Monster Cable Z2 reference cable

DarqueKnight

samNOISE wrote:

.
Dude, pu-hu-leeze! :mad:

You know that you would have no idea which was which in a blind-folder audition, give it a break!

Andrew D.
cdnav.com
.

Very amusing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that one cable, and another with almost twice the electrical resistance and different dielectric properties, will sound identical? I think perhaps it is you who should give it a "break" or perhaps more careful consideration.

Granted, if you are using low resolution "Brand X" level gear and switching between cables with some cheap, noisy switchbox from Radio Shack, you may very well not hear a difference...just as you may not be able to tell a difference between a regular and a high performance set of tires if you mount them on some junker automobile.

I must admit that I do not understand your apparent angst at my ability to perceive differences in audio cables. Since you have no empirical or experimental data on the perceptive capabilities of my physical auditory system (ears), it is presumptuous of you to tell me what I can or cannot hear. It would be equally presumptive of me to state what you can or cannot hear without measuring your auditory capabilities in a controlled laboratory setting. I would be apprehensive about appearing foolish in a public forum. Therefore, if you say that you perceive no difference in generic 24 gauge zip cord and 8 gauge Kimber Monocle XL cable, then I must take your word for it.

Apparently you do not understand that for stimuli (e.g. sounds, sights, tactile influences) that impinge upon human senses, there is no right or wrong "answer" to how we perceive or react to those stimuli as every human being's senses are different. This introduces a lot of subjectivity into the process of evaluating auditory and visual stimuli.

One more thing you should be aware of, is that I am skeptical by nature and I always assume that there is some degree of exaggeration in most manufacturer's claims. This skepticism, coupled with my formal education in electrical engineering (B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees) plus over twenty years experience as a practicing electrical engineer, greatly assists in my sifting through a lot of the nonsense and pseudo-theory that pervades the audio industry in general and the audio cable sector in particular.

DarqueKnight

reeltrouble1 wrote:

What now I gotta go barefoot??? yeeks.

RT1

No..no. Don't ask and they won't tell.;)

To expound a little bit more, my determinant for dealing with a company is whether they do more good than harm. Every person and every organization that is composed of people, has its good and bad aspects. I think Monster Cable, Inc. is a good company that has done some bad things. If you recall, it was Monster Inc. who initiated the whole "premium quality" cable industry. They make quality products and provide good customer service and support.

hearingimpared

Raife,

I always admire your ability to tell someone to "shut the eff up cause you don't know what you are talking about," (my words) in such an educated, polite, and concise manner.

reeltrouble1

nevermind...................well actually, I just can't buy that mc is a good company who did bad things, that just will not wash, Mr. Noel Lee was asked to stop his tactics by his peers and he refused, he is the leader and the leader sets the tone, not to even get into his henchman so to speak Mr. Tognetti.

Mr. Lee likes to call himself the Head Monster, I could not agree more.

RT1

Refefer

hearingimpared wrote:

Raife,

I always admire your ability to tell someone to "shut the eff up cause you don't know what you are talking about," (my words) in such an educated, polite, and concise manner.

I second that. :cool:

hearingimpared

reeltrouble1 wrote:

nevermind...................well actually, I just can't buy that mc is a good company who did bad things, that just will not wash, Mr. Noel Lee was asked to stop his tactics by his peers and he refused, he is the leader and the leader sets the tone, not to even get into his henchman so to speak Mr. Tognetti.

Mr. Lee likes to call himself the Head Monster, I could not agree more.

RT1

Beings that I don't know anything about Noel Lee's conduct and the going's on by MC, can someone please direct me to a link that will bring me up-to-date on the issues?

DarqueKnight

hearingimpared wrote:

Beings that I don't know anything about Noel Lee's conduct and the going's on by MC, can someone please direct me to a link that will bring me up-to-date on the issues?

Joe,

The "evidence" most commonly cited for Monster Inc.'s practice of "suing" every business who tries to use the word "monster" is a database at the U.S. Patent and trademark office, which can be accessed here:

Monster Cable Proceedings At the USPTO

When you go to this page, the title at the top reads: "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System". Each entry has a proceeding number and there is a "defendant" and a "plantiff". However, despite the legalistic wording on the page ("trial", "proceeding", "defendant", "plantiff") THESE ARE NOT COURT CASES. These are inquiries that Monster Cable has filled in "opposition" to a trademark filing. Monster files these oppositions in order to investigate and determine if there is any infringement on their trademarks by another business. The "trials" that are refered to are not court of law trials, but rather, are documentation reviews by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to determine whether or not a new trademark filing is impinging on an existing trademark. Both sides in the matter must present documentation supporting their claims. The particulars of any proceeding can be read by clicking on the proceeding number at the far left of the page.

In the vast majority of these cases, no infringement is found and Monster Cable drops their opposition.

Why does Monster Cable do this? Simple, trademarks must be "vigorously defended" in order to remain valid and enforceable. For example, let's assume that several cable television operators in different regions of the country decided to name their cable TV franchises Monster Cable Television and that Monster Cable Inc. did not oppose it because the cable TV companies are not in any way competing with Monster Cable's audio electronics business. Then, a couple of years later, a wire and cable company decides to call themselves "Monster Wires" and files a trademark application. Monster Cable becomes aware of Monster Wires application and files an opposition. Monster Wires argues that there is another company that uses the words "Monster Cable" in their business name and Monster Cable Inc. did nothing to oppose it. They further argue that Monster Cable Inc. has lost their exclusive rights to the trademark by allowing other business entities to "squat" on it. Monster Wires would have a very good chance of winning.

Monster Cable is not the only company that defends their trademarks in this manner. The interested reader can spend some time at the USPTO website researching the many trademark filing oppositions submitted by other well known companies.

I found a response to the "lawsuit" rumors from Monster Cable's president, Noel Lee, posted in various places around the web. Do a search on the term "A Note From Noel Lee". This response was purportedly prompted by an email from a disgruntled former Monster Cable customer, Jim Hoover of Edwardsville, IL. I was unable to find a copy of, or any mention of, Lee's note on Monster Cable's website. I have sent a copy of the note to Monster Cable requesting validation of its authenticity. However, the points made in the note make sense and it is very likely to be authentic. Monster probably does not consider it worthy of posting on their website. That would take time away from counting their cash. Furthermore, the vast majority of their customers are probably not even aware of the "lawsuit" uproar.

Ted (reeltrouble1) mentioned that Monster had sued a charity. I am not aware of that case. If Ted or anyone can point me to some documentation on that lawsuit, I would like to read about it.

There are a couple of other points I'd like to make. Monster Cable is in a very enviable position among audio cable manufacturers. Success breeds envy, jealousy, and contempt from some competitors which is in direct proportion to the degree of success. Obviously, Monster's competitors have a lot to gain by tarnishing Monster's reputation. If they could cause Monster to go out of business, that would be even better.

Some say they hate Monster Cable because they make high priced, mediocre products. I do not understand why this would be a reason to hate a company unless the mediocrity of their products endangered public safety in some way. If there are no public safety issues, then "hating" Monster, or any other company that has allegedly grown rich through selling high priced junk is misplaced anger. That anger would more appropriately be directed towards the consumers who foolishly bought the junk.

As always, thanks for reading.

reeltrouble1

HI,

There is a ton of stuff on the net, but here is an example:

12 / 23 / 04

Snow Monsters, a national children's kids ski and snowboard program, is yet another company who is suffering through legal tangles with the cable manufacturer Monster Cable. Monster Cable has been very aggressive in opposing anyone from using the Monster name, though the word is common within the English language. In a preemptive move, Snow Monsters has filed a lawsuit against Monster Cable in Denver Federal Court to stop Monster Cable from destroying a national ski and snowboard program that is said to not infringe or dilute Monster Cable's trademarks.

Around June of 1997, John R. Turner who is founder and President of Sirdar (the creators of the Snow Monsters program), wrote a children's song about skiing and snowboarding which he named Snow Monster. An audio CD also came out with songs teaching children various ski safety messages and later a screenplay video featured imaginary characters called Snow Monsters was also offered. Mr. Turner is a former member of the United States Ski Team (1976-77), served as a coach, was the Nordic Competition director of the United States Ski Association, a television commentator, and producer of World Cup races and international events. He also is a contributing writer to various skiing and snowboarding magazines. Now Mr. Turner of Snow Monsters faces what some consider legalized extortion.

Monster Cable's legal representative David Tognotti has been in various talks with Mr. Turner of Snow Monster. To quote the Snow Monster website "Tognotti demanded that Sirdar give up all rights to use SNOW MONSTERS, and provided Turner with a proposed licensing agreement that, among other things, required Sirdar to license the SNOW MONSTERS mark from Monster Cable, gave Monster Cable the right to approve or reject the manner in which Sirdar’s SNOW MONSTERS mark would be used, and required Sirdar to pay a royalty fee to Monster Cable, the amount of which was to be negotiated." In simple terms, this amount to Snow Monsters giving up their legally held name to Monster Cable, then licensing it back from them for various royalty fees. Other companies Monster Cable has legal wrangles with include Metropolis Entertainment's Monsters Wanted, Hansen Beverage Company's M Monster Energy, Duane C. Blake's Monster Seats, Discovery Communication's TV show Monster Garage, Monster Tower, Bally Gaming International's Monster Slots, Simple Wishes' Monsters Of The Interstate, and Net2Way's Monster Baseball. Click here to read the Monster Snow website's information on this recent development. More on this subject can be seen by reading Enjoy the Music.com™'s November 2004 editorial (click here).

Another example would be Monster Cable's tactics of going after a used clothing seller, yes they would surely want to change their name to monster wire used t-shirts. The thing is Monster wanted money from them, money understand, money that is it.

If Raife thinks its all right then he does, I do not and I never will, given I don't think Monster is anywhere near the top of any of the audio classes or levels we talk about here I choose other alternatives when making wire purchases.

My points have been made, your decisions to buy or not buy are your own. I am out. Please note although Lush said something different back then about it than now this link is not intended to slight him, he is a valued CP member.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24704&highlight

hearingimpared

Does it seem that Noel Lee is trying to keep his company name from becoming a commonly used word in the English language rather than a product NAME, like Xerox. When asked to make a copy of something it became common place to say, "make a xerox of this." Xerox became commonly known as "copies" rather than a corporation. The same goes for Q-tips. Noone asks for a "cotton swab" intentionally, they ask for a Q-tip.

If this is what Monster Cable is trying to avert then I have no problem with that. I don't think I've heard anyone refer to a set of speaker wire as Monster unless of course it was indeed Monster Cable.

Thanks Raife and Ted for all the information. This gave my brain a break from obsessing over all things audio for a good 1/2 hour.:D

DarqueKnight

Now, I am confused. I went to the Snowmonsters page cited by Lush's post:

Snowmonsters Lawsuit and Harassment Disclaimer

Jack Turner, the owner of Snowmonsters states the following in a letter dated January 10, 2005:

"Snow Monsters is not responsible, nor do we condone, any information published by other persons that is untrue or misleading. I learned that we may have posted links to online information that is not accurate.

I don't have any knowledge, nor have I ever claimed that Monster Cable has filed lawsuits against hundreds of companies or filed frivolous lawsuits. Rumors about suing the Chicago Bears, the Red Sox, or Fenway Park are simply false.

The database people have referred to is a list of trademark oppositions and requests for extensions. Trademark objection is a normal process for trademark owners. It is the Patent and Trademark office that decides if the trademark is allowed. Snow Monsters and Monster Cable will be protecting and policing our marks, or we will be in danger of losing them.

And Monster Cable never sued us. We filed a complaint in Federal Court against Monster Cable and have since withdrawn it. Please research information and check facts before jumping to any conclusions about Monster Cable. Our primary concern is to spread the truth - not cloud it."

reeltrouble1

Raife,

I believe it was some sort of agreement posting between the parties, possibly MC began to see the PR light, anyway, I think the thread is not now germain to this forum, I am officially out. Its more of social commentary not 2-channel audio.

RT1

F1nut

I believe it was some sort of agreement posting between the parties, possibly MC began to see the PR light

That's exactly what transpired.

brettw22

I have z2-biwire's in my system and they sound good to me. $1 a foot sounds like a deal to me.