Why use Monster as the reference cable?

[metzomagic]

Folks, hi,

Being an electrical engineer by education, and a closet skeptic for a good many years, I've been following the developments of the Randi/Fremer/Pear debacle with great interest, not to mention a good helping of amusement. So I figured it was time to come out of the closet.

This may be perceived as adding a... change of direction to a challenge which is already proving difficult to get off the ground, but why use Monster as the reference cable against Pear or Transparent when Monster Cable itself is already overkill at $80 a pair for their cheapest offering? Why not use good ol' lamp wire instead?

Monster have been known to engage in woo-woo (or deception might be a better word) themselves in their shop displays. I've seen pictures of a display with a 50-ft roll of Monster Cable next to the same length of 'ordinary' speaker cable. You can flip a switch to connect either of the cables to a speaker for a listening test. The trick is, the 'ordinary' speaker cable is only 24-gauge, so a 50-ft length of it will noticeably affect the sound quality; whereas, the Monster Cable is of course a much heavier gauge.

I've been using 10 to 15 ft lengths of ordinary lamp wire for the past 30 years to hook up my speakers. What's that cost? Not even $.50 a ft, I'd imagine (haven't lived in the U.S. for a long time, so can't say). As long as you keep the length below 50-ft, a 16-gauge wire is perfectly suitable (low enough impedance for most modern speakers) with no detectable loss in sound quality... unless you're a bat.

So I say, bring on the lamp wire!

In any case, I doubt the challenge will ever go ahead. The vested interests behind these incredibly expensive cables have too much to lose when it is shown (and I use 'when' here deliberately as opposed to 'if') that the emperor has no clothes.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[tkingdoll]

I have no idea what you mean by 'lamp wire' but I agree that Monster cables are overpriced compared to 'no brand'. Have you emailed Randi with your suggestion? He doesn't really read these forums.

 

[Slimething]

Welcome to the Forum and congrats getting out of the closet.

I can only guess that Monster came up as it's a brand name that is of a recognizable quality. I don't think either side would be comfortable with stating that the control would be lamp wire as that would leave a lot of variables open. Just a guess.

 

[rjh01]

Just gave this and another thread the pear cable tag. Now all four threads on this subject have the same tag.

 

[sol invictus]

Folks, hi,
...why use Monster as the reference cable against Pear or Transparent when Monster Cable itself is already overkill at $80 a pair for their cheapest offering? Why not use good ol' lamp wire instead?

I fully agree - the Monsters Randi wants as a reference are $150 for ten feet. Ridiculously priced and definite woo in themselves. It's yet another way in which Randi has screwed this up.

The truth is that Monster is a much, much bigger problem than Pear:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3098038#post3098038

 

[sthomson]

I fully agree - the Monsters Randi wants as a reference are $150 for ten feet. Ridiculously priced and definite woo in themselves. It's yet another way in which Randi has screwed this up.

The truth is that Monster is a much, much bigger problem than Pear:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3098038#post3098038

I think Randi picked Monster Cable because that is the claim that Pear Cables makes - you can tell the difference between Pear Cables and other high-brand cables like Monster Cable, even though Monster cables and Pear cables are manufactured pretty much the same way, with gold plugs and all that jazz.

Note: I hate how ubiquitous monster cables has become, and that I have to go to a computer parts warehouse to get normal, non-Monster RCA and S-video cables.

 

[robinson]

When Monster released their cables, the same thing was said about them. They were expensive marketing scams, they didn't improve the sound, they were not needed, wire is wire, you can't hear a difference, audio people are gullible, dumb, stupid, etc etc

Lamp cord (twisted pair copper wire), you know, the old fashioned AC power cable that goes from the plug to the lamp, carries 110V at 60Hz, doesn't heat up or melt, strong, durable. used to be dirt cheap.

 

[Yoink]

I fully agree - the Monsters Randi wants as a reference are $150 for ten feet. Ridiculously priced and definite woo in themselves. It's yet another way in which Randi has screwed this up.

The truth is that Monster is a much, much bigger problem than Pear:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3098038#post3098038

Yes--and the sad thing about this is that if (by a miracle) the test goes ahead Monster will no doubt leap upon this as support for their own rip-off products: "Look, our cables are equivalent to $20,000 cables! Clearly at $150 per 10 feet they're a bargain!"

Randi should get some better advice, and offer this challenge as a challenge of Radio Shack zipcord vs. any non-circuitry-containing wire out there. It's time to put a stake through the heart of the whole con, not just its remote fringes.

 

[krabapple]

Welcome to the Forum and congrats getting out of the closet.

I can only guess that Monster came up as it's a brand name that is of a recognizable quality. I don't think either side would be comfortable with stating that the control would be lamp wire as that would leave a lot of variables open. Just a guess.

Would Home Depot 14g (bought by the foot -- less than a buck/ft, IIRC) suffice? It's what I use. It's pretty generic. I terminate it with Radio Shack gold screw-on banana plugs.

I agree with the OP, the Monster Cable specification was unnecessary and another indication that Randi didn't really understand the nuances in this particular field. If anything, Monster's another mfr whose claims should be debunked.

 

[krabapple]

When Monster released their cables, the same thing was said about them. They were expensive marketing scams, they didn't improve the sound, they were not needed, wire is wire, you can't hear a difference, audio people are gullible, dumb, stupid, etc etc

Lamp cord (twisted pair copper wire), you know, the old fashioned AC power cable that goes from the plug to the lamp, carries 110V at 60Hz, doesn't heat up or melt, strong, durable. used to be dirt cheap.

No lamp I've ever bought had 'twisted pair' power cord cabling.

 

[robinson]

Did you notice the use of "old fashioned"? I doubt you would find it on anything new.

It looks like this

or this

 

[Slimething]

Would Home Depot 14g (bought by the foot -- less than a buck/ft, IIRC) suffice?

Yeah, to me it would but Fremer is a wacko. Frankly, if I were him, I'd agree to this in a minute. He's claiming he can hear like a dog. His best chance of doing that is hoping the reference cables are so crappy that anything decent would sould different.

I wasn't justifying using only Monster cables. I was offering an opinion as to why the participants may want to choose off-the shelf name brand to save time.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I was wondering that too

Monster is actually the brand that gets called for pushing woo all the time, not just on cables either. There is a pretty sizeable condemnation against Monster in the pro audio community for a variety of things, some not even directly related to audio.

It would behove the JREF not to push one brand of woo over another

 

[metzomagic]

Folks, hi again,

Thanks for going gently on me with my first post

Seems like the consensus is that cheapo 16-gauge lamp wire (doesn't even have to be twisted) is the way to go. By pitting lesser woo (Monster) against greater woo (Pear), it only, as you say, serves to legitimatise the lesser woo.

A good reference article can be found here in the Audio Critic archives, Issue 16:

...oops. Just found out I can't post URLs yet :-\ Anyway, you can find the back issues with a Google search for:

audio critic archive

It's a bit heavy going, but it does prove that the frequency response of ordinary wire is perfectly acceptable within the human audible range (up to 22khz or so). Some of the 'high-end' cables the guy analyses actually muck with the signal so much that they distort it in bad ways as opposed to good!

Do you think it's worth e-mailing Randi about this?

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[metzomagic]

Hmm. Speaking of expensive cables that actually muck with the sound in a bad way (like high inductance cables), bad is still *different*, so in a blind test with the correctly chosen expensive cable, there would be a good chance of the tester actually walking away with the JREF $1M... and that would be a very bad thing.

Is there any way, I wonder, that the test protocol can be specified so that the expensive cable must actually sound *better* than the cheap cable? Or is that too subjective to quantify?

Really, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to decide this issue is by using a frequency response analyser to demonstrate that there is no detectable *improvement* (rather than just a difference, or distortion) in the human audible frequency range.

Maybe this challenge isn't a good idea for the JREF to participate in after all, unless there is some way to quantify this *sounding better* :-\

And, yes, I also agree that any cable with active circuitry in it is definitely out of the question. It has to be just a cable.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

 

[WildCat]

Note: I hate how ubiquitous monster cables has become, and that I have to go to a computer parts warehouse to get normal, non-Monster RCA and S-video cables.

You can get 16 guage speaker wire in large rolls at home improvement stores (Home Depot, Lowe's, Menards) for cheap.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hmm. Speaking of expensive cables that actually muck with the sound in a bad way (like high inductance cables), bad is still *different*, so in a blind test with the correctly chosen expensive cable, there would be a good chance of the tester actually walking away with the JREF $1M... and that would be a very bad thing.

Is there any way, I wonder, that the test protocol can be specified so that the expensive cable must actually sound *better* than the cheap cable? Or is that too subjective to quantify?

Really, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to decide this issue is by using a frequency response analyser to demonstrate that there is no detectable *improvement* (rather than just a difference, or distortion) in the human audible frequency range.

focusing on frequency response misses much of audible differences in cables. when i do cable comparisons; the differences are more a matter of clarity and texture, smoothness and nuance, or levels of ambience revealed. i personally cannot relate measurements to performance in cables.....but that relationship may exist. or it may be that either we don't yet have the proper measuring tools or that we don't yet know how to interpret our current tools.

maybe this challenge isn't a good idea for the JREF to participate in after all, unless there is some way to quantify this *sounding better* :-\

And, yes, I also agree that any cable with active circuitry in it is definitely out of the question. It has to be just a cable.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

i think if JREF were to actually admit that any 'just cable' sounded 'better' than any other 'just cable' then the whole idea of placebo effect and cable-vodoo would go out the window and JREF would need to find another target.

btw, that is exactly what i believe.

the whole concept of 'better' is not germain to the JREF process. better is subjective and JREF is about objectivity. this will be about differences.

i also think the choice of the Monster cables was ill-advised and shows the fundamental lack of knowledge on this whole issue. the fact that the cable is sold in an unusable state; that you must either cut off the connectors supplied or purchase screw-on connectors is ridiculous. clearly no one at JREF has ever laid eyes on these cables and yet they were chosen as the 'control'.

 

[sol invictus]

i also think the choice of the Monster cables was ill-advised and shows the fundamental lack of knowledge on this whole issue. the fact that the cable is sold in an unusable state; that you must either cut off the connectors supplied or purchase screw-on connectors is ridiculous. clearly no one at JREF has ever laid eyes on these cables and yet they were chosen as the 'control'.

In this at least we're in total agreement.

But hey, it's much easier to win the $1M when you know more than they do...

 

[Steve Eddy]

Did you notice the use of "old fashioned"? I doubt you would find it on anything new.

It looks like this

Coolness! They look rather like my cables. Which are new.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

One thing about Monster Cables (or any other cable manufacturer for that matter) is that no one is forced to buy their product. The real scandal is their habit of suing people who use "Monster" in connection with their business, even if their business has absolutely nothing to do with what Monster is involved in.

From a guy who registered monster.org because he sold monster costumes and other monster-related goodies to a small vintage clothing store called Monster Vintage, and even a ski instruction program for children called Snow Monsters to name just a few.

In these actions, people are forced to expend time and money defending themselves against a company that truly is a monster.

se