Monster Cable

Monster=Bose, spend your money elsewhere. BTW I often wondered why Monster didn't sue the Boston Redsox for their
"Green Monster" wall in left field.

I discovered the following on the audioholics site:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
An extremely thought-provoking letter, actually, which calls out Monster's alleged shakedown practices and raises some very significant philosophical questions about the promiscuousness of our legal system.

Elizabeth, NO need to appologize.

I've read the original demand letter AND the BJC reply and they are classics.

No Monster for me, and I'm not sure a retraction by Lee would be enough

The lesson in the story about Monster Cable is that audio cables is 99% Marketing and 1% vigorous protection of trade marks/packaging and other aesthetic features, as well as plenty of specious technical claims.

Sadly there is no actual "technology" in audiophile cables versus regular good quality wires and connectors. However, like consumer products brands in foods, beverages, cleaning and personal care, there is enormous marketing "spin" on the benefits of certain "brand name" products. A classic example is the Ivory Soap "So pure it floats" tag line which confounds an unrelated technical property to authenticity as a superior soap. This is EXACTLY the kind of advertising that audiophile cable manufacturers do - any and all sorts of irrelevant technical claims are used to justify to the customer why said cable is superior and worth $500 more.

i won't touch the "all cables are the same" debate, tho i will defend ivory soap. ivory actually is different than most other branded soaps in that it doesn't contain any moisturizers, perfumes or other additives (thus the "99.4% pure" part); it's also cheaper than most of its competitors. a better example might be clorox bleach which, i believe is chemically identical to every other bleach on the shelf, yet dominates the market and commands a substantial premium. such is our suceptibility to hype.