Why Are You Mad At Cables You Can't Afford?

aboroth00

madmax wrote: »

Monster cables are the only ones I've tried which actually cause sound degregation over stock $1 cables like you get with cheap components.

I just sort of wonder if everyone could afford MIT cables or any other company who sells high end cables, what would they think of the cables and whether they are really worth their retail price. I sort of believe there is a psychological factor at play when it comes to the exclusivity of these cables and why Monster is universally talked down upon when they offer "more affordable" prices which the avg joe can actually buy. It's not like they make "bad cables" or if there is such a thing as a "bad cable."

Just food for thought.

aboroth00

F1nut wrote: »

No, they don't. It's about timing.

I've actually heard my local audio dealer claim that the cables with the cable passing through what I like to call a "magic box" actually replaces the frequencies lost in the cable and deliver it faithfully to the speaker.

I'm not quite sure timing has anything to do with it as electrons move through the cable at near the speed of light. It more has to do with the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the cable. I know MIT sometimes adds a capacitor, or inductor in the cable to claim to alleviate noise or any other concerns. Of course this will slightly alter the sound, however for better or for worse it will be continually debated.

cokewithvanilla

inspiredsports wrote: »

Priced a liver on the black market lately ?? :biggrin:

They're actually mad cheap right now in Liberia.... get em while their hot.. never know when it might save you

F1nut

aboroth00 wrote: »

You can make the same argument toward a company who charges thousands for a speaker cable which doesn't cost that much to make.

In that case, you could argue that a company like Polk is ripping you off as well. Let's face it, it doesn't cost them anywhere close to what they sell them for. A business needs to make a healthy profit otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work it takes to run it. Hello!!! What the hell is wrong with you people!?!

Because why are people mad at Monster? Because they make overpriced cables.

No, it's because of their lawsuits against any company with monster in their name.

F1nut

aboroth00 wrote: »

I've actually heard my local audio dealer claim that the cables with the cable passing through what I like to call a "magic box" actually replaces the frequencies lost in the cable and deliver it faithfully to the speaker.

I'm not quite sure timing has anything to do with it as electrons move through the cable at near the speed of light. It more has to do with the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the cable. I know MIT sometimes adds a capacitor, or inductor in the cable to claim to alleviate noise or any other concerns. Of course this will slightly alter the sound, however for better or for worse it will be continually debated.

It's about timing. Plenty of white papers on MIT's site for you to read. Your dealer should too.

nooshinjohn

gdb wrote: »

$40,000.00? that's easy........$1000.00 for cables & $39,000.00 for a car, boat or motorcycle, or......hookers,booze & blow.

Cables do make a difference, but I quote my good friend:rolleyes: gdb to make a point... When Charlie Sheen goes through 100k worth of hookers and blow, then proclaims he is some "WINNING" tiger-blooded Adonis, the world doesn't really seem to care.

If I ever have the mega-wallet needed for some of these cables, I will happily invest some coin in cables and gear rather than hookers and beer. Better to spend time with my gear and remember than time in a jail cell with Bubba that I could never forget.:eek:

aboroth00

F1nut wrote: »

In that case, you could argue that a company like Polk is ripping you off as well. Let's face it, it doesn't cost them anywhere close to what they sell them for. A business needs to make a healthy profit otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work it takes to run it. Hello!!! What the hell is wrong with you people!?!

I believe most people here believe that there is a rather large difference between the profit mongering of speaker companies vs. speaker cables. The price they sell speaker cables for vs. their cost to make speaker cables is a much larger rift than speakers. Most people's qualms with speaker cables IS the healthy profit margin, the VERY healthy profit margin.



No, it's because of their lawsuits against any company with monster in their name.[/QUOTE]

I'm not mad at monster cable for that. I've actually never heard of that. I don't know too many people that have or I've spoken to that are mad at monster cable for that. I've mostly encountered, "they make overpriced cables."

aboroth00

F1nut wrote: »

It's about timing. Plenty of white papers on MIT's site for you to read. Your dealer should too.

Uh... I believe you are mistaken. There is literally no timing issues, unless you're speaking of phase shift issues. But their mediation of most of the problems is to introduce an inductor, capacitor, or resistor into the circuit in some fancy fashion.

If you can explain this timing issue then I'd be convinced. But obviously MIT alters the capacitance, inductance and resistance of a cable which can directly affect the sound.

RuSsMaN

The new Incubus album is out, already have it on order. I'm also thinking about doing a random selection of 5 lp's and 5 cd's out of the rack tonight, to hear something all over again. You know, just blind picks - and if they have familiar tracks, maybe I'll spin the less familiar tonight instead.

Picked up a 1950's Columbia mini-tube console with the 'extension' stereo speaker a few days ago. Thinking about brining it up on the variac tonight and changing the table belt while I listen. Maybe sip a toddy throughout the experience.

Had a great time at the Texas gathering, heard a lot of good gear, and some new music to my ears. Maybe I'll search ebay and amazon, and try to pick some of it up on the cheap, then post a review here to share with others.

All else fails, there's always internet ****, and that's SO much more fun than listening to **** tops talk about what is or isn't correct as fact, regarding a widely subjective and personal hobby such as audio.

Cheers,
Russ

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Hello!!! What the hell is wrong with you people!?!

LOL !! .....I'd kiss ya if you weren't so damn ugly.

Didn't you get the memo Jess ?? Capitalism is bad.

inspiredsports

aboroth00 wrote: »

. . . there is literally no timing issues . . .

????

cokewithvanilla

Keiko wrote: »

Furthermore, How do you know? What evidence do you have to substantiate this healthy profit margin claim? D

dude.. this was brought up in a previous thread where, i believe, you said the same thing. Perhaps not every company has the same markup, but talk to any best buy employee. I don't know if they stopped offering this to employees, but they used to offer cables at cost to employees... that made cables around 90% off to employees.

Another person chimed in with similar results from a different company.

It is no secret that cables have huge markup... now, [your favorite cable company here] could be made up of such kind individuals that they price only slightly above TOTAL cost.... and that's great.. but you don't know that either.

TECHNOKID

F1nut wrote: »

No, they don't. It's about timing.

BTW, this was a joke

aboroth00 wrote: »

I just sort of wonder if everyone could afford MIT cables or any other company who sells high end cables, what would they think of the cables and whether they are really worth their retail price. I sort of believe there is a psychological factor at play when it comes to the exclusivity of these cables and why Monster is universally talked down upon when they offer "more affordable" prices which the avg joe can actually buy. It's not like they make "bad cables" or if there is such a thing as a "bad cable."

Just food for thought.

Keike has mentioned it earlier; "ethics". IE: The way they have tricked their in-store demos is well known. No body debates the Mon$ter cable are garbage but as pointed out earlier, you can get better bang for your buck. Their profit margins are unbelievable, their cables cost next to nothing but are priced like if they were the high end of large surface stores.

aboroth00 wrote: »

I've actually heard my local audio dealer claim that the cables with the cable passing through what I like to call a "magic box" actually replaces the frequencies lost in the cable and deliver it faithfully to the speaker.

I'm not quite sure timing has anything to do with it as electrons move through the cable at near the speed of light. It more has to do with the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the cable. I know MIT sometimes adds a capacitor, or inductor in the cable to claim to alleviate noise or any other concerns. Of course this will slightly alter the sound, however for better or for worse it will be continually debated.

You are correct to say that you can modify the sound with the use of LCR (afterall, that is the property of cables (however significant at longer distance, much longer than home use)) however, other electronic components can be used to affect the cable properties. Those magic boxes could be called some form of Xover.

F1nut wrote: »

In that case, you could argue that a company like Polk is ripping you off as well. Let's face it, it doesn't cost them anywhere close to what they sell them for. A business needs to make a healthy profit otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work it takes to run it. Hello!!! What the hell is wrong with you people!?!

Agreed speakers are also sold at profit margin but IMO, most Polk speakers (or any comparable speakers) cost more (% wise) to make then so called high end cables. I agree a store/boutique/manufacturers need to make a profit but what is decent and what is abusive profit margin?

aboroth00 wrote: »

I believe most people here believe that there is a rather large difference between the profit mongering of speaker companies vs. speaker cables. The price they sell speaker cables for vs. their cost to make speaker cables is a much larger rift than speakers. Most people's qualms with speaker cables IS the healthy profit margin, the VERY healthy profit margin.

Speaker profit margins are generally pretty hefty but I am with you that this is nothing compare to cable profit margins when considering speakers versus cables manufacturing costs, not even counting storage, manufacturing just to name a few.

I'm not mad at monster cable for that. I've actually never heard of that. I don't know too many people that have or I've spoken to that are mad at monster cable for that. I've mostly encountered, "they make overpriced cables."

Their ethics worse then their pricing and quite well known/documented.

aboroth00 wrote: »

Uh... I believe you are mistaken. There is literally no timing issues, unless you're speaking of phase shift issues. But their mediation of most of the problems is to introduce an inductor, capacitor, or resistor into the circuit in some fancy fashion.

If you can explain this timing issue then I'd be convinced. But obviously MIT alters the capacitance, inductance and resistance of a cable which can directly affect the sound.

Electronically, you can definitely affect/alter timing/phase in a cable. This might help you to understand some of the theory behind it; http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-timedelayphase.htmhttp://www.libinst.com/tpfd.htmhttp://www.audiosold.com/theorydesign.htm

VR3

I had some MIT Z-Cord II

I made a thread but I think I totaled up the wire and connectors to around 25 dollars...

That left 275 dollars for the magic boxes - not to mention they get the wire and connectors at cost.

You are paying alot for overhead on MIT, IMO - but its worth it

tonyb

I guess it all depends on your definition of what a "healthy profit" is.

Who cares anyway....every company has to make a profit, is that news to anyone here ? Besides, if you think buying monoprice cables because they are cheap,that your getting the same quality cable as a MIT or Audioquest, just without the markup,your sadly mistaken.

inspiredsports

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

I had some MIT Z-Cord II

I made a thread but I think I totaled up the wire and connectors to around 25 dollars...

That left 275 dollars for the magic boxes - not to mention they get the wire and connectors at cost.

You are paying alot for overhead on MIT, IMO - but its worth it

And those MIT Z (IEC power) Cables that you had (and sold to me) plus the MIT Shotgun AC1 (IEC power) Cables that you had (and sold to me) are living happily every after in my rigs.

I've spent hundreds of hours comparing them to 7 or 8 other comparably or even higher priced power cables, and the MIT's end up back in the rigs every time.

I'm consistently baffled when folks (in general, not specifically you J) believe the cost of raw materials should equal the selling price, yet they want their employer to pay them a nice fat salary with 20 sick days and 10 paid holidays thrown in just for kicks.

DarqueKnight

RuSsMaN wrote: »

All else fails, there's always internet ****, and that's SO much more fun than listening to **** tops talk about what is or isn't correct as fact, regarding a widely subjective and personal hobby such as audio.

That's a great suggestion. Another one would be going over to the Clubhouse section and starting a thread about our toilet and flatulence activities for the day. I think that grown men talking about $hit is SOOOOOO much more entertaining than any even remotely-related audio topic.

If talking about anything of value was a CP requirement, how many threads would there be around here?

Moderators, this thread is serving no useful purpose. Please lock it down NOW.

Thanks.

cokewithvanilla

Keiko wrote: »

Not talking about retail markup such as BestBuy, CherryCoke. Referring to the manufacturer's costs. Duh! You really need to work on your reading and comprehension skills, kid. You don't want to end up like juju, do ya?

... could you imagine the manufacturers cost if retail is so low...... now connect the dots and think now if the manufacturer sells direct (and competes with retail prices, like many specialty cable companies do)...

thing is, that comparison might not even be fair since these specialty retailers deal in high margin / low volume.... the cheap cables BB sells are truly a totally different product, all things considered. However, it just goes to show how cheaply it can be done. Specialty cable makers may barely make enough to keep the doors open, but if that is the case, there is plenty of room for improvement.

VR3

inspiredsports wrote: »

And those MIT Z (IEC power) Cables that you had (and sold to me) plus the MIT Shotgun AC1 (IEC power) Cables that you had (and sold to me) are living happily every after in my rigs.

I've spent hundreds of hours comparing them to 7 or 8 other comparably or even higher priced power cables, and the MIT's end up back in the rigs every time.

I'm consistently baffled when folks (in general, not specifically you J) believe the cost of raw materials should equal the selling price, yet they want their employer to pay them a nice fat salary with 20 sick days and 10 paid holidays thrown in just for kicks.

Yep! Those are the ones!!

fishbones

aboroth00 wrote: »

I just sort of wonder if everyone could afford MIT cables or any other company who sells high end cables, what would they think of the cables and whether they are really worth their retail price. I sort of believe there is a psychological factor at play when it comes to the exclusivity of these cables and why Monster is universally talked down upon when they offer "more affordable" prices which the avg joe can actually buy. It's not like they make "bad cables" or if there is such a thing as a "bad cable."

Just food for thought.

To answer your question: I have tried MIT cables....and I didn't like them.

They were no where near the best model (fairly entry level - Terminator 3's), and this model is about 15yrs old (not the ones most are praising on here), but still they were MIT's with the "magic boxes", and I believe this model had a pretty good following back in the day. I compared them to two other cables I had including Audioquest and JPS, and the MIT's came in last of the three. All three were around $300 speaker cables retail, so it was a pretty fair comparison as far as quality level matching. I also have read in here somewhere that another Polkie didn't like MIT's in his system either, and they were the newer and much more expensive ones. Does this mean that MIT's suck? Of course not. Any fool who knows how to read, would see that there are many members on here (and many in other places) that love them, which means there's good reason for it. But, not every model that a company produces is "gold",...and there is the whole synergy thing. It's very possible they just didn't work for our systems. Does that mean they aren't worth their asking price because they didn't sound good for me? Again, no. They were very well built - well built enough that they looked like they would play for another 15+years.

I also own a couple Monster cables models. While I can't speak for all their models, the ones I have tried were pretty intolerable (listening-wise), and I don't see them changing their design philosophy any time soon to make me want to try them again. They was just too many flaws (for me) in their sound compared to cables even in their same price category.

...The major difference here, is that I tried them! And I wouldn't be opposed to try them again, in a different model as my gear/needs change in the future. Try them, or any for that matter, and see what works for you! It's the only way you'll know.

TECHNOKID

F1nut wrote: »

No, they don't. It's about timing.

BTW, this was a joke

aboroth00 wrote: »

I just sort of wonder if everyone could afford MIT cables or any other company who sells high end cables, what would they think of the cables and whether they are really worth their retail price. I sort of believe there is a psychological factor at play when it comes to the exclusivity of these cables and why Monster is universally talked down upon when they offer "more affordable" prices which the avg joe can actually buy. It's not like they make "bad cables" or if there is such a thing as a "bad cable."

Just food for thought.

Keike has mentioned it earlier; "ethics". IE: The way they have tricked their in-store demos is well known. No body debates the Mon$ter cable are garbage but as pointed out earlier, you can get better bang for your buck. Their profit margins are unbelievable, their cables cost next to nothing but are priced like if they were the high end of large surface stores.

aboroth00 wrote: »

I've actually heard my local audio dealer claim that the cables with the cable passing through what I like to call a "magic box" actually replaces the frequencies lost in the cable and deliver it faithfully to the speaker.

I'm not quite sure timing has anything to do with it as electrons move through the cable at near the speed of light. It more has to do with the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the cable. I know MIT sometimes adds a capacitor, or inductor in the cable to claim to alleviate noise or any other concerns. Of course this will slightly alter the sound, however for better or for worse it will be continually debated.

You are correct to say that you can modify the sound with the use of LCR (afterall, that is the property of cables (however significant at longer distance, much longer than home use)) however, other electronic components can be used to affect the cable properties. Those magic boxes could be called some form of Xover.

F1nut wrote: »

In that case, you could argue that a company like Polk is ripping you off as well. Let's face it, it doesn't cost them anywhere close to what they sell them for. A business needs to make a healthy profit otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work it takes to run it. Hello!!! What the hell is wrong with you people!?!

Agreed speakers are also sold at profit margin but IMO, most Polk speakers (or any comparable speakers) cost more (% wise) to make then so called high end cables. I agree a store/boutique/manufacturers need to make a profit but what is decent and what is abusive profit margin?

aboroth00 wrote: »

I believe most people here believe that there is a rather large difference between the profit mongering of speaker companies vs. speaker cables. The price they sell speaker cables for vs. their cost to make speaker cables is a much larger rift than speakers. Most people's qualms with speaker cables IS the healthy profit margin, the VERY healthy profit margin.

Speaker profit margins are generally pretty hefty but I am with you that this is nothing compare to cable profit margins when considering speakers versus cables manufacturing costs, not even counting storage, manufacturing just to name a few.

I'm not mad at monster cable for that. I've actually never heard of that. I don't know too many people that have or I've spoken to that are mad at monster cable for that. I've mostly encountered, "they make overpriced cables."

Their ethics worse then their pricing and quite well known/documented.

aboroth00 wrote: »

Uh... I believe you are mistaken. There is literally no timing issues, unless you're speaking of phase shift issues. But their mediation of most of the problems is to introduce an inductor, capacitor, or resistor into the circuit in some fancy fashion.

If you can explain this timing issue then I'd be convinced. But obviously MIT alters the capacitance, inductance and resistance of a cable which can directly affect the sound.

Electronically, you can definitely affect timing/phase in a cable. This might help you to understand some of the theory behind it; http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-timedelayphase.htm

Conradicles

Troy...those T3 cables are not on the same level as some of the other MIT cables so keep an open mind bro!

VR3

Working in a business where I get to see how much of a company makes and then how much it costs to run the business - it amazes me at how much consumers think dealers and manufactures "owe" them something. The internet has ruined the human race.

fishbones

Conradicles wrote: »

Troy...those T3 cables are not on the same level as some of the other MIT cables so keep an open mind bro!

Thanks Eric! Hopefully my message at the end was was clear to everyone of exactly that. I have no doubt that MIT's will find their way into my system in the future for another go'round.

cokewithvanilla

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Working in a business where I get to see how much of a company makes and then how much it costs to run the business - it amazes me at how much consumers think dealers and manufactures "owe" them something. The internet has ruined the human race.

I don't think that is entirely true. The internet, and progression in technology has made it possible for some businesses to greatly lower their costs while increasing their profit margin. Some businesses, however, have been forced to lower their price because of the lower barriers to entry. Others still, have not kept up with the times and are not making money due to that..... and even more than that, some businesses simply do not operate in an industry that allows for high profit.

what industry are you working in?

edit: I will give you this though, customers generally have no idea what goes into the cost of a product, and generally think that EVERY business is making a ton of money.

TECHNOKID

Working in a business where I get to see how much of a company makes and then how much it costs to run the business - it amazes me at how much consumers think dealers and manufactures "owe" them something. The internet has ruined the human race.

maybe the opposite, maybe the internet has awakend consumers to the point that getting their money's worth is now becoming the norm. I don't see anything wrong with consumer awareness, quite the opposite. The only thing dealers and manufacturers owes consumers is fair pricing but I also believe dealers are also allowed to fair profit. Now, the only thing to define now is what is fair profit. 30%, 50%, 100%, or 1000% markup. Maybe you can educate us (I'm willing to read your arguments)?

what industry are you working in?

What industry are we presently talking about (not only an item but as a whole)? I tend to believe he is a salemen in the field but I am willing to hear his argument(s) and learn...

inspiredsports

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Working in a business where I get to see how much of a company makes and then how much it costs to run the business - it amazes me at how much consumers think dealers and manufactures "owe" them something. The internet has ruined the human race.

Yep, everybody thinks they are underpaid for what they do in their jobs, but they then want to dictate that the people producing the goods they consume should work for free.

Folks can **** all they want, but it's this simple. If cables are truly overpriced, cable producers will lower their prices because they are not selling enough cables, or they will go out of business.

VR3

What is "FAIR"

When the manufactures sets no minimum advertised price on an item and an internet company uses their entire product line as a loss leader? Selling an item BELOW cost.

How is that fair? The consumer only wins. And before long when the dumb **** internet company wakes up and realizes that they are giving away the only product that makes them money to sell high dollar - low profit - items they might get it too.

The internet has ruined the market place Techno kid.

When you search for an item and you see 10 prices at X and then 3 at Y and Y is 150 dollars less than X - its because some dumbass out of his house bought that from somewhere and is selling it for 20 dollars over cost because he can.

Thats not consumer awareness its wrong.

cokewithvanilla

TECHNOKID wrote: »

What industry are we presently talking about (not only an item but as a whole)?

uhh... chicken taco!

VR3

Id like to keep my place of business out of this discussion and the market in which I am in. If you know the business in which I work you can please keep it to yourself. Thanks