JBL's Internal Monster Wiring

[okiemax]

The owner's manual for Harman International's new JBL K2 S5800 speakers, introduced last year at $18,000 per pair list, not only recommends the use of audiophile cables but points out that these speakers are internally wired with Monster Cable specially designed for JBL. The manual can be found at JBL's web site:

http://www.jbl.com/home/product_support/default.asp?ProdId=S5800&Submit=Submit

Some Cable Forum members continue to claim that Dr. Floyd E. Toole, Harman's Corporate Vice President Of Accoustical Engineering, found different cables don't make an audible difference, although Toole has not confirmed this is his position on cables. In a 6-25-2004 post, Pat D said "Alan Lofft, former editor of Audio Scene Canada, told me in an EMail that Dr.Toole had done extensive DB testing with cables a number of years ago and found that proper cables did not make an audilble difference." Monstrous Mike also has recently said he has second hand knowledge that Dr.Toole "found that cables do not affect the sound of his speakers."

If Dr.Toole believes cables don't make a difference, why are the new JBL K2 S5800 speakers internally wired with Monster Cable specially designed for JBL, and why does the owner's manual for these speakers emphasize the importance of using audiophile cables? We can continue to speculate on the reasons for the apparent contradiction between what Dr. Toole may believe and what his firm's speaker manuals say. Or someone can just ask him. Will Pat D, Monstrous Mike, or anyone else who has made claims about Dr. Toole's position on cables be willing to contact him?

[mtrycraft]

If Dr.Toole believes cables don't make a difference, why are the new JBL K2 S5800 speakers internally wired with Monster Cable specially designed for JBL, and why does the owner's manual for these speakers emphasize the importance of using audiophile cables? We can continue to speculate on the reasons for the apparent contradiction between what Dr. Toole may believe and what his firm's speaker manuals say. Or someone can just ask him. Will Pat D, Monstrous Mike, or anyone else who has made claims about Dr. Toole's position on cables be willing to contact him?

Why not you send him an email at the JBL website. He will not bite, much :) Then you get first hand info and response and follow up questioning?

I bet he is not involved in the marketing of the speakers.

[okiemax]

Why not you send him an email at the JBL website. He will not bite, much :) Then you get first hand info and response and follow up questioning?

I bet he is not involved in the marketing of the speakers.

It was Pat D and Monstrous Mike, not I, who made claims about what Dr.Toole found. If you believe the obligation for proof is on those who make the claims, you should be asking them to email Dr.Toole for an explanation instead of asking me. Whoever does it should post the correspondence on this Forum.

[skeptic]

There is only one possible explanation and that is that it is pure marketing hype targeted at a market which has more money than brains and knowledge. If you truely want a special cable developed just for your purpose, you don't go to Monster Cable, you go to Belden. Their R&D department would run rings around Monster Cable's on their worst day. So would their quality control department. (For all I know, Belden makes cable for Monster and puts their name on it.)

[E-Stat]

There is only one possible explanation and that is that it is pure marketing hype targeted at a market which has more money than brains and knowledge.
Paranoia strikes deep, huh skep? First audiophiles caused the downfall of your beloved AR and now Dr. Toole, corporate vice president of acoustical engineering, is reduced to but a powerless and willing pawn in the defrauding of the audio public.

What's your next theory? - rapidly declining sales of Lincoln Town Cars caused by corporate pressure to deliberately restrict availability to their fans in the post-retirement demographics?

rw

[markw]

You still persist in acting like Toole has the final say over everything that goes on at Harmon Intl. I would hope that one who professes to be so all knowing would know better than that.

...or are we just grandstanding for the uninformed again?

I wondr how much Noel Lee and company paid for this endorsment?

I'l betcha that the great unwashed are highly impressed by their use of monster cable internally. Just like some speakers put bi wire terminals on speakers that, by their engineers own admission, don't benefit a bit from them, except on a sales chart.

I saw a family buying a $99 shelf stereo that had the words "bi amped.bi wired" on the side. That seems to be the new buzz word to filter down to the barely educated and/or terminally gullible, just like "bi wiring" and "hi end cables" did previously.

[skeptic]

"First audiophiles caused the downfall of your beloved AR"

The downfall of AR was the fact that the techies who took over from Vilcher knew a lot more about building audio equipment than they did about how to run a profitable company. Their business plan was a failure.

Anone who wants to buy a high end speaker system from Harman International looks at Revel...or Infinity, not JBL.

And BTW, I don't care what happens to Lincoln's sales figures. Anyone who builds a car where it costs $1500 to replace the two headlights doesn't deserve to be in business anyway. Maybe Ford Motor Company will wind up like AR. Nah, no such luck.

[mtrycraft]

It was Pat D and Monstrous Mike, not I, who made claims about what Dr.Toole found. If you believe the obligation for proof is on those who make the claims, you should be asking them to email Dr.Toole for an explanation instead of asking me. Whoever does it should post the correspondence on this Forum.


What he, Dr Toole found with his research and what the company Harman is marketing are two issues, no? Toole is not in charge of marketing, right? He may not have much to say on it.
I offered you an opportunity to find out from him directly. It is free. He has responded to emails in the past.

There is nothing in that link that would claim special needs. If I remember back a number of hours, it recommends at least 16 ga wire for 5 m length as a minimum, well made. They use Monster wire on the inside. And? Is that a special testable claims other than you can check the inside and make sure it does in fact has the Monster label on it.
Something wrong with using Monster? Maybe that is why the speakers cost $9k?

What other special claims are made?

[mtrycraft]

Their R&D department would run rings around Monster Cable's on their worst day. .)


What? Monster has an R&D? I don't believe it.

[pctower]

You still persist in acting like Toole has the final say over everything that goes on at Harmon Intl. I would hope that one who professes to be so all knowing would know better than that.

...or are we just grandstanding for the uninformed again?

I wondr how much Noel Lee and company paid for this endorsment?

I'l betcha that the great unwashed are highly impressed by their use of monster cable internally. Just like some speakers put bi wire terminals on speakers that, by their engineers own admission, don't benefit a bit from them, except on a sales chart.

I saw a family buying a $99 shelf stereo that had the words "bi amped.bi wired" on the side. That seems to be the new buzz word to filter down to the barely educated and/or terminally gullible, just like "bi wiring" and "hi end cables" did previously.

There are direct links to three people on Harman International's home page. Two are Dr. Sidney Harman and Gina Harman. The third is Dr. Floyd Toole.

You act as if he is third in command of the mail room's restrooms.

[mtrycraft]

There are direct links to three people on Harman International's home page. Two are Dr. Sidney Harman and Gina Harman. The third is Dr. Floyd Toole.

You act as if he is third in command of the mail room's restrooms.


They have a rest room in the mail room? Arfe you sure? Or, is it down the hall? :D

I don't see much in that handbook link that is anything of importance towards wires. They are partial to Monster for most likely reason of $$? Certainly no indication of objective superiority. Or, did I miss that?

Wonder who Gina Harman is, daughter? Wife?

[markw]

There are direct links to three people on Harman International's home page. Two are Dr. Sidney Harman and Gina Harman. The third is Dr. Floyd Toole.

You act as if he is third in command of the mail room's restrooms.

From my experience in, not just with, big business, engineering decisions in many cases are outweighed by, and in many cases, driven by the marketing department.

Audio is, after all, a perception driven retail business bowing to the lowest common denominator.

[skeptic]

Actually they don't research cables, what they research is the audiophile cable market. And in that regard they have been very successful.

[pctower]

From my experience in, not just with, big business, engineering decisions in many cases are outweighed by, and in many cases, driven by the marketing department.

Audio is, after all, a perception driven retail business bowing to the lowest common denominator.

From my young teen-age experiences along Canal Street in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, someone who allows his name, face, reputation and writing to be prominently displayed for all the world to see on the home page of an international audio conglomerate who fundamentally disagrees with a significant component of that company's marketing strategy is called a "whore".

So which is he Mark? Is he (1) a professional engineer who, for engineering reasons, supports the use of Monster Cable in the JBL speakers and supports the recommendation regarding use of speaker cables, or (2) a whore?

[skeptic]

In a sense, anyone who works for someone else is a whore. When the boss has the final say, you either accept it or you leave. That's the conditons of all employment no matter what level you're at or in what business. It would be ludicrous for him to quit over this minor issue. Ultimately every company is in business for only one purpose and that is to make a profit. This little game with the market and the customers doesn't damage the product in any way, just the image of the company and certain people in the eyes of a handful of other people, who basically don't count. You can be sure O'Toole and Sidney Harman are both laughing all the way to the bank. Probably each in their own Limo. Each equipped with a junky Ford JBL sound system. About like mine.

[E-Stat]

The downfall of AR was the fact that the techies who took over from Vilcher knew a lot more about building audio equipment than they did about how to run a profitable company. Their business plan was a failure.
That is a perfectly reasonable explanation. I was referring to your previous comments here:

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20811&postcount=60">Why didn't audiophiles embrace...?</a href>



Anone who wants to buy a high end speaker system from Harman International looks at Revel...or Infinity, not JBL.
Agreed, yet even Chrysler is now getting infused with higher performance M-B technology. Witness the Crossfire. Why not have a lower end product benefit from lessons learned from more capable divisions?

rw

[skeptic]

JBL is targeted at a different market which is NOT a true audiophile market. I think that there has been a lot of dissention and turmoil among the old timers at JBL since Sidney Harman took them over. They have been very resistant to change. They have a heritage of producing speakers for the movie theater industry and were in the vanguard of what was once referred to as "The West Coast Sound." I didn't think that this was a real phenomenon until I read it in Sam's Audio Engineering Handbook but it apparantly was real. Of course, accuracy in live versus recorded terms knows no geographical boundaries. It is fortunate that the revenues from JBL's financial success both in the professional market and in the low to middle price consumer market can be used to finance the research of the likes of Revel. JBL also always liked to have a flagship product which was highly innovative such as the Hartsfield and the Paragon. This latest manifestation is just one more of them which will undoubtedly have a very limited production and appeal. As I recall, there's a fair amount of information about it at the Lansing Heritage Site. Like many companies with such high profile low volume (and maybe zero profit) projects, it's a wonderful reward opportunity for their best engineers to run amok with their wildest ideas, whether they are practical or not. In these cases, it's best for top management to keep a hands off policy and just occasionally peek into what they are doing to let them know they are interested but will not be heavy handed. That is another possible explanation of why O'Toole didn't put a stop to the Monster Cable idea. If Monster Cable did develop something for them, it's my hunch they farmed it out to a Belden or an Alpha, and put their name on it for the prestige of being able to say that they are part of the project. It's good advertising for them as well.

[E-Stat]

JBL is targeted at a different market which is NOT a true audiophile market.
Isn't that what I said in my last statement? Low end <> audiophile



That is another possible explanation of why O'Toole didn't put a stop to the Monster Cable idea.
Stop it? I agree with your first speculation - they have the money to go for improvements exclusive of "practical" costing and pricing issues. I'll believe your tale only when I read that is the case.

rw

[skeptic]

Unless you are on the inside, it's all pure speculation. Even then, the truth often depends on who you talk to, especially if company politics is involved. That's business.

[E-Stat]

Unless you are on the inside, it's all pure speculation. Even then, the truth often depends on who you talk to, especially if company politics is involved. That's business.
Indeed. That is why I rejected your first post out of hand. There is more than one possible explanation.

rw

[markw]

From my young teen-age experiences along Canal Street in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, someone who allows his name, face, reputation and writing to be prominently displayed for all the world to see on the home page of an international audio conglomerate who fundamentally disagrees with a significant component of that company's marketing strategy is called a "whore".

So which is he Mark? Is he (1) a professional engineer who, for engineering reasons, supports the use of Monster Cable in the JBL speakers and supports the recommendation regarding use of speaker cables, or (2) a whore?

He can be neither. He can be an engineer and still be removed from the marketing department. Is it stated in print that he vouched for these cables as making an improvement, or are y'all stretching to try to make a point?

Let's look at your brothers who do divorces. By your own words they are whores. Should now assume that all lawyers are whores?

[filecat13]

After reading most--but admittedly not all--of the linked manual, I saw two references to Monster Cable, both on the same text-heavy page in regular type. This is in a 20 page manual! There's no "Monster Inside" logo on the cover or, I assume, on the speaker enclosure as far as I can see. So it seems like the idea of "whoring" is overblown.

In the discussion of cable choice, Monster is used as an example, not a requirement. It's true JBL chose Monster Cable to go inside, but so what? It's a recognizable brand that performs as well as any of its competitors.

Yes, there's marketing going on, but that's a part of selling products.

As for the discussion about Floyd Toole's role in choosing/endorsing/whoring/rejecting/ignoring the use of Monster Cable internally, why would he give a good flying frak about that? As long as the wire meets the design specs, why would he care where it comes from? Isn't his generally known position that it doesn't matter? He might freak out if it were 18ga aluminum, but, otherwise, he's got better things to do than worry about who manufactures it for the production models.

Since I've been a life long JBL user (well, since 1970 anyway), I'll take a positive position on the JBL loudspeaker tradition and its current state. In addition to the West Coast Sound L100s I bought in '70 (still playing today BTW), I've had LX Series, L Series (L5 and L7), SVA Series (1800 and 2100) and currently the Performance Series. These are fine loudspeakers that are far above the normal consumer market (not the L100 or LX Series) and will kick the a$$ of most audiophile speakers of contemporary vintage.

I'm delighted that Revel decided to use the same inverted dome 4" titanium pistonic midrange speakers in its Revel Ultima Salons as are in my Performance Series PT800 and PC600 speakers. I'm delighted that technology and materials from K2 Series speakers and from JBL Synthesis Systems can be migrated to Revel and support its quest for greatness. Revel is a truly remarkable line that I respect a lot; yet, it is not so far removed from the best of JBL in some ways, and not yet its equal in others.

OK guys, load 'em up and let 'em rip.

[mtrycraft]

Actually they don't research cables, what they research is the audiophile cable market. And in that regard they have been very successful.


Ah, they have a huge marketing department then :D

Maybe a voodoo department as well?

[mtrycraft]

After reading most--but admittedly not all--of the linked manual, I saw two references to Monster Cable, both on the same text-heavy page in regular type. This is in a 20 page manual! There's no "Monster Inside" logo on the cover or, I assume, on the speaker enclosure as far as I can see. So it seems like the idea of "whoring" is overblown.

In the discussion of cable choice, Monster is used as an example, not a requirement. It's true JBL chose Monster Cable to go inside, but so what? It's a recognizable brand that performs as well as any of its competitors.

Yes, there's marketing going on, but that's a part of selling products.

.


Yes, :)

Looks like they made a preference for that brand of cables. Did they make any testable claims for them? I must have missed that too.

I might have some Monster and Angle cables myself, or it may be no name cable. Matters not.

[Peter_Klim]

Since I've been a life long JBL user (well, since 1970 anyway), I'll take a positive position on the JBL loudspeaker tradition and its current state. In addition to the West Coast Sound L100s I bought in '70 (still playing today BTW), I've had LX Series, L Series (L5 and L7), SVA Series (1800 and 2100) and currently the Performance Series. These are fine loudspeakers that are far above the normal consumer market (not the L100 or LX Series) and will kick the a$$ of most audiophile speakers of contemporary vintage.


filecat13,

I bought the L7 and L5(for surrounds) and the CL505 center back in 97" (everything at a 1/2 off close out). I bought these based on Stereo Review's (1987?) RAVE review of the JBL100's.

I always though these sounded good, but never did any critical auditioning of other speakers. Until last year when my brother got a small/medium size Monitor Audio S 5i (I believe)spks which MSRP is 1/2 of the L7. Although they have less bass, the MA's sound much better to me. Better vocals, and most noticable they did not sound bright like the L7s. The L7 to me has a lot of sibilance - so much I could no longer stand them (so I bought a pair of Martin Logan ReQuest).

Anyway, my question here is, or rather request is, could you please =) give me a detailed review of what you think of the L7's compared to other brand speaker and especially what you think of them compared to the other JBL models? especially compared to the L100 (or is is L100t?)!

[woodman]

The owner's manual for Harman International's new JBL K2 S5800 speakers, introduced last year at $18,000 per pair list, not only recommends the use of audiophile cables but points out that these speakers are internally wired with Monster Cable specially designed for JBL. The manual can be found at JBL's web site:

okiemax:
You're not actually suggesting that the use of a specific brand of wire inside a speaker cabinet is somehow going to effect an improvement to the speaker's performance, are you? I sure hope not.

Regarding what Dr. Floyd Toole does or does not believe about the sonic properties (or lack thereof) of different wires and cables, it matters not even a little tiny bit. As markw pointed out in his replies to this thread, it's very seldom that any engineer - or the entire engineering dept. has much of any "say" in final product design and configuration. During the course of my extensive career in consumer electronics, I've had many discussions about this very topic with many engineers from both audio and video companies. They have all said essentially the exact same thing ... it's the MARKETING DEPT. that "drives the bus". The engineers have to sit in the back of the bus - with just about nada,zip,zilch to say about whereinthehell the bus is headed!

[Pat D]

It was Pat D and Monstrous Mike, not I, who made claims about what Dr.Toole found. If you believe the obligation for proof is on those who make the claims, you should be asking them to email Dr.Toole for an explanation instead of asking me. Whoever does it should post the correspondence on this Forum.
PCT thinks Dr. Toole never looked into cables, but very credible people who know have said he did. If you do not wish to draw a conclusion from the evidence, you don't have to. Here are a couple of references.

"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

Go ask Ian Masters, Alan Lofft, or Dr. Toole himself whether the NRC looked into cables to see if they were relevant to their speaker testing. Why get it second or third hand from us? Get it first hand from people who were involved.

[Pat D]

From my young teen-age experiences along Canal Street in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, someone who allows his name, face, reputation and writing to be prominently displayed for all the world to see on the home page of an international audio conglomerate who fundamentally disagrees with a significant component of that company's marketing strategy is called a "whore".

So which is he Mark? Is he (1) a professional engineer who, for engineering reasons, supports the use of Monster Cable in the JBL speakers and supports the recommendation regarding use of speaker cables, or (2) a whore?
What you propose to accomplish with them in a Cable Forum is an unanswered question. Are you just being vicious?

[markw]

What you propose to accomplish with them in a Cable Forum is an unanswered question. Are you just being vicious?

If I read correctly he was either

1) saying that Mr Toole accepted the fact that cables make an audiable difference

or

2) was trying to drag Mr Toole down to his level.

Further evidence seemed to rule out option 1. ;)

[okiemax]

okiemax:
You're not actually suggesting that the use of a specific brand of wire inside a speaker cabinet is somehow going to effect an improvement to the speaker's performance, are you? I sure hope not.

Regarding what Dr. Floyd Toole does or does not believe about the sonic properties (or lack thereof) of different wires and cables, it matters not even a little tiny bit. As markw pointed out in his replies to this thread, it's very seldom that any engineer - or the entire engineering dept. has much of any "say" in final product design and configuration. During the course of my extensive career in consumer electronics, I've had many discussions about this very topic with many engineers from both audio and video companies. They have all said essentially the exact same thing ... it's the MARKETING DEPT. that "drives the bus". The engineers have to sit in the back of the bus - with just about nada,zip,zilch to say about whereinthehell the bus is headed!

You can rest easy, Woodman. It is the speaker owner's manual, not I, that suggests improvment from internal Monster Cable wiring designed for the speaker. I made no suggestion -- just told what was in the manual. And I have no opinion.

I'm not sure I agree with your "back of the bus" generalization about engineers. Are you suggesting engineers have trouble seeing the big picture?

[skeptic]

I think there would be loud protests from the engineering department if the speaker wire actually caused poorer performance. From the look of some of these wires, wiring anything with them would be a step in the wrong direction.

If this is the speaker I've seen recently on the Lansing Heritage website, the one with a super tweeter which "reproduces" sound over 20 Khz, you can see the extent to which JBL has prostituted itself. Some of you may recall an interesting thread appearing here within the last year about the Japanese experiment with just such a tweeter. It was designed to show that even the best intended experiments conducted by the most objective scientists can be flawed. In that experiment as I recall, a professor of electrical engineering intended to demonstrate that reproduction above 20 khz was inaudible. He designed a loudspeaker which performed to well beyond 20 khz and when the signal included components above 20 khz, the students could easily distinguish it from when it didn't. As it turned out, the experiment was fatally flawed because the over 20 khz components were causing distortion within the audible passband. When the experiment was repeated with a separate supertweeter dedicated to the over 20khz spectrum, the expected result was obtained. If JBL is marketing such a speaker, it may be because Sidney Harman is still obsessed with this ultrasonic region. His vacuum tube amplifiers of the 1950s and 1960s routinely had bandwidths to 70Khz and his first solid state venture had a bandwidth of 1 Mhz. He may be rich and successful, but he's also nuts.

[Monstrous Mike]

I'm not sure I agree with your "back of the bus" generalization about engineers. Are you suggesting engineers have trouble seeing the big picture?
There are many factors to consider other than the best engineering design. Among them are cost, reliability, perception of the buyer, speed from R&D to market, affiliations with other companies, national and international laws, etc. I can say with all certainty as a member of the military in an engineering capacity that I have had many recommendations overturned for a variety of reasons from political to practical.

The bottom line of any business is profit. Final decisions are made for business reasons and not engineering reasons. And I certainly don't mean to imply that this is not how it should be. As a young design engineer my point of view was fairly idealistic in that I could not see how the best design with the best performance should not be the one to hit the streets. But in the big picture, this is usually never the best business decision. And as far as engineers seeing the big picture, well that is usually reserved for the more experienced engineers with business administration skills and usually in consultation with people of other skill sets like marketing, manufacturing, distribution, etc.

If you think about, scientists and inventors are usually the least business oriented and thus less likely to be affluent. Engineers are a little better but the real overachievers are the salesman. And unfortunately, sometimes the quality of the product isn't much of a factor in the sales, it's the sales pitch that does it combined with the lack of information and discretion on the part of the consumer.

So if Dr. Toole said in a meeting that regular zip cord was good enough for their JBL speakers and business types calculated that this would lead to a decrease in sales and profit since other speaker manufacturers have captured the market with internal wiring and bi-wiring marketing, then guess what path Harmon would choose to take?

If you think about, what hope does 12 gauge zip cord have in hi-end audio? It's not marketed by anybody. It is simply available at Home Depot. And not only that, it is poo-pooed on most audio boards on the Internet and anybody who supports using it is considered either deaf or having a bookshelf audio system incapable of resolving the performance of high end cabling.

If we did an experiment using wine, I believe we could come up with the same phenomenon. Let's say we filled one hundred bottles with the same wine. Then we put on a different label on each bottle. I can guarantee you that if 50 of those bottles were marketed, priced higher than the other fifty and talked about on the Internet, then in a year, you would see arguements claiming that those fifty brands were "better".

I'm not saying that is what is happening in audio cabling but rather I was speculating on an answer to your original post. If the winemaker said that his company's $100 bottle was no better than some other $5 bottle, would that company and its business managers change it's label and start selling their bottles for $5?

[skeptic]

Cables aside, this is one miserable speaker. It's neither fish nor fowl. As a home high fidelity reproducer, it shows the characteristic benefits and limitations of horn speakers. While it is highly efficient, it cannot reproduce not only the lowest octave of bass but the next to the lowest half of an octave as well. With a 6 db down point of 50 hz, it cannot reproduce not only organ pedal notes but the lower registers of pianos, double basses and other low freqeuncy instruments. What are they going to tell you after you've spent $18,000 if this is the kind of music you listen to, buy a subwoofer? For professional use, its price is beyond the pale. For $18,000 you can buy enough horn speakers to fill a sports arena with sound. This is a dumb dumb dumb idea which can only be sold to people who have too much money. This is what happens when you must produce a new flagship product and you've completely run out of ideas. IMO, if you must have a horn speaker, a Klipschorn would be a far better choice and at a much lower price.

[filecat13]

Where to start? Where to start?

All right, here's a simple question and some follow ups: How many of this speaker's detractors have audtitioned this speaker? Of those who audtitioned it, how many opened the enclosure, ripped out the debated Monster cable, and replaced it with another brand? With rip cord? With solid copper wire? With silver cable? What were the measurable differences?

Here's a second question. Has anyone seen JBL advertise this speaker? If so, was the inclusion of Monster Cable used as a selling point? Don't confuse the issue by noting that it says Monster on page 14 in the owner's manual, which you'd normally get AFTER puchasing the product. How about here on JBL's own Web site:

http://www.jbl.com/home/products/product_detail.asp?ProdId=S5800&SerId=K2&sCatId=

See any Monsters? Or do you have to go online and deliberately download the manual (before ever hearing or purchasing the speaker), then read the first fourteen pages to find the word Monster? How is that being a whore again?

Let's look at who had engineering control over this speaker. Who was it? People seem to think it was all Floyd Toole. Better check again. Do the names Greg Timbers, Doug Button, and Francher Murray mean anything to you? In fact, Toole's name does not even come up on the engineering team, while Timbers, as chief engineer, even appears in the K2 marketing material, while Monster Cable does not.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/2001-k2-s9800.htm

Someone who didn't know better could read this thread and conclude that JBL tried to validate the quality of its product by associating with Monster Cable and that its engineers were patsies to a corproate marketing rip off. This is incorrect and ignorant. If our objective were to research and learn rather than speculate and make sensationalist statments, all this is easy to find out.

[filecat13]

Cables aside, this is one miserable speaker. It's neither fish nor fowl. As a home high fidelity reproducer, it shows the characteristic benefits and limitations of horn speakers. While it is highly efficient, it cannot reproduce not only the lowest octave of bass but the next to the lowest half of an octave as well. With a 6 db down point of 50 hz, it cannot reproduce not only organ pedal notes but the lower registers of pianos, double basses and other low freqeuncy instruments. What are they going to tell you after you've spent $18,000 if this is the kind of music you listen to, buy a subwoofer? For professional use, its price is beyond the pale. For $18,000 you can buy enough horn speakers to fill a sports arena with sound. This is a dumb dumb dumb idea which can only be sold to people who have too much money. This is what happens when you must produce a new flagship product and you've completely run out of ideas. IMO, if you must have a horn speaker, a Klipschorn would be a far better choice and at a much lower price.

So you have heard it, skeptic? Or is your position, "I don't need to hear it; I can read a graph."

I don't think my local sports stadium has an $18k speaker system. I'd hate to be in it if it did. I know from the press materials that they spent quite a bit more than that, thankfully.

The engineering team for this speaker had a lot of ideas, so to characterize them as "out of ideas" would be incorrect. You may not like the ideas, and you may be correct that the ideas are insufficient to make this a great or even marginally acceptble speaker, but to declare someone bankrupt by ignoring their accomplishments and failing to give anything other than "IMO" to validate your claims is very thin indeed. That's not being skeptical, that's being illogical.

[skeptic]

What makes this speaker better than the Paragon or the Hartsfield for that matter. I've been a JBL fan for over 40 years. This is NOT one of their proudest moments. They still haven't addressed the problem of integrating the speaker into the room acoustics.

BTW, nobody uses a single $18,000 speaker for a sports arena. They use them in arrays. As I said in another thread, controlled dispersion is a hallmark of modern horn speakers and one of the reasons why they are the system of choice for PA and sound reinforcement in large public spaces. It gives them the advantage of uniform coverage over a wide area and maximum gain before feedback. High efficiency and high maximum sound pressure levels before distortion are two others. But they do not adapt well for use as home high fidelity speakers especially where two are needed for stereo. They are large, very heavy, of limited and often irregular frequency response, do not have the best high frequency dispersion (this seems to be different because of the tweeter design) and do not produce adequate bass unless they are folded and still enormous as in Paragon which reaches down to 26 hz at -3db beating the pants off this one at -6db at 50 hz. As I said elsewhere, my favorite is Paragon and one day I hope to build one. BTW, what does this design say about capacitors, that they don't behave linearly at small signal levels unless they have a dc bias? What does that tell you about EVERY OTHER speaker crossover network including their own if they are right? Baloney. If this is the flagship their current crop of engineers produce, then sadly their best days are behind them.

[filecat13]

So you've heard it then?

[skeptic]

After a little reflection, it has occurred to me that there is no point in listening to them. By the manufacturer's own admission, they cannot reproduce one and a half to two octaves of the ten audible octaves humans can hear. This includes all of the deep bass that defines rhythm, one of the critical elements in most music and an aspect indespensible for my enjoyment of it. Therefore they cannot be considered "high fidelity." This would be unacceptable at $1,800. At $18,000 is is outrageous. Of course I feel exactly the same way about other expensive loudspeakers which cannot reproduce an orchestral crecendo because their maximum loudness is grossly inadequate and expensive peewee amplifiers which cant provide sufficient power to drive 95 percent or more of the loudspeakers on the market to acceptable loudness levels. Whatever their attributes, their limitations make them fatally flawed for attracting my dollars or attention.

[skeptic]

"How many of this speaker's detractors have audtitioned this speaker? Of those who audtitioned it, how many opened the enclosure, ripped out the debated Monster cable, and replaced it with another brand? With rip cord? With solid copper wire? With silver cable? What were the measurable differences?"

They don't let you "rip out" the internal wiring of a loudspeaker and replace it for an $18 a pair of speakers let alone an $18,000 pair unless you buy it first and then it belongs to you so you can do whatever you want with it.

"Someone who didn't know better could read this thread and conclude that JBL tried to validate the quality of its product by associating with Monster Cable and that its engineers were patsies to a corproate marketing rip off. This is incorrect and ignorant."

Actually it's not. They would never admit to having been paid off by Monster to play this little harmless stunt advancing Monster's prestige while trying to trick gullible customers into drawing wrong conclusions about their speakers. In a letter to the editor of Sound and Video Contractor magazine about 20 years ago, one industry insider wrote pointing out that when the cable guys come around to the speaker manufacturers, they don't make the slightest pretense about better quality of their wire because they know they'd get booted out the door before the last sylable was out of their mouths. What they tell the speaker manufacturer is that their customers expect and like to see it as internal wiring because that's what they get suckered into buying for their own home audio systems. In a perverse sense, there is some logic to this.

Funny how so many of the best and most expensive speakers of the past never used any special audiophile cable for internal wiring. Like for example, Infinity IRS or RGA's favorite Klipschorn. How about your Vandersteens PC, any special brand of wiring in them? And no batteries for charging up the crossover network capacitors either? Is that a new trend in audio lunacy?

[pctower]

"How many of this speaker's detractors have audtitioned this speaker? Of those who audtitioned it, how many opened the enclosure, ripped out the debated Monster cable, and replaced it with another brand? With rip cord? With solid copper wire? With silver cable? What were the measurable differences?"

They don't let you "rip out" the internal wiring of a loudspeaker and replace it for an $18 a pair of speakers let alone an $18,000 pair unless you buy it first and then it belongs to you so you can do whatever you want with it.

"Someone who didn't know better could read this thread and conclude that JBL tried to validate the quality of its product by associating with Monster Cable and that its engineers were patsies to a corproate marketing rip off. This is incorrect and ignorant."

Actually it's not. They would never admit to having been paid off by Monster to play this little harmless stunt advancing Monster's prestige while trying to trick gullible customers into drawing wrong conclusions about their speakers. In a letter to the editor of Sound and Video Contractor magazine about 20 years ago, one industry insider wrote pointing out that when the cable guys come around to the speaker manufacturers, they don't make the slightest pretense about better quality of their wire because they know they'd get booted out the door before the last sylable was out of their mouths. What they tell the speaker manufacturer is that their customers expect and like to see it as internal wiring because that's what they get suckered into buying for their own home audio systems. In a perverse sense, there is some logic to this.

Funny how so many of the best and most expensive speakers of the past never used any special audiophile cable for internal wiring. Like for example, Infinity IRS or RGA's favorite Klipschorn. How about your Vandersteens PC, any special brand of wiring in them? And no batteries for charging up the crossover network capacitors either? Is that a new trend in audio lunacy?

Afraid there is: high purity silver. And he uses batteries in the high-pass filter between pre-amp and amp. Worst of all, he claims he builds the internal cross-over to be bi-wired and strongly recommends bi-wire.

He says that bi-wiring with modest speaker cables is usually more productive than more expensive single cables. I'm afraid he's a yeasayer when it comes to cables. Perhaps just as bad, he personally prefers tube gear and spends a lot of time tweaking his own personal amps with special parts. He's a former truck-driver, so what do you expect?

Amazing, though, how over the years he has developed a strong reputation for usually providing the best bang for the buck in loudspeakers at all price ranges up to $15,000. He believes anyone building a speaker system for more than $15,000 is either over-charging or under-engineering.

For what it's worth - I didn't have a clue as to what kind of wire he used in his speakers before I bought any of the 4 different pair I've owned, including my current Model Fives.

[skeptic]

How often do you change your "speaker batteries?" Which brand of batteries sound the best? (Before Mtrycrafts asks) have you DBT tested different batteries or are you just guessing? Here we go, a whole new field of nonsense, "Audiophile Crossover Network Batteries." Why didin't I think of that? OK everybody, if you don't have speakers which charge the capacitors in you crossover network, you are NOT a serious audiophile. But then again, you probably listen to solid state amplifiers so you are only mid fi anyway.

[Tony_Montana]

Just showing that use of MontserCable in JBL is more of marketing than sonic benefits, note that Yamaha speakers (starting with their $150 a pair speakers) also use Monster cables for speaker internal wires. It just make one wonder as to how much of $18,000 price tag for JBL speakers went for internal Monster cable.....$10, $15 or $20 :D

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/HXseries/NSP333.htm

[skeptic]

The joke of it is that unlike the run between the amplifier output and the speaker input where the relationship resulting from the distance between the conductors and the type of insulation can affect the inductance and capacitance, inside the speaker box, the two conductors are often nowhere near each other. They are "unzipped."

[okiemax]

PCT thinks Dr. Toole never looked into cables, but very credible people who know have said he did. If you do not wish to draw a conclusion from the evidence, you don't have to. Here are a couple of references.

"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

Go ask Ian Masters, Alan Lofft, or Dr. Toole himself whether the NRC looked into cables to see if they were relevant to their speaker testing. Why get it second or third hand from us? Get it first hand from people who were involved.



Pat, I think you are telling me your information is hearsay, and you don't really know what Dr.Toole thinks about cables. Nevertheless, I get the impression you like to think he believes zip cord is as good as any audiophile speaker cable in any system. Perhaps you are right. If you are right, I think you would agree his position conflicts with information given in some of his organization's manuals.

While you are not claiming to have information on Dr.Toole's views on cables directly from him, you are claiming to have it second-hand from good sources, and are presenting it as reliable. It would be easy for you to verify that your information is accurate. Just ask Dr. Toole by e-mail about his views on cables and whether they have changed. Regardless of his response, you will have done the right thing.

[mtrycraft]

Pat, I think you are telling me your information is hearsay, and you don't really know what Dr.Toole thinks about cables. Nevertheless, I get the impression you like to think he believes zip cord is as good as any audiophile speaker cable in any system. Perhaps you are right. If you are right, I think you would agree his position conflicts with information given in some of his organization's manuals.

Well, I sent him a number of emails some time in the past and it is no speculation what his position is. Contact him. Why don't you?

Please explain how the manual in any way conflicts his position? Now YOU are the speculator with no evidence. Just because the Monster cable is used is not evidence of anything. Are you telling me I cannot like or prefer the Monstre brand of cables?


It would be easy for you to verify that your information is accurate. Just ask Dr. Toole by e-mail about his views on cables and whether they have changed. .

Precisely. So, contact him and see. While you are at it ask about the use of Monster. Chicken?

[okiemax]

Pat, I think you are telling me your information is hearsay, and you don't really know what Dr.Toole thinks about cables. Nevertheless, I get the impression you like to think he believes zip cord is as good as any audiophile speaker cable in any system. Perhaps you are right. If you are right, I think you would agree his position conflicts with information given in some of his organization's manuals.

Well, I sent him a number of emails some time in the past and it is no speculation what his position is. Contact him. Why don't you?

Please explain how the manual in any way conflicts his position? Now YOU are the speculator with no evidence. Just because the Monster cable is used is not evidence of anything. Are you telling me I cannot like or prefer the Monstre brand of cables?


It would be easy for you to verify that your information is accurate. Just ask Dr. Toole by e-mail about his views on cables and whether they have changed. .

Precisely. So, contact him and see. While you are at it ask about the use of Monster. Chicken?

There may be no need for anyone to contact Dr.Toole if, as you imply, you have already discussed the matter with him. All you have to do is post the correspondence. Unless some questions remain unanswered, that should be the end of it.

[Pat D]

Pat, I think you are telling me your information is hearsay, and you don't really know what Dr.Toole thinks about cables. Nevertheless, I get the impression you like to think he believes zip cord is as good as any audiophile speaker cable in any system. Perhaps you are right. If you are right, I think you would agree his position conflicts with information given in some of his organization's manuals.

While you are not claiming to have information on Dr.Toole's views on cables directly from him, you are claiming to have it second-hand from good sources, and are presenting it as reliable. It would be easy for you to verify that your information is accurate. Just ask Dr. Toole by e-mail about his views on cables and whether they have changed. Regardless of his response, you will have done the right thing.

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.

I note that you wish mtrycrafts to make private Emails public. In any case, if you don't believe our second or third hand information, which you evidently don't, go ask Dr. Toole yourself. Or if that's too intimidating for you, write Ian Masters.

[pctower]

PCT thinks Dr. Toole never looked into cables, but very credible people who know have said he did. If you do not wish to draw a conclusion from the evidence, you don't have to. Here are a couple of references.

"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

Go ask Ian Masters, Alan Lofft, or Dr. Toole himself whether the NRC looked into cables to see if they were relevant to their speaker testing. Why get it second or third hand from us? Get it first hand from people who were involved.


PCT thinks Dr. Toole never looked into cables, but very credible people who know have said he did. If you do not wish to draw a conclusion from the evidence, you don't have to. Here are a couple of references.


Why do you blatantly lie like that? Please show me where I have ever made a statement like that.

I have merely said I had seen no direct evidence that he had. I have never seen those two articles cited before.

Of course, they are difficult to access and are over 20 years old, so of course they do not cover cables developed since then. For that matter, you don't indicate what specific cables were tested.

[pctower]

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.

I note that you wish mtrycrafts to make private Emails public. In any case, if you don't believe our second or third hand information, which you evidently don't, go ask Dr. Toole yourself. Or if that's too intimidating for you, write Ian Masters.

You and mtrycrafts are the one's making claims about what Toole says in personal e-mails. You are the one's having the burden of proof. Isn't that what you are always telling yeasayers about their claims?

Either produce the evidence to support your claim or admit that your claim is without substantiation. Given your attitude toward the truth, why should anyone believe what you say?

[markw]

Well, given that you and okie have attributed several statements and corporate decisions to Mr Toole himself, it would seem to me that it's more likely that we ask you to prove your initial statements.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence, I feel you should be a man for once and confront Mr. Toole himself with your accusations. Then, feel free to violate net ettiquette amd post his responses here on the forum.

Aftet all, we're not all lawyers. We find ouselves trying to abide by certain rules of conduct whenever possible, not just when we find it convenient.

It's not like y'all have any problems making outlandish statements. ...just backing them up and expecting others to prove you wrong.

Oh, and when corrosponding with Mr Toole, you might want to let him know you consider him a whore.

[pctower]

Well, given that you and okie have attributed several statements and corporate decisions to Mr Toole himself, it would seem to me that it's more likely that we ask you to prove your initial statements.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence, I feel you should be a man for once and confront Mr. Toole himself with your accusations. Then, feel free to violate net ettiquette amd post his responses here on the forum.

Aftet all, we're not all lawyers. We find ouselves trying to abide by certain rules of conduct whenever possible, not just when we find it convenient.

It's not like y'all have any problems making outlandish statements. ...just backing them up and expecting others to prove you wrong.

Oh, and when corrosponding with Mr Toole, you might want to let him know you consider him a whore.

Well, given that you and okie have attributed several statements and corporate decisions to Mr Toole himself, it would seem to me that it's more likely that we ask you to prove your initial statements.

[Oh, and when corrosponding with Mr Toole, you might want to let him know you consider him a whore.

Oh good Mark - you're on a roll. Point to one place where I have attributed a single statement or corporate decision to Dr. Toole. I have merely been commenting on claims and positions taken by others and raising questions. I don't know what Toole thinks about cables and I don't know what control over corporate decisions he does or doesn't have. I'm not making claims as others are.

I have no interest in e-mailing Toole. I'm not the one who is making claims. But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,

No Mark, again you mischaraterize what I said. I said either post the e-mails or admit you can't substantiate your claim. If you didn't have Toole's permission to post the e-mails then you shouldn't have discussed them or their content. You and mtry broke the rule by even mentioning the contents.

[markw]

Oh good Mark - you're on a roll. Point to one place where I have attributed a single statement or corporate decision to Dr. Toole.

Here ya go, phil. From post 14 in this thread. nice options you leave him.


So which is he Mark? Is he (1) a professional engineer who, for engineering reasons, supports the use of Monster Cable in the JBL speakers and supports the recommendation regarding use of speaker cables, or (2) a whore?



I have no interest in e-mailing Toole. I'm not the one who is making claims.

Why not? Afraid of what he might say? Actually, okie is the one making the claims. He should be the one sending the inquiry.



But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.

You DO like calling people whores, don't ya? Now, be a man and see if it's deserved.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,


No Mark, again you mischaraterize what I said. I said either post the e-mails or admit you can't substantiate your claim. If you didn't have Toole's permission to post the e-mails then you shouldn't have discussed them or their content. You and mtry broke the rule by even mentioning the contents.

Nope. No mischaracterization at all. Just calling a spade a spade. What's this "you and mtry" stuff? Where do you see me claiming to have received an email? Putting words in someone else's mouth again, are we?

They don't have to post personal emails. They merely have to state the content. Using your logic as applied in this thread, it's your position to prove he didn't say what they said in any emails. After all, you have no problem defending okis' position without needing proof, don't ya? Nice try twisting of the legal system.

Now, consuler, getting back to post 14 in this thread. Would you please be so kind as to please prove your assertion that Mr Toole is either a whore or a liar. Use whatever evidence you can provide.

Please don't get all blustery and huff and puff and demand others to provide it for you by asking them to prove he's not. That's quite disingenious of you.

[Monstrous Mike]

You and mtrycrafts are the one's making claims about what Toole says in personal e-mails. You are the one's having the burden of proof. Isn't that what you are always telling yeasayers about their claims?
Right. And yeasayers are always saying that you need to try it for yourself if you want to comment on anything so your logic dictates that you should go and email him for yourself.




Either produce the evidence to support your claim or admit that your claim is without substantiation.
You can tell a man's arguement has run out of gas when he makes statements like this one about a claim that is a personal correspondence or conversation. Of course these "claims" are heresay and in a court it is not allowed but really instead of issuing a subpeona for Dr. Toole, you can simply email him to corroborate our "claims". Surely that is easier than me bringing home a truckload of cables, amps, CD players, etc. and "listening" to them so I can corroborate yeasayer claims.




Given your attitude toward the truth, why should anyone believe what you say?
And further indication of a waning arguement is the ad hominem attack. Why don't you just call him a liar? As a matter of fact, you have just called me and Mtry liars as well since you know we have said the same thing as Pat D.

I appreciate your intelligent discourse and even tolerate your dung-disturbing style from time to time but your latest posts are simply empty, illogical and bitter.

[Monstrous Mike]

But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.
Perhaps he could be called a "whore" if zip cord had the same performance as that Monster cable. I guess we could call the entire Harmon company a "whore". As a matter of fact, if zip cord is the same as Monster and other exotic cables, then the whole audio cable industry is probably a "whore".

Wouldn't that would make you a "john"?

[E-Stat]

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.
Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

JBL has been using "Monster Cable" in it's "Audiophile" speakers since the late 80's. It started with the XPL series and has been on and of ever since. This has nothing to do with Dr. Toole but is a marketing point. If want to see what JBL really thinks open up a Pro cabinet. You will find 16ga standed wire plain and simple.

[pctower]

What you propose to accomplish with them in a Cable Forum is an unanswered question. Are you just being vicious?

Are you just being vicious?

Yes.

[Pat D]

Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw
That goes beyond the question I was dealing with. I am satisfied that Dr. Toole did deal with the question at NRC way back when and that should inform PCT that in fact he has. However, anyone not satisfied with the evidence can ask Dr. Toole directly.

Now, as to what Dr. Toole may think to day, that's a different question. As I know mtry to be an honest and trustworthy person, I take his word that he has corresponded with Dr. Toole and knows his current opinions on the matter. If anyone doesn't like the evidence, they are free to ask Dr. Toole.

You mention further knowledge. What is this further knowledge which would indicate that special interconnects and speaker cables are audibly better than ordinary interconnects and speaker cables? We have been waiting a long time for it to materialize. We do know that length and gauge matter and speaker load matter, but those are generally relatively easy to deal with, and mtry has the references handy. What is the further knowledge you refer to? Audioholics has done some articles reviewed by peers, and eyespy has a list of references on his site:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/index.html

[pctower]

Here ya go, phil. From post 14 in this thread. nice options you leave him.






Why not? Afraid of what he might say? Actually, okie is the one making the claims. He should be the one sending the inquiry.




You DO like calling people whores, don't ya? Now, be a man and see if it's deserved.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,



Nope. No mischaracterization at all. Just calling a spade a spade. What's this "you and mtry" stuff? Where do you see me claiming to have received an email? Putting words in someone else's mouth again, are we?

They don't have to post personal emails. They merely have to state the content. Using your logic as applied in this thread, it's your position to prove he didn't say what they said in any emails. After all, you have no problem defending okis' position without needing proof, don't ya? Nice try twisting of the legal system.

Now, consuler, getting back to post 14 in this thread. Would you please be so kind as to please prove your assertion that Mr Toole is either a whore or a liar. Use whatever evidence you can provide.

Please don't get all blustery and huff and puff and demand others to provide it for you by asking them to prove he's not. That's quite disingenious of you.

Post 14? Here's what you said that I was responding to:

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.


You were the one supporting the claim that Toole believes cables don't matter. And I repeat, if that is his beleif then allowing himself to be used to promote products which endorse Monster cables is whoring. How many times and how many different ways do you want me to say that?

Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?

Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters.

[markw]

If you want to feel ya got me, go ahead. Have a ball.

"Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?"

No, but I must say I am fascinated by the way you so casualy throw it around when refering to others. You call divorce lawyers whores in one post and here you insinuate that Mr Toole is one. There are possibly other references I missed but these two I can vouch for.

Aii I've ever done is point to your use of this word. I guess it's one of them thar fancy legal terms you hi falutin' lawyers use all the time in court.

"Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters."

What do guts or being afriad have to do with anything. You huff and puff to blow the house down and then want me to go someplace and join forces with you at AA? I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You, OTOH, simply want to start pissing contests. In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window. As you've proven both hereand at AA, ad hominum attacks, name calling, avoiding direct questions, throwing red herrings are the order of the day. Right and wrong concepts don't matter. The biggest plick wins. I admit defeat to you.

And, as far as your helping Steve. Now that's funny. What are you, his comic relief? I've seen you acting in his behalf over there. You help his cause about as much as an anchor helps a swimmer.

Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

The posts stand as posted.

Proud of yourself for your contributions here?

Feel ya did your profession proud?

Feel ya proved your points?

Since logic fails, here' a lawyer joke for y'all.

After winning a big case, two lawyers decide to take an ocean cruise. All goes well for the first few days but, as luck would have it, the boiler explodes and the boat sinks in the middle of nowhere.

The two lawyers cling onto a life preserver and wind up drifting towards a small island with one coconut palm tree on it. The coconuts and fish provide their food but wanting to be rescued, they decide to take turns climbing up to the top of the tree to look for passing boats.

This goes on for weeks. Finally, one day the guy up top yells down “Hey! I think I see something out there.”

The other guy says “What is it?” The guy up top says “I can’t tell. It’s too far away but it seems to be drifting in our direction.”

The next day, the other guy up top says “I see it too. It’s definitely drifting towards us!”

So, over the next few days they track its progress. The guy up top says, “I see clearer now. It looks like it’s small raft with someone in it.”

The next day it’s even closer. The guy up top says “It’s definitely coming our way and, believe it or not, I think there’s a naked lady in it!”

Finally, it washes up on their island. In it is a beautiful unconscious blonde.

The one lawyer says to the other “Ya know, it’s been a long time for both of us. Do ya think we could? we could… uh… you know.”

The other lawyer says “Do WHAT??? Spit it out already!”

The first lawyer said. “It’s been a long time. I’m going crazy. Do you think we could, uh… you know, …screw her?”

The second lawyer says “Outta what? This lousy rubber raft”?

I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

[mtrycraft]

There may be no need for anyone to contact Dr.Toole if, as you imply, you have already discussed the matter with him. All you have to do is post the correspondence. Unless some questions remain unanswered, that should be the end of it.


Correspondence long gone over the several computer changes, worms, viruses, etc.

Best if you contact him. Then all your questions can be answered first hand, not through others.

He won't bite, nor call you names.

[mtrycraft]

You and mtrycrafts are the one's making claims about what Toole says in personal e-mails. You are the one's having the burden of proof. Isn't that what you are always telling yeasayers about their claims?

Either produce the evidence to support your claim or admit that your claim is without substantiation. Given your attitude toward the truth, why should anyone believe what you say?


Easy to substantiate or refute. Email him directly. Scared? Embarrassed? I no longer have the emails.

[mtrycraft]

Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw

Not about cables. But-
If we are so wrong, please clue us in with the evidence of further knowledge about cables. LOL . Don't get a headache searching for that evidence. It doesn't exist but, please, by all means exert some energy tracking it down, for a change.

[mtrycraft]

There may be no need for anyone to contact Dr.Toole if, as you imply, you have already discussed the matter with him. All you have to do is post the correspondence. Unless some questions remain unanswered, that should be the end of it.


I did find an old copy of my correspondence in my library, not in computer as I indicated.
Cable is BORING. Ohms law, nothing more, nothing less. Amps are almost as boring. Nothing mysterious.
You still need to contact him if you want to know for sure.

[E-Stat]

Not about cables. But-
If we are so wrong, please clue us in with the evidence of further knowledge about cables. LOL . Don't get a headache searching for that evidence. It doesn't exist but, please, by all means exert some energy tracking it down, for a change.
You may find at some time that experiencing life is far more enjoyable than just talking about it. If / when you come to that realization, there is much to be perceived past your preconceived notions.

rw

[pctower]

If you want to feel ya got me, go ahead. Have a ball.

"Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?"

No, but I must say I am fascinated by the way you so casualy throw it around when refering to others. You call divorce lawyers whores in one post and here you insinuate that Mr Toole is one. There are possibly other references I missed but these two I can vouch for.

Aii I've ever done is point to your use of this word. I guess it's one of them thar fancy legal terms you hi falutin' lawyers use all the time in court.

"Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters."

What do guts or being afriad have to do with anything. You huff and puff to blow the house down and then want me to go someplace and join forces with you at AA? I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You, OTOH, simply want to start pissing contests. In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window. As you've proven both hereand at AA, ad hominum attacks, name calling, avoiding direct questions, throwing red herrings are the order of the day. Right and wrong concepts don't matter. The biggest plick wins. I admit defeat to you.

And, as far as your helping Steve. Now that's funny. What are you, his comic relief? I've seen you acting in his behalf over there. You help his cause about as much as an anchor helps a swimmer.

Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

The posts stand as posted.

Proud of yourself for your contributions here?

Feel ya did your profession proud?

Feel ya proved your points?

Since logic fails, here' a lawyer joke for y'all.

After winning a big case, two lawyers decide to take an ocean cruise. All goes well for the first few days but, as luck would have it, the boiler explodes and the boat sinks in the middle of nowhere.

The two lawyers cling onto a life preserver and wind up drifting towards a small island with one coconut palm tree on it. The coconuts and fish provide their food but wanting to be rescued, they decide to take turns climbing up to the top of the tree to look for passing boats.

This goes on for weeks. Finally, one day the guy up top yells down “Hey! I think I see something out there.”

The other guy says “What is it?” The guy up top says “I can’t tell. It’s too far away but it seems to be drifting in our direction.”

The next day, the other guy up top says “I see it too. It’s definitely drifting towards us!”

So, over the next few days they track its progress. The guy up top says, “I see clearer now. It looks like it’s small raft with someone in it.”

The next day it’s even closer. The guy up top says “It’s definitely coming our way and, believe it or not, I think there’s a naked lady in it!”

Finally, it washes up on their island. In it is a beautiful unconscious blonde.

The one lawyer says to the other “Ya know, it’s been a long time for both of us. Do ya think we could? we could… uh… you know.”

The other lawyer says “Do WHAT??? Spit it out already!”

The first lawyer said. “It’s been a long time. I’m going crazy. Do you think we could, uh… you know, …screw her?”

The second lawyer says “Outta what? This lousy rubber raft”?

I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You're here to tell lies about me and bore us all with uncreative, hackneyed lawyer jokes.

I trust your hatred of lawyers guaranties you'll be voting Republican this fall. In fact I hope all who believe that lawyers (or any other group of people you want to substitute) are the cause of all the problems they are incapable of dealing with themselves vote Republican this fall. With that huge slice of Democrats switching sides Bush/Cheney is a sure bet.

In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window.

Before you can have rational discussion you have to have truth. You can't make up claims and statements and attribute them to someone who never said such things. But, as a master of the creation of strawdogs, you haven't figured that out yet. Which part of your reason for being here does lying fall under: (1) answering questions, (2) sharing ideas, or (3) having fun? Must be the third one.

[markw]

I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You're here to tell lies about me and bore us all with uncreative, hackneyed lawyer jokes.

I trust your hatred of lawyers guaranties you'll be voting Republican this fall. In fact I hope all who believe that lawyers (or any other group of people you want to substitute) are the cause of all the problems they are incapable of dealing with themselves vote Republican this fall. With that huge slice of Democrats switching sides Bush/Cheney is a sure bet.

In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window.

Before you can have rational discussion you have to have truth. You can't make up claims and statements and attribute them to someone who never said such things. But, as a master of the creation of strawdogs, you haven't figured that out yet. Which part of your reason for being here does lying fall under: (1) answering questions, (2) sharing ideas, or (3) having fun? Must be the third one.

Truth? To you, truth is whatever you can bend other peoples words to appear. Real truth is lost to you. Perhaps a side effect of being a lawyer for so long?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

Everything else was simply your bluster, dude. ...huffing and puffing to blow the house down.

Next thing we all see is that you're accusing Mr. Toole of either believing the cables make an audiable difference or he is, in your so eloquent wording, being a whore.

If you have such noble sensibilities as to be offended by me and my impertenant manner, I would hope you would at least have the common decency to discuss your accusations with Mr Toole himself before throwing that around on the internet.

Oh, that's right. You're a lawyer. I thought you guys said you have ethics? Shouldn't you be above that mud slinging?

Anyhow, I'm done with you. I've said all I need to say and you've pretty much proven yourself for what you are. If you wish to continue a discussion with me, I'll respond as I see fit.

And, I have no great hatred for lawyers. Just egomaniacs that hide behind the title and want to sling shiite and engage in mental masturbation in a public place.

Keep on keepin' on phil. But I ain't gonna play with you anymore. You'll just have to go on playing with yourself.

Actually, they are pretty good lawyer jokes, or so I've been told. Here' another one, phil. I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

A dad walks into a market with his young son. The boy is holding a quarter.
Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts panicking, shouting for
help.

A well dressed, serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter. Then she gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurriedly, across the market.

Reaching the boy, the woman pulls the boy's pants down, carefully takes hold
of his testicles, and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more firmly.

After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.

Releasing the boy, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her profusely, saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before. It was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"

"No," she says, "Divorce attorney."

...are we having fun yet?

[pctower]

Truth? To you, truth is whatever you can bend other peoples words to appear. Real truth is lost to you. Perhaps a side effect of being a lawyer for so long?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

Everything else was simply your bluster, dude. ...huffing and puffing to blow the house down.

If you so firmly believe that Mr Ttoole did, in fact, approve these for sonic reasons or is, in your so eloquent wording, a whore, then perhaps you should discuss it with him.

Not throw that stuff around on the internet. Oh, that's right. You're a lawyer. That's your stock in trade, isn't it?

Anyhow, I'm done with you. I've said all I need to say and you've pretty much proven yourself for what you are. If you wish to continue a discussion with me, I'll respond as I see fit.

And, I have no great hatred for lawyers. Just egomaniacs that hide behind the title and want to engage in mental masturbation in a public place.

Keep on keepin' on phil. But I ain't gonna play with you anymore. You'll just have to go on playing with yourself.

Actually, they are pretty good lawyer jokes, or so I've been told. Here' another one, phil. I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

A dad walks into a market with his young son. The boy is holding a quarter.
Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts panicking, shouting for
help.

A well dressed, serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter. Then she gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurriedly, across the market.

Reaching the boy, the woman pulls the boy's pants down, carefully takes hold
of his testicles, and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more firmly.

After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.

Releasing the boy, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her profusely, saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before. It was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"

"No," she says, "Divorce attorney."

...are we having fun yet?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

And your substantiation for that statement is? (which has been my whole point all along in this thread)

If you so firmly believe that Mr Ttoole did, in fact, approve these for sonic reasons or is, in your so eloquent wording, a whore, then perhaps you should discuss it with him.

So in desperation you resort to the BIG LIE. I've already clearly stated I don't know what Toole thinks about cables and I don't care. I have made no statement claiming his position is one way or the other.

Oh, and speaking of "comic relief" (as you did in your last post), I guess you consider quoting Carl Sagan to be just clowning around:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335808.html

And this guy is an example of the Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335907.html

I'd point you to the guy who responded to another of my posts in that thread who said his respect for me had gone up 2000%, but unfortunately Rod didn't like the truth I was saying about him and Jon Risch and they deleted that part of the thread.

But, then again, Mark, I guess you really don't care about stuff like this. You're too busy having "fun" over here yuking it up about sexual molestation of minors.

[markw]

I liked it when Monstrous Mike posted it here a few years ago. Come to think of it, you were here around then. Hmmm...

I must say, nice use of the Carl Sagen quote to make you look principled. It never hurts to plagerize someone else's great thoughts when backed into a corner.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

Ya keep on amazing me with your sleazy tricks phil. But, then again, you are a professional, aren't ya?

In any case, they ain't your words. Posting them isn't the same as writing them. As you've just proven, any disingenious fool can cut and paste.

Running around with a great thinkers thoughts as if to imply you could have ever come up with them. "See, I can post someone else's grand thoughts! See how wondrous and great I am!"

Face it phil. Carl Sagen got the accolades, not you. That's like the guy carrying the flag thinking everyone is saluting him.

Anyhow, moving on, since you saw fit to reference a post over there, here's one I found.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335800.html

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

Now, as far as contributions beyond your involvment in pissing contests on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

No joke this time. This is getting too easy. Oh, yeah, here's a quick one...

What's the difference between a dead skunk on the road and a dead lawyer on the road?

The skid marks in front of the skunk!

Ba Da Boom!

(thank you, thank you.. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip the waitstaff)

I gota a million of 'em. Keep on asking for 'em phil

[pctower]

I liked it when Monstrous Mike posted it here a few years ago. Come to think of it, you were here around then. Hmmm...

In any case, they ain't your words. Posting them isn't the same as writing them. As you've just proven, any disingenious fool can cut and paste.

Running around with a great thinkers thoughts as if to imply you could have ever come up with them. "See, I can post someone else's grand thoughts! See how wondrous and great I am!"

Really now, phil. That's not unlike a little kid running around in his daddy's shoes, thinking it makes him a grown up.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

Well, since you saw fit to reference a post over there, here's one I found.

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335800.html

Now, as far as contributions beyond pissing contest on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

No joke this time. This is getting too easy. Oh, yeah, here's a quick one...

What's the difference between a dead skunk on the road and a dead lawyer on the road?

The skid marks in front of the skunk!

Ba Da Boom!

(thank you, thank you.. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip the waitstaff)

I gota a million of 'em. Keep on asking for 'em phil

I thought you were through with me.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

I have posted that quote numerous times and in the vast majority of instances I go out of my way to credit MM with directing me to it. Sorry, I'm not 100% perfect.

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335800.html


Sorry to be dense but I miss your point entirely.

I took unmittigated grief here from Chuck once when I merely cited one part of one article Clark had written which I agreed with. Other than that, I have taken Clark on frequently.

Now, as far as contributions beyond pissing contest on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

Well, I just reposted the following, but apparently your memory dims quickly:

httphttp://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=5227

Oh gee, what do you know? I attributed the Sagan quote to MM in that recent post.

Here's a post from AA where I took on a perenial favorite of this board, Jon Risch:

Well, let’s take a closer look at this. At the portion of your website relating to speaker cables (which you frequently link to from the Cable Asylum:

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm

you make claims that the following phenomena affect cable sonics:

1. skin effect/self-inductance
2. strand jumping
3. inductive reactance
4. “magnetostriction”
5. insulator/dialectric

You then included the following quote:

From the results of controlled listening tests, the following
materials preferences have been established.
And based on those “controlled listening tests” you proceed to make recommendations for DIY speaker cables.[/B]
At the portion of your website relating to interconnects, you have the following language:

Information compiled over years of controlled subjective
listening tests of cables.

Many of the differences heard were subtle, however, taken as a
whole, selection of a cable with all the preferred materials
and construction can make a significant overall difference.

These results are based on listening tests, not just measurements,
or conjecture, tests which were conducted blind, and under
controlled conditions. Many have asked what methods I used in
my listening tests.

No, I did not use the ABX switchbox, cable swaps were used.
Over a period of months and years of testing, I developed a few
twists on test methods and procedures, which I present in my
AES paper, preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for
Subjective Listening tests", presented at the 91st AES convention,
October, 1991. Consisting of 33 pages of text, and 19 references,
it is too long to try and present here, and I urge anyone interested
in the details to get a copy from the AES, it is available for $5,
and can be ordered from:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html

The results I present in this note are based on comparing one
cable to another, under blind (or often, double blind) conditions,
where levels were always checked for compliance to +/- 0.1 dB,
and the comparisons varied one aspect of the cable at a time, i.e.,
one cable might be identical, except the insulation was foamed
PE instead of foamed PP, etc. or the wires were bare copper for
one, and tinned copper for the other, etc. So what I am saying, is
that not only did I reliably identify different cables, but I was able to
identify a single cable variable at a time. Dozens and dozens of
different coaxial and twisted pair cables were listened to, over the
course of hundreds of hours of listening tests, stretching over the
course of years of effort.

So, Jon, given all this, would you permit me to start a thread here at the Cable Asylum with the following post:

"Jon, I have been visiting your website recently. I see that you describe a number of factors that you believe can cause audible effects in cables. I have conducted a survey of as much of the current scientific literature as I could find, and I am unable to locate much in the way of theoretical support for your theories. In addition, I am aware that when you advance those theories at AR, you are often confronted with arguments that, even if all of your cable theories were true, they could not result in sufficient electronic effects in cables that could be translated into any sonic difference that would not fall well below the current generally recognized level of human hearing.

I noticed that you contend that your theories have been verified through listening tests, often blind tests. As your theories on cables seem at odds with most mainstream references I have been able to locate, wouldn’t it be important for you to post far more detail on the blind tests you have conducted so that a visitor to your site is able to more fully evaluate the scientific validity of your theories?

Moreover, because your theories are outside the mainstream, and because you claim on your website that these theories have been verified by blind listening tests, don’t you believe it would be beneficial for additional independent double blind tests to be conducted to verify your somewhat unusual theories? If such blind tests were to be conducted, do you have any recommendations as to the proper protocol to be followed in order to duplicate the results you say you have obtained.? "

I suggest that if you would not allow a thread of this nature to proceed on the Cable Asylum, then you essentially have a virtual monopoly on the subject of double blind testing on this forum.

You say:

In the years this forum has been in existence, since July of 1999, NO ONE has ever complained about this link bothering them OR that they felt it was violating the spirit of the rules, until Steve Eddy very recently pointed it out as a means of furthering one of his bizarre arguments.

Sure, Jon, and segregated public school existed in the United States for decades without much complaint. Did that mean that they were ok?

Moreover, you can’t resist getting in your swipe at Steve can you? Bizarre arguments?

Why, because they went line and verse through your theories, applying basic electronics to challenge those theories, and you could never respond with anything that made scientific sense?

Remember at this very point Jon that if you just donned you moderators hat in response to my last sentence, that you’re the one that started this by referring to Steve’s arguments as bizarre.

Jon:

Since you're obviously getting ready to ban me anyway, and since I don't care, and since your pathetic attempt to get the last word in before cutting off debate is something I won't stand for, here is my response to your last post. It is the situation that I am describing that is controversial; not the fact that I'm describing it.

Because it appears as though one of the main intentions is merely to stir controversy. You admited to this over at AR, have you turned over a new leaf, or taken up an 11 step plan recently? It sure doesn't seem like it given your recent posts here.

Please show me where I said my main intention is to stir controversy. Most of my posts here are very non-controversial. In this particular case I'm merely calling it the way I see it.

The anti-DBT rule should be enforced accross the board at the Cable Asylum. As it is, you have the luxury of promoting your own theories and claiming DBT backup, and no one else has that luxuruy on this Asylum. I don't think that's fair, and my only motivation is to speak out when I see something that isn't fair.

I find this especially interesting, given that you have posted that you are searching for a basic electronics primer. How in the world could you possibly judge if the responses were indeed correct, and applicable, and did not overlook anything? Wouldn't you have to be dependant on the opinion of someone else? Who would you have gone to to ask about these matters? Someone from AR? Gee, I can't imagine any of them would say bad things about me! Maybe to the orginator of these "rebuttals"? I don't suppose he would admit to any mistakes or imperfections, eh?

I was joking Jon. I don't have the strongest technical background possible, but I spent my first two years at Princeton University in an EE and honors physics program, before I got bored and converted my major to intellectual history. I hold my extra-class ham radio license (KY7A) so I have more than a passing knowledge of electronics.

Moreover, I certainly expect that on a lot of this technical stuff, I would hope to look to expert opinion. I just prefer that it not be limited to just you and John.

As for my theories, and some of the speculation that I engage in regarding audio cables, these have been discussed before, and will undoubtedly get discussed again. However, the only aspect that I ever claimed was shown to be so by my listening tests was the materials ranking portion. You make a blanket statement regarding all of my web site content as if I said otherwise.

But, Jon, that means you get to be the sole expert here on materials who can claim DBT backup. Can't you possibly see the unfairness of that?

Since I KNOW that you know what kind of arguments you are attemting to make, I have to assume that you have a purpose in doing so. That purpose does not seem to be a very positive one, nor does it seem to be concerned with the well-being of this forum, or your stated concerns for making this a better place to post at.

My only purpose is simply to call it like it is. I have no personal animosity towards you. I just think that the impossible conflict you have put yourself in is not in the best interest of the board. I'm only one person and that is just one opinion. However, I don't think I should be cut off from expressing my opinion or have my motives questioned. You can attack my arguments without attacking me.

Thanks anyway, but I'll pass on the private e-mail. I tried that once and offered the peace branch, but you never responded.

In any event, I have no further intention of pursuing this. I have no particular personal need to see this board run in any particular matter. I've said what I need to say, and I assume you will now choose to take action against me.

My purpose here was not to try to get banned. I believe that I have been trying to contribute to the betterment of this board. I'm sure you see it quite differently, and in the end, you call the shots.


Here's something I posted here about a year ago in response to questions from a newcomer to home theater. By the way, I was the only one who bothered to take the time to help him out. Where were you Martk?

Here's the way I do it. I have a 5.1 receiver and use all five audio channels and a separate subwoofer. I have three video sources - satillite, VCR and DVD.
My receiver has video switching capabilities so I could run all three video sources into my receiver and use its video output to go directly to a video input of my TV (in which case I would be using the TV just as a monitor, bypassing its tuner. However, I found that running video signal through my receiver seriously degrades the signal.
So I run each video source directly to a separate video input on my TV. To select a particular source, I use my TV remote to select the proper input. In this mode, I'm using the TV as just a monitor, bypassing its tuner. I prefer this because the video results are better and it allows me to use my satellite tuner box to select satellite channels, which is important if for no other reason than it is the only way I can receive the premium channels.
For audio, I run the digital output from my satellite tuner box and DVD player to the receiver, which permits the receiver to decode the digital signal for 5.1 purposes. I run the audio outputs of the VCR directly to the receiver. In this configuration, I use the receiver to select the proper audio source.
When I change sources, this configuration means I have to separately select the video source using my TV remote to select the proper video input and the receiver remote to select the proper audio input (in actual use, I have the TV remote parameters programed into my receiver remote so I only have to use one remote to control both video and audio inputs, but I still have to make each selection separately, swithing the receiver remote between receiver mode and TV mode). My wife doesn't appreciate this approach, but I think it works best.
Also, in the above description I actually treated the video sources as all separately going into the TV to facilitate the description. My actual setup is somewhat different. The DVD video signal goes directly to a separate TV video input and my VCR video output (I actually use the S-video out for both DVD and VCR out because both have that source output option and my TV has that input option). However, my satellite video signal (also S-video) does not go directly to the TV, but instead goes to my VCR and passes directly through the VCR to the TV video input I have assigned to the VCR. I actually hate VCRs and don't use it much. So usually I'm not playing a tape, but running the satellite signal straight through the VCR to the TV. As long as the VCR is on (I leave all of my electronics on all of the time) and no tape is playing the signal passes straight through. If I play a tape the VCR is sending the tape video signal to the TV. When I stop the tape the VCR automatically switchs to sending the satellite video signal to the TV. I don't know if most VCRs do this, but I have never seen a VCR that didn't have a switch that allowed you to switch the VCR's video output between the VCR's own signal, or straight pass-thru of the signal coming to the VCR from a satellite or cable tuner or from an antenna. Now, when I record a TV program on the VCR, I have to manually tune the satillite channel to be recorded using the satellite tuner box. There is a way I could program the VCR so that it controls the satellite channel to be recorded by controlling the satellite tuner box. This would permit me to set up the VCR to record several different programs in the future, even on different satellite channels. However, this is far too complicated for me, and as I said, I don't use my VCR very much (most pernicious machine ever invented by man, as far as I'm concerned).
Now, one more wrinkle. The set up of my receiver all must be done using menu programs that appear on the TV screen. If you follow closely the above scheme you will note that there is no direct video connection between the receiver and the TV. So I run the rf video output of the receiver (that's the output where you put those stupid coax connectors that have a bare wire for the center run and a screw-on thing for the outter connection that is always a total pain in the ass to screw on - there's a technical name for that connector, but I can't remember it right now - maybe its an F-type or something like that) and I run that cable directly to the similar rf input on the TV. When I need to access that onscreen menu for adusting my receiver I switch the TV video input to the regular antenna rf input and use the TV tuner to tune in the channel that the receiver uses to output its rf signal).
I hope that at least some of this helps and hasn't totally confused you. I don't have a technical background and it took me a long time to figure all this out. I could not have possibly done it without all the manuals (even though they were all uniformly poorly written).

So Mark, that's a sample of what you label as "nada". Would you care to share with us some examples of you non-nada contributions.

[markw]

Good one, phil. Now, THAT's funny!!!

I don't even have a lawyer joke to top that one. Nope Nope Nope. Ya got me good.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

A year!! Bwa ha ha...

And, as far as Jon Risch goes, I see you as both the same. Equaly well equiped to engage in a pissing conrtest with each other. You've both long ago lost the original objectives and are more involved in the fight as opposed to the answers. Sorta the Jason vs. Freddy of the Audio world.

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

A year! Bwa ha ha... (My God, I can't stop laughing!)

[skeptic]

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335800.html

Wow!!!!?????!!!!!?????!!!!?????

I could hardly believe that such a thread and the comments it cited would be allowed by any moderator. Talk about an uncivilized exchange? And at a site where as you put it about two years ago; "they have more interesting and informative discussions there in a week than we have here at AR in a year." I mean we see a few tiffs here now and again, a few jabs and barbs but this goes beyond the pale Phil. And you still go back there to endure more of that kind of talk again and again? Why? Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks? And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard. I'd make some nasty comment but I am far to civilized to say what is really on my mind and certainly far to civilized to post on a board like CA which tolerates that kind of abuse among its participants. How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick. Get help.

[pctower]

Good one, phil. Now, THAT's funny!!!

I don't even have a lawyer joke to top that one. Nope Nope Nope. Ya got me good.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

A year!! Bwa ha ha...

And, as far as Jon Risch goes, I see you as both the same. Equaly well equiped to engage in a pissing conrtest with each other. You've both long ago lost the original objectives and are more involved in the fight as opposed to the answers. Sorta the Jason vs. Freddy of the Audio world.

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

A year! Bwa ha ha... (My God, I can't stop laughing!)

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=409&highlight=sagan&r=&session=

Nice try, Bozo.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

Oh, I'll give you as far back as you want to go. Just point me to some of your great contributions. You're the one that brought up the subject - so put up or shut up.

[pctower]

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/335800.html

Wow!!!!?????!!!!!?????!!!!?????

I could hardly believe that such a thread and the comments it cited would be allowed by any moderator. Talk about an uncivilized exchange? And at a site where as you put it about two years ago; "they have more interesting and informative discussions there in a week than we have here at AR in a year." I mean we see a few tiffs here now and again, a few jabs and barbs but this goes beyond the pale Phil. And you still go back there to endure more of that kind of talk again and again? Why? Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks? And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard. I'd make some nasty comment but I am far to civilized to say what is really on my mind and certainly far to civilized to post on a board like CA which tolerates that kind of abuse among its participants. How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick. Get help.

Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

Ah! It hurts sooo goood!

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks?

I don't know - you'll have to take that up with them. My position is clear. If they are going to impose an anti-DBT rule and allow the moderator to delete or ban anything that challenges him, then they should ban all technical discussion on that board.

And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard.

I've never said it is or isn't. I've asked for you to provide proof to back up your unequivocal claim that it is. Apparently you don't understand the distinction. Have you ever considered asking for a return of YOUR tuition?

How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick.


CA is not my kind of place and I don't participate. I still try to fight the good fight elsewhere at AA. I realize that participating in a board where you don't have the comfort and safety of preaching to the choir is certainly something according to your value system you would consider sick.

[skeptic]

Debating is one thing. Saying regrettable things in the heat of an arguement happens. That's not what its about over there. It's about gratuitous abuse for the sole purpose of belittling people they don't agree with. It's about attacking people when you don't have any way left to attack their arguement. It is inherent in the sale of any religion. And like all religions, sooner or later the bottom line is power and money. And in a free country, it only works if you let it.

I said I don't have PROOF that they use that board as a way to influence their participants into thinking along the lines that audiophile cables are an inherent part of a good sound system. I merely put the facts together and come to that inescapable conclusion. That's called logical deduction. Perhaps it is you who should consider a tuition refund. And to think, I was amazed at the abuse you were enduring here these last few postings. That's nothing to what they are dishing out over there. Wouldn't you be a lot happier forgetting these message boards and just listening to music instead?

[okiemax]

PCT thinks Dr. Toole never looked into cables, but very credible people who know have said he did. If you do not wish to draw a conclusion from the evidence, you don't have to. Here are a couple of references.

"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

Go ask Ian Masters, Alan Lofft, or Dr. Toole himself whether the NRC looked into cables to see if they were relevant to their speaker testing. Why get it second or third hand from us? Get it first hand from people who were involved.


Alan Lofft works for Axiom. Axiom sells audiophile cables:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/products.html

What do you make of this?

[markw]

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=409&highlight=sagan&r=&session=

Nice try, Bozo..

Uh, Phil. I hate to tell ya but that post is almost two years old. Got anything that isn't moldy where you attributed credit where due?

Lessee.. .last constructive post was over a year ago. Last attribution to MM over two years ago.

Jeez, phil. Haven't you done anything except mudslinging lately? Doesn't appear so. I guess time flies when you're having fun, eh?..



If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

Oh, I'll give you as far back as you want to go. Just point me to some of your great contributions. You're the one that brought up the subject - so put up or shut up.

Nope. I ain't gonna put up OR shut up. I'm gonna continure having fun with you.

I don't have to prove anything to you. If anyone cares to see my posts, it's so simple to find 'em that any moron could do it. I'm sure the lurkers are having a great time watching this grand tussle. After all, they probably have seen us both in action countless times.

Odds are quite good that if they have been anywhere except this cable forum, they have seen my input.

...and they certainly don't have to search back over a year ago to find it, either.

Well, perhaps I misspoke. You DO seem to be having problems with it. In that case, I'll give ya a little hint... look beyond mud slinging cable arguments. Betcha you never thought of that!

(Bwa ha ha... had to go back a year to find a helpful post! ...almost two years to find proper accredation. ...Bwa ha ha... I'm still laughing so hard my sides hurt. mebbe I should sue. Bwa ha ha..)

[pctower]

Uh, Phil. I hate to tell ya butthat post is almosttwo years old. Got anything that isn't moldy where you attributed credit where due?



Nope. I ain't gonna put up or shut up. I don't have to prove anything to you. If anyone cares to see my posts, it's so simple to find 'em that any moron could do it.

Well, perhaps I misspoke. You DO seem to be having problems with it.

In that case, I'll give ya a hint... look beyond mud slinging cable arguments. Betcha yiou never thought of that!

(had to go back a year to find a helpful post! Bwa ha ha... I'm still laughing so hard my sides hurt. mebbe I should sue.)

Try this one, and then tell the total number of times I have posted the Critical Tools at AA, with and without attributing the quote to MM.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=3526&highlight=sagan+Phil+Tower&r=&session=

[pctower]

Debating is one thing. Saying regrettable things in the heat of an arguement happens. That's not what its about over there. It's about gratuitous abuse for the sole purpose of belittling people they don't agree with. It's about attacking people when you don't have any way left to attack their arguement. It is inherent in the sale of any religion. And like all religions, sooner or later the bottom line is power and money. And in a free country, it only works if you let it.

I said I don't have PROOF that they use that board as a way to influence their participants into thinking along the lines that audiophile cables are an inherent part of a good sound system. I merely put the facts together and come to that inescapable conclusion. That's called logical deduction. Perhaps it is you who should consider a tuition refund. And to think, I was amazed at the abuse you were enduring here these last few postings. That's nothing to what they are dishing out over there. Wouldn't you be a lot happier forgetting these message boards and just listening to music instead?


Debating is one thing. Saying regrettable things in the heat of an arguement happens. That's not what its about over there. It's about gratuitous abuse for the sole purpose of belittling people they don't agree with. It's about attacking people when you don't have any way left to attack their arguement. It is inherent in the sale of any religion. And like all religions, sooner or later the bottom line is power and money. And in a free country, it only works if you let it.

Agree. I just don't know if it's better to ignore them or fight them.

Wouldn't you be a lot happier forgetting these message boards and just listening to music instead?

No doubt about that.

[markw]

Try this one, and then tell the total number of times I have posted the Critical Tools at AA, with and without attributing the quote to MM.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=3526&highlight=sagan+Phil+Tower&r=&session=


I'm not going to bother to count how many times you've liftteed Carl Sagen's greatness w/o attributig the source. I really don't care.

Well, that's a little better. That's only a little over a year old. What else ya got for me? Anything more current?

Boy, I sure have you dancing, don't I? Sure feels good...

I can just see you at the keyboard ...hands shaking.. ...eyes twitching... ...neck veins bulging ...saying to yourself "I just gotta get that jersey boy...


Are we having fun yet?

[markw]

I'm gettin' a little tired of this. If you walk away, so will I.

In a show of good faith, I'll even change my tag line.

[pctower]

I'm gettin' a little tired of this. If you walk away, so will I.

In a show of good faith, I'll even change my tag line.

Done :)

[okiemax]

I did find an old copy of my correspondence in my library, not in computer as I indicated.
Cable is BORING. Ohms law, nothing more, nothing less. Amps are almost as boring. Nothing mysterious.
You still need to contact him if you want to know for sure.

Do you have Dr.Toole's e-mail address? The Harman International web site doesn't have an address specifically for him. It has a general "contact us" address, and says all e-mails recieved are read, but not all can be answered. It looks like there is no guarantee Dr. Toole would ever see an e-mail to him sent to him at Harman. Please let me know if you have his address.

[mtrycraft]

Do you have Dr.Toole's e-mail address? The Harman International web site doesn't have an address specifically for him. It has a general "contact us" address, and says all e-mails recieved are read, but not all can be answered. It looks like there is no guarantee Dr. Toole would ever see an e-mail to him sent to him at Harman. Please let me know if you have his address.


Try FToole@harman.com

Or, call his office as I did some time ago to get it.

[okiemax]

Try FToole@harman.com

Or, call his office as I did some time ago to get it.

Thanks for Dr. Toole's e-mail address. I have requested the information from Dr. Toole, and have asked for his permission to post his reply on the Forum.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks for Dr. Toole's e-mail address. I have requested the information from Dr. Toole, and have asked for his permission to post his reply on the Forum.


Good for you:) Great. Hope you were Gentlemanly with your email :)

[okiemax]

Good for you:) Great. Hope you were Gentlemanly with your email :)

Mtrycraft, please check your private messages.

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycraft, please check your private messages.


Thanks. Don't notice it much.