder for the naysayers.

I'm not saying that the market for these products is shrinking, or even
that it cannot possibly be growing. What I am saying is that there's no
real evidence for that growth, if it's occurring. What I find strange
is the need among some to "find" such evidence, rather than just
accepting the market for what it is.

Actually, there is one piece of evidence that supports at least a bit
of what you're arguing, and I find it surprising that you never bring
it up. In the RIAA consumer survey, SACD's market share was still
growing as of 2005:

2003: 0.5%
2004: 0.8%
2005: 1.2%

That despite the fact that RIAA shipments were down 60% over the same
period--suggesting that, as for LPs, SACDs are now predominantly put
out by very small producers. If I had to bet, you won't continue to see
growth like that, precisely because the big players are basically out
of the business. Note, too, that the growth in SACD is more than offset
by the decline in DVD-A. Still, I think you can make the case that
there's a potentially stable niche market for non-CD audio, somewhere
in the 2-3% range.

Thanks for the analysis. Yes, that would be a viable niche market assuming
the broad marketplace achieved via the web. And it seems to be shaping up
around classical music via SACD multichannel, with perhaps some hope yet for
jazz. Both classical musica and SACD are stronger in Europe than in the
USA, and it is its strength there that helps sustain the "niche". Nice to
see something that the US tendency to "lowest commen denominator" can't
totally destroy.

[Harry Lavo]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"c. leeds" writes:
David E. Bath wrote:

I have a Toshiba TV with an RCA input that lost it's outer connector
when I was removing an extremely tight Monster RCA male.

Interesting. Do you think the failure was the result of a too-tight
Monster connector, or a too-flimsy Toshiba jack?

The Toshiba jack may have been less than optimal, but the Monster plug
was definitely more tight than is necessary for a good connection. All
Monster plugs I have require one to be very careful when removing them
as they are extremely tight and cause one to worry the jack might come
apart.

And yes, I have quite a few Monster cables, and yes, I bought them for
their rugged construction. But they do make too tight a connection in
my opinion.


Actually, on my gear I have found the Radio Shack Golds to sometimes be
tighter than the Monsters. The only Monsters I have that are in line with
your complaints are a few of the earlier "turbo" connectors. I don't find
the later ones tha way, and I certainly didn't find the earlier "locking"
connectors that way.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Here in Ohio wrote:
On 10 Nov 2006 17:25:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


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

Which claims are those, Steven?

You could start off with them saying that Monster cables will make
your stereo sound better.

Or simply, the claims made for each 'level' of their model lines,
which seem to imply some sort of audible improvement as you go up the
line...
absent any data, of course.

e.g.,
"Our most sophisticated four conductor audiophile speaker cable
achieves
unprecedented levels of sonic accuracy."

Is this an e.g. (example) or an ie. (illustration). If an example, where
did it come from?

Monster's website, of course. Ever been to it?

No, no reason to. Don't have it bookmarked.

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Walt wrote (about Monster Cable):

Stick and stones, pal.

So, how many recording studios have you designed?

This has nothing to do with the obvious differences between Monster
Cables and the flimsy cables sometimes included free with audio equipment.

Well, that's a false dichotomy.

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

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 12 Nov 2006 15:35:00 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:

Ed Seedhouse wrote:

The claim is that all decently made cables sound identical.

No, the claim in this thread is nabob's that Monster cable product is
"junk" and "snake oil."

That is a second claim, and based on the first, which most certatinly
has been made in this forum many times. The second claim is based on
the first, which is why I made sure to add it in.

I simply pointed out that Monster uses tighter

I was not responding to that but to the claim that Monster's claims are
based on "voodoo", which you called self-contradictory. But though it
may be right or wrong, it is not, as I pointed out, contradictory.

Nothing in what I said expressed any opinion on Monster cables or any
other brand of anything. I merely pointed out, attempting to use a bit
of logic, that your statement that another claim was "self
contradictory", was without basis. And I purposely limited my post to
that rather narrow point.

But the claim of "junk" and "snake-oil" is absurd.
There are demonstrable differences between these products.

That there are differences has been admitted. That these differences
make any audible difference to the sound they transmit is in dispute.
Surely it's obvious that merely making a difference to two things need
not alter their performance in the area of interest. Does changing the
color of a coffee cup make the coffee it holds taste any different? Yet
the difference between the cups is obvious.

[bob]

c. leeds wrote:

It will if the connectors are flimsy and allow the introduction of RFI
into the audio system.

I've never encountered a connector that introduced audible RFI into an
audio system. Certainly the vast majority of freebie I/Cs included with
components do not do so. And if you get a bad one, you can always
replace it with something similarly priced. The idea that you have to
spend Monster prices for this kind of quality is ludicrous.

On the other hand, I and others have had problems with connectors that
were too tight. So by my count, Monster and its ilk are actually worse
than the freebies. That meets my test for "junk."

bob

[bob]

wrote:

Well actually I do have "some" idea as to the ratio of
audiophile/overall LP sales. We have here in this thread a record of
over 2 million LPs sold in the U.S and U.K alone. this does not acount
for Japan, Europe, China etc. I also have some idea of the production
of audiophile LPs from talking to the makers and sellers of them. Most
audiophile rlases are done in editions of 1,000. Some are reissued some
are not and sell poorly. so if you take a look at the number of new
releases and reissues each year by these labels and the subdivisins of
the majors that are now trying to take o the audiophile market you can
get an idea of what is being produced each year. No, I don't know the
exact numbers but certainly you can get an idea that the proportions
are pretty substantial in their difference. 200 releases in one year
would amount to aproximently 200,000 units produced for one year. That
does not account for how many are sold but one could perhaps some sort
of equalibrium between production and sales since this is a mature
niche market. I would guestimate that the ratio between audiophile to
total Lp production is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/10 to 1/50.
But if we really want to know we could contact RTI which is *the*
producer of US audiophile Lps and we could contact the few pressing
plants over seas (I think there are two that produce audiophile vinyl)
and get a very good idea of anual production of audiophile vinyl. Then
we can look at world sales and get a very good idea. I don't go that
far because i have found a much simpler gauge. The number of available
titles tells the tale given that the titles have such uniform runs.
Over the past ten years that has gone up quite substantially.

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold. However, an increase over time in
the annual number of releases would constitute evidence of growth in
the market. So now if our vinyl champions would just supply some data
demonstrating this increase, we'd have something. Instead, we get
arguments of the form, "Well, just because all the data we have is
flatlining doesn't mean there's not an increase." Spare me.

bob

[[email protected]]

On 3 Nov 2006 01:01:44 GMT, michael wrote:

The idea of people buying a lot of records is nonsense. But what is
interesting are the flat sales for CDs. Downloads are not charted, so
it would be revealing to see this plotted.

DJs still buy lots of vinyl (In London at least).

[c. leeds]

nabob wrote:

I've never encountered a connector that introduced audible RFI into an
audio system....

Some have had this problem, as previously noted in this thread.

...The idea that you have to
spend Monster prices for this kind of quality is ludicrous.

Sez you. But every consumer decides value for himself.

On the other hand, I and others have had problems with connectors that
were too tight.

I guess if you prefer flimsy equipment with lightweight RCA connectors,
you'd best match them with the lightweight flimsy cables you prefer.

... Monster and its ilk are actually worse
than the freebies. That meets my test for "junk."

Okay. You think they're junk. Whatever. That doesn't make them junk.

[Walt]

c. leeds wrote:
Walt wrote (about Monster Cable):

This has nothing to do with the obvious differences between Monster
Cables and the flimsy cables sometimes included free with audio equipment.

Obvious *visual* differences. You haven't provided any evidence of an
*auditory* difference. Neither has Monster Cable.

BTW, if you are a typical CD collector, half the recordings in your
collection have passed through at least a hundred meters of 8451 or
it's equivalent. Another meter won't make a dimes worth of difference.

It will if the connectors are flimsy and allow the introduction of RFI
into the audio system.

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,
2) proper grounding, 3) replacing components that are RF succeptable,
and 4) better shielding. Roughly in that order.

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

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

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.

The differences between these products are demonstrable.

But the *audio* differences have not been demonstrated.

It's curious
that you and others (such as babob) are so bothered by this and object
so strongly to a preference for higher-quality product. It doesn't even
matter whether there's an audible difference or not.

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.

//Walt

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
wrote:

Well actually I do have "some" idea as to the ratio of
audiophile/overall LP sales. We have here in this thread a record of
over 2 million LPs sold in the U.S and U.K alone. this does not acount
for Japan, Europe, China etc. I also have some idea of the production
of audiophile LPs from talking to the makers and sellers of them. Most
audiophile rlases are done in editions of 1,000. Some are reissued some
are not and sell poorly. so if you take a look at the number of new
releases and reissues each year by these labels and the subdivisins of
the majors that are now trying to take o the audiophile market you can
get an idea of what is being produced each year. No, I don't know the
exact numbers but certainly you can get an idea that the proportions
are pretty substantial in their difference. 200 releases in one year
would amount to aproximently 200,000 units produced for one year. That
does not account for how many are sold but one could perhaps some sort
of equalibrium between production and sales since this is a mature
niche market. I would guestimate that the ratio between audiophile to
total Lp production is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/10 to 1/50.
But if we really want to know we could contact RTI which is *the*
producer of US audiophile Lps and we could contact the few pressing
plants over seas (I think there are two that produce audiophile vinyl)
and get a very good idea of anual production of audiophile vinyl. Then
we can look at world sales and get a very good idea. I don't go that
far because i have found a much simpler gauge. The number of available
titles tells the tale given that the titles have such uniform runs.
Over the past ten years that has gone up quite substantially.

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold.

Please explain the logic behind that conclusion. Do tell us how after
ten years of putting out more and more titles that ,as you claim, are
not selling that these niche companies remain in business. Please tell
us how the economics work here to support your assertion.

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.

So now if our vinyl champions would just supply some data
demonstrating this increase, we'd have something.

I supplied you with an email address to Chad Kasem. Just ask him.If you
really feel the need to have hard numbers. I don't feel such a need
since as an experienced buyer of audiophile vinyl the truth of the
matter is plainly clear. 10 to 15 years ago there just wasn't much out
there. now it is very difficult to keep up. Here ar some links to some
of the makers of such LPs. Check out their catalogues. Then if you
really need to know email them and ask them about sales patterns over
the past ten to fifteen years, Ask them about the state of their
ctalogues back in the nineties.

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/

Now that isn't everyone in the busines but it is a substantial chunk of
them. So if you are really truly interested in the numbers you can do
the research yourself. I suspect you are more interested in posturing
about it than really finding out hence i bet you do absolutely no
research but continue to posture about not being spoon fed the numbers.
As I have said before I see no point in wasting *my* time to get hard
numbers to prove what I already know to be true. I think I have done
plenty here just to give you the access you need to find the numbers
*you claim* you want to see.

Instead, we get
arguments of the form, "Well, just because all the data we have is
flatlining doesn't mean there's not an increase." Spare me.

I cannot spare you from arguments that you invent on our behalf. That'
on you.

Scott

[Here in Ohio]

On 11 Nov 2006 03:30:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2006 15:09:56 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:

Here in Ohio wrote (about the connectors in Monster Cable products):

Their connectors are also often out of spec so they'll damage whatever
you plug them into. But I guess they do that for you as a bonus.

I've never seen "out-of-spec" Monster Cable connectors. Certainly,
Monster products have never damaged any of my equipment. Please tell us
about your experience and the damage you've incurred.

Monster seems to have this habit of using RCA plugs with this overly
thick split center pin that then deforms the inner contact of the jack
you plug it into. They also have an outer ring that is too small and
stiff and it can literally scrape the plating off of the outside of
the jack. I think I even saw some kind of "locking" RCA plug from them
where you're free to apply so much force you can destroy any RCA jack.

Has it ever occurred to you that their rugged cables which you claim
"destroy jacks" actually only destroy cheap jacks, and that they are
designed to mate with the equally rugged female jacks used on high-end
equipment?

No, since I've seem the Monster stuff damage good quality jacks from
Switchcraft.

If I need some kind of weird audiophlake "Monster-proof" jacks, then
count me out.

[Here in Ohio]

On 11 Nov 2006 18:01:45 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

is not the same as "proving" they are liars or charlatans. I'm sure they
could provide some evidence via technical measures in support of their
claims (such as lower inductance), and it would be up to you to show that it
was sonically irrelevant.

They tend not to actually be able to cough up any "technical" measures
that show their products are "better." This applies equally to all the
fancy wire purveyors. They're strong on BS and short on supplying
factual info.

Then we have to consider the fact that even these differences in RLC
only produce changes on the order of a fraction of a dB. Or maybe you
have those "Wonderears" that can hear a .1dB difference?


Basically what has you upset is advertising puffery, it seems to me. I
don't like it either...but our capitalistic economy is unfortunately or
fortunately (depending on your point of view) based upon it. It certainly
is not exclusive to audio, and most consumers once they leave childhood seem
able to be skeptical.

I object to advertising puffery when that's all that they are selling;
which is the case for the vast majority of cable vendors.

I can accept a bit of BS to sell a good product, although I prefer to
avoid _any_ BS. What I won't tolerate is a product that is solely BS.

When I look at normal wire vs. what a company like Monster pushes, I
see that Monster is selling BS. What's worse is that they charge a lot
of money for their BS.

[Here in Ohio]

On 11 Nov 2006 16:43:58 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

What about the difference between store bought cables that cost half or less
than what the Monster Cables cost, and Monster Cables?

What about those differences? At issue here is nabob's claim that
Monster Cables are "junk" and "snake oil." What you're discussing is
Monster Cable's value. That's a purely subjective determination. Every
consumer decides for himself what is "good value."

Ok, then you evidently value snake oil then.

[Here in Ohio]

On 12 Nov 2006 01:55:33 GMT, Walt wrote:

c. leeds wrote:
Walt wrote (about calling nabob "anti-high-end" because of his claim
that Monster Cable is "junk" and "snake-oil"

Then please tell us where the "voodoo" is in Monster Cable.

They claim that their cables make an audible difference. That claim
is unsupported. Their "scientific" explanation is smoke and mirrors.

Monster makes a decent product.

Both of your statements can't be true. If it's "a decent product," then
it isn't "junk" or "snake oil" or "voodoo."

Suppose I sell you a paperweight. It's a decent paperweight, holds
the papers down quite well. So far so good. It works. But if I
claim that it makes your stereo system sound better, I'm
misrepresenting it. It's just a rock.

http://home.wi.rr.com/saruman/articles/sonicrock.html

:-)

[Here in Ohio]

On 12 Nov 2006 15:37:54 GMT, "c. leeds" wrote:


Monster cable is just wire. At audio frequencies and at typical lengths...

No, Monster Cable is not "just wire." Monster uses tighter, more robust
connectors than found on the flimsy free cables nabob prefers.

So it's all in the connectors, huh? The only reason you buy Monster
cables is because of the connectors? They could use any old wire and
you'd still be a loyal Monster fan?

Connectors aren't that expensive, so why are Monster cables expensive?

Why do they sell cables using the same connectors for different
prices?


BTW, if you are a typical CD collector, half the recordings in your
collection have passed through at least a hundred meters of 8451 or it's
equivalent. Another meter won't make a dimes worth of difference.

It will if the connectors are flimsy and allow the introduction of RFI
into the audio system.

Yeah, keep saying that. 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.

[Here in Ohio]

On 11 Nov 2006 16:48:31 GMT, wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Happened across this analysis of sales trends...

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ndLPsales.html

Doesn't seem to jibe with claims of a 'vinyl renaissance' that occasionally
appear in the press and online, though LPs are holding on better here than in
the UK.


It would be more interesting and relevant to see some figures that
relate to high end audio. Maybe we can find some figures of sales from
companies that cater to the audiophile community. High end itself is
such a small niche in relation to the music business that such
statistics say nothing about the high end market. personally I am not
interested in sales figures for CDs that are largely unlistenable nor
am I interested in sales figures for LPs that are largely used for
scatching and other such non-audiophile purposes. The relative health
of markets for LPs, CD, DVD-As and SACDs taht were made with sound
quality in mind should be the focus of such discussions for reasons
that should be obvious.


So you want to move those goalposts to whatever place will prove your
point?

[Here in Ohio]

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.

[bob]

wrote:
bob wrote:

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold.

Please explain the logic behind that conclusion. Do tell us how after
ten years of putting out more and more titles that ,as you claim, are
not selling that these niche companies remain in business. Please tell
us how the economics work here to support your assertion.

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.

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.)


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.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
wrote:
bob wrote:

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold.

Please explain the logic behind that conclusion. Do tell us how after
ten years of putting out more and more titles that ,as you claim, are
not selling that these niche companies remain in business. Please tell
us how the economics work here to support your assertion.

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.

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.)


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.

When you "live it", Bob, you don't have to "count".

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?

That's the question "Porky" asked. And you haven't answered.

[Harry Lavo]

"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?

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. There is the thing that economists call "imputed value".
It is the result of advertising, brand history, reliability, and
psychological need. It underlies a good chunk of sales in this country.

Now, can I buy these "lesser" brands and save money? Yep, and often do.
After doing a comparison and DECIDING FOR MYSELF. Sometimes I think the
small differences that do exist are worth it. Sometimes I do not. And if I
have high monetary demands that month, I might buy more store brands, and
when I'm feeling flush, more name brands.

SO WHAT? It is my choice. People are not sheep. They buy what they want
to buy. "Better Sound" from Monster Cable may be psychologically real for a
consumer just as a Buick is a "Better Car" to many despite being essentially
the same as a Chevy. That doesn't mean that everybody who buys a Buick is
being ripped off by GM.

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold.

Please explain the logic behind that conclusion. Do tell us how after
ten years of putting out more and more titles that ,as you claim, are
not selling that these niche companies remain in business. Please tell
us how the economics work here to support your assertion.

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. 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.


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. 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? I am relisting the links so anyone reading this
and is actually interested in the hard numbers can do the research for
themselves if they really want to know.

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 is stopping you from checking Bob if you really want the evidence?
As I said before, I don't think you really want it.

Scott

[bob]

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.

bob

[bob]

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Look, I'm not asking you to renounce Jesus here. The audiophile vinyl
market MAY be growing. I've said that. What I won't concede is that the
market IS growing, based only on your say-so, which is all you've given
me. You've made the claim. You know where the burden of proof lies.

bob

[c. leeds]

Here in Ohio wrote:

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.

Absent any specific information such as model numbers, your claim
doesn't mean much. Monster cables are known for ruggedness and none that
I have are made as you describe. Not even close.