Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55935 > unrolled thread

Experience with Smith Micro?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-04 21:56 -0800
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-04 22:14 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-02-05 05:03 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 06:22 -0800
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:24 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:52 -0700
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:53 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 13:04 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 13:34 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:48 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-05 23:40 +0000
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 20:14 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 21:59 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-05 22:18 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 23:12 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:02 -0800
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 11:16 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:54 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:53 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 21:56 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-06 18:12 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-06 17:59 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-06 18:18 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-07 03:09 +0000
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:51 -0800
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-09 03:51 +0000
                    Re: soured vibrations J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 10:10 -0500
                      Re: soured vibrations Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-07 16:39 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:50 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 18:11 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 15:49 -0800
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-09 21:01 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-10 00:26 -0800
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-10 11:39 -0500
                            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-10 16:51 -0800
                              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-13 05:48 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 22:53 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-09 09:16 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 19:16 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-05 23:09 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-06 00:27 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-06 01:20 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:42 -0800
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-06 12:38 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:52 -0500
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 06:20 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 12:13 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:47 -0700
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:36 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 18:10 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 22:14 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:45 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 23:38 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-08 09:34 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:15 -0800
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-09 21:52 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:22 -0800
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 18:36 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 21:43 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 18:04 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 18:19 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 21:03 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 21:40 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-02-05 23:21 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-06 08:47 +0100
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:55 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 18:43 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 18:48 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:09 +0000
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 22:23 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 22:23 -0500
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-08 09:32 -0500
                            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 12:54 -0500
                              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:32 -0800
                                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-09 22:38 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-07 19:48 -0500
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:25 -0700
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:58 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:48 -0800
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 13:34 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 12:13 -0700
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 11:18 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-02-05 22:34 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-05 23:10 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 18:19 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-02-06 23:56 +0000
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:45 -0500
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Jaeger <jimjaeger@example.com> - 2014-02-04 23:04 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 06:28 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Jaeger <jimjaeger@example.com> - 2014-02-05 11:04 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-05 20:47 +0000
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Ralph <alan.ralph@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 18:22 +0000
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:09 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:46 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-09 01:26 +0000
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Kiraly) - 2014-02-05 23:49 +0000
    Re: Experience Smith Micro Progress maybe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-11 15:56 -0800
      Re: Experience Smith Micro Progress maybe Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-11 19:13 -0500

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#55935 — Experience with Smith Micro?

After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I 
decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw 
a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and 
equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that 
on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with 
Boom?

I had no trouble downloading it as a dmg file. It seemed to install. It 
does not squawk when I try to run it,but it seems to just sit there with 
no user interface. It is supposed to boost audio output system wide for 
10.6 and later. It is also supposed to have equalizers for all audio. I 
see no way to invoke the equalizer and there are no instructions. The 
download showed up as a window with a dmg icon. Like for many other 
installations, that it looks like the app icon is to be dragged onto a 
application folder icon. It is the same process that has worked well for 
other apps including latest TurboTax.

PDF2Office sort of works and has some utility. It gave me a lot of 
trouble in terms of getting the advertised with a password that worked. 
After much bickering, Smith Micro gave me a new password and download 
that worked together.

I am suspicious that they are so paranoid about piracy that verification 
is too complicated to work.

-- 

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55936

Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I 
> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw 
> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and 
> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that 
> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with 
> Boom?

Don't know about Smith.

I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
_so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.

MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.

Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
actually install physical Monster Cable.

For CSMS regulars, I can discount this to $34.00 for a limited time
only. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55953

On 2014-02-05 06:14:14 +0000, Doug Anderson 
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:

> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> 
>> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I
>> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw
>> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and
>> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that
>> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with
>> Boom?
> 
> Don't know about Smith.
> 
> I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
> _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.
> 
> MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
> invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.
> 
> Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
> connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
> contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
> without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
> actually install physical Monster Cable.

So it does nothing?

> 
> For CSMS regulars, I can discount this to $34.00 for a limited time
> only.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55962

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2014-02-05 06:14:14 +0000, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
> 
> > Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> >> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I
> >> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw
> >> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and
> >> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that
> >> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with
> >> Boom?
> > Don't know about Smith.
> > I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
> > _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.
> > MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
> > invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.
> > Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
> > connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
> > contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
> > without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
> > actually install physical Monster Cable.
> 
> So it does nothing?

For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
and day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55990

On 2/5/14, 9:22 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2014-02-05 06:14:14 +0000, Doug Anderson
>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I
>>>> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw
>>>> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and
>>>> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that
>>>> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with
>>>> Boom?
>>> Don't know about Smith.
>>> I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
>>> _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.
>>> MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
>>> invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.
>>> Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
>>> connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
>>> contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
>>> without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
>>> actually install physical Monster Cable.
>>
>> So it does nothing?
>
> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
> and day.
>
I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster 
Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983, 
"Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.  In 1996, the 
Abstendig Institute published a paper that settled the question once and 
for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to 
"entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of 
music, the nuisances.
http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55998

In article <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to 
> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of 
> music, the nuisances.

Was that last word a deliberate typo?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55999

On 2/5/14, 12:52 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to
>> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of
>> music, the nuisances.
>
> Was that last word a deliberate typo?
>
;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56002

On 2/5/14, 12:52 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to
>> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of
>> music, the nuisances.
>
> Was that last word a deliberate typo?
>
In 1984, they published a paper saying smog controls were causing health 
problems by making cars ride unevenly.
Here's a list of their papers.
http://www.anstendig.org/mainpage.htm

And here are some posters about their papers.
<http://ronhenggeler.com/Graphics/Anstendig%20Institute/Papers/PapersIndex.html>

Mark Abstendig has intriguing credentials.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56008

In article <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster 
> Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983, 

duh. monster cable is thicker than 18-24ga wire. thicker wire is better
than thinner wire. it's not because it's monster cable. it's a flawed
comparison. 

*any* 16ga or thicker wire from a hardware store for a fraction of the
price of monster cable will outperform 18-24ga wire if the run is long
enough. for really long runs, you might need 14ga or maybe even 12ga
for really long runs. 

> "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage. 

of course not. it *is* 16ga wire. 

> In 1996, the 
> Abstendig Institute published a paper that settled the question once and 
> for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to 
> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of 
> music, the nuisances.
> http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html

the only nuisances are the idiot audiophiles who parrot that garbage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56047

On 2014.02.05, 12:24 , J Burns wrote:

> for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to
> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of
> music, the nuisances.

Nuisances indeed.  Wire coat hangers have been shown to transmit sound 
signals to speakers indistinguishable from Monster Cable.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.

                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56068

In message <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me> 
  J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/14, 9:22 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2014-02-05 06:14:14 +0000, Doug Anderson
>>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I
>>>>> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw
>>>>> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and
>>>>> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that
>>>>> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with
>>>>> Boom?
>>>> Don't know about Smith.
>>>> I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
>>>> _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.
>>>> MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
>>>> invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.
>>>> Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
>>>> connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
>>>> contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
>>>> without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
>>>> actually install physical Monster Cable.
>>>
>>> So it does nothing?
>>
>> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
>> and day.
>>
> I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster 
> Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983, 
> "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.  In 1996, the 
> Abstendig Institute published a paper that settled the question once and 
> for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to 
> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of 
> music, the nuisances.
> http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html

And yet, in double-blind tests, they preformed identically to lamp cord.

-- 
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum, cogito

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56088

In article <slrnlf5iun.24vg.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster 
> > Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983, 
> > "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.  In 1996, the 
> > Abstendig Institute published a paper that settled the question once and 
> > for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to 
> > "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of 
> > music, the nuisances.
> > http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html
> 
> And yet, in double-blind tests, they preformed identically to lamp cord.

the test cited above is not a double-blind test. 

worse, it's not even a good test.

  The Anstendig Institute has been able to set up two complete sound
  systems in separate rooms, both of which use the same components
  except for the cables.

note that they didn't say in separate *identical* rooms with identical
acoustical properties.

in other words, any difference is the *room*, not the cable, as well as
the listener knowing which room they're in, so they will imagine a
difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56106

On 2/5/14, 6:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <lcts52$tcv$1@dont-email.me>
>    J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/14, 9:22 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-02-05 06:14:14 +0000, Doug Anderson
>>>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I
>>>>>> decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw
>>>>>> a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and
>>>>>> equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that
>>>>>> on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with
>>>>>> Boom?
>>>>> Don't know about Smith.
>>>>> I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is
>>>>> _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here.
>>>>> MonsterAudio.  It only costs $39.99.  It installs automatically and
>>>>> invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app.
>>>>> Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable
>>>>> connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated
>>>>> contacts.  It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and
>>>>> without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and
>>>>> actually install physical Monster Cable.
>>>>
>>>> So it does nothing?
>>>
>>> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
>>> and day.
>>>
>> I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster
>> Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983,
>> "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.  In 1996, the
>> Abstendig Institute published a paper that settled the question once and
>> for all.  A year-long study showed that Monster Cables were superior to
>> "entry-level speaker cables" in conveying the most important part of
>> music, the nuisances.
>> http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html
>
> And yet, in double-blind tests, they preformed identically to lamp cord.
>
Just as I suspected!  Lamp cord is superior to "entry-level speaker cables."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56113

Soemone wrote:
>>> I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster
>>> Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983,
>>> "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.


I had not realised "Monster Cable" was that old of company. Figured it
was just some fad that got a foot in the market because it is sold at
BestBuy/Future Shop.

One reason those cables are so expensive is that Monster has to pay
those research firms to concuct studies that show the Monster cables are
superior :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56118

On 2/5/14, 10:18 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Soemone wrote:
>>>> I was skeptical.  In 1980, "Speaker Builder" magazine said Monster
>>>> Cables outperformed generic 24- or 18-gage speaker cables, but in 1983,
>>>> "Stereo Review" said they were no better than 16-gage.
>
>
> I had not realised "Monster Cable" was that old of company. Figured it
> was just some fad that got a foot in the market because it is sold at
> BestBuy/Future Shop.
>
> One reason those cables are so expensive is that Monster has to pay
> those research firms to concuct studies that show the Monster cables are
> superior :-)
>
The company spends $13 million a year on training and incentives for 
retailers.  The markup on Monster Cables is what keeps many shops in 
business.  Sales personnel win all-expenses-paid vacations from Monster 
Cable.  Their Retailer Awards is one of the biggest events on the CES 
party circuit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56012

In article <gcy51p1vx8.fsf@ethel.the.log>,
 Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So it does nothing?
> 
> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
> and day.

It does something only with their imaginations. What does monster cable 
actually do? Can you compare the transfer function of monster cable to 
that of cheap speaker wire for a q0 or 20 foot run? What does it do for 
the shape of a square wave at 1 or 5 kHz? How big are the effects of 
using small speaker wires compared to room resonances in a typical audio 
"listening" room? We are not talking about an anechoic chamber that 
would have been in the former Bell Labs.

-- 

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56016

Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> In article <gcy51p1vx8.fsf@ethel.the.log>,
>  Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > So it does nothing?
> > 
> > For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
> > and day.
> 
> It does something only with their imaginations. What does monster cable 
> actually do? Can you compare the transfer function of monster cable to 
> that of cheap speaker wire for a q0 or 20 foot run? What does it do for 
> the shape of a square wave at 1 or 5 kHz? How big are the effects of 
> using small speaker wires compared to room resonances in a typical audio 
> "listening" room? We are not talking about an anechoic chamber that 
> would have been in the former Bell Labs.

Was it not clear from the whole tenor of my post that I was joking?

Monster Cable is the Emperor's New Clothes of the audio world, and
that is saying something!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56050

On 2014.02.05, 14:16 , Doug Anderson wrote:
> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> In article <gcy51p1vx8.fsf@ethel.the.log>,
>>   Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So it does nothing?
>>>
>>> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
>>> and day.
>>
>> It does something only with their imaginations. What does monster cable
>> actually do? Can you compare the transfer function of monster cable to
>> that of cheap speaker wire for a q0 or 20 foot run? What does it do for
>> the shape of a square wave at 1 or 5 kHz? How big are the effects of
>> using small speaker wires compared to room resonances in a typical audio
>> "listening" room? We are not talking about an anechoic chamber that
>> would have been in the former Bell Labs.
>
> Was it not clear from the whole tenor of my post that I was joking?

I found it amusing.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.

                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56027

In article <SalmonEgg-A74B4B.11023505022014@news80.forteinc.com>,
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
> > and day.
> 
> It does something only with their imaginations. What does monster cable 
> actually do? 

look pretty. 

> Can you compare the transfer function of monster cable to 
> that of cheap speaker wire for a q0 or 20 foot run?

of course, and when you do, you'll see there is no measurable
difference, assuming they're similar gauge. 

if you're comparing monster cable (which is thick) versus cheap thin
speaker cable, then there might be a measurable difference, but even
then, it probably won't be audible unless the run is long or you're
pumping *lots* of power through it. 

> What does it do for 
> the shape of a square wave at 1 or 5 kHz? 

nothing, but even if there is a little rounding, it isn't anything
anyone could hear.

> How big are the effects of 
> using small speaker wires compared to room resonances in a typical audio 
> "listening" room?

negligible, unless you're using really thin wire. 

thicker wire is often worth the difference (to a point), especially for
longer runs.  

monster cable is just overpriced thick wire you can get at a hardware
store for a tiny fraction of its price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56049

On 2014.02.05, 14:02 , Salmon Egg wrote:
> In article <gcy51p1vx8.fsf@ethel.the.log>,
>   Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So it does nothing?
>>
>> For audiophiles with really refined ears, the difference is like night
>> and day.
>
> It does something only with their imaginations. What does monster cable
> actually do? Can you compare the transfer function of monster cable to
> that of cheap speaker wire for a q0 or 20 foot run? What does it do for
> the shape of a square wave at 1 or 5 kHz? How big are the effects of
> using small speaker wires compared to room resonances in a typical audio
> "listening" room? We are not talking about an anechoic chamber that
> would have been in the former Bell Labs.


There are simple rules (formulae) for speaker impedance, wire run length 
and power (for a given wire type such as copper) that put a lower bound 
on the size of the wire.  If the wire is that thickness or thicker, 
you're done.  To be conservative, if the calculation indicates 14 gauge, 
for example, then one could use 12 gauge for additional margin.

Wire coat hangars are just as good as 10 or 12 gauge wire, for example.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.

                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web