[HN Gopher] Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)
___________________________________________________________________
Monster Cables picked the wrong guy to threaten (2008)
Author : wallflower
Score : 543 points
Date : 2025-03-22 00:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oncontracts.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oncontracts.com)
| biglyburrito wrote:
| The complete story:
| https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm
| jdlshore wrote:
| For anybody who's wondering what happened next, this is from
| the above link:
|
| "Monster's counsel had made a horrible mistake, and probably
| caused lasting harm to the company, by sending me that
| ridiculous letter. But he, and Monster, did apparently know the
| first rule of holes: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop
| digging." The end, therefore, of the story was a bit
| anticlimactic. Knowing that I was able to defend myself and
| knowing that they'd probably be sanctioned for frivolous
| conduct if they sued me, Monster fell silent. Not a peep was
| heard again."
| mc32 wrote:
| This reminds me of the spat between Tekton Design speakers
| and a Youtube reviewer.
|
| Tekton received such massive and negative feedback, he tried
| to backpedal the initial threat. But still, the gall. They
| suffered reputationally not from the [mildly] negative
| review, but from the fallout from the ill-advised threat of
| lawsuit.
|
| https://www.audioresurgence.com/2024/04/tekton-speakers-
| revi...
|
| [more neutral] https://musictech.com/news/gear/tekton-audio-
| allegedly-threa...
| Blackthorn wrote:
| It's amazing to me that the writer of that piece walked
| away with the conclusion that Eric Alexander was in the
| right.
| mc32 wrote:
| Just about everyone on YT as well as online sided with
| the reviewer because Tekton were being ridiculous.
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| I remember seeing his posts on ASR. Some really fun stuff
| like how the air coming out of the screw holes for the
| feet would produce a supersonic boom; in a ported
| enclosure. Wildly entertaining.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| I don't think you read the piece?
|
| > My overarching sense is that this whole saga has been
| largely Mr. Alexander's fault and it could have been
| easily avoided.
|
| > Alexander has dropped the Mother Of All Bombs on this
| situation, displaying disrespect towards the reviewing
| industry, and regarding reviewers as trivial annoyances
| that can be easily brushed aside. The outcome of this
| saga and who will ultimately withstand the fallout
| remains to be seen, but Mr. Alexander almost certainly
| looks like an ass at this moment in time, and in my
| opinion, any negative assessment he receives is largely
| self-inflicted.
| zettabomb wrote:
| I believe they're referring to this bit:
|
| >There's no doubt in my mind that Eric Alexander of
| Tekton Design is largely in the right, and in principle,
| challenging these reviewers was mostly justified.
|
| The next sentence is revealing though:
|
| >The problem, and the reason we're here now dwelling on
| it, is how he went about it.
|
| I'm not sure if I understand the first of the quotes,
| honestly, given the rest of the content. But that seems
| to be what GP was referencing.
| pdpi wrote:
| > Monster's counsel had made a horrible mistake, and probably
| caused lasting harm to the company, by sending me that
| ridiculous letter
|
| This sort of thing always reminds of the Jack Daniels cease
| and desist letter[0], which, at least for me, had the exact
| opposite effect.
|
| 0. https://brokenpianoforpresident.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/j
| ac...
| silisili wrote:
| Hadn't seen this before. What a nicely written letter.
| Explained why they have to do this, outlined a reasonable
| action step, and even offer to help said action. Moreover,
| it didn't contain a single threat.
|
| I wish all companies took such an approach. You catch more
| flies with honey, and all that.
| favorited wrote:
| I used to be the webmaster for my parent's HOA[0], and I
| bought their .com domain name when it became available (a
| realtor had owned it originally). They eventually hired a
| firm to run the site, and I pointed the domain at their
| nameservers, and forgot about it (paying the ~$20/year in
| renewals, because that's not a lot of money & I have fond
| memories of living there).
|
| 15 years later, I get a registered letter from a law firm
| - counsel to the HOA - claiming that I was violating
| their trademark by owning the domain name, demanding that
| I turn it over to the HOA, etc.
|
| If an actual human had reached out to me, I would have
| happily transferred the domain. Instead, they paid a
| lawyer to be a dick about it - so I ignored the letter,
| they registered the .net, and everyone moved on.
|
| I still keep the domain up, and redirect it to their new
| URL, because as long as the .com domain works, people
| will be using it. Which means they will still want it,
| and I'm not giving it to them. At least not until they
| ask nicely, and catch me with honey instead of vinegar.
|
| [0]Despite this incident, their HOA is normally perfectly
| reasonable. It's a few hundred dollars per year to keep
| up with road repairs, signage, community facilities
| upkeep, etc.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I'm
| disappointed you didn't end up extracting a couple
| thousand dollars from the HOA.
|
| Then again, maybe there's less hate for HOA's here than
| in other spaces. This is typical HOA behavior!
| favorited wrote:
| I totally understand that, but theirs is genuinely not an
| HOAzilla - they just took a stupid approach to this
| particular problem. It's honestly the prototypical
| example of how to run an HOA - low fees (no outside
| management), providing community features (pool, tennis
| courts, paved private roads, etc.) basically at-cost, and
| even hiring folks from the community to help out (teens
| as lifeguards, retired folks as maintenance, etc.).
|
| Also, my parents still live there, so I didn't want to
| start any more drama. In fact, they sold their previous
| home and built a new place _in the same community_ ,
| while it would have been far cheaper to build outside the
| HOA.
|
| All this to say that, while the internet is full of
| genuine examples of nightmare HOAs, my parents' HOA is
| normally run by a few retired folks who mind their own
| business.
| eek2121 wrote:
| You honestly should have searched to see if they had a
| trademark. Unlike copyright, trademarks have to exist. I
| suspect you were probably played. They _appeared_ nice,
| sure, but they don 't _appear_ nice to me. If it were me,
| I 'd have' pointed the domain at a certain picture
| involving ladies and cups. I've dealt with bullies
| myself, even in the legal system (IANAL, but do run a few
| successful small time ventures), and it always blow my
| mind what people will say. I recently had a guy from
| India that claimed I had a security vulnerability, and
| that I owe him a bounty. I have no bounty and the
| vulnerability did not exist (I suspect he misunderstood
| the issue completely...the issue was not an issue at all,
| it was as designed). When I didn't respond he followed up
| multiple times, and threatened to sue (I am in the U.S.)
| He finally gave up. The issue he was referring to was his
| misunderstanding of modern email standards. It wasn't an
| actual issue, nor did I ever offer any type of bounty of
| actual security stuff (I would, but most of my stuff is
| OOTB, if someone did come to me with an actual issue I'd
| definitely give them something)
|
| If plaintiffs had to pay the fees for defense prior to
| settlement or judgement, most of this would disappear.
| Sadly, nobody has the balls to implement that.
| ldoughty wrote:
| This is probably one of the best lawyer notices I've ever
| read.
| wordofx wrote:
| Wow pretty sure that's the first time I've read a nice
| polite legal letter shared that wasn't threatening.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Right? Monster is lucky they didn't have to square up
| against the venerable and vicious Leonard "J" Crabs*.
|
| * The "J" stands for "Good Work!"
| Suppafly wrote:
| Seems like he's still using their design on the ebook on
| amazon all these years later.
| hugo1789 wrote:
| It seems that are used books
|
| This is the new design:
| https://www.amazon.com/-/de/gp/aw/d/1621050521/
| rzzzt wrote:
| It now resembles a different bottle (with the blessing of
| the manufacturer): https://mashable.com/archive/jack-
| daniels-rejection-letter-g...
| twoodfin wrote:
| Relatedly, Jack Daniel's recently won a unanimous Supreme
| Court decision affirming their right to pursue trademark
| claims against a dog toy manufacturer.
|
| The toy company claimed their products were parodies, which
| have heightened protection from such claims, but the Court
| didn't buy it.
|
| https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-148
|
| Fun oral argument for an extended dog walk; you get to hear
| the justices argue about scatological jokes and whiskey
| bottle shapes.
|
| JD's advocate, Lisa Blatt, is also reliably a hoot.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| That is like the most polite legal letter I've seen!
| justinc-md wrote:
| The Netflix Cease and Desist (https://www.eicoff.com/drtv-
| blog/netflix-cease-and-desist) for a Stranger Things themed
| pop-up bar also comes to mind.
| dkh wrote:
| This is wonderful. It's also true! Even when I was running a
| very small business and not particularly bothered by what
| people were doing that could be argued as resembling
| trademark infringement, I was urged to be vigilant about it
| because if you don't defend your trademark, you risk losing
| it. That's how the law works!
|
| If that really is the reason you're threatening action
| against someone, they may just understand if you're nice
| about it!
|
| That said, while it may foster more goodwill towards your
| company, it probably isn't as surefire a way to generate the
| swift response you want as being a dick and making the
| threats
| derefr wrote:
| Is there any way to file a (real) countersuit against
| someone, just to punish them for having wasted your time and
| energy with a _threat_ of legal action that never
| materialized?
| dmurray wrote:
| The term to search for this is _barratry_ and there are
| laws against it in some jurisdictions.
|
| Realistically, you will not win a judgment on this to
| compensate you for your time dealing with a single cease
| and desist letter. If someone shows a really excessive
| pattern of it, perhaps a judge or a bar association could
| be convinced to make an example of them.
| derefr wrote:
| I guess that _does_ address my concrete question as
| given.
|
| But I think I was less imagining a countersuit that
| literally just "seeks damages for wasted time and
| effort"... and more imagining a countersuit that can
| somehow "rope in" the claims in the original suit, so as
| to force those claims to be evaluated and case law to be
| created upon that evaluation -- whether the original
| claimant likes it or not.
|
| Imagine, by analogy, outside the domain of IP law:
|
| 1. Party A threatens to sue party B for having violated
| the terms of some contract they have.
|
| 2. Party A then drops this threat.
|
| 3. Party B then sues party A with the intent of having a
| judge still evaluate that same question, but now in the
| other direction: "would party A have had legal standing
| to sue party B?" -- where in the case that party B wins
| that judgement, this would not only award damages to
| party B, but _also_ have the same case-law impact as if
| party A had really sued party B, and lost.
| rzzzt wrote:
| In Kurt Denke's response he writes: > As
| for your requests for information, or for action,
| directed to me: I > would remind you that it is
| you, not I, who are making claims; and it > is
| you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have
| not done so.
|
| Which party would bear the burden of proof in step 3?
| Does it get reversed or stay as if the step 1 threat went
| to court?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
|
| If someone threatens to sue you, you can sue them to
| establish that their suit is groundless.
| miki123211 wrote:
| Maybe writing that letter was a bad idea in the first place?
|
| It was good for Blue Jeans and for Monster, as they both
| avoided expensive litigation, but from a more general
| perspective, it would have been better if Monster thought
| Blue Jeans was an easy victim, sued and got its comeuppance.
| kopirgan wrote:
| The last paragraph with upside downside comments are legendary
|
| Plus the threat to impose even bigger costs with anti trust
| violation claims!
|
| Need to imagine the face of the in-house counsel reading it.
| rendaw wrote:
| But in the end did monster actually face any penalty at all?
| They threatened the guy, the guy said no, end of story. The
| bully moves on to threaten the next guy. The story insinuates
| lasting damage but it seems kind of subtle...
| kopirgan wrote:
| Lol it is not subtle at all - it basically says you will
| get pennies if you take us on and win, but if we win, you
| get screwed big time incl damages for anti-trust.
|
| Guess BJC was content with letting them just go away...but
| once this was generally known, it does reduce the value of
| those threats.
| somat wrote:
| Most importantly, it was also popularly published. So the
| critical but tricky to measure metrics now are "how much
| sales do we loose because we are now firmly labeled as a
| bully in peoples minds" and "how much potential licensing
| revenue have we lost because people know they don't need to
| fold immediately"
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is hard do say, though, because the market for Monster
| cables is pretty clearly people who came in off the
| street, read nothing, and picked the fanciest looking
| cable. By their nature they are immune to bad press,
| right?
| lukan wrote:
| "There have been numerous times, since my exit from the
| practice of law and entry into the cable business, when I've
| been glad that I have a legal background, and this certainly
| was one of those; it meant that the inevitable surge in
| adrenalin manifested itself through careful legal review rather
| than through the intended panic."
|
| Channel your energy in the right direction ..
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| In particular, I'd recommend looking at the full response.
| While the original article covers the plain-language juicy-
| sounding excerpts, the full letter to Monster also contains
| some artful legalese that even I as layman can appreciate:
|
| It starts with several pages worth of requests for information.
| I'm pretty sure those aren't actually requests for information
| - they're a threat. If Monster were to actually sue, he'd be
| entitled to these documents as part of discovery, so he's
| essentially saying "if you sue me, you'll spend a lot of money
| on discovery (and be forced to reveal stuff you'd rather not)".
|
| Sprinkled in are some suggestions of ethics violations on the
| side of Monster's lawyers, a hint at Monster's likely corporate
| tax evasion scheme (and the requirement to produce the material
| that proves the tax evasion in discovery), and the threat to
| break their racket in the last paragraph that kopirgan already
| pointed out.
|
| All this is even more impressive than the quoted part, and
| sadly omitted in the original blog post.
| AceyMan wrote:
| Blue Jeans Cables was what I switched to towards the end of my
| serious audiophile days. Before that, I was set up with
| StraightWire mostly, but I respected Kimber Kables, though I
| never ended up getting any of their goods.
|
| Now tonearm cables are a whole different animal, and my pair
| was a mid-priced custom set though one of the high-end dealers
| -- all substance, no flash => aka, not paying for an
| advertising budget & fancy packaging.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Thank you! The original blog post sets up a story and then
| gives no ending.
| eek2121 wrote:
| Thanks! I actually did not like that OP did not include the
| full story, but rather a small part of it. I love reading stuff
| like this.
| schumpeter wrote:
| You have to wonder what it is with companies having "monster" in
| their names that makes them such monsters.
|
| This story reminded me of the multi-year battle by Monster energy
| going after MonsterFishKeepers.com
|
| https://reefbuilders.com/2016/03/01/monster-fish-keepers-win...
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Monster cables went after Monster Mini Golf rather than the
| categorically obvious option of advertizing on their go-karts
| or whatever.
| stego-tech wrote:
| It was this story that clued me into BJC as an entity in the
| first place. Gladly shelled out a couple hundred bucks for
| solidly-built custom speaker interconnects a few years later with
| them, and have zero regrets.
|
| As far as legal tactics go, I'm very sympathetic to his position
| and wish more folks would fight to the finish instead of settling
| for nuisance values.
| olelele wrote:
| After working with audio professionally I've developed a strong
| antipathy towards a lot of the audiophile industry. BJC has
| good prices and seem very legit in my eyes. The pricing seems
| to reflect actual production costs and not mumbo jumbo
| alignment in the copper fields...
| stego-tech wrote:
| That's my take as well. They used high quality cables from
| Belden when I bought mine, not some cheap Chinese knockoff.
| They're also not focused on nonsense like "ethernet
| regenerators" for audio signals or "HDMI cleaners" for video.
|
| They're just good, simple, solidly built cables that fulfill
| their intended functions. No snake oil, no BS. 10/10 will buy
| again when I've got a home and a rack for a bunch of fixed-
| length custom cabling.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| So I clicked the first link to read about the actual claim, and I
| was floored by the author bio at the bottom: "Clint Deboer was
| terminated from Audioholics for misconduct on April 4th, 2014. He
| no longer represents Audioholics in any fashion."
|
| Gotta wonder how bad you gotta screw up to have your byline on
| every article you wrote permanently set to that.
| varenc wrote:
| at least they kept the articles up. I was pleasantly surprised
| that that ancient link still worked !
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Sounds like a case of sour grapes, on the part of Audioholics.
|
| He seems to have done fairly well for himself, since then.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's really hard to tell without more detail! I tried doing a
| bit of digging, but he was a really early staffer to join
| Audioholics, and was editor-in-chief when he was fired. He's
| editor-in-chief of another site now, which it looks like he
| founded. You probably have to do something _pretty bad_ to
| get publicly fired for cause when you were the editor-in-
| chief, and him having a new site he made himself isn 't
| exactly an assurance of innocence either. Just... kinda a
| wild random footnote on a link on an article from over a
| decade ago.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| From a bunch of digging it appears that, perhaps, Clint set
| up/joined some sites that were similar enough to his
| employers, without telling them, and when they found out
| they took that as him trying to siphon users off of their
| site, and fired him.
|
| If this is true, whether that was wrong of Clint to do or
| not would depend on his contract.
| nkurz wrote:
| I think the answer is that he set up another site called
| Audiogurus that was advertising itself as being
| "Audioholics store". This didn't go over well. Here's an
| article about that hints at it:
| https://www.audioholics.com/news/audioholics-e-store-name-
| ch...
|
| And here's a thread about it, which is admittedly hard to
| read because the "Audioholics" has been replaced the words
| "Bad Robot":
| https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/bad-
| robot.9451...
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Also gotta wonder if _he_ might have sent a cease and desist
| about that bio.
| RustyRussell wrote:
| OK, the whole "I am a lawyer" was next-levelled by this closing
| sentence: "Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes
| rather miss it."
| econ wrote:
| I always go with the short 1) excitement about going to court
| and 2) that I don't really care what it costs.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Previously, monster cable vs. using a coat hanger for a speaker
| wire.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&channel=ent...
| harrison_clarke wrote:
| to be fair, monster cables do beat coat hangers these days
|
| (the only coat hangers i've seen lately are plastic or wood)
| coin wrote:
| The reviews on the cables in question (Blue Jeans Cable) are
| wild. https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-
| reviews/RYLMXICLLSJWC?ASI...
|
| "Music was much more open with plenty of air around the
| instruments. Imaging was superb - greatly improved over
| previous cables that I used. The depth was substantially
| improved with great instrumental recognition from front to
| rear. In other words, the speakers managed to disappear and
| only the performances were remaining."
|
| "I had for the first time, heard tones and instruments that
| were previously hidden with other cables. Music sounded more
| alive - had more presence. Brass instruments now had a bite
| (yet with a rich, non-strident tone) that sounded as if you
| were there."
|
| "The bass tones improved dramatically, taking on a fuller
| (tighter with less bloat) than I had remembered with previous
| cables"
|
| I'd love to see how these people do with a double blind setup.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| Welcome to the world of audiophiles.
|
| This kind of hyperbole for the magical powers bestowed by
| even the smallest (or most dubious) accessories is a source
| of unending amusement for me, if it wasn't so foolish.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| My favorite quote:
|
| Music lovers buy hifi systems to listen to their music.
|
| Audiophiles buy music to listen to their hifi systems.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Do you mean to imply that my quantum rocks (also useful for
| reiki) are pseudoscience?
| makapuf wrote:
| Say what you want about audiophiles, one of their skills is
| definitely written expression (at least for a non native).
| chrisweekly wrote:
| All bullies are cowards.
| nerdile wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Bschmidt###... who hurt you? Why is this your life?
| RandomBacon wrote:
| I removed the numbers and looked up that username to try and
| figure out what was going on, but it seems to be an empty
| account from 2010.
|
| I feel sad for the person if they think this is the best use
| of their time.
|
| Re about "nobody sees these", only registered users with half
| a brain see them, and they're the ones who can easily filter
| out people acting like a child with nothing better to do.
| It's people not logged in who don't have "show dead" enabled
| that don't see it.
| kazinator wrote:
| I'm thinking, what are the odds that the president of some
| boutique audio cable company would be a litigator.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Clearly, 100%
| tqi wrote:
| Monster Cables is a name I hadn't thought about in ages... I
| mostly remember them as the company that tried to convince people
| that digital images would look better via a more expensive cable.
| ostensible wrote:
| Well, there is now some truth to it. For example, low quality
| HDMI cable will may be only good enough for low bandwidth, that
| would limit refresh rate, and/or color fidelity (e.g. chroma
| subsampling) and/or resolution.
|
| So yea, "digital" cables are not immune to signal integrity
| issues, and better cables do perform better.
|
| I understand that monster takes this to the next level of
| bullshit -- but in principle, yes, more expensive cable cable
| can yield better quality. Or should I say -- crappy cable can
| result in quality degradation
| avidiax wrote:
| > So yea, "digital" cables are not immune to signal integrity
| issues, and better cables do perform better.
|
| Better cables perform better, but not at all in the way that
| Monster suggests.
|
| Gold plating and oxygen-free copper doesn't matter.
|
| Any certified HDMI cable will operate at least to its
| certification, whether or not it is gold plated with triple
| shielded conductors.
|
| I wish the HDMI forum would officially deprecate all older
| HDMI standards, so that companies like Monster couldn't
| advertise that their cables provide "better color, higher
| resolution, better sound", etc. All the cables in the store
| would be 8k HDMI 2.2 cables, or they wouldn't be allowed to
| use the HDMI trademark.
| whatevaa wrote:
| Nah, cables oftenly can lie about it's certification,
| especially when it comes to resistance to interference.
| This is how you get "bad cable".
| kbutler wrote:
| Besides interference and lying about specs, cables can be
| designed for durability or not.
|
| I buy cheap cables from China. They generally work-to-spec
| out of the...plastic bag, but may not handle frequent
| plug/unplug cycles or any sort of rough treatment.
| bsimpson wrote:
| You're making me wonder about nuance. Since those ports are
| exclusively called HDMI, I wonder if you could call your
| unlicensed cable "HDMI compatible."
|
| If your TV only supports 4k@60 HDMI 2, no need to go buy
| more expensive cables with specs you can't use. And even
| then, unless you're playing time-sensitive games, 4k@60 is
| probably all you need anyway.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Speaking of high quality "Monstrous Cables" and draconian
| legal remedies: there's K. W. Jeter's Noir (1998), a
| Cyberpunk novel whose detective protagonist's main job is
| killing copyright violators so that their still-living spinal
| cords may be incorporated into hi-fi system cables:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15668069
|
| DonHopkins on Nov 10, 2017 | parent | context | favorite |
| on: Electric Sheep on Ubuntu Linux 17.10
|
| I deserve to be downvoted by the literature snobs, but if you
| liked Blade Runner the movie (and who in their right mind
| doesn't?), then you may very well enjoy K. W. Jeter's three
| written sequels to the MOVIE Blade Runner (not the BOOK
| DADOES), "Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human", "Blade Runner
| 3: Replicant Night", and "Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon".
| There is no book "Blade Runner 1" -- that's the movie.
|
| The irony is that Philip K Dick was offered a whole lot of
| money to write another book entitled "Blade Runner" based on
| the screenplay of the movie, but he insisted on maintaining
| the integrity and title of his original book DADOES by re-
| issuing it with a reference to the (quite different) movie on
| the cover, instead of rewriting another book called "Blade
| Runner" based on the movie based on his own book. (Harrumph!)
| He would have made a lot more money by selling out that way,
| but he steadfastly refused to do it.
|
| However, fortunately for us, after his death, his friend and
| fellow SF writer K. W. Jeter (who also wrote an excellent
| cyberpunk novel Dr. Adder which Dick loved) sold out on his
| behalf and wrote those three books based on the movie (which
| referenced famous lines like "Wake up. Time to die!").
|
| They explore the question of what the fuck happened after
| they went flying off into the wilderness (that unused footage
| from The Shining), and whether Decker was a replicant. (Who
| would have guessed??!)
|
| So even though they're not written by PKD, or directly based
| on his original all time great book, and not as authentic and
| mentally twisted as a real PKD book, they are still pretty
| excellent and twisted in their own right, and well worth
| reading. They're based on an excellent movie based on an epic
| book, and written by a friend and author PKD respected, who's
| written some other excellent books.
|
| And while you're at it, check out Dr. Adder and K. W. Jeter's
| other books too! Especially Noire, for its hi-fi cables made
| out of the still-living spinal columns of copyright
| violators. (I suggest you buy a copy and don't pirate it!)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Hu.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Nigh.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._W._Jeter
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Adder
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noir_(novel)
|
| http://www.indiewire.com/2015/12/watch-u-s-theatrical-
| ending...
|
| http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/jeter_k_w
|
| Jeter's most significant sf may lie in the thematic trilogy
| comprising Dr Adder (1984) - his first novel (written 1972),
| long left unpublished because of its sometimes turgid
| violence - The Glass Hammer (1985) and Death Arms (1987);
| Alligator Alley (1989) as by Dr Adder with Mink Mole (see
| Ferret) is a distant outrider to the sequence. Philip K Dick
| had read Dr Adder in manuscript and for years advocated it;
| and it is clear why. Though the novel clearly prefigures the
| under-soil airlessness of the best urban Cyberpunk, it even
| more clearly serves as a bridge between the defiant reality-
| testing Paranoia of Dick's characters and the doomed
| realpolitiking of the surrendered souls who dwell in
| post-1984 urban sprawls (see Cities). In each of these
| convoluted tales, set in a devastated Somme-like Near-Future
| America, Jeter's characters seem to vacillate between the sf
| traditions of resistance and cyberpunk quietism. In worlds
| like these, the intermittent flashes of sf imagery or content
| are unlasting consolations.
|
| [...]
|
| Much of his later work has consisted of Sharecrop
| contributions to various proprietorial worlds, including
| Alien Nation, Star Trek, Star Wars [for titles see
| Checklist]; of some interest in this output are his Ties -
| they are also in a sense Sequels by Another Hand - to the
| film Blade Runner (1982), comprising Blade Runner 2: The Edge
| of Human (1995), Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (1996) and
| Blade Runner 4: Eye & Talon (2000), and making use of some
| original Philip K Dick material. The sense of ebbing
| enthusiasm generated by these various Ties is not markedly
| altered by Jeter's most recent singleton, Noir (1998), a
| Cyberpunk novel whose detective protagonist's main job is
| killing copyright violators so that their still-living spinal
| cords may be incorporated into hi-fi system cables; the
| irreality of this concept, and the bad-joke names that
| proliferate throughout, are somewhat stiffened up by the
| constant interactive presence of the already dead, a Philip K
| Dick effect, as filtered through Jeter's own intensely florid
| sensibility. [JC]
| ChoGGi wrote:
| I may as well go off topic from cables (but at least on
| topic to the post) and mention the excellent Blade Runner
| video game, which had a compatibility re-release and is
| currently on sale for a couple bucks.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/1678420/Blade_Runner_Enh
| a...
|
| A slightly odd review:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=vAmXzVuFEoA
| 1-6 wrote:
| I still see commenters claiming that better cables yield better
| digital images even after you made this statement. Digital
| signals usually have some sort of error correction and it's an
| all or nothing deal with digital.
| gorkish wrote:
| It's technically not an all or nothing deal with hdmi/dvi.
| That is to say that bit errors do indeed manifest as image
| artifacts, though normally imperceptible. I think some people
| understand that error correction is normally present in
| digital audio, so they naturally assume that video would be
| the same. But that is not quite true. For one thing there
| weren't cheap chips that could do that at gbps data rates
| when DVI standard was first created. It was not until
| DisplayPort 1.4 that they added optional FEC. This is
| required because a bit error in a compressed stream would
| manifest as an entire macroblock busting, which affects
| potentially a large pixel area and multiple frames.
|
| All that being said it's unusual to find a cable that is both
| clean enough to do the handshake and keep sync but noisy
| enough to give you visible snow. So it's still quite true
| that practically speaking, yes, it's usually an all or
| nothing deal. Cable quality can and does matter though. I was
| a BlueJeans customer for a long time before the brief Monster
| spat, but it endeared them to me, and I still try to buy from
| them when I need to buy a cable I need to be absolutely sure
| of.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > I think some people understand that error correction is
| normally present in digital audio
|
| The only such error correction I'm aware of is when reading
| data from a CD, which at this point is a tiny part of
| digital audio. Is there something I'm missing?
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| most digital signaling has error correction. pcie,SSDs,
| Ethernet etc
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Not much of which is directly connected to digital
| _audio_ as a specific thing, however.
| gorkish wrote:
| Error detection is present in S/PDIF PCM (including when
| transported on hdmi) and is also an inherent byproduct of
| most audio codecs when a digital bitstream is being used,
| which is normally the case today.
|
| FEC and other types of error correction or recovery is
| ubiquitous in wireless audio and communications
| applications including phone calls, Bluetooth, VoIP,
| wireless microphones, and digital radio. Responsibility
| for the error correction is sometimes part of the
| underlying transport mechanism and sometimes incorporated
| directly into the codec. Encryption & privacy
| requirements for audio also mean that we solved these
| problems long ago. IIRC that the WWII SIGSALY encrypted
| telephone between the US and UK required and implemented
| error correction.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I guess being too close to the DAW-space, I tend not to
| think about codecs. Digital audio to me is conceptually
| "pure" PCM (or DSD), and most things that deals with that
| format do not do error correction that I can think of.
| S/PDIF is good counter-example, and possibly (for similar
| reasons) ADAT might be as well.
|
| By contrast, most audio-over-IP formats do not (they rely
| on the IP-level checks).
|
| Anyway, thanks for pointing out the rather important
| world filled with codecs that we actually live in.
| gorkish wrote:
| In your DAW world, AES/EBU transport parity bit corrects
| most single bit errors as well. It's a testament to the
| comprehensive handling of the issue that you as a
| professional do not need to do much thinking about the
| problem. Point is still that audio bit errors are
| historically accounted for due to the obvious
| consequences of a discontinuity. This persists, often
| with layers of redundancy, despite that they rarely
| occur. Video bit errors, not so much
| toast0 wrote:
| > it's an all or nothing deal with digital.
|
| That's not been my experience with hdmi or dvi. Bad cables or
| bad connections can result in artifacts in the display.
| Sometimes bad cables can result in difficulty negotiating but
| a good result if negotiate succeeds. Bad cables can result in
| frequent dropouts as the signal quality varies around the
| threshold.
|
| Differences in cable construction may lead to more or less
| longevity in difficult environments: frequent connection
| cycles, movement in the cable, heat/humidity/other
| environmental stuff, tight bends, etc.
|
| Certainly, once you reliably meet the threshold SNR for
| accurate reception, a better cable doesn't help much.
|
| Does that need oxygen free, cold extruded in zero-g cables?
| No. But a well made cable is likely to last longer in
| challenging environments.
| interpol_p wrote:
| When wiring up my projector, I needed a 10 or 20 meter HDMI
| cable. The first one I got produced a snowy image on the screen
| -- it wasn't like analogue static, but it was definitely a poor
| quality image. I replaced that cable with a more expensive one
| and the image looked correct. It surprised me that there would
| be a difference in HDMI cables, because I thought exactly the
| same way -- a digital signal is a digital signal
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Calculations change at 10+ meters. Most cables are not rated
| past 15.
| avidiax wrote:
| This is what happens with a damaged or underspecced cable.
|
| The HDMI standard doesn't have a way of telling you that you
| really need an HDMI 2.2 cable and you actually have an HDMI
| 1.x cable. It just tries to send the signal, and if the
| analogue bandwidth of the cable is insufficient, then the
| error correction will be insufficient and you'll get no
| signal or snow and blocks.
|
| This is somewhat of a good thing, since many short HDMI 1.x
| cables will work for standards that require HDMI 2.x.
| bolognafairy wrote:
| This isn't even true with other common 'digital' cables.
|
| Not all 'Ethernet' cables are the same. Someone will give you
| 100mbit. Some will give you a gigabit. Some will give you
| even more. They've all got RJ45 on them.
|
| "All HDMI cables are the same" is an almost-baseless
| corruption of a very valid critique of Monster et al.
| bzzzt wrote:
| RJ45 is just the plug. Ethernet cables are labeled with
| category 5, 5e, 6 etc.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| 8P8C is the plug.
|
| RJ45 is a wiring pin-out standard for that plug [1]. It's
| also a standard for telephony, not networking -- it
| carries one phone line. A gross waste of pins if you ask
| me.
|
| [1] Not quite. An RJ45S plug has a tab on the side that
| will not insert into an 8P8C jack.
| Sesse__ wrote:
| That's not really what digital implies, but you figured out
| the important part: When digital signals fail, they do so in
| a very obvious fashion. A worse cable won't give you "less
| saturated blacks" or something else that's subtle, it will
| give you random bit errors that manifest as snow. If the
| picture isn't obviously bad, then it is as good as any cable
| will give you.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Just checked and the first item that garbage dump that is
| Amazon advertises is an HDMI cable that's faster and provides a
| better picture than others.
| kodt wrote:
| Not as bad as this HDMI cable claiming it has "anti-virus
| protection to reduce virus noises".
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-xbox-hdmi-cable-has-anti-...
|
| https://www.gamesmen.com.au/cable-xb3-hdmi-lx-swivel
| CalChris wrote:
| Reminds me of when Caterpillar (trucks+tractors) sued Cat and
| Cloud Coffee (coffee) in Santa Cruz for trademark infringement.
|
| https://www.ksbw.com/article/cat-and-cloud-coffee-in-santa-c...
| jemmyw wrote:
| What happened? This is reporting on the first round but I can't
| find a follow-up on how things went. Did Caterpillar back down
| or did Cat and Cloud lose their apparel trademark?
| CalChris wrote:
| Seems to have just faded away. Their name is the same.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| A quick google seems to indicate that they are still doing
| business under that same name.
|
| https://catandcloud.com/
| jemmyw wrote:
| Yah but it was only the apparel side that Caterpillar
| threatened, so they may have won or given up and stopped
| selling clothes. Looking at their online store they don't
| have anything with Cat printed on it right now.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I heard a story about the CEO of Maxim Integrated complaining
| about Maxim Magazine and wanting to sue them. The lawyer got a
| box of chips and a magazine, opened to the centerfold, and said
| "no one's confusing this for that."
| jppope wrote:
| a source here would be amazing
| npunt wrote:
| In my head canon Monster Cables pivoted to become Monster Energy
| and justified it to shareholders as 'we're still in the business
| of getting people wired'
| jaredandrews wrote:
| I had no idea Monster sold anything other than over priced guitar
| cables... About 15 yeard ago, I knew a guy who exclusively bought
| Monster... well he had two of them, one from the guitar to the
| pedal board and another from the board to the amp.
|
| But it wasn't because of their alleged improved sound quality or
| whatever, it was because they had a lifetime warranty. Dude had
| bought two monster 1/4inch cables and gotten them replaced "for
| free" like 5 times.
|
| From what I can tell they got rid of the lifetime warranty around
| 2018 and have mostly transitioned to licensing their name.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| I definitely got upsold on a Monster cable when I bought my
| first guitar on the back of that lifetime warranty. Joke's on
| me, I guess; the cable is almost 20 years old and still
| working, never had to use the warranty even once. I need to
| take worse care of my things.
| metalman wrote:
| Guitar cable?, ya...noooo cordless my droogys prolly cheaper
| too did a custom stealth mod to one guitar where the
| transmitter, plugs into 1/4 jack,under the back cover nice
| thing is that its possible to turn an amp up to face peeling
| loudness, and step back, and not get hurt, got to watch for
| things vibrating off of shelves though and are you kidding
| me?, I know that as a guitarer there are cumulative cognitive
| effects, but when a fucking speaker cable outfit starts suing
| people, something has definitly gone off the rails but oh ya,
| there are people in jail for "cheating" on video games, but
| somehow there are government weed stores tone is in the hands
| bayindirh wrote:
| I prefer a cable in my active bass, because it's one less
| set of batteries to think about, and that guy has a pretty
| hot output. Analog distortion is way better than the sounds
| you get when you saturate a digital signal path, heh.
| Frederation wrote:
| Some dressing to go with that salad, man?
| metalman wrote:
| shredding some words, but maybe I should join the chorus
| and try a little echo ;) mang
| intrasight wrote:
| My bass cable is a Monster Cable and is ~45 years old. Bought
| it when I was 15.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| A few of my friends did the same. They could easily run to
| Guitar Center and swap broken cables before a gig. That could
| easily be worth the added cost.
| devilbunny wrote:
| It's why Snap-On sells so many tools. They will send someone
| _to you_ with the new tool if one breaks.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I hove some Monster cables around, and I bought them knowing
| that their claims are bogus, but the things are built like a
| tank.
|
| None of them have broken or developed faulty connections over
| the years, and that's worth it the price difference in my
| opinion. In my case, for a couple of them, the price difference
| was nil, because the store was selling them at a 50% discount
| to just get them out of their premises.
| ericwood wrote:
| I've had a 20' monster cable for at least 15 years now that is
| showing no signs of slowing down, even after a period of
| regular practice/shows. If only I was actually able to cash in
| on the warranty! Other cables from reputable brands haven't
| lasted this long in less demanding conditions.
| kimixa wrote:
| We used them at a student union for a similar reason - lots of
| students thinking they're a rock star swinging mics around and
| stuff meant we ended up with a _lot_ of damage. Though IMHO the
| monster cables didn 't actually take the damage any better than
| real "professional-tier" brands, that "no questions"
| replacement policy was used _heavily_ by us.
| alexjplant wrote:
| > Dude had bought two monster 1/4inch cables and gotten them
| replaced "for free" like 5 times.
|
| Every time I've had a cable fail it was at one of the solder
| joints on the connector. Stripping it down and re-soldering
| takes a few minutes, sure, but it saves you from having to
| drive to a music shop or pay for shipping. For this reason I
| try to only buy cables that are built to let you do this
| instead of ones with closed, molded ends.
| kulahan wrote:
| Back before monoprice was bought by a Chinese company, I had
| one of their HDMI cables, and yeah - the connector just
| slipped right off. Buncha thin gold wires sticking out.
|
| I contacted them. They asked for a photo, which I was able to
| text them directly from my phone (very advanced for 2009). He
| looked at it, said it was their fault, and to toss it.
| Another was shipped to me.
|
| I have a Logitech mouse that's double clicking. One of the 10
| (!!!) steps I was supposed to do before they'd accept that
| it's broken was to go to a website and click 100 (!!!!!)
| times.
|
| I sincerely miss the companies that were totally dedicated to
| customer service.
| callc wrote:
| > go to a website and click 100 (!!!!!) times.
|
| Captchas are craaaaazy nowadays
|
| /s
| nnf wrote:
| I have this problem with my Logitech mice too. They work
| great for two or three years, and then they start
| registering about one in every 50 clicks or so as double
| clicks, with the frequency slowly increasing to maybe 1 in
| 10.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| That and the infinite-scroll wheel bearing fails. I've
| probably gone through 5-10 g502 mice in the past decade.
| I usually buy them 2-3 at a time when they are on sale.
| neycoda wrote:
| That might just be dust gathering or humidity/temperature
| weathering. I've fixed most degraded mice by cleaning
| them, and there's different sprays/lubes you can get that
| will not only help the hardware but the electrical
| responsiveness and accuracy.
| deepsun wrote:
| Sounds like all electronics shops got bought by a Chinese
| company (Newegg is another example). Are there any left?
| BestBuy maybe?
| paradox460 wrote:
| Jameco?
| kulahan wrote:
| I'm fortunate enough to live near a Microcenter. Highly
| recommend them. They do have an online store as well.
| wlonkly wrote:
| "Ok, I clicked 100 times, but I just did it with the mouse
| pointer on my desktop."
|
| "Did I stutter?"
| MisterTea wrote:
| > I had no idea Monster sold anything other than over priced
| guitar cables...
|
| Basically, someone asked themselves "how do I port the
| audiophile scam to the home entertainment space?" And monster
| cables was born.
|
| When Monster first came out it became a meme.
|
| Their advertisement was laughable and remember joking with tech
| savvy friends about how all wire was vastly inferior to the
| alien technology monster used in their oxygen free high purity
| copper that "allows more music to flow" (actual quote from
| their shitty packaging.) They sold cables for everything AV and
| then invaded the musician space with their trash.
|
| Overly aggressive salesmen in electronics stores would push
| them on every sale. It was tiring. Buying a little TV for the
| kitchen? "Dont forget the monster HDMI cable and monster coax
| cable to hook up the cable box! oh and the monster surge strip
| that purifies the electron essence before the harmonic
| protuberances make it into your music!" Sure thing chief, lemme
| spend a hundred bucks on five bucks worth of cable. No wonder
| they turned into a meme and a lot of people hated them. But
| there's always a sucker who loves showing off his $80 cables to
| another sucker.
| chrisdhoover wrote:
| If you travel back im time you'll find audio connectors
| corroded. It was standard practice to use an eraser to polish
| the jacks. Monster offered gold plated connectors. It really
| made difference. Any benefits beyond non corrosive is
| questionable.
| remcob wrote:
| And now they sell gold-plated _optical_ connectors.
| egberts1 wrote:
| And it so totally rugged against tarnished contacts,
| unlike copper or brass contact.
|
| Would recommend.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| Back in the day, Radio Shack offered gold plated connectors
| on their cables, too (IIRC, there was "Archer" and "Archer
| Gold"). To this day I always get a little prickly at people
| who sneer at audiophile cables and specifically rag on
| gold-plated connectors rather than, I don't know, oxygen-
| free silver cables or whatever. The gold plating was
| actually a real valuable thing, and the cables could still
| actually be pretty cheap (e.g., Radio Shack!).
|
| I actually did have Monster-brand speaker cable many years
| ago, but it was the original version with no connectors,
| just a bare spool. I don't _remember_ it being much more
| expensive than any other 12-gauge speaker wire at the time,
| and it was both more flexible than some other brands and
| prettier when exposed -- which is arguably a selling point.
| I still have a segment of that original cable, actually,
| and use it for my center channel. Somewhat amusingly given
| the actual linked article, the rest of the cable I have is
| from Blue Jeans.
| paradox460 wrote:
| I still have a radio shack 3.5mm cable with gold
| connectors that my dad and I bought when I was 5. Still
| works great. One of my favorite cables. Has a lovely soft
| touch rubber insulation, which has survived all these
| years
|
| My town has a radio shack still, and I visit them as much
| as I can, but I have yet to find a cable that nice
| Sardtok wrote:
| Yeah, 1979 was totally the biggest year in meme history.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The sad part is that, once upon a time, those crazy claims
| mattered. There were once good and bad cables. But over the
| last centry all the best practices were universally adopted
| (twisted pairs, shielding, consistent conductors made of soft
| copper). Monster now sounds like a car company shouting about
| seatbelts and crumple zones, things we now just expect but
| were once important to look for when selecting cable.
|
| Given Monster some credit for at least being a brand. Have
| fun trying to reclaim a warranty from the discount chinese
| numbered company that tops your amazon search. It will be out
| of business before your delivery arrives.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Have fun trying to reclaim a warranty from the discount
| chinese numbered company that tops your amazon search.
|
| I remember seeing someone else raging about how a Chinese
| company on Amazon had no accountability because the
| business address field was filled with unintelligible
| gibberish and there was no way to find the company.
|
| So I looked it up. Not only was it very easy to find the
| address, it was obviously the address of the owner's
| personal home. So even if the company _did_ go out of
| business, odds are good you could make contact and ask for
| redress.
|
| People will assume anything.
| maxglute wrote:
| >Have fun trying to reclaim a warranty from the discount
| chinese numbered company that tops your amazon search
|
| Well it's not fun because most of them have very painless
| warranty claims - hammer the product with a 1 star review
| and applie for replacement, most will just give you full
| refund, no / barely any questions asked. Anything to keep
| their top Amazon search positions and reviews. I remember
| when Amazon was slammed with MPOW bluetooth products, I had
| minor hinge issue after almost a year on a set of cans and
| they just shipped me a new one, didn't even need photo
| evidence of destruction of old device. That's been my
| experience with multipe "Chinesium" products on Amazon, and
| essentially why Amazon > Aliexpress for the RMA premium.
| Buy from a top ranked product where seller doesn't want to
| compromise position with bad reviews, pay a few bucks extra
| on Amazon, get faster shipping and no question asked
| exchanges/refunds because seller already have it built into
| margins.
| gist wrote:
| > I had no idea Monster sold anything other than over priced
| guitar cables..
|
| Overpriced because you are envious of their marketing or
| pricing strategy? They were appropriately priced as long as the
| marketing wasn't more deceptive than products are generally
| (and noting it's not a food product or medical claim).
|
| > But it wasn't because of their alleged improved sound quality
| or whatever, it was because they had a lifetime warranty.
|
| Isn't that (along with branding) a valid reason to price a
| product at a certain level?
| otherme123 wrote:
| Anyone can make a top quality cable in 10 minutes: buy 2
| Neutrik connectors, buy as many Cordial cable as you need,
| four solderings and you have a top guitar cable for life, for
| maybe 1/4 of the price of a similar Monster.
|
| Don't like to solder? Cordial has also cables with Neutrik
| connectors ready to use, for half the price of a Monster.
| __float wrote:
| The lifetime warranty clearly was valuable to many people
| here.
|
| The problem though, is the _misleading_ marketing around
| "better sound" and similar that is false and does not justify
| charging more to basic home consumers who don't know any
| better.
| saghm wrote:
| Yeah, back when I first started playing bass (which would have
| been around 2008, interestingly enough) I used their cables for
| a bit because of the unlimited replacements. As a young teen
| without any income, it honestly was a pretty decent deal; in
| retrospect, the cables certainly weren't high quality and
| probably developed issues far more easily than a higher quality
| cable, but I could also go into any guitar store that sold
| those cables and then trade them in for fresh ones, no
| questions asked. It wasn't like I really had that many gigs, so
| being guaranteed not to ever have to buy new cables was easily
| worth it even if it meant that I would have to go back to the
| store any time they failed. Eventually I got old enough that I
| had more disposable income and would play a bit more often to
| the point where it would be more inconvenient to have to get a
| replacement on short notice, so I moved on to buying higher
| quality ones, but I don't really see the experience I got as a
| scam. Maybe the were marketed to the point where people who
| really weren't getting the benefits from their model were still
| buying them when they would be better served by a different
| company's cables, but I feel like the model they were trying to
| do did at least make sense for me at the time, and I think that
| it's worth making a distinction between "trying to exploit
| naive customers by selling something no one needs" and "trying
| to market beyond the actual customer base that is served well
| by the business model", mostly because I feel like the latter
| is a spectrum that quite a lot of companies fall on to some
| degree, and it's not as clear to me where exactly the line
| should be drawn for how "acceptable" this is. (I'd be fine with
| literally any instance of this being called out and shamed, but
| realistically I think this is looked past by most people so
| much of the time that it's not accurate to claim anyone is
| actually doing it)
| sandworm101 wrote:
| This is why pro gear doesnt come with a replacement warranty.
| The seconds/minutes spent finding and swapping a cable during a
| live show far exceeds any concept of replacement costs.
| Multiply any failure rate by the hundreds or even thousands of
| cables at a modern concert and _any_ failure rate is
| unacceptable. If you care, buy good parts and build the cables
| yourself by hand. That is the only way to be sure it was done
| right.
| ghshephard wrote:
| I read the letter and it looked like pretty much the first
| negotiating position of any lawyer. Regardless of what you think,
| convince the opposition that you are prepared to litigate to the
| end of time.
| noduerme wrote:
| Just speaking as someone who's not a lawyer, but who grew up in
| a family of lawyers: This isn't so much a negotiating position
| as a rigorous way of thinking about everything. It's also the
| default position if e.g. your child asks you to buy them a
| book, let them sleep over at a friend's house, etc. (Something
| an ex-girlfriend of mine categorized as "child abuse", whereas
| I think it was a fantastic education). Cross-examination on a
| subject doesn't mean an automatic "no". It's more like: If you
| want to use X amount of personal capital here, to achieve your
| ends, then persuade me that you're right using logic and proof,
| not threats or acting out. It's kind of a Jedi mind training,
| and a wonderful shield against both bullying and idiocy in the
| wider world. Because at the end of the day, it is a superpower
| to be a lawyer, or even to think like one.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| "You're increasing the volume of your voice but not the logic
| of your argument."
| m463 wrote:
| I remember buying audio gear (think receiver, amplifier, cd
| player) and being the focus of the upsell for 2-5x more expensive
| monster cables.
|
| Once I patiently explained that a cable shouldn't matter for
| digital as long as the bits got there, and seeing the young sales
| guy pause and then "get it". And I got the (relatively) cheap
| cables.
|
| Also speaker wire. You can get perfectly good copper cables for
| less, probably in a thicker gauge wire.
| bolognafairy wrote:
| > Once I patiently explained that a cable shouldn't matter for
| digital _as long as the bits got there_.
|
| Emphasis mine.
|
| As someone that _sold_ AV equipment, including cables, in the
| late '00s / early '10s, nerds that misunderstood the nuances
| of this were the single worst group of customers to work with.
|
| You could see them coming a mile away. By the time "gold-plated
| HDMI cables are a scam" gets down to their level of pseudo-
| intellect, it becomes "all cables with the same physical
| connectors are the same". Patently untrue, and 99.9% of the
| time they won't have any of it. Some of the most snide,
| belittling, insulting shit ever sneered at me in a professional
| context has been from some socks-and-sandals nerd practically
| accusing me of genocide because I dare suggested that the
| cheapest HDMI cable on the shelf explicitly doesn't support
| whatever insanely expensive TV, blu-ray player, or whatever
| else, that they've purchased.
|
| 15+ years later, purchasing the 'right' HDMI cable is if
| anything a _more_ Byzantine process. Made worse by the fact
| that any conversation on the topic inevitably has at last one
| person butting in to say "they're all just cables bro aha".
| jpgvm wrote:
| I wish HDMI would die as a standard. The TV folk won't that
| happen though, controlling HDMI allows them to control the
| ecosystem by extension.
|
| Would be nice if the EU could step in an make DisplayPort the
| required connection and protocol like they did for the USB-C
| port for charging.
| endgame wrote:
| Especially since the HDMI people have made open-source
| video drivers effectively impossible.
| trinix912 wrote:
| > Would be nice if the EU could step in an make DisplayPort
| the required connection and protocol like they did for the
| USB-C port for charging.
|
| We had it, it was called SCART.
| chgs wrote:
| Yes, SDI is far superior
| m463 wrote:
| > as long as the bits got there.
|
| Let me just clarify that this was really not something
| outside the range of common sense.
|
| I recall it was merely overpriced but decent $29 cables vs
| $129 monster cables. This was pre-hdmi probably 2000 or
| earlier and it was at the Good Guys.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Guys_(American_company)
|
| That said, yeah hdmi and say 4k is confusing. Thank goodness
| for unconfusing standards like USB-C. (kidding!)
| genewitch wrote:
| I just fo to monoprice and buy whatever clear bag they sell.
| Network, usb, dp, HDMI, whatever. It works. Every time.
|
| I even had their HDMI to 2xCat6 cable bridge, that worked
| fine with, you guessed it, monoprice cat6. Dozens of yards.
|
| Maybe I've just gotten lucky buying cheap commodity cables.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I discovered exactly this the hard way when I got my Blu-ray
| UltraHD setup.
|
| The included cable wasn't long enough so I bought a new one
| that I thought looked good, came home and didn't work right.
|
| That's when I discovered not all HDMI cables are the same,
| and I had to check supported bandwidth.
|
| Sadly the cheapest cable I could find in town that supported
| my needs were... Monster Cable.
| globnomulous wrote:
| My side-by-side, A/B comparison of monoprice RCA/coaxial
| cables and higher-end RCA cables revealed a clearly audible
| difference. Blew me away. I realize HDMI works differently,
| though, and there is some preposterous snake oil in the world
| of cables, which BJC admirably fights, partly through their
| superb articles.
| Nursie wrote:
| Except 99 times out of 100 it was an attempt at an
| unnecessary, scammy upsell to a high margin cable, when the
| cheap one would and did do just as well.
|
| People frequently _did_ try to claim you would get deeper
| reds and better blacks and all sorts of audiophile-grade
| bullshit by spending that extra hundred dollars on magic
| cables.
|
| While you feel _you_ might have been knowledgeable and honest
| in intent, the retail electronics industry as a whole is
| filled with a heady mix of ignorance and profiteering, to the
| detriment of customers. They're almost always better served
| by grabbing cables from an online vendor after leaving the
| store.
|
| And that's if the devices they buy don't already come with a
| perfectly good HDMI cable, which most do now.
| acobster wrote:
| Perhaps the coolest way I've ever seen someone say "I'd love to
| see you try."
| dkh wrote:
| I want to be this man when I grow up
| noduerme wrote:
| >> _developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who
| would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better
| long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious
| litigation as a matter of principle_
|
| I got let out of 2-3 months of jury duty on an asbestos case by
| saying basically the same thing. Voir dire is fun, particularly
| if you manage to scare the bejezus out of both sides.
| cwillu wrote:
| Some followup available at
| https://web.archive.org/web/20080503164740/www.freesoftwarem...
|
| *edit to fix link; in the future, maybe tell me it broke instead
| of reflexively downvoting
| nukem222 wrote:
| I don't quite understand the point of litigating businesses in
| civil court if existential threats are excluded from judgement.
| What is the reasoning behind a fine being sufficient to
| incentivize following the law when you can make so much more
| money not following the law? I also don't understand what the
| point of shareholders and board members are if they can't be
| personally held liable for their investments violating civil
| laws.
|
| What is the fucking rationale behind that? Why must we baby
| shareholders and be cruel to workers despite the latter providing
| 100% of society's value?
| lyu07282 wrote:
| Is this a rhetorical question? Cause capitalism, everybody
| loves capitalism.
| seanhunter wrote:
| I was once co-head of a tech company that had an "i" in the
| title. Like a bajillion other companies our logo was basically
| just the company's name in a particular font and we turned the
| dot above the "i" into a little circle in a different colour. So
| far so not very surprising.
|
| A few months in we got a cease-and-desist from a company who
| claimed (and I'm not making this up) to have a trademark on the
| idea of making the dot of an "i" into a little circle in a
| different colour, and said that the trade dress of our logo was
| infringing because their logo was just their company name in a
| (different) font with the dot on the "i" being a circle in a
| different colour.
|
| I wrote back and asked them to clarify that it was their
| contention that that was a trademark and making it very clear I
| would fight it and we had no intention of changing anything. They
| disappeared.
|
| It's really important not to feed this nonsense by caving to the
| trolls.
| fmajid wrote:
| Blue Jeans Cable is outstanding, and an oasis of sanity and
| competence in an audiophile market saturated with snake oil
| peddlers.
| bigtex wrote:
| When I worked at Best Buy in the late 90's, we were trained on
| the virtues of Monster AV cables, which they pushed because they
| were an accessory with high margins. I recall one time when a
| sales manager cut open a cheaper version of some cables and
| discussed how it had less wiring and insulation, which I think he
| did with Monster cable to show the drastic difference. I think
| they had like 3 levels of quality, the cheap stuff, the mid-grade
| stuff and Monster. Even though I worked there I only ever bought
| the mid-grade because the quality to price ratio was great.
| mmaunder wrote:
| So he's going to aggressively not let them land any punches?
| Sometimes a bully needs an ass kicking.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Good lawyers are expensive because they're worth it.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Meh. If this was the wrong guy to threaten, then he would have
| sued to overturn their design patents. Instead he just told them
| where they could stick it. That's done all the time.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Or you could screw up so monumentally that the "case" (it was
| never actually brought) becomes an actual meme. I give you the
| case of Arkell vs Pressdram [1]. I have actually _seen_ a
| response to a business threat which ended with "I refer you to
| the response in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram"...
|
| 1: https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/
| psd1 wrote:
| I've used it against a frivolous parking charge. It's fairly
| well known in the UK and I've always enjoyed Private Eye
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| It's not that they picked the wrong guy to threaten - it's just
| that this particular one won't work out for Monster. No worries,
| on to the next. If 1 guy out of 100 fights back, and then you
| just leave that one alone, you're still a big winner.
| Pikamander2 wrote:
| Yeah, the title made me assume that he won a countersuit or got
| the company fined or something.
|
| In reality, he just sent them a slightly-snarky response to
| their flimsy cease-and-desist, and they decided not to go
| forward with a lawsuit, which is probably how it would have
| played out anyway.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| I just shared this story with friends, and one of them, a
| musician, says he will now never again buy monster cables
| even though they are thought of the best quality. So there is
| a negative outcome of this to the company.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Ha, I love that this is about Blue Jeans Cables. I actually just
| bought some of their stuff this week-- really incredibly well
| made cables. Their website looks like it hasn't been updated in
| the 90s, which leads me to believe that cable quality and website
| quality are inversely correlated.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Nice dig at the supreme court on their payments page. Kurt hasn't
| lost his mojo.
|
| https://www.bluejeanscable.com/paymentinfo.htm
| vayup wrote:
| Has a "...what I do have are a very particular set of skills,
| skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make
| me a nightmare for people like you." energy to it.
| nosequel wrote:
| I've been a fan of blue jeans cables for 15+ years, I'm so glad
| they are the subject of this post. Blue Jeans just makes high
| quality stuff for solid prices and no BS.
| watersb wrote:
| I bought a pair of utterly ludicrous Monster stereo speaker
| cables off eBay a coyotes of decades ago, when I was putting
| together a home audio system.
|
| Audio stereophile-wise, I could replace them with zip wire (two
| conductor, twisted 24-gauge cable). But they wouldn't have the
| neat nylon braided jacket, or shove things out of the way when
| I'm moving the speakers.
|
| It was stupid but fun to add them to my setup, and now I'm glad I
| have them.
|
| I also have some interconnect cables from Blue Jeans Cable, that
| fellow is awesome.
|
| If Monster is suing him, may they burn in court.
| samgranieri wrote:
| Aw man, how the heck did I miss this back in 2008? I bought some
| monster cables that year and had I of know about this, I would
| have declined.
|
| seeing this pugnacious lawyer write an excellent response has me
| considering buying from blue jeans.
| jb3689 wrote:
| Musicians picked Monster because they were reliable and had an
| excellent replacement policy not because of brand ego. The Darn
| Tough of cables at least in terms of policies
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-23 23:02 UTC)