losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 12:17:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
But did you oxygenate your wire first? Or was that DE-oxygenate, I forget which ridiculous claim justifies Monster's pricing. We'll be looking for the RumleyMusic brand cables at our local GC!
Oxygen-Free Copper A myth and a hoax. From near the bottom of that page: Many owners of high-end audio and video equipment value oxygen-free cables. Behind this demand is the belief that oxygen-free copper will have enhanced conductivity or other electrical properties that are significantly advantageous to low frequency (audio) signal transmission. However, conductivity specifications for C11000 ETP and C10200 OF coppers are identical. In practice, nominal conductivity differences between the three grades listed above are less than 1% at room temperature. So, unless your speaker cables are cooled to near absolute zero, don't expect any audible difference with OFC.
|
aaronk
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2005/12/09 16:33:31
- Location: HT&E
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 13:13:00
(permalink)
Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"
He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law. Semi-true. A trademark owner can't simply ignore infringing uses without risking losing the mark. But that doesn't require the trademark owner to be an a**hole. E.g., Kodak is a very strong mark, because it's an arbitrary word. Kodak would probably need to go after a small town pie shop called "Kodak Pies" or risk harm to its mark. But there's a difference between an aggressive "stop or we'll sue you to Kingdom Come" approach, versus a "We can't allow you to use our mark, and if you'll agree to stop we'll pay to get you a new sign" approach.
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 13:25:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: aaronk
Monster Cable CEO Noel Lee defended these actions by saying "We have an obligation to protect our trademark; otherwise we'd lose it"
He is correct. And whether they win or loose doesn't matter. It's not about winning, it's about protecting their trademark, and it's basically required of them by trademark law.
Semi-true. A trademark owner can't simply ignore infringing uses without risking losing the mark. But that doesn't require the trademark owner to be an a**hole.
E.g., Kodak is a very strong mark, because it's an arbitrary word. Kodak would probably need to go after a small town pie shop called "Kodak Pies" or risk harm to its mark. But there's a difference between an aggressive "stop or we'll sue you to Kingdom Come" approach, versus a "We can't allow you to use our mark, and if you'll agree to stop we'll pay to get you a new sign" approach.
The point is that a trademark does not give you any kind of exclusive ownership of a word. Kodak would almost certainly be well within their moral and legal rights to aggressively go after anyone else who was using the word, because it's a made-up word and it would be nigh-impossible to imagine any legitimate use of it other than to refer to the camera/film conglomorate. But "Delta" for instance is an actual word and therefore it is possible for there to be registered trademarks peacefully co-existing for Delta Airlines, Delta Faucets, and Delta Hotels. "Monster" is not only a real, pre-exisitng word, but an extremely common and ancient one that is in everyday useage for its common meaning. Thousands of companies have legitimate uses for monster that have nothing to do with the cable company. Monster trucks, costume shops, horror movies, special-effects companies, etc all have a perfectly legitimate right to use trademarks that include the word monster, and they also have to deal with the fact that their trademark is not going to be as exclusive as say Kodak or Texaco or Verizon or some such, but they also get the benefit of already having an iconic and descriptive term to use. There are thousands of trademarks having to do with "monster" that predate the existence of the cable company, and thousands of legitimate uses that have come up since. Monster is suing all of them. This is the equivalent of me starting a restaurant called "Cable", trademarking the name, and then suing monster cable for their use of the word. It's completely bogus and without merit. Cheers.
|
aaronk
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2005/12/09 16:33:31
- Location: HT&E
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 13:52:52
(permalink)
This is the equivalent of me starting a restaurant called "Cable", trademarking the name, and then suing monster cable for their use of the word. It's completely bogus and without merit. But tempting . . .
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 14:51:23
(permalink)
Which kind of brings me to a pointless pondering.
2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.
How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?
And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?
I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable.
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 15:48:18
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mwd
Which kind of brings me to a pointless pondering.
2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.
How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?
And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?
I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable.
Trademark is not copyright. Trademark is a somewhat murkier world, and there can easily be hundreds or thousands of registered and unregistered trademarks that use similar wording and that co-exist in perpetual prosperity and happiness. Forget about any laws or anything for a minute, the purpose of a "trade mark" is some kind of mark or word or logo or whatever that identifies you or your business in the marketplace. Before you ever talk to an attorney or a government agency or whatever, if you have a name or a logo for your business, that is a mark you use in trade. You have certain legal protections and moral rights to use it even if you don't register it or put a "TM" after it or whatever (but obviously your protections are stronger if you do). Let's say you start a diner and call it "Town Diner." Not very imaginative but it works. Even if you don't register it, that's your trademark, and the name you do business under and nothing wrong with it, even though there are probably a thousand other "Town Diners" in the world. And it is a trademark for each of them. As long as there's no confusion, as long as nobody's trying to capitalize on someone else's name, no big deal. Just like Joe's Garage or whatever. But let's say someone else opened another "town diner" in town, or let's say you are successful and decide to start a chain or franchises and you register the Trademark and expand to other towns that already have a "town diner," which may predate your registered trademark. These are problems, and they are stickier and murkier and less clear-cut than copyright issues. Ideally, you could figure out a way to sort this out somehow with the other party. Maybe one will agree to use a distinctive logo and change their name to "Mary Morton's Original Town Diner" if the other party will pay for the new signage and printed materials or whatever. Given that neither party was trying to rip the other one off, and both have more or less legitimate claims, people will usually try to come to a semi-amicable solution. If that doesn't work then the courts will have to try and figure out what's fair and settle the matter somehow. That's an example of a difficult case to decide. A much easier one is when there is bona-fide clear infringement. For instance, someone sets up a "Town diner" designed to look like a part of your chain without your permission. This is clear infringement. Or a competitor uses you name in their own promotional materials, such as "Same recipe as Town Diner!" or "former chef of town diner!" Or someone wants to sabotage your business and sends out coupons with your name that say "buy one rat-booger pizza and get a second one free!" or whatever. Believe it or not, the law *is* actually designed to follow common-sense principles of fairness and reasonable behavior. It is not designed to be a system of complex traps that arbitrarily ruins lives because someone forgot to say "Mother May I" three times before turning on the lights. Trademark law is not intended as a natural resource to be exploited by lawyers to extract intellectual property from regular workaday businesses. If you started a company called "monster audio cable" to try and pass off cheap cables under the monster brand then they would have every right to sue you to kingdom come. But if you make horror movies about monsters, that has nothing to do with monster cable. You don't owe them anything and there's no reason that you can't go right along calling your movie "Monster" or whatever. Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/09/07 15:57:47
|
aaronk
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2005/12/09 16:33:31
- Location: HT&E
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 16:38:09
(permalink)
2 words: Monster Cable. Both common.
The word Monster has been TM to other parties prior to their use in other context.
The word Cable has been TM prior to Monster Cable to other cable interest.
How could Monster even TM this combo without infringing on someone?
And if they are going after people using 1 of these 2 words, which has already been TM'd to others couldn't ABC Cable sue Monster for using the word Cable if their TM pre-dated Monsters?
I don't get the logic or legality of you "can't" use Monster but we "can" use Cable. "Monster" is a common word, but it's an arbitrary choice of word to describe a cable. So, you can trademark "Monster" as a brand for cable, just like "Apple" computers or "Harp" beer. And a trademark owner can legitimately want to have a broad scope for their mark -- is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.? In the context of cables, "Cable" is the word describing the product. You can't trademark "Cable" as a brand for cables, but you could have "Cable" brand beer or "Cable" brand shoes or "Cable" brand monster masks.
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 18:17:59
(permalink)
I invent a cable reel that will roll up 20 stage cables at once.
Can I call it Cable Monster?
|
Owen
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 136
- Joined: 2004/07/05 10:01:09
- Location: Mansfield, Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/07 20:31:37
(permalink)
Can I write a childrens book about monsters, and call it Monster Fables?
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/08 10:20:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Owen
Can I write a childrens book about monsters, and call it Monster Fables?
Sure, but shortly after you syndicate and make a brand of Monster Fable products, you can expect to be slapped with a suit from Monster Cable saying that you're diluting their name. Judging by their track record, they know good and well that it won't stand up in court. But that doesn't matter... they're counting on your fear or lack of muster to call their bluff.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/08 11:01:00
(permalink)
is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.? You may recall that when Apple Computer came into existence, there was already a company called Apple Records, which sued the computer company for trademark infringement. The conflict was resolved by Apple Computer agreeing to never enter into the music business, eliminating any confusion among consumers about which was which. When Apple subsequently added sound to the Apple II, they were sued again because this appeared to be in violation of their agreement with Apple Corps. This may account for why the Mac initially lacked any real sound capabilities. Apple Computer persisted and had deeper pockets, until eventually they defeated Apple Records in court, paving the way for iTunes. No real point to be made here, just an interesting footnote.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
aaronk
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2005/12/09 16:33:31
- Location: HT&E
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/10 12:48:48
(permalink)
quote:
is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.?
You may recall that when Apple Computer came into existence, there was already a company called Apple Records, which sued the computer company for trademark infringement.
The conflict was resolved by Apple Computer agreeing to never enter into the music business, eliminating any confusion among consumers about which was which.
When Apple subsequently added sound to the Apple II, they were sued again because this appeared to be in violation of their agreement with Apple Corps. This may account for why the Mac initially lacked any real sound capabilities.
Apple Computer persisted and had deeper pockets, until eventually they defeated Apple Records in court, paving the way for iTunes.
No real point to be made here, just an interesting footnote. This was the dispute I had in mind in posing my rhetorical question. Two companies that both strike me as decent players, using the idea of an "Apple" to brand their products, and finding themsleves in a turf war.
|
cryophonik
Max Output Level: -28 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4724
- Joined: 2006/04/03 17:28:17
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/10 17:20:42
(permalink)
OK, so I thought I'd share my most recent Monster Cable story with ya'll. I stopped off at a local music shop (nope, not Guitar Center, but a regional chain here in the Central Valley of Cali) the other day to pick up a S/PDIF cable. The 20-yr old pro audio sales kid comes over and asks me what I'm looking for and I tell him I just need a decent cable that's not longer than a few feet. He shows me a 1-meter Monster Cable S/PDIF for $70. I said "Whoa...no thanks, I avoid Monster Cable at all cost. What else ya got?" The kid replies in a very condescending tone "That's all we stock. If you're looking for something cheap, try Best Buy, but your sound is gonna suck", to which I replied "I don't really care how much it costs, I just refuse to do give that company my money because their business practices suck and I'd gladly pay twice as much for a good quality cable from a different manufacturer. Besides, there are a lot of pros out there getting excellent sounds using cables that don't say 'Monster' on them." The kid replies in an even more condescending tone "Well, just go to Best Buy or Radio Shack - they may have something you can afford."
Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.
|
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3069
- Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/10 19:42:27
(permalink)
i would inform the child's manager that with customer service like that i'd probably not be returning to his store to buy anything, let alone cables. i've found that even with billion dollar companies, once you move up the food chain a bit the people are usually pretty eager to please.
|
Jessie Sammler
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2111
- Joined: 2007/07/18 03:06:40
- Location: Chicagosburgvilletown
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/10 20:55:09
(permalink)
Yeah. Regardless of what Muenster Kables does/did to encourage scenarios like that, some responsibility must lie with the store -- as in, somebody made a bad hiring decision.
|
mwd
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 627
- Joined: 2006/05/18 22:05:07
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/10 21:54:53
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cryophonik ~ Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Opinion only here but chances are probable that: A: The kid doesn't use the products he's selling. B: It's easier and more "sale probable" for him to suggest a well known brand since... (see A) Jacks right about the food chain and that is where the changes must occur. The clerks are, for the most part, just mimicking what they have heard, been told or been trained to do and say. Unlikely they are going to wage war on the only brand they have to sell. His career would be pretty short lived.
|
Brett
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 534
- Joined: 2004/01/29 06:54:35
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/12 00:38:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.
Do the math. You make more money selling a $70 cable than a $5. Doesn't make it right but ... Brett
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/12 09:13:16
(permalink)
I agree Brett, but given the options, I'd rather spend my money on something like Mogami who makes quality cables AND they don't shake down small businesses for alleged copyright infringement. and mogami costs typically about the same as monster.
|
JB1592
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 29
- Joined: 2005/10/24 22:24:19
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/15 23:14:04
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Brett
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.
Do the math. You make more money selling a $70 cable than a $5.
Doesn't make it right but ...
Brett
It's even worse than you might think actually (unless you have as remarkably little faith in the ethics of retailers as I do). I, in my younger and more annoyed with the lack of any real technical jobs in the local job market days, worked for Radioshack at the time when they started stocking that overpriced junk. The somewhat unique thing (as far as I can tell from talking to people who have worked in other retailers) about Radioshack is that the back room computer, which we all had access to, will give you all the information available at the store level about a product when you do a stock check. The margin on their regular "gold series" cables was what I would call huge. The margin on Monster Cables was what I would call obscene. On a store level they only cost us slightly more than those gold series cables. Keep in mind that RS has a built in two layer profit system as well. That "cost" which I was privy to was the cost for the store, which had to purchase it from the warehouse at a small mark up from what it actually cost the corporation to begin with. IIRC, the $25-ish set of gold series A/V cables cost us like $6 while the $60 Monster Cable version cost us like $8. Amazing. Another weird little quirk in the system is that the nickel plated cables actually cost us more than the gold series cables, despite their much lower retail cost. As you might imagine, we were strongly discouraged from ever selling that stuff. As a technical aside, it's interesting to note that the conductivity of gold is really not all that great. Gold's big strong point is that it resists corrosion, it does not conduct better. Gold's electrical conductivity is 22.14 n Ω·m. Compare that to 16.78 nΩ·m for copper, or 15.87 n Ω·m for silver. Both metals are cheaper and would be a better coating (or in the case of copper simply not need a coating) if it wasn't for their tendency to tarnish and corrode. No real point in this, other than to clear up the common perception that I run in to that gold conducts better than the stuff we make the wires out of (if it did then what would the point of a couple mils of gold plating after a few feet of more poorly conducting wire be?).
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 00:35:09
(permalink)
Well, in fairness to Radio Shack, they are a running something of a niche business in terms of their connectors and adaptors and cables and such. That kind of stuff is the kind of thing that you typically have to make substantial margins on in order to justify keeping on hand. They stock a "cheap" version in order to appear to be price-competitive, and to avoid the perception of being a grossly expensive place to shop, and they make an effort to sell the expensiver version because, let's face it-- how many layers of cost go into selling an adapter in terms of purchasing and display design and inventory management and opportunity cost from retail shelf space in busy shopping malls and so forth? The typical business model for retail is to shave margin to the bone on expensive stuff that people comparison-shop for, like DVD players and TVs and cell phones, and to make up for it on smaller-ticket accessories where a big markup translates into a lower dollar expenditure for the customer. Same way that a supermarket might sell milk or potatoes or steaks at a very competitive price and then charge $4 for seasoned salt to go with it, or get the customer to impulse-buy a $1.50 pack of gum at the checkout when they could have got a 5-pack in the candy aisle for $1.59. The customer will read the sales flyers and drive an extra ten minutes to get the $600 TV for $590, but they won't usually bother to do that for every little add-on, so the idea is to make you money back on those. In fairness to monster, they are certainly not the first company and won't be the last to sell hype and fluff over substance, nor to push the limits of what can be charged for marginally increased quality. High profit margins alone are not a sure sign of despicable or even dishonest business practices. Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/09/16 00:48:51
|
Jessie Sammler
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2111
- Joined: 2007/07/18 03:06:40
- Location: Chicagosburgvilletown
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 07:12:16
(permalink)
Another point about Monster's pricing and margins is that not everyone who sells Monster Cable makes as much money on it as Radio Shack does. In JB1592's example, the Tandy Corp. would have a gross margin of about 87%, if the Radio Shed really paid $8 for that $60-retail cable. Small indie dealers, on the other hand, might have gross margins along the lines of 50% for Monster Cable (less on power products), which still might seem obscenely profitable to some, but differences far less than that are usually what spell the difference between making a profit and going out of business.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 10:02:22
(permalink)
Small retailers depend on high margins on low-cost items because their margins on the big-ticket items can be very small. 50% margins on accessories is not at all unusual. Even 100% margins are not unusual. Your local music store is probably making at least a 100% profit on little things like guitar strings and clarinet reeds.
What is highly unusual is high margins for the manufacturers, which for many products might be in the 3% to 10% range. Monster has managed to create a pricing structure that assures them a huge margin - if Radio Shack does indeed pay only $8 for a $60 cable, that tells you the cost to manufacture and distribute that cable is probably under $4. That means the small retailer who pays $30 is giving Monster a 750% margin. That's almost unheard of in the electronics industry.
What I want to know is how Monster has managed to make its brand the de facto standard in music stores and electronics retailers, some of whom carry nothing but Monster. If you buy a bigscreen TV at Circuit City you will probably also walk out with at least one Monster product. My local CC store does not sell anything else. I'm guessing Monster offers a lower price to retailers that agree to sell Monster exclusively.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
cryophonik
Max Output Level: -28 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4724
- Joined: 2006/04/03 17:28:17
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 11:17:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
If you buy a bigscreen TV at Circuit City you will probably also walk out with at least one Monster product. My local CC store does not sell anything else. I'm guessing Monster offers a lower price to retailers that agree to sell Monster exclusively.
My wife and I bought a 52" HD LCD from CC earlier this year and, of course, the sales guy insisted that I buy a "special" cable for my TV in order for the HD to work properly. I insisted that I didn't need it, he insisted that I did, I insisted that I didn't,...you get the point. Long story short, 20 minutes later I walked out of the store with a $125 Monster Cable (yep, the only brand they carried  ). When the DirecTV guy got to my house a few days later to set up my HD system, he looked at the (unopened) Monster Cable and just chuckled - "they forced to buy that , didn't they? Don't worry, you don't need it." Fortunately, I was able to return the cable with no questions asked and, surprisingly, my HD works perfectly even without the "special" cable. When I told the young lady at the return counter what the DirecTV tech told me, she said "Yeah, I know. Almost everybody ends up returning these cables."
|
fep
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1186
- Joined: 2006/10/21 13:57:09
- Location: San Diego, California
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 13:54:52
(permalink)
If a radio shack had a 100% mark up and grossed say 60K a month that would only leave 30 k for advertising, franchise fees, rent, salaries, professional fees, utilities, taxes etc. That company would probably be operating at near breakeven at 60k. A 100% markup is not unusual at all for a small low volume buisiness like Radio Shack.
60k is just a made up number based on my experience with small companies - I was a CPA and now I'm an accountant, I've seen lots of companies accounting records (probably more than 100 companies).
|
Ognis
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5129
- Joined: 2006/08/03 21:52:42
- Location: Memphis, Tennessee
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 14:12:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
If you buy a bigscreen TV at Circuit City you will probably also walk out with at least one Monster product. My local CC store does not sell anything else. I'm guessing Monster offers a lower price to retailers that agree to sell Monster exclusively.
My wife and I bought a 52" HD LCD from CC earlier this year and, of course, the sales guy insisted that I buy a "special" cable for my TV in order for the HD to work properly. I insisted that I didn't need it, he insisted that I did, I insisted that I didn't,...you get the point. Long story short, 20 minutes later I walked out of the store with a $125 Monster Cable (yep, the only brand they carried ). When the DirecTV guy got to my house a few days later to set up my HD system, he looked at the (unopened) Monster Cable and just chuckled - "they forced to buy that , didn't they? Don't worry, you don't need it." Fortunately, I was able to return the cable with no questions asked and, surprisingly, my HD works perfectly even without the "special" cable. When I told the young lady at the return counter what the DirecTV tech told me, she said "Yeah, I know. Almost everybody ends up returning these cables."
Are you using HDMI or RCA ? You do know that RCA is analog, and doesn't look anywhere near as good as HDMI which is fully digital right? If you are using RCA's you have ripped yourself off. And if you are using S-Video, then you are not looking at an HD signal at all.
post edited by Ognis - 2007/09/16 14:21:47
|
cryophonik
Max Output Level: -28 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4724
- Joined: 2006/04/03 17:28:17
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 15:18:18
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ognis
Are you using HDMI or RCA ? You do know that RCA is analog, and doesn't look anywhere near as good as HDMI which is fully digital right? If you are using RCA's you have ripped yourself off. And if you are using S-Video, then you are not looking at an HD signal at all.
DirecTV included an HDMI cable (and NOT a Monster brand  ) with the HD reciever - fully digital and an awesome picture.
|
Ognis
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5129
- Joined: 2006/08/03 21:52:42
- Location: Memphis, Tennessee
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 16:53:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
ORIGINAL: Ognis
Are you using HDMI or RCA ? You do know that RCA is analog, and doesn't look anywhere near as good as HDMI which is fully digital right? If you are using RCA's you have ripped yourself off. And if you are using S-Video, then you are not looking at an HD signal at all.
DirecTV included an HDMI cable (and NOT a Monster brand ) with the HD reciever - fully digital and an awesome picture.
Okay cool. Yeah it defentily doesn't have to be Monster brand. Just didn't want you to be watching a crappy S-Video picture  Direct TV includes HDMI huh, nice. Comcast only gave me RCA's  But, we do have a sharper picture than Direct TV though  Direct TV highly compresses their HD signal because it doesn't have the bandwidth to handle HD if it doesn't. Just like if you got the internet though them, it'd be super slow compared to comcast. Cable just has so much more bandwidth.
|
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3069
- Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 18:01:23
(permalink)
the real problem with satellite internet is the latency. it's no problem for TV, but 500-600ms latency on the internet gets old fast. plus the signal goes to crap during heavy rain.
|
albiedamned
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 87
- Joined: 2007/08/06 11:32:46
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 19:53:10
(permalink)
Verizon FIOS also gives you an HDMI cable for free. The guy at Best Buy tried real hard to sell me an HDMI cable (probably Monster, but I forget) when we bought our TV, and told me point blank that I was wrong when I told him Verizon would be giving me one.
PC/Software: P4 3.0GHz HT,2.5GB RAM,Emu 1212m,MidiSport 4x4,Home Studio 6XL,Dim Pro, Battery 3,Ohmicide, Ozone,various Voxengo plugins Hardware: ESQ-1,Wavestation EX,Evolver,JV-880,D4,CR1604-VLZ,Quadraverb 2,BBE 882i,KRK RP5's,Bluebird,Trakmaster Pro
|
Jessie Sammler
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2111
- Joined: 2007/07/18 03:06:40
- Location: Chicagosburgvilletown
- Status: offline
RE: Boycott Monster Cable
2007/09/16 21:30:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ognis
Just didn't want you to be watching a crappy S-Video picture
Hey! I resemble that remark! And so does my nine-year-old 32" 4:3 tube TV.
post edited by Jessie Sammler - 2007/09/16 21:40:51
|