was;PARADIGM REFERENCE SERIES :"THE KILLERS"

[RGA]

You need to start getting your facts straight and quit relying on the biased opinion of Mr. Peter Q and the AN fan club.

Often times (in fact, I'd say most of the time) the choice of soft-dome, silk, titanium, aluminium, or whatever for the tweeter is made from the point of view of complementing the mid-woofer.
Given what you can expect in a crossover for the woofer, you can start looking at choices of tweeters to best compliment the sytem. Material is really important, though biases (too often) creep in.

These two statements seem to concur much with what Peter states. The selection of drivers and materials to get to the stand they want. Listening to the N805 and AN/J side by side ther will be no qurestion which treble is more extended in the high frequency relm which sound MORE like a cymbal without break up which play louder doing it and which wil sound more Open and airy. It's not even remotely close I'm sorry to say. The AN K is close I grant you.

You are very right in that alot of todays entry level and mid-fi speakers are harsh in the highs. They use cheap metal tweeters because of the increased detail they provide. So a guy at Best Buy or Future Shop thinks a $300 Athena is incredibly detailed. A more experienced, or critical listener hears the flaws it brings with it.

Well I noted that about the Athena and would still recommend them. The alternate Wharfedale is more closed off in the treble and less open and airy - but conversely it is also a lot smoother and more listenable long term - you takes your pick between getting some more GOood things but at the expense of getting more bad things to go with it. Wharfedale chose the safer choice while Athena chose the in your face approach - I liked both.

As you go up in price both designs get way better - but it is still a matter of integration - It is not so much the tweeter as calling attention to the tweeter. When there is a compartmentalized sound (a gap) then you can hear the tweeter doing its own thing - metal or silk that's not good but it is for me more noticeable when metal speakers do it. I have seen no evidence that metal tweeters can extend further offer better dispersion or lower distortion than silk designs. (The reverse is also true).

You shouldn't look at the material of the tweeter as a factor of performance within a complete speaker system. I'm very sure Audio Note could build a great speaker with a metal tweeter.

They might but they chose the best tandem for them and luckily for me.

[RGA]

any other instrument store and you listening to a kid to hit a cymbal directly on the drum. (no amps, no microphones, no speakers) You listen to the sound from the instrument directly. When a silk dome shows me it can reproduce a high frequency like this, I mean metallic, a metallic sound, this will be the day I will burn all my speakers. Is a non-metallic material able to produce a matallic sound? The problem aren't voices and other instruments, the problem is silk can not sound as a cymbal. Metallic tweeters can.

[RGA]

I'm quite sure there are financial benefits in being able to produce your own drivers. I'm also quite sure they are able better control quality and development of said drivers to meet their specific needs. To make a continuous profit, you must realize it's always, always, always about the quality of the product.

Quality has nothing to do with making a profit. McDonald's makes more profit than any other restaurant - does that mean it's all about the Quality. Bose makes the most profit - and it sure as hell has nothing to do with QUALITY.

Look I don't care really who makes the drivers - I care about the results. I like B&W which for me means they make a good speaker regardless of the drivers. What I was getting at is that these moves are not about some grandios bettering the industry and our drivers are better but about costs - they save money building their own speakers period end of discussion. I don't BLAME them for doing that so long as they do a good job of it.

Well if Layman believes it, it must be true also .

No I argued with Layman and others about this issue as well - who tends to be correct is very easy to discover - listening to the products side by side(or one after another). It was quite difficult to go back on that forum and admit that I was wrong and he was right - but I owe him quite a bit for taking the beatings he took on that forum.

You might very well be the only person on the face of the Earth that equates B&W with Bose. I'm so flabbergasted...I'm...I'm speechless...

Actually you need to hang out on AA a lot longer then - because I am not the only person that has drawn an example likening Bose and B&W. B&W has been dexcribed as the Audiophile's Bose and hell Dianna Krall has been descrobed as the 40 year old's Britney Spears. While both are unfair there is a certain merrit in the case against B&W who do use heavy marketing a looks oriented speaker to generate sales. I point out though that while that is true they generally also make good speakers for the money charged(even if a bit higher than I would like). That is very different than Bose charging $3k for speakers that are no better than $229.00 RCA's at Walmart. B&W has been said to be a safe choice to jump in and get a taste of what the high end is all about knowing that you will move on to something (other than B&W) later on. AA is actually fairly anti-B&W much of the time. I find it interesting because AA is American run and I go to European Forums where there are distinctly different views of equipment.

The whole issue of tweeters for me which I have already said may in fact have far less to do with the material but the said integration of the drivers that Kexodusc has referred to. Paper laminates are often said to be the best choice for woofer materials but is hardest to execute to sound right so it is easy to slap on a polypropolyne, Kevlar, Aerogel or Aluminum woofer material. Now the job is to match those with a distinctly different material and then use a crossover to get it right. SO perhaps Kexodusc is correct that my problem with the treble has far less to do with the metal tweeter itself but the corssover - Peter argues that BOTH are problematic because most companies don't look at the actuall sound of the material - they JUST look at crossing the frequencies - and that is not enough. And yes I believe Peter because his product proves his point by sounding better.

[kexodusc]

dvjorge:
What I think RGA is getting at is the fact that silk domes CAN produce metallic noises. I think what you hear in a cymbal crash is more transients, overtones, etc...timbre, if you will.
I'm of the opinion silk domes can perform just as well as metal tweeters.
There could be some truth in what you say, but at the same time, if a silk-dome produces frequencies, and the timbre of instruments in a smooth, even response that extends beyond the frequency of the cymbal, there shouldn't be a limit to the performance of the silk-dome.

dvjorge...if you ever get a chance to listen to Focus Audio's FS-688, FS-788 or FS-888 you will hear one of the finest textile dome tweeters on earth. This will dispel any notion that it cannot produce the sound of drums or metal instruments very quickly.

[RGA]

Actually he can also go hear an Audio Note too or speakers from Dynaudio and PMC.

And lest not forget that Ribbons and Electrostatic panels produce cymbals - most argue that these are the best of the lot.

The issue is while one thing may be the best at one thing - a good speaker is the whole event and if the tweeter is great at one thing but does not integrate then it's no good.

[topspeed]

And lest not forget that Ribbons and Electrostatic panels produce cymbals - most argue that these are the best of the lot.

First let me commend you on keeping this debate on an adult level, RGA.

Like everything else in audio, it all subjective. This statement, for example, are contrary to my impressions of the ML's and Maggies I've heard. While I grant you that panels are faster than any dynamic speaker, my experience is that they tend to roll-off or soften the bite of cymbals a little more than would be natural. I haven't heard line arrays such as the big Dali or Pipedream so maybe they are better. I've been a drummer for over 30 years so trust me when I say I have a pretty good idea what a Zildjian or Paiste 18" crash should sound like. Then again, I've been a drummer for over 30 years so at this point I may not be able to hear a damn thing !

Jorge:

Dude, I know you're from another country so your English may not be as smooth or coherent as it could be but seriously, your last two posts have been unintelligible. Seriously. I'm with RGA, wtf are you talking about? Hitting a cymbal with the drum? Who are you, Keith Moon?

[topspeed]

Quality has nothing to do with making a profit.

RGA, you're a teacher, not a businessman. Take a few business courses at the university and then re-evaluate what you just said.

Actually you need to hang out on AA a lot longer then - because I am not the only person that has drawn an example likening Bose and B&W. B&W has been dexcribed as the Audiophile's Bose and hell Dianna Krall has been descrobed as the 40 year old's Britney Spears. While both are unfair there is a certain merrit in the case against B&W who do use heavy marketing a looks oriented speaker to generate sales.

Thanks for the invite but I respectfully decline. The reasons for which you've just stated. I've always been bemused by "audiophile's" instant dislike of anything that is, well...successful. The instant a company starts advertising or, God forbid, sells a lot of their product they are labeled a "sell out" and the elitist snobs thumb their noses at the company. If you don't own a product from some obscure, who-the-hell-is-that company, you're immediately labeled as a neophyte. It's almost a badge of honor among audiophiles to own products that can confound their friends while bragging about the outrageous price they paid as if to justify their ego! B&W's Naut line has likely won more awards than ANY other high-end line and sell by the truckload. Diana Krall has won Grammys, sold out concerts, and married Elvis Costello. No wonder the inmates hate them...they're successful.

BTW, Von Schweikert is launching a nationwide ad campaign as we speak (check TAS). Does this mean Albert's designs are no longer worthy? Did his speakers suddenly sound a lot worse than yesterday? The elitists are chomping at the bit on this one. It'll be interesting to watch...

[RGA]

Actually I was half way through a business degree when I switched. If I am wrong then Bose must make the highest quality speakers because they sell the most - and conversely Rolls Royce must be the worst car maker because they sell the least(or are right down there) and Michael Jackson is the best male vocalist because he sold the most albums?

A lot of things are sold on pure marketing and it is suprising that when it comes to speakers people seem to conclude that the Audio or computer Industry has nothing of the sort going on?

From a business perspective my goal is to make a speaker that can SELL in as big a numbers as possible to gain a great name recognition and to maximize my profits. And in doing this I have to sell speakers which most people can afford or whatever market I can reach that will maximize my profits.

Winning awards? the problem with this is who is giving out the awards? Let's just assume for the sale of FUN that Audio Note is by far the best company in the world - would anyone buy a magazine from Stereophile that said recomended componants = Audio Note. That would take up one page. Would any other company want to advertise in that magazine?

The other thing about quality - why do you suppose a store like Soundhounds would carry Audio Note? Here they are carrying B&W, Paradigm, Martin Logan etc. Well known brands and mostly bought before the consumer ever even listens to one. "I read a review and advertising and it was awarded a class B rating so listen for 10 minutes - yup here's my grand thanks." Salespeaople of course are in the business t make a commission. Yeah you don't want VR - you want to buy the award inning B&W they are the Mercedes of the industry(meant to be a good thing as some might see the irony). But anyway it's hard sells much of the time the "I know better than you the stupid customer" approach.

There is certainly the anti-big corporation backlash - that it's not cool to own something everyone else has - and i'm sure that crosses people's mind when they read my posts. I can't do much about people's opinions of my opinions. I suppose I can't blame them because an outsider will look and say okay B&W wins all these awards and they are mammoth sized and George Lucas uses them and because they are big have the R&D(most of th9is can be said for Paradigm, PSB etc). So how can some small no name company be better? All things point in the direction of Goliath not David so I get the skepticism. But remember who won.

[kexodusc]

Actually I was half way through a business degree when I switched. If I am wrong then Bose must make the highest quality speakers because they sell the most - and conversely Rolls Royce must be the worst car maker because they sell the least(or are right down there) and Michael Jackson is the best male vocalist because he sold the most albums?

Well, RGA's right about one thing...quality isn't necessary for profits or for commercial success. Ford sold a ton of Escorts. Some say those were the worst car ever made.

But don't confuse quality with durability. Quality doesn't necessarily mean long-lasting, low-defect rate, high grade materials, etc....that's the biggest misunderstanding in business today.. Quality means a product accomplishes what it was designed to accomplish with high degree or accuracy. So, $50 speakers that are made with super crappy parts, but sell, and produce sound for the owner for 2 years before melting, blowing up or whatever, can be considered high quality if that's what they were designed to do (last 2 years). If they do better...great. If not, they're bad quality. THey may not offer the best value, but the quality is there.
Now a $100 speaker that last 6 years as it was designed to do is of equal quality, but offers superior value...because you don't replace it twice in 6 years.

In this regard, I never considered American cars of inferior quality. Factoring in total cost of ownership, more often than not Chrysler, Ford, GM would beat Honda (I use to work for)and Toyota on the value offered and total cost of ownership aspects. Parts were cheaper, etc...it all adds up. But yeah, statisically, chances were a 100 Hondas wouldn't make as many trips to the dealership as 100 GM's (though the difference isn't nearly as great as you'd think).

[46minaudio]

RGA, you're a teacher, not a businessman. Take a few business courses at the university and then re-evaluate what you just said.

Thanks for the invite but I respectfully decline. The reasons for which you've just stated. I've always been bemused by "audiophile's" instant dislike of anything that is, well...successful. The instant a company starts advertising or, God forbid, sells a lot of their product they are labeled a "sell out" and the elitist snobs thumb their noses at the company. If you don't own a product from some obscure, who-the-hell-is-that company, you're immediately labeled as a neophyte. It's almost a badge of honor among audiophiles to own products that can confound their friends while bragging about the outrageous price they paid as if to justify their ego! B&W's Naut line has likely won more awards than ANY other high-end line and sell by the truckload. Diana Krall has won Grammys, sold out concerts, and married Elvis Costello. No wonder the inmates hate them...they're successful.

I agree..McDonalds IMO have the best fries...They also sell the most...

[kexodusc]

Hmmm, they're burgers taste a bit different up in Canada, it's subtle, but slightly more flavored...must be that mad-cow beef...or maybe minimum wage is higher and it's just cooked better?

[topspeed]

because I have neither the time nor patience to give a free course in Business 101:

Actually I was half way through a business degree when I switched.

You should have stayed for the second half.

If I am wrong then Bose must make the highest quality speakers because they sell the most - and conversely Rolls Royce must be the worst car maker because they sell the least(or are right down there) and Michael Jackson is the best male vocalist because he sold the most albums?

Your generalizations are far too basic however, you are forgetting that all of your examples actually did provide a very high quality product. The original 901 was revolutionary, the Silver Ghost is the worlds most travelled vehicle, and MJ can actually sing (when he's keeping his hands to himself). All three are trading on brand equity and RR is the worst car maker when it comes to bang for your buck. But you don't buy a Roller for value, you're buying the name. For sustainable, long term profit and growth you must absolutely provide a high quality product. Period.

A lot of things are sold on pure marketing and it is suprising that when it comes to speakers people seem to conclude that the Audio or computer Industry has nothing of the sort going on?

I agree wholeheartedly. Audio Note is as guilty as any. Marketing isn't just ads in magazines. You were sold on an idea, first by your dealer and then by Peter. There's nothing wrong with that, that's their job. Understand, Peter Q. is a salesman. Nothing less, nothing more. He sold you on an idea of what sound from a box should look and sound like. You agreed and voila! Now you're a desciple of the AN way.

Winning awards? the problem with this is who is giving out the awards?

Lemme tell you about the best award any business can receive: Sales. Sales volume is the great equalizer in all things business because the market will inevitably determine who is doing it right and who is doing it wrong and no amount of spin doctoring or marketing will change that in the long run. People aren't as gullible as you'd like to believe.

The other thing about quality - why do you suppose a store like Soundhounds would carry Audio Note? Here they are carrying B&W, Paradigm, Martin Logan etc. Well known brands and mostly bought before the consumer ever even listens to one. "I read a review and advertising and it was awarded a class B rating so listen for 10 minutes - yup here's my grand thanks." Salespeaople of course are in the business t make a commission. Yeah you don't want VR - you want to buy the award inning B&W they are the Mercedes of the industry(meant to be a good thing as some might see the irony). But anyway it's hard sells much of the time the "I know better than you the stupid customer" approach.

I'm not sure what this example has to do about quality but I'll refer you to my last sentence above.

Well, RGA's right about one thing...quality isn't necessary for profits or for commercial success. Ford sold a ton of Escorts. Some say those were the worst car ever made.

Again, it's all about long term profits and growth. In the early 80's, Ford was on the verge of bankruptcy when they hired Don Peterson, best known in his tenure for the revolutionary Taurus as well as the "Quality is Job 1" ads. This wasn't just rhetoric. During his tenure, Ford quality skyrocketed, their factories become the most efficient in the world, and they made money hand over fist while they took big chunks of market share away from the General. Poll after poll had Ford at the top of the domestic heap. Then came Jac Nassar. Nassar put the squeeze on suppliers, forgot about the product (it's always about the product), and look what happened: Ford was once again on the brink of bankruptcy (although their last two quarters have been in the black, thankfully). If you want to be around longer than tomorrow, you had better produce a quality product that will foster good will and return customers.

[kexodusc]

Topspeed, I agree with your comments...you HAD better produce a quality product to ensure long term prosperity and good will. But I'd add the qualifier "most of the time". If we want to get all theoretical, in the long run there's no advantage one way or the other.

It is a mistake to equate quality with "long-lasting" or "durability" for the reasons mentioned in my last post. Many "quality" products are designed to be perfect in operation, but for short periods of time, while competing quality products may operate longer, but at a slightly higher defect rate. This is 2nd year marketing stuff.
Too many consumers wrongly associate quality as long-lasting/low defect, though. If long-lasting's what they want, and what's being "promised", but isn't being delivered, then yes, the product is of relatively bad quality.
Take something like batteries for example. Some devices warrant using a cheap no-name battery for a brief period of time, sometimes only one use. Others require the Energizer bunny to keep going and going. In the former example, there is little advantage to paying extra for an Energizer 9v that lasts for hours if you can pay a fraction for a battery that does what's needed for a brief period of time. Maybe not the best example, but I think you can understand what I was saying.

Quality isn't always required for long-lasting commercial success, either, although, all things equal, it certainly helps. Windows 98 was highly successful from a ROI perspective...I don't think many people would say it's of high quality though. Some industries survive on trends, innovation, and "being in", with quality a far distance after thought. Some knowingly prey on consumer ignorance.

In my line of work I evaluate investment opportunities in the Tech sector. I've visited with Intel reps who have told me AMD processors are typically of a superior design, superior quality, but they lack the corporate muscle, marketing savy, and distribution networks to overtake Intel.
I've never even worked on an AMD processor to my knowledge to verify this, but for an Intel executive trying to convince my company to invest with them, I accepted this as the truth.

Sometimes the premium for quality follows the law of "diminishing returns" as well. Audio cables come to mind...tons of high quality $4000 cables out there, not sure the extra quality is warranted. Some companies are profitable making the "out of the box" stuff.

[Woochifer]

Quality has nothing to do with making a profit. McDonald's makes more profit than any other restaurant - does that mean it's all about the Quality. Bose makes the most profit - and it sure as hell has nothing to do with QUALITY.

Uh, I think you're confusing profit with revenue. Profit has everything to do with running an efficient operation that maximizes the value added component. McDonald's obviously has had some recent pratfalls in this regard, otherwise they would not have lost money two quarters this year. They make more REVENUE than any other restaurant, but thus far they have not made net PROFIT this year.

Bose is a privately held company, so they post no public information about their revenues, profits, and losses. We know that they have the largest market share, but that does not necessarily mean that they are the most profitable. Considering that they are the only speaker maker that does mass advertising (and I don't count an ad in Stereophile or TAS as mass advertising because those are niche market publications), it would actually surprise me if they had the highest P-to-E ratio in the industry.

As an aside, the Toyota Camry is the biggest selling car model in the U.S., yet their product quality ranks high.

[RGA]

Well, RGA's right about one thing...quality isn't necessary for profits or for commercial success. Ford sold a ton of Escorts. Some say those were the worst car ever made.

Hhaha - I had one - my friend and I raced up a hill - His Hyundai Pony which was 8 years older than my 4 year old Escort beat me up the hill. I knew then that I needed something. My girlfriend at the time would pat the dash board when climbing any hill and say c'mon you can make it. Worst car - Well the seat broke, the transmission broke, wheel bearing problems, paint peeling - all before 80,000km - and it was dreadfully slow. But as bad as that was my Grand Am made it look like a Rolls. I count durability for cars - the point of motor vehicle is to get you reliabiy from point A to point B. Obviously a safe car should also possess power - when merging on free ways so in this regard the Ford is bad on both counts while the Grand Am had some pick up.

The problem with stats is what is being accounted for. You see things like the Crime Rate has risen 18% from last year in British Columbia. So what? And it is a fear tactic by the media - but what kind of crime - Violent crime dropped 4% but they fail to mention that. Like cars - what is being brought back. Bringing my Honda in because the glue on the emrgency brake gripper got lose and bringing it in because the cylinder flew through the block is quite another. And to the customer the only thing I care about is the specific car I'm looking at and the specidfic dealer I'm delaing with. Volkswagon had terrible customer service for customers - but at every dealer??? Maybe not. Meredes may make 12 cars and 11 might suck but the one I'm looking at may be the best of everything else on the road. The Lemon Aid recommends 3 GM's and another 3 may be totally dreadful - the overall numbers may be pretty good - and if you're buying one of the 3 good ones great - otherwise you'll have a different view. Certainly not wise to JUST go by general stats.

And of course all of this means that you are playing the odds. If Honda Civic or Tercel were and they were, rated the best cars for fewest repair incidents - then you roll the dice and play the odds = but my friend's Toyota had the engine need a total replacement at 60,000 because of a small explosuion that sent a cylinder denting the hood. (Yeah they didn't understand it either???). The stat useful to me is if I am looking at the Grand Am - I want to know the frequency of Engine, tranny, electrical failures (anything severe) per 100 cars versus the comparable Honda/Toyota. Then you can decide what the trade-offs are between that and price. Honda and Toyota used to go for a LOT more money New - now here I see Neons selling for more than Corolla's and Sentra's and Civics. But looking at the used car guides 5 year old models get way more for those than Neons. SO you pay more for the neon and when you sell it you get less. Plus, if the Lemon Aid is correct you will be paying more reaparing your Neon (as averages). Now you do get more power perhaps and maybe the styling is better and maybe you're still mad at the Japanese for Pearl Harbor I don;t know.

But given what Ford did during WWII and what they do corporately when it comes to safety I feel I have a moral obligation NOT to buy their cars even if they (chortle chortle) made the best cars in the class. I don;t expect anyone to agree with me but it is an example of personal decision making that goes beyond the product itself.

[Woochifer]

Lemme tell you about the best award any business can receive: Sales. Sales volume is the great equalizer in all things business because the market will inevitably determine who is doing it right and who is doing it wrong and no amount of spin doctoring or marketing will change that in the long run. People aren't as gullible as you'd like to believe.

Volume also has to do with where the market "sweet spot" is. Paradigm has stated that their internal market research shows that about 90% of the speaker market is around the $500 price point or below. AN and several of the other purported high end speaker makers don't serve that end of the market. The thing about Bose is that they serve the low to mid level end of the market, but they also use a somewhat different distribution model than their midlevel and high end competitors in the sense that they go through all of the mass merchandising channels, while most of the specialty companies do not.

Again, it's all about long term profits and growth. In the early 80's, Ford was on the verge of bankruptcy when they hired Don Peterson, best known in his tenure for the revolutionary Taurus as well as the "Quality is Job 1" ads. This wasn't just rhetoric. During his tenure, Ford quality skyrocketed, their factories become the most efficient in the world, and they made money hand over fist while they took big chunks of market share away from the General. Poll after poll had Ford at the top of the domestic heap. Then came Jac Nassar. Nassar put the squeeze on suppliers, forgot about the product (it's always about the product), and look what happened: Ford was once again on the brink of bankruptcy (although their last two quarters have been in the black, thankfully). If you want to be around longer than tomorrow, you had better produce a quality product that will foster good will and return customers.

I think that kind of pressure on suppliers cuts across several different industries right now. (the shift in retailing over to WalMart and similar discount stores has accelerated the trend) Even Toyota started "decontenting" their vehicles around the mid-90s in order to simply the manufacturing and cut costs.

In the audio industry, you have a lot of companies that have outsourced their manufacturing as a cost cutting measure, and the quality has taken a hit as prices have gone down. Friends of mine who used to sell AV equipment noted that the prices on components have tumbled to the point that a lot of his customers no longer cared about the long-term durability of the products -- basically, electronics commodified to the point that they become disposable. Even at the retail end, electronics chains are now cutting out their commissioned sales staffers, so the aftersales support has also waned. On the other hand, a lot more people can now afford to buy audio and video equipment than before because of these price shifts.

[kexodusc]

Yeah, I owned my first Integrated for 9 years...I'm on my fourth A/V receiver in the last 6.

[RGA]

Some must get the impression that I think everyone is stupid. Woochifer - can you not poiint to ONE example in the history of the planet where somethig was sold that was NOT sold due it's superior quality.

Topsppeed please. One does not have to get a degree in a field to know it. You too cabnnot point to one single example that something sells but is not of the highest quality.

FOrget profit lets talk sales. McDonalds sell how many billions are we now at, Burgers? Man I pity you for not having tasted better burgers and fries. And even at the price - are they the BEST you can possibly buy?

McDonald's in their defense since I worked there for 3 years was never about the quality of the product they sold but about the quality and speed of service they offerred. And in that regard they were probably the best along with cleanliness standards for a long time (you could probably argue both have aspects they have been caught) for a fast food chain. But the actual product? Give me a break.

This applies to speakers. There is a Prestige of ownership which is the result SOLELY of marketing. People think Bose even people who have never heard a Bose speaker in their entire life. Becausee it's advertised on TV. Start getting some inside info guys. Lots of other companies have followed along large parts of the Bose models - cube systems etc. Bang and Ollufsson is NOT quality stereo equipment (break down rates not applicable really because most stuff reated well will last when it comes to speakers).

And then you have not even started on the Cable companies. Monster Cable is gigantic. A salesman I know here who went to their headquarters told me and showed me the margins on what they get and how much the salesperson gets. A Salesperson there would rather sell you the $60.00Cdn cable than a $600.00TV. For one the salesman makes more commission, and two doesn't have to lug the tv into your car.

It's highly debatable as to cables being sold on sound quality or that they last longer than cheapo cables that come with your gear. I have heard the salespitches that this cable will make way more difference than upgrading to that speaker. People shell it out because Monster doesn't own a race track and a fleet of F1 cars for no reason or send salesman to hollidays for selling the most in a region alla B&O.

There is perceived quality and I don't intend to tell people that if they perceive their cable to benefit them that they're deluded. Or if they are buying Britney Spears because they think she is the best singer or talent currently available - heck maybe they're just horney and want the cover.

The American model of consumerism is about packaging - you've heard it numerously stated that so and so artist is a packaged commodity like the Spice Girls etc. In fact more to the Business degree I would suggest gettingh an arts degree so one is not sucked into the American Dream before it's too late - Good ol' Willy Lowman is an example of it.

Topspeed
Audio Note sold me on the sound - the salesman said nothing other than try these. I sent an e-mail asking to hear 4 speakers and asked if he had something he wanted to add. I went and listened. What got me most intrigued was the E. No preselling markleting hype. None really because I bought a speaker that had had no reviews anywhere for them. The websitre was a joke. Still is.

As for PQ - before you jump to conclusions you may want to find out why he does what he does - as Shocking as it might be for Americans to realize some poeple have other motivations than JUST making sales. And when you hear his gear - it will become clearer perhaps - until then his site and their beliefs are just raving arrogant backward pie in the sky claims. Fair enough I suppose.