Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions RG6 coaxial for audio

I'm going to use Belden 1694A RG6 (18 AWG) coaxial cable with Canare True 75 ohm Connectors for television signals and plan on wiring my whole house with it. From what I've read this is the best cable/connectors for the price/job. I found it much cheaper at www.ramelectronics.net then what I would have paid had I purchased it from www.bluejeanscable.com. I wanted to know if this would also be good cable for audio interconnects?

Is there anything wrong with going to Best Buy and getting Monster Cable for my speakers/subwoofer? What's the best price/performance speaker cable to get?

Is there anything wrong with going to Best Buy and getting Monster Cable for my speakers/subwoofer?

Only that if you're looking for a good price/performance ratio, you're overpaying for Monsters. They are good cable, but no better than cable you can get for half the price from others (including Blue Jeans).

Also that Monster is disgustingly litigious and I don't like to support them for that reason, but that's just my own personal reaction and has no bearing on their products (except, perhaps that their cables would be cheaper if they didn't have to keep so many lawyers on the payroll).

It's good for audio but probably overkill. Also, remember that it'll be hard to bend that cable since it's not as flexible.

For audio, you may be fine w/ RG59 which is a little easier to bend. Also, you are wiring your house, I would suggest using structured wire. I had some put in when I moved into an older house. Now every room has 2 runs of RG6, 2 runs of CAT5 (which is used for phone and Ethernet now), and 1 fiber, which for the life of me, I'll probably never use.

This is WAY thick and harder to route but it does keep your bundles together and much easer to manage in a wiring panel.

Structured wiring

Actually, they cost more because of the research and development that goes into their many PATENTED audio wire/cable products, AND their wire/cable is made in-house to their specifications, rather than just re-packaged bulk wire from who knows where.

OK... true or not, you can get cable of equal or better quality than Monster for the same or lower price. If you want to pay Monster, you're perfectly welcome to. There's nothing wrong with their products, they make good cable (as I said above).

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7113

EngineJoe

If you knew anything about trademark law, you might have a different view on Monster's action to protect their trademarks. Without getting into it, Monster has no choice but to bring lawsuits in order to protect the good will that it has in its name. Without challenging other uses of the name "Monster" it risks losing its rights to exclusive use of the brand name, and the good will that it has generated over the years by producing quality wires.

In addition, these suits are necessary so that we, as consumers, aren't confused by imitators in the marketplace, which is exactly what the Lanham Act protects by allowing companies to have trademarks. One of the costs of trademark protection, however, is the obligation to seek out and clarify other uses of the brand name so that it doesn't become diluted in the marketplace.

Be happy that Monster is out there protecting your rights to know that when you buy a wire that says Monster, it isn't some cheap knock-off made in some crappy warehouse from old lampwire.

Not a sermon, but the whole "Monster is litigious" crap really rubs me the wrong way. I don't see a single good reason why they don't have every right to protect what they have worked very hard to achieve - a brand name that everybody in the industry knows.

Sorry to thread-jack. I'll end my rant now.

damn lawyers...

bigjohn

I'm an attorney myself - and a litigator (I know people say this on the web a lot, so if you want to verify, look me up on the firm website - www.stroock.com)! I've done some trademark work (and studied it some in law school), and so far as I can see, there's no reason why Monster needs to protect its trademark in industries where it does not compete. Up to and including suing Disney and Pixar for the film "Monsters, Inc." There's no likelihood of dilution resulting from the sale of Monster snowmobiles, either.

I'm sorry to continue to feed to fire, especially since its off topic.

But you've named a couple of instances where Monster expressed concern or wrote letters regarding the movie monsters, inc. etc. I don't think you'll be able to find any court papers regarding a lawsuit against Pixar or Disney in this regard. If you can, I will stand humbly corrected, and rethink my view on the topic.

Otherwise, I believe that the story has taken on a life of its own in the internet, especially by some people who did some research and discovered that Monster Cable is pretty much the same as everybody else, for three times the cost. Those people are now a little ticked that Monster has cornered the market and are frustrated that every pimply faced salesperson at Tweeter insists that the only way that they can guarantee the sound and picture on a particular device is if they buy Monster products, which, as we all know, is bunk.

Like you, I won't buy any more Monster products, but it is for different reasons.

Sorry if I sounded accusatory or confrontational in my first post. I have re-read it and wished that I had come across a little more middle of the road. But my opinion that this issue has been blown out of proportion has not changed.

In the spirit of conciliation and frankly, because it's really not that big of a deal, I think we're in agreement in the important areas - that Monster's cables, while good, are priced higher than their quality, and that is itself a worthwhile reason to explore other options and come to one's own conclusions on whether you need Monster to have good sound. The selling tactics are another issue, one which I have been lucky enough not to experience firsthand... Cutting to the core, I don't buy Monster products mostly because of price. I certainly don't "boycott" them. But when I have an option, I buy from someone else. I have a few of their products, though, and they do a nice job. Mostly I kick myself because I could have gotten a product of equal quality a product for less moolah, though. Their purported litigation tactics, which I was unwise enough to bring up in the first place for several reasons (including keeping some hearsay percolating at the surface), were just icing on the cake for me to generally avoid them.

As to the intellectual property matters at hand, I'll only say this, just as a technical matter, and honestly not to try and fuel further debate.

But you've named a couple of instances where Monster expressed concern or wrote letters regarding the movie monsters, inc. etc. I don't think you'll be able to find any court papers regarding a lawsuit against Pixar or Disney in this regard. If you can, I will stand humbly corrected, and rethink my view on the topic.

I did overstep my bounds by stating that actual litigation commenced. I'm sure, without looking up any court records, that no papers were filed, at least in these instances. However, that's not to say the effect is not as present. Litigation-threatening letters aren't part of the public record, and can be powerful tools (trust me, I say this from experience). Almost always, some kind of no-record-is-made settlement is reached, and it is in no way publicized. A little money changes hands, and either the purported infringer can carry on - as some kind of licensee - or ceases to use the name.

We can't know if this happened in the context of Monster and, for example, Disney and Pixar, though certainly the rumors abound! Do I know that such things have happened? Well, I've certainly never touched any original, authenticated documents, so no, I don't. I have read a number of independently sourced, consistent reports which suggest that it has, though it is unquestionably all hearsay. And that's all it is for the time being.

Right. So...how're you enjoying your Axioms, then?

Charlie, 1694A would be more than adequate(with emphasis on "more")and a RG59 type of cable such as 1505F would be easier to handle and costs a bit less. Unless you're talking about a long run from a satellite dish coming in from outside at about a gigahertz frequency, the slightly lower loss of RG6 type cable isn't of much significance. That type of cable would of course also be fine for audio use and there's no need to consider the nonsense of Monster and other similar products.

For the speaker wire, nothing available is better than regular lamp cord in gauges from 12 to 16, depending on the length of the run.

I'm going to start a new speaker wire company called "Pizza Cable".

Would either one of you lawyer types care to help me sue Italy?

Only kidding...

pizza is american

"Nothing available is better than regular lamp cord".

I didn't expect such an ABSOLUTE proclamation from one of the forum's most "scientific members"....especially, championing...............LAMP CORD?

I can understand you endorsing the use of 12 gauge speaker wire, with it's many fine strands of "pure" copper wire, and usually better insulation etc. but,.....LAMP CORD?................(you ARE talking about the stiff, thicker stranded, easily corroded, poorly insulated, ugly brown lamp cord, right?).

I'm sorry,.......I've tried that type of "cord"....and IMO, recommending that wire is ridiculous.

Thank's for the pro bono, legalese.

I think Mc Donald's had many similar trademark issues with other, small burger stands.
I seem to remember a "mickey d's".....and there were other such "copy cat" name versions.

Since we're talking wire, I've got two questions.

One, we all know about the "Monster" issue, yet I've seen a lot of people endorsing companies that charge $20-40 a cable(interconnects) just like monster. Are the cables by other companies so much better than monster for the same price? or simply a preference on how they look, and what the individual percieves as a good value?

Two, relating to above, is it possible to get great performance out of RG6U coax for video and audio (with the right connectors) as some of these brand name cables? I know they'd be a bit stiff for interconnects, but is the cable thick and shielded enough for a high level of performance?

Lastly, I guess there was three questions, how much should one plan to spend on cables? I know it's subjective, and everyone's got different standards of what they think a cable should either perform or appear. But, with Bluejeans/Monster/Bettercables/Acoustic Research/ect, these are all going to run into the $20-40 range. Is that the sweet spot for cost? Or is there something better for less cost, or spend a little more on this cable(insert) that does make a difference in picture or audio quality?

OK, now . . . breathe . . . breathe . . .

In reply to:

---

pizza is american

---

Actually, it has been around in various shapes and forms longer than America has been in existance. What we know as pizza today doesn't resemble the original Italian / Greek pizza of old. Here is a pretty accurate history of pizza.

As to cables. Pay more for looks, better connectors, or better shielding (IF you really need it), or special insulating materials (if pulling through walls, check local codes for requirements). At the voltage, current, and frequency levels used in audio - copper is copper. Silver is a better conductor, but there is no need to go there for speaker connections as any differences wouldn't be audible. The length of the run combined with the gauge determines resistance, so use the right size for the length of your runs.

LT, what did you find wrong with lamp cord? It is exactly the same as "speaker" wire except that the insulation is not clear.

David, the question about cables and speaker wire really shouldn't be "subjective" if the question is simply one of sound quality rather than matters such as cosmetics or prestige. Transmission of power and signals is a relatively trivial technical problem that's accomplished at very low cost. Specifically as to RG6 again, although it's fine, it's unnecessary to use cables that thick for the lengths and frequencies involved in the home. Note that Belden's numbers on their RG59, RG6 and RG11 cable illustrate that the differences in attenuation between 59 and 6 are negligible at the lengths and frequencies(about 5-30MHz for the various digital audio and TV formats)used in the home. A somewhat less expensive cable than the ones you mentioned is the Dayton cable from Parts Express. None of these have any advantage in basic transmission ability over the even less expensive cables of the type often included with players, but they may look a little better and last a lifetime.

I've seen the Dayton's on Parts Express, or the RS Gold's, and question if those are the price point people really don't need to exceed. I know the brain washing that's taken place in the cable industry, but can one assume there is some value, if not much, to be had over OTB cables?

I actually own some of those cables. I've got a Monster Sub cable, AR and OTB interconnects, and seem to have a good sounding system(currently). But that's maybe because my hardware isn't as detailed as the stuff(M80 or M60, QS8, VP150, SVS sub) I'm getting in about a month or so. The new speakers, A/V receiver, DVD player, ect, may bring out the flaws in those cables. Maybe I won't be able to tell the difference, who knows.

I only mention RG6U because: A)It's cheap B)I've got a bunch of it C)If one could use it for all there audio and video, you could really save a bundle. I'm sure people are out there that wouldn't even consider that option. I'm only trying to learn what's possible, and what we can do to achieve a full sounding HT system without short-changing ourselves.