Good Speaker Cable?
Steve
my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
--
To reply by Email - remove the word NOSPAM from address.
Chuck Ross
<sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I am just wondering what is to be considered 'good' speaker cable? With
> my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
> solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
> which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
> speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
There are some individuals who will hasten to assure you that there
is probably nothing better then the 12ga stranded wire you were using,
but if you heard the AQ F14 wire and it sounded "BETTER", that's
your answer, I'd guess. If, as you say, it only sounded "different",
that doesn't necessarily mean it sounded better, tho.
Anything that sounds "better" to you, is better.
You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
--
Chuck "Spike" Ross
Fear3000
>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated pair of
inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a component.
Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a little
more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
products.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
ae...@flight.els
>inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a component.
Huh?
> Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a little
>more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
>products.
I don't disagree with this statement, but the mark-up on "accessory"
items, cables and speaker wire included, is MUCH higher than with
"gear".
>
>Best Wishes,
>Fear3000
Nexus 6
>>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross)
>
>>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
>>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
>
>Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated pair of
>inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a component.
> Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a little
>more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
>products.
This is absolutely true, unfounded assertions to the contrary.
---
Nexus 6
--- "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?
That's what it means to be a slave."
Eric E. Chang
cables in general go, the F14 is a good cable. There are better
cables but the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quick on
cables. But if the cables sound good to you then you don't need
anything else. My experience with better cables is that most cables
do change the sound but not dramatically in the way changing your
speakers will.
Eric
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:27:56 GMT, Steve <sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>I am just wondering what is to be considered 'good' speaker cable? With
>my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
>solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
>which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
>speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
>
Fear3000
I wrote:
>>Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory
>> terminated pair of inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin >>for
a dealer as a component.
>Huh?
What is it that you don't understand?
>> Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are
>> marked-up a little more. The main profit center for cable sale rests
>>with dealer-terminated products.
>I don't disagree with this statement, but the mark-up on "accessory"
>items, cables and speaker wire included, is MUCH higher than with
>"gear".
You're *wrong*, bud! If you have information to the contrary I'd sure be
interested in hearing it.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Steve Zipser
cited author.]
In article <369fa777....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ae...@flight.els
says...
> >Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated pair of
> >inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a component.
>
> Huh?
>
> > Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a little
> >more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
> >products.
>
> I don't disagree with this statement, but the mark-up on "accessory"
> items, cables and speaker wire included, is MUCH higher than with
> "gear".
Aero:
No it isn't. The margin on most cables is marginally higher. The
highest profit items I ever sold were some Grado cartridges that were
marked up about 300%
Cheers
Zip
--
LETS GO PANTHERS LETS GO JETS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH ESP Straightwire XLO
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
here is SOUND ADVICE!
There are some droids here on r.a.o, who are convinced that wires make
no difference at all like Ostriches with their heads buried in the sand,
and there are some tweakos who believe in water filled jacketed, 30
pound aluminum block Terminator cables and the like as they dance and
prance and howl at the moon.
The truth is somewhere in between. Wires do make a difference, and
there is absolutely no doubt about that. On the other hand, they are
not the be-all, end-all solution that some of the more ardent
audiophiles would have you believe.
I presume there are some quality dealers in your area, why don't you
visit some of them that you are comfortable with and arrange to borrow
a set or two and listen for yourself.
Your ears are the final arbiter, not some magazine reviewer and not some
computer geek with an abx box and not some maniac that claims wires are
more important than the room acoustics or speakers!
Check out Straightwire, Cardas, Monster Cable, Audioquest, those are all
good brands.--
Cheers
Zip
Steve <sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:369F79B4...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com...
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990115144345...@ng136.aol.com>...
>>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross)
>
>>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
>>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
>
>inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a
component.
little
>more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
>products.
Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial magazine, Forbes
has to say about this:
Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster accounts
for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
GSHotdog
cables and interconnects, email AudioQuest at a...@audioquest.com and ask them to
send you a copy of thier Cable Design, Theory Versus Empirical Reality 1998
brochure.
Also, if the AudioQuest cables sounded better to you, don't ask for people's
opinions. They will only cloud your thinking.
I also recommend that you try some Nordost cables if you have a local dealer.
Good luck,
Gary
Trotsky
>
> Fear3000 wrote in message <19990115144345...@ng136.aol.com>...
> >>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross)
> >
> >>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
> >>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
> >
> >Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated pair of
> >inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a
> component.
> > Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a
> little
> >more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
> >products.
>
> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial magazine, Forbes
> has to say about this:
>
>
Why?
Gene Steinberg
Stereo)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>To those who are not sure what to do about cables in your audio system,
>here is SOUND ADVICE!
Don't listen to Steve's 1000th posting of this drivel.
Sound advice is to get the cheapest speaker cables that are of the proper
gauge for the length required, and spend the rest of the money on good
recordings.
And don't listen to the hot air from folks who will say you need spend
more than a few cents a foot for such products.
Peace,
Gene
Trotsky
OSAF
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message <36A07911...@mc.net>...
>>Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
>>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
>>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster
accounts
>>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
>Why?
Seems pretty self-evident, don't you think?
This is a financial question, and so we have a financial reporter report
something relevant, like whether or not profits on cables are high or low.
Steve Zipser
You seem to be having trouble dealing with reality lately, and I am
surprised. There is a huge difference between the way Crane's buys bulk
cable from Monster cable and the way a Sunhine or Lyric or Definitive or
some other fine retailer buys cables. Cranes buys wire like your
persomal favorite wire supplier, Home Depot, does. Get real! Our
margins are not remotely like you believe.
Fear3000
>>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial
>>> magazine, Forbes has to say about this:
>>>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer.
>>>At Ken Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne,
>>> Calif., Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
>>> of gross profit."
>>Trotsky wrote:
>>Why?
Arnold:
>This is a financial question, and so we have a financial reporter report
>something relevant, like whether or not profits on cables are high or low.
The very same article also said:
"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the more visible
audio and video components hover around 30%. "
So...if we assume gross profit of $1M, cables then [per the article] would
bring in $300,000 profit. If each cable unit has a median retail price of $75
[$33.75 profit at 45%], then the store sold 6667 units of cable that year.
Now lets look at A/V sales which account for $700,000 [70%] of the gross profit
and 98% of sales. If each component has a median price of $400, then each unit
sold would add $120 [30%] to the gross profit. Thus [700,000 /120] 5833 A/V
units were sold.
If we do the simple math [6667x$75 + 5833x400] we get a gross sales figure of
~$3,000,000 for the year. Looking back at the article, 2% of sales amounted to
$300,000 profit, meaning gross sales were $15,000,000!!!
How does $3M = $15M ???
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Chuck Ross
<gsteinberg-16...@sdn-ar-001azphoep299.dialsprint.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> Peace,
> Gene
Well, I guess what is obvious to some people isn't obvious to others.
--
Spike Ross
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>Arnie:
> You seem to be having trouble dealing with reality lately, and I am
>surprised. There is a huge difference between the way Crane's buys bulk
>cable from Monster cable and the way a Sunhine or Lyric or Definitive or
>some other fine retailer buys cables. Cranes buys wire like your
>persomal favorite wire supplier, Home Depot, does. Get real! Our
>margins are not remotely like you believe.
>Zip
As Zip suggests, margins are rarely as high as people believe.
In some ways this discussion is irrelevant because what matters is the
price people pay, not margins. Dealers, like any business, are
entitled to profit, and the point of business is to make as much
profit as possible.
People get carried away with this and attach moral values to
this phenomena, but discount dealers strike lower prices because that,
in the end, makes them the most money, not because they're performing
a moral service to the community.
Most pricing is done on a perceived-value basis, and on what a
given market can sustain. I would hope that the dealer charges
sufficiently so that he can stay in business and make a little money
at it. The question whether any cable is worth whatever price is
charged for it is a separate discussion not related to margin but to
value. Presumably, a good dealer will attach a reasonable margin to
everything he sells, even if the ultimate price is only $1.00. Margin
is about percentage over cost, not about price or value.
This discussion appears to center over the implied argument
that dealers hype cable because it forms one of their best profit
centers. If that's the real discussion, have a ball guys, but margin
is irrelevant. If a dealer lowered his price on a piece of cable
deemed "snake oil" would that make it more acceptable?
It's business. Dealers are supposed to make money.
Ed
Fear3000
>So...if we assume gross profit of $1M, cables then [per the article] would
>bring in $300,000 profit. If each cable unit has a median retail price of $75
>[$33.75 profit at 45%], then the store sold 6667 units of cable that year.
I mis-typed; 6667 units should be 8889 units
>If we do the simple math [6667x$75 + 5833x400] we get a gross
> sales figure of ~$3,000,000 for the year.
This should read "[8889x$75 + 5833x400]....
OTOH if we assume that 2% figure refered to the number of untits sold relative
to the gross profit, then A/V gear [98% of unit sales] would bring in
~$175,000,000 [435,512 units x $400/unit]
If sales of $175 Million resulted in $700,000 _gross_ profit [meaning the
margin was 0.4% and NOT 30%] which is of course impossible per the very same
article.
This leaves one with only one conclusion - "something" in that article does not
jive!!!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
JeffC 1474
>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
>
My dealer gave me some AQ F4 with my speakers - so depending on
how much you spend and where you buy, you might do the same,
but even retail they are quite reasonable. Without getting into
a cable debate, these have a couple "basic" theoretical advantages -
they are solid core, and they have a double run of it to biwire your
speakers.
Regards,
Jeff
ale...@yahoo.com
> my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
> solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
> which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
> speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
Its easy to spot a difference when you KNOW which cable is being used. The
trick is do spot a difference when you DON'T know which is being used. I
doubt you or anyone could tell the difference if you didn't know what cable
was plugged in.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
trotsky
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Trotsky wrote in message <36A07911...@mc.net>...
> >Arny Krüger wrote:
> >>
> >> Fear3000 wrote in message <19990115144345...@ng136.aol.com>...
> >> >>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross)
> >> >
> >> >>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
> >> >>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
> >> >
> >> >Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated pair
> of
> >> >inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a
> >> component.
> >> > Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are marked-up a
> >> little
> >> >more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with dealer-terminated
> >> >products.
> >>
> >> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial magazine,
> Forbes
> >> has to say about this:
> >>
>
> >>Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
>
> >>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
> >>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster
> accounts
> >>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
>
> >Why?
>
> Seems pretty self-evident, don't you think?
>
> This is a financial question, and so we have a financial reporter report
> something relevant, like whether or not profits on cables are high or low.
Hm, let's see what I responded to:
> >
> > Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial magazine, Forbes
> > has to say about this:
> >
> >
>
>
> Why?
>
Let's tale another look at Arny's mangling:
> >>Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
>
> >>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
> >>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster
> accounts
> >>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
>
> >Why?
>
> Seems pretty self-evident, don't you think?
>
> This is a financial question, and so we have a financial reporter report
> something relevant, like whether or not profits on cables are high or low.
>
To reiterate, this is what I responded to:
> > Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial magazine, Forbes
> > has to say about this:
> >
>
And when Arny replied, it had become:
> >>Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
>
> >>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
> >>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster
> accounts
> >>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
>
Jesus, if I was a Christian, how sickened would I be *then*?
Gene Steinberg
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>Well, I guess what is obvious to some people isn't obvious to others.
>
If it's so obvious to you or anyone here, why aren't you all lining up
claiming that $1600 reward when you prove what you can hear.
And you live in the midwest, Chuck, so a trip to the home of one of those
handling those tests would be far less difficult than others here.
Do you have the guts to try?
I doubt it.
Chuck Ross
<gsteinberg-16...@sdn-ar-004azphoep035.dialsprint.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
No. It's a truly sickening thought. I'd rather eat several bugs.
--
Spike Ross
PHil908256
Kimber Kable 4TC or 4VS.. They have one of the lowest Inductance geometries in
the industry.
Inductance is one of your bigger enemys of the ampspeaker interface.
Paul
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser wrote in message ...
> You seem to be having trouble dealing with reality lately, and I am
>surprised.
Darn, I imagined the existance of that Forbes magazine article! I imagined the
web page. I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>There is a huge difference between the way Crane's buys bulk
>cable from Monster cable and the way a Sunhine or Lyric or Definitive or
>some other fine retailer buys cables.
No doubt. Despite the fact that the retailer mentioned by Forbes probably
sells more cable by accident than you sell on purpose, how your store buys and
sells cables at one location in one mid-sized city in the extreme south is far
more newsworthy and relevant that how a large chain sells cable - well, at
least to you!
>Cranes buys wire like your persomal favorite wire supplier, Home Depot,
does.
I think they order it, receive it, stock it, sell it, and pay for it. How does
that vary from how you do it?
>Get real! Our margins are not remotely like you believe.
Like I said, the way that a single store in Miami buys and sells cable is far
more newsworthy and relevant to this discussion than how a large chain does
the same thing - well at least to you as its owner.
Solipsism 101, taught by Steve Zipser?
Trotsky
No, you imagined the importance of a non-audio related mag. commenting on
audio related issues, to help further your fascist campaign. You then lied
further, by obfuscating the post, when I tried to simply ask you why this was
important. Boy oh boy, are you gonna go to Hell!
Fear3000
>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
I strongly feel that Forbes got a hold of some eronious information as I proved
yesterday! I think it was rediculous that the writer's editor did not take the
time to do a simple, intuitive, analysis of the figures. Just shows that a
brand name is not always synonimous with quality.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Trotsky
> cable from Monster cable and the way a Sunhine or Lyric or Definitive or
> persomal favorite wire supplier, Home Depot, does. Get real! Our
> margins are not remotely like you believe.
>
Zip, I think it is more important to point out that even if you do manage to
maintain 50 points on an accessory sale--which in itself is hard to do these
days--the gross profit dollars generated by such sales in a small store
setting wouldn't even pay the electric bill. Arny is such a pea brain that he
imagines guys like us lighting up cigars with $100 bills because of the
mountains of cash we make on these sales. When I asked him to contrast the
shitloads of cash Bose Corp. makes selling shitty speakers to unsuspecting
consumers Arny's CPU popped a breaker.
Steve Zipser
Greg:
I think he has some major problems stemming from events of this fall. He
needs help.
Trotsky
>
> In article <36A215DC...@mc.net>, gsi...@mc.net says...
> > Zip, I think it is more important to point out that even if you do manage to
> > maintain 50 points on an accessory sale--which in itself is hard to do these
> > days--the gross profit dollars generated by such sales in a small store
> > setting wouldn't even pay the electric bill. Arny is such a pea brain that he
> > imagines guys like us lighting up cigars with $100 bills because of the
> > mountains of cash we make on these sales. When I asked him to contrast the
> > shitloads of cash Bose Corp. makes selling shitty speakers to unsuspecting
> > consumers Arny's CPU popped a breaker.
> >
>
> Greg:
> I think he has some major problems stemming from events of this fall. He
> needs help.
> Zip
> --
Agreed.
Gruvmyster
> If you want to understand more about speaker
> cables and interconnects, email AudioQuest at a...@audioquest.com and ask them to
> send you a copy of thier Cable Design, Theory Versus Empirical Reality 1998
> brochure.
And I invite you to request a brochure called, "Wall Street: The Published Numbers
Vs. How You Feel." It talks about how to make a fortune cooking numbers.
> Also, if the AudioQuest cables sounded better to you, don't ask for people's
> opinions. They will only cloud your thinking.
Yeah. Reality's a bitch.
> I also recommend that you try some Nordost cables if you have a local dealer.
Nowhere near as good as AQ. They sound "flat".
Doug
--
"There are some people that if they
don't know, you can't tell 'em"-- Louis Armstrong
Roland Mabo
>
> In article <369F79B4...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com>,
> Steve <sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > I am just wondering what is to be considered 'good' speaker cable? With
> > my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
> > solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
> > which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
> > speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
>
> Its easy to spot a difference when you KNOW which cable is being used. The
> trick is do spot a difference when you DON'T know which is being used. I
> doubt you or anyone could tell the difference if you didn't know what cable
> was plugged in.
I've been astonished many times by the fact that the differencies
between speaker cables actually can be so big. I recently switched
speakers from Dali 104 to Audio Pro A2.42 Live. I had them connected
with AudioQuest F14 cable. This solid core worked very well with the
Dali's. Having a fast, tight and responsive sound character.
They replaced Dali's own multistrand cable, giving an openess to the
sound. Since the Dali's had a strong bass that needed much control, the
lean bass of the F14 matched them perfectly.
With the Audio Pro A2.42, this tightness turned to an upfront and bright
presentation with weak, if still very tight, bass. It was time for a
change. Tara Labs Omi was the solution. They added bass weight and also
a pleasing warmth to the upper bass/lower midband, while keeping the
high frequency detail.
My wife, who previously was rather sceptical about the idea that cables
can tune
the sound, could also hear the same differencies as I could, when I
switched the cables back and forth.
Best wishes...
--
Roland Mabo
rol...@algonet.se
http://www.algonet.se/~rolamo
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message <36A1DC27...@mc.net>...
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>
>> Steve Zipser wrote in message ...
the
financial
>> information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>No, you imagined the importance of a non-audio related mag. commenting on
>audio related issues, to help further your fascist campaign.
I think the question at hand was financial. So, you are saying that reporters
from a general-purpose financial magazine is a priori incapable of reporting
on purely financial issues, if that purely financial issue relates to some
specialty area? I guess that means that you think that Forbes should stop
reporting on technology companies like Intel and Microsoft, etc!
>You then lied further, by obfuscating the post, when I tried to simply ask
you why this was
>important.
I see no obfuscation on my part. Perhaps you could explain this further...
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990117084047...@ng135.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>
proved
>yesterday!
What proof?
>I think it was rediculous that the writer's editor did not take the time to
do a simple, intuitive, analysis of the figures. Just shows that a brand name
is not always synonimous with quality.
I suspect that the numbers in question were thoroughly checked out, as
financial data. Since the information provides was not exactly complementary
to the companies involved, if there were errors, one could expect an official
correction from Forbes, or perhaps a lawsuit?
>
>Best Wishes,
>Fear3000
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990117084047...@ng135.aol.com>...
>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>>>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>>I strongly feel that Forbes got a hold of some eronious information as
>>I proved yesterday!
>What proof?
Stop the posturing Arnold. You know very well what I'm talking about since you
sent me a private e-mail to that effect! ;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
I wrote:
>>I think it was rediculous that the writer's editor did not take the time to
>do a simple, intuitive, analysis of the figures. Just shows that a brand name
>is not always synonimous with quality.
>I suspect that the numbers in question were thoroughly checked out, as
>financial data.
I doubt it very much, having done a very rough analysis myself. Let's look at
it again:
______________________________________________________________
AK:
>>> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial
>>> magazine, Forbes has to say about this:
>>>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer.
>>>At Ken Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne,
>>> Calif., Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
>>> of gross profit."
I then wrote:
The very same article also said:
"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the
more visible audio and video components hover around 30%. "
So...if we assume gross profit of $1M, cables then [per the article] would
bring in $300,000 profit. If each cable unit has a median retail price of $75
[$33.75 profit at 45%], then the store sold 6667 units of cable that year.
Now lets look at A/V sales which account for $700,000 [70%] of the
gross profit and 98% of sales. If each component has a median price
of $400, then each unit sold would add $120 [30%] to the gross profit.
Thus [700,000 /120] 5833 A/V units were sold. If we do the simple
math [6667x$75 + 5833x400] we get a gross sales figure of ~$3,000,000
for the year. Looking back at the article, 2% of sales amounted
to $300,000 profit, meaning gross sales were $15,000,000!!!
How does $3M = $15M ???
_________________________________________________________________
I then corrected a typo and worked out a different senerio, since the phrase
"volume sales" ,as used in Forbes, is rather ambiguous.
>From: fear...@aol.com (Fear3000)
>So...if we assume gross profit of $1M, cables then [per the article] would
>bring in $300,000 profit. If each cable unit has a median retail price of $75
>[$33.75 profit at 45%], then the store sold 6667 units of cable that year.
I mis-typed; 6667 units should be 8889 units
>If we do the simple math [6667x$75 + 5833x400] we get a gross
> sales figure of ~$3,000,000 for the year.
This should read "[8889x$75 + 5833x400]....
OTOH if we assume that 2% figure refered to the number of untits
sold relative to the gross profit, then A/V gear [98% of unit sales]
would bring in ~$175,000,000 [435,512 units x $400/unit]
If sales of $175 Million resulted in $700,000 _gross_ profit [meaning the
margin was 0.4% and NOT 30%] which is of course impossible per the very same
article.
__________________________________________________________
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
PS I also suspect that you checked my numbers, you just love to do that, and
could not find anything that was incorrect. Otherwise I'd see a mathimatical
correction. Instead you came up with a lame divertion:
>Since the information provides was not exactly complementary
>to the companies involved, if there were errors, one could expect
>an official correction from Forbes, or perhaps a lawsuit?
1.How do you know there was no retraction?
2.How did the reporter get the figures without seeing the store's *actual*
books? [fat chance of that happening]
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118073459...@ng22.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990117084047...@ng135.aol.com>...
>
>>>>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>>>>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>
>>>I strongly feel that Forbes got a hold of some eronious information as
>>>I proved yesterday!
>
>
>>What proof?
>
>Stop the posturing Arnold. You know very well what I'm talking about since
you
>sent me a private e-mail to that effect! ;-)
I think that means I found your alleged proof, based on your rough estimates
and speculation, later on.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118075923...@ng22.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>I wrote:
>
>>>I think it was rediculous that the writer's editor did not take the time to
>>do a simple, intuitive, analysis of the figures. Just shows that a brand
name
>>is not always synonimous with quality.
>
>>I suspect that the numbers in question were thoroughly checked out, as
>>financial data.
>
>I doubt it very much, having done a very rough analysis myself. Let's look at
>it again:
Like you said "very rough analysis". I think that you don't understand that
the meaning of "profit" or even "gross profit" is as simple as you make it out
to be.
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message <36A215DC...@mc.net>...
>Steve Zipser wrote:
>>
>> In article <pL1o2.57$P8....@news.flash.net>, ar...@flash.net says...
>> >
>> > Trotsky wrote in message <36A07911...@mc.net>...
>> > >Arny Krüger wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Fear3000 wrote in message
<19990115144345...@ng136.aol.com>...
>> > >> >>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross)
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>You should, however, understand that the mark-up for a dealer on
>> > >> >>speaker wire and interconnect cables is astronomical.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Most wire brands have the same mark-up as gear; a factory terminated
pair
>> > of
>> > >> >inteconnects, for example, carries the same margin for a dealer as a
>> > >> component.
>> > >> > Some brands, like AQ as mentioned in the original post, are
marked-up a
>> > >> little
>> > >> >more. The main profit center for cable sale rests with
dealer-terminated
>> > >> >products.
>> > >>
>> > Forbes
>> > >> has to say about this:
>> > >>
>> >
Ken
>> > >>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster
>> > accounts
>> > >>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Seems pretty self-evident, don't you think?
>> >
>> > This is a financial question, and so we have a financial reporter report
>> > something relevant, like whether or not profits on cables are high or
low.
>> >
>> >
>> Arnie:
>> You seem to be having trouble dealing with reality lately, and I am
>> cable from Monster cable and the way a Sunhine or Lyric or Definitive or
>> some other fine retailer buys cables. Cranes buys wire like your
>> persomal favorite wire supplier, Home Depot, does. Get real! Our
>> margins are not remotely like you believe.
Please show where I commented on the profits of Sunshine Stereo Inc.
>Zip, I think it is more important to point out that even if you do manage to
>maintain 50 points on an accessory sale--which in itself is hard to do these
>days--the gross profit dollars generated by such sales in a small store
>setting wouldn't even pay the electric bill.
Please show where I commented on the profits of the small stereo stores that
you are familiar with.
> Arny is such a pea brain that he imagines guys like us lighting up cigars
with $100 bills because of the
>mountains of cash we make on these sales.
I think you said you "make nothing". I think that Steve makes a little more
than that. However, both of you would have to search far and wide to see where
I claimed that the net profits either of you make are excessive. In your case,
since you "make nothing", I would obviously not claim that you had any profits
at all.
> When I asked him to contrast the
>shitloads of cash Bose Corp. makes selling shitty speakers to unsuspecting
>consumers Arny's CPU popped a breaker.
Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not a good
value. Hardly seems like any kind of mental overload...
Trotsky
> >audio related issues, to help further your fascist campaign.
>
> I think the question at hand was financial. So, you are saying that reporters
> from a general-purpose financial magazine is a priori incapable of reporting
> on purely financial issues, if that purely financial issue relates to some
> specialty area? I guess that means that you think that Forbes should stop
> reporting on technology companies like Intel and Microsoft, etc!
Well, unlike you, I work in the audio biz, and all I can do is ask you the
question I've asked thrice before: Bose Corp. makes more money fleecing people
with inferior speakers than all the cable manufacturers combined--do you and
the ghost of Malcolm Forbes have a commentary on *that*?
>
> >You then lied further, by obfuscating the post, when I tried to simply ask
> you why this was
> >important.
>
> I see no obfuscation on my part. Perhaps you could explain this further...
Fuck you. Find the post where I depicted twice the creative snipping you
did--Yoon did you see that shit? What do you Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
have to say about that one?
Fear3000
>I think that you don't understand that the meaning of "profit" or
>even "gross profit" is as simple as you make it out to be.
Considering the *fact* that I'm a professional businessman you assertion is
_absurd_!!!
If my analysis is so wrong, why can't you refute it?
Let's see some of your numbers. I worked out several senerios, and not a single
one supported the figures listed in the article. ;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
>>>>>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>>>>>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>>>>I strongly feel that Forbes got a hold of some eronious information as
>>>>I proved yesterday!
>>>What proof?
>>Stop the posturing Arnold. You know very well what I'm talking
>>about ince you sent me a private e-mail to that effect! ;-)
>I think that means I found your alleged proof, based on your
>rough estimates and speculation, later on.
Oh...is that why you chose not to post it publicly?
You're acting like a deer that just got cought staring into the headlights of
an oncomming car; I love to see you make excuses for your own incompetence!
Show me a business model that would follow your logic. Give it a shot!
I'd love to see it!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
Kruger writing about *himself*:
>Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not a good
>value.
Care to clue us in as to why you're refering to *yourself* in third person?
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
PS. Perhaps Wolfie and Dr. Bruce could restate some psychological reasons for
such "unusual" behavior
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118111611...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>I think that you don't understand that the meaning of "profit" or
>>even "gross profit" is as simple as you make it out to be.
>
>Considering the *fact* that I'm a professional businessman you assertion is
>_absurd_!!!
Shows that while you may be a professional business man, as am I (whatever
that means), you don't seem to understand what a vague term "profit" is, when
applied to complex business dealings.
>If my analysis is so wrong, why can't you refute it?
I think that it hinges on the meaning of the term "profit", which in the
context of the Forbes article, has many possible meanings. I think you need to
take your reservations with the Forbes article up with Forbes. Unlike them, I
did not write it, and don't know all the details that went into their claims.
>Let's see some of your numbers. I worked out several senerios, and not a
single
>one supported the figures listed in the article. ;-)
I think that several 1000 scenarios, if not an infinite number, that don't
agree with their figures are easy to come up with. Let me fire up my Excel...
;-) It all hinges on assumptions and definitions that are not in evidence in
that piece.
Again, if you want answers about a Forbes article's claims- ask Forbes!
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118112833...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>Kruger writing about *himself*:
>
>>Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not a good
>>value.
>
>Care to clue us in as to why you're refering to *yourself* in third person?
>
Personal whim of the moment, if that is not too hard for you to understand...
I find it so funny that people will beat me up for being too unchanging and
rigid, and then someone will make a mountain out of a molehill like this,
based on a one-liner I created on the whim of the second.
Where do all these Zombies come from? ;-)
Trotsky
>
> Trotsky wrote in message <36A215DC.263FE644
>
> >Zip, I think it is more important to point out that even if you do manage to
> >maintain 50 points on an accessory sale--which in itself is hard to do these
> >days--the gross profit dollars generated by such sales in a small store
> >setting wouldn't even pay the electric bill.
>
> Please show where I commented on the profits of the small stereo stores that
> you are familiar with.
Please clarify your argument, buttmunch. Are you at war with *everyone*
earning a living off of audio accessory sales, or just the manufacturers
themselves? Do you even know what you want to say, or are you merely out for
a morning troll because all the Sony refurb. stores are closed today?
>
> > Arny is such a pea brain that he imagines guys like us lighting up cigars
> with $100 bills because of the
> >mountains of cash we make on these sales.
>
> I think you said you "make nothing". I think that Steve makes a little more
> than that. However, both of you would have to search far and wide to see where
> I claimed that the net profits either of you make are excessive. In your case,
> since you "make nothing", I would obviously not claim that you had any profits
> at all.
Arny, do the DN search to find where I already explained to you that my using
those words was an example of hyperbole. Bringing them up again here means
you are either stupid or trolling--probably both.
>
> > When I asked him to contrast the
> >shitloads of cash Bose Corp. makes selling shitty speakers to unsuspecting
> >consumers Arny's CPU popped a breaker.
>
> Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not a good
> value. Hardly seems like any kind of mental overload...
Can you please explain why you have decided to focus on high end wire
companies as part of your Borg Jihad?
George M. Middius
>Shows that while you may be a professional business man, as am I (whatever
>that means),
In your case, it means ripping off vulnerable buyers with
crappy, outdated computers that you sell at hugely inflated
margins. You attract these muddle-headed idiots by hanging
around a church, pretending to teach Sunday school, and
putting on an act of grossly inflated mourning after your
poor boy died.
BTW, the SimulaBorg is a feeble creation. I recommend
trashing it and starting over.
George M. Middius
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118111611...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>>I think that you don't understand that the meaning of "profit" or
>>>even "gross profit" is as simple as you make it out to be.
I then wrote:
>>Considering the *fact* that I'm a professional businessman
>>you assertion is _absurd_!!!
>Shows that while you may be a professional business man, as am
> I (whatever that means), you don't seem to understand what a
>vague term "profit" is, when applied to complex business dealings.
Interesting claim - show everyone how I'm wrong and you are "right".
Give us some definitions of the phrase "gross profit" as it applies to the sale
of a good at retail with respect to wholesale pricing. We were told the margins
on A/V goods and cable were 30% and 45% respectively. Please feel free to
"enlighten" us. ;-)
>>If my analysis is so wrong, why can't you refute it?
>I think that it hinges on the meaning of the term "profit", which in the
>context of the Forbes article, has many possible meanings.
Like what? Let's have some "meat" and not pure speculation.
You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? ;-)
>I think you need to take your reservations with the Forbes article up
> with Forbes. Unlike them, I did not write it, and don't know all the
>details that went into their claims.
Sorry bunny. You sited the article as proof for your CLAIM that cable is
grossly maked up. Now you shun away from it saying that you don't know all that
went into the piece, meaning that your CLAIM *has* no backup, meaning that you
were either lying or stupidly decieved. Which is it?
>>Let's see some of your numbers. I worked out several senerios, and
>>not a single one supported the figures listed in the article. ;-)
>I think that several 1000 scenarios, if not an infinite number, that don't
>agree with their figures are easy to come up with.
Fine. Stop blowing wind and let's hear some! I'd like to see a model, just like
the one I presented that supports your CLAIM! Why haven't we seen any numbers
from you - we all know how much you just love those. Is it because nothing
rational fits?
>Let me fire up my Excel...
Excel?!? It took me less than 20 minutes to create the model, identify the
constrains, work out afew senerios, in my head, and then check my figures with
a calculator. You've had *days* to refute it; some "businessman" you are!
Incompetence is not an excuse!
>It all hinges on assumptions and definitions that are not in evidence in
>that piece.
I made one assumption - the median price of cable and A/V purchase. Feel free
to use other reasnoble numbers, which I'm sure you've tried - doesn't
work...huh? ;-)
>Again, if you want answers about a Forbes article's claims- ask Forbes!
It was your CLAIM; it's up to *you* to show it to be true! The article was the
only "proof" you had, and it's obviously erronious. I know that to be true from
working in the hi-fi business, and from just *looking* at the numbers. You
just keep backpeddling, hoping I leave this alone.
Prove your CLAIM that cables are a very high margin item or STFU!!!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118112833...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>Kruger writing about *himself*:
>>>Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not
>>>a good value.
>>Care to clue us in as to why you're refering to *yourself* in
>>third person?
>Personal whim of the moment, if that is not too hard for you
> to understand...
My....aren't you a sensetive little fish. ;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Andrew Thibault
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:jDJo2.150$fT5...@news.flash.net...
>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118111611...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>If my analysis is so wrong, why can't you refute it?
>I think that it hinges on the meaning of the term "profit", which in the
>context of the Forbes article, has many possible meanings. I think you need
to
>take your reservations with the Forbes article up with Forbes. Unlike them,
I
>did not write it, and don't know all the details that went into their
claims.
But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims. As Fear3000 has
shown,
the numbers simply don't add up using any of the usual constraints. Either
you can wave your hands about, protesting that you shouldn't have to explain
the
discrepencies in the article between their (Forbes') fantasy and reality, or
you can work out a scenario on your own that fits the numbers given. If you
cannot support
the contentions you made based on the article, then you cannot submit it as
any sort of proof.
>>Let's see some of your numbers. I worked out several senerios, and not a
>>single
>>one supported the figures listed in the article. ;-)
>I think that several 1000 scenarios, if not an infinite number, that don't
>agree with their figures are easy to come up with.
Should be easy to come up with a few, no?
>Again, if you want answers about a Forbes article's claims- ask Forbes!
OK - as long as you don't try to make conclusions from an article you cannot
defend....
>Shows that while you may be a professional business man, as am I (whatever
>that means), you don't seem to understand what a vague term "profit" is,
when
>applied to complex business dealings.
Would you like to tell that to the gentelmen whose companies Fear3000 made
-profitable-?
teebo
****************************************
> who's dick is the biggest,
In particular, mine. I had to restrain my wife to keep her from posting an
opinion.
- Arnii Krooger http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=268728375
George M. Middius
this week.
>Give us some definitions of the phrase "gross profit" as it applies to the sale
>of a good at retail with respect to wholesale pricing.
I'm going to put some bait on this hook for the Krooborg.
Arnii, if you haven't passed out yet from your Monday binge,
here it is: Gross profit is simply the difference between the
retail price and the cost to the retailer of the merchandise.
It differs from net profit, or operating profit, in that the
latter amount also accounts for overhead, labor, fixed
expenses, etc.
Fear, we may have to wait until tomorrow for the Krooborg to
answer the question. Chances are the Kroobitch has brained him
with a frying pan and he's sleeping it off in the garage.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Fear3000
>Fear3000 tries to get the Krooborg to admit its 205th error
>this week.
>>Give us some definitions of the phrase "gross profit" as it applies to
>>the sale of a good at retail with respect to wholesale pricing.
>Fear, we may have to wait until tomorrow for the Krooborg to
>answer the question.
I don't think he will ever answer the question directly; my original post
rebutting his "proof" appeard days ago, and he has yet to address the issue
*he* brought up. Hell probably use a diversion to try to get away from the
fact that *he* posted a link to an article containing some erronious
information, thich *he* used as evidence to back *his* CLAIM [ie. pure
speculation] that cables are a source of tremendous profit for the dealer.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message <36A305FF...@mc.net>...
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>
>> Trotsky wrote in message <36A1DC27...@mc.net>...
>>
>> >No, you imagined the importance of a non-audio related mag. commenting on
>> >audio related issues, to help further your fascist campaign.
>>
>> I think the question at hand was financial. So, you are saying that
reporters
>> from a general-purpose financial magazine is a priori incapable of
reporting
>> on purely financial issues, if that purely financial issue relates to some
>> specialty area? I guess that means that you think that Forbes should stop
>> reporting on technology companies like Intel and Microsoft, etc!
>Well, unlike you, I work in the audio biz, and all I can do is ask you the
>question I've asked thrice before: Bose Corp. makes more money fleecing
people
>with inferior speakers than all the cable manufacturers combined--do you and
>the ghost of Malcolm Forbes have a commentary on *that*?
I've been searching for words to express this thought in that you would
understand, given I think I've already said it 3 times. I think what Bose is
doing is not the great service to their customers that they would like many to
believe.
If you think the Bose selling tactics to the public are bad, you ought to hear
about how they try to sell to large, automotive OEM's...
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118112157...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>>>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990117084047...@ng135.aol.com>...
>>>>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>>>>>I imagined the reputation of Forbes magazine for accurate financial
>>>>>>information. Whoda thunk? ;-)
>
>>>>>I strongly feel that Forbes got a hold of some eronious information as
>>>>>I proved yesterday!
>
>
>>>>What proof?
>
>>>Stop the posturing Arnold. You know very well what I'm talking
>>>about ince you sent me a private e-mail to that effect! ;-)
>
>
>>I think that means I found your alleged proof, based on your
>>rough estimates and speculation, later on.
>
>Oh...is that why you chose not to post it publicly?
Post what? First you say I did wrong by not posting, and then you say I did
wrong by posting! Which is it? (you might want to get a little practice with
looking at time stamps...)
>
>You're acting like a deer that just got cought staring into the headlights of
>an oncomming car; I love to see you make excuses for your own incompetence!
>
>Show me a business model that would follow your logic. Give it a shot!
>I'd love to see it!
Not my job. It would appear to be the job of a certain reporter at Forbes.
Please recount your discussions of your problems with his article with him...
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
<780hr6$252m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:jDJo2.150$fT5...@news.flash.net...
>
>>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118111611...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>
>>>If my analysis is so wrong, why can't you refute it?
>
>>I think that it hinges on the meaning of the term "profit", which in the
>>context of the Forbes article, has many possible meanings. I think you need
>to
>>take your reservations with the Forbes article up with Forbes. Unlike them,
>I
>>did not write it, and don't know all the details that went into their
>claims.
>
>
>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity.
>As Fear3000 has shown,
>the numbers simply don't add up using any of the usual constraints.
I'm ROTFLMAO that you are comparing an article by an authoritative source like
Forbes magazine with the rants of a person who has so much confidence in what
he posts that he posts under an alias.
>Either you can wave your hands about, protesting that you shouldn't have to
explain
>the discrepencies in the article between their (Forbes') fantasy and reality,
or
>you can work out a scenario on your own that fits the numbers given. If you
>cannot support the contentions you made based on the article, then you cannot
submit it as
>any sort of proof.
I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can produce a detailed profit and
loss statement that would provide a valid comparson of the profits associated
with two classes of SKU's based on a few fragmentary numbers in a magazine
article.
Why not present your challenge to someone with a better knowlege of the facts
of the matter than I, like say the guy at Forbes who wrote the article?
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118182726...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>Fear3000 wrote in message <19990118112833...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>>Kruger writing about *himself*:
>
>>>>Arny replied that he thinks that as a rule, Bose speakers are not
>>>>a good value.
>
>>>Care to clue us in as to why you're refering to *yourself* in
>>>third person?
>
>>Personal whim of the moment, if that is not too hard for you
>> to understand...
>
>My....aren't you a sensetive little fish. ;-)
It would appear that you are the one who is making mountains out of
molehills...
Fear3000
>>Andrew Thibault wrote:
>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity
Obviously not since their numbers make no sense what so ever.
>>As Fear3000 has shown,
>>the numbers simply don't add up using any of the usual constraints.
>I'm ROTFLMAO that you are comparing an article by an
>authoritative source like Forbes magazine with the rants of a
>person who has so much confidence in what
>he posts that he posts under an alias.
Roll all you what, but you stlill can't dispute either my logic or the validity
of the constrains of my model. I thought you were "threatened" to plug some
figures into Excel and show how the article is correct? Nothing works, huh?
>I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can produce a detailed profit and
>loss statement that would provide a valid comparson of the
> profits associated with two classes of SKU's based on a few
>fragmentary numbers in a magazine article.
Obviously "Mr. Businessman" you do not know the difference between a P&L and a
business model. It is also obvious that you do not have the skill to analyse
the figures.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
>>Show me a business model that would follow your logic. Give it a shot!
>>I'd love to see it!
>Not my job.
Sure it is! You said that my calculations were flawed - prove it! Why are you
having such a hard time refuting my figures? You keep running away from the
issue: *you* used this article to support you wild CLAIM; without it you have
no proof which makes you a liar. I guess you *have* decided to come "clean".
;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Steve Zipser
> It would appear that you are the one who is making mountains out of
> molehills...
Hmmmmmm? Making mountains out of molehills? That would include anyone
that thought you were anything of importance, or took you seriously in
the world of audio - or computers for that matter ;-)
Cheers
Zip
Fear3000
I'd like to remind Arnold of the exact figures used, in hopes of stimulating
his business "savy".
Arnold CLAIMED that audiophile wire products suffer from an extremely high
dealer mark-up. He sited this article from Forbes magazine as "proof":
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
The crux if the article [which dealt with cable by default, concentrating on
profiling the owner and founder of the firm - Noel Lee] , as it pretains to
Kruger's CLAIM, states:
"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the more visible
audio and video components hover around 30%.
Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster accounts
for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit. "
The figures seemed very "odd" to me, so I constructed a basic model:
Arnold wrote:
>>> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial
>>> magazine, Forbes has to say about this:
>>>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer.
>>>At Ken Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne,
>>> Calif., Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
>>> of gross profit."
I then wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
>From: fear...@aol.com (Fear3000)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
I hope this helps, Arnold ;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Andrew Thibault
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
><780hr6$252m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity.
Apparently not as reliable as you'd like 'em to be...
>>As Fear3000 has shown,
>>the numbers simply don't add up using any of the usual constraints.
Here is Arnii's "Fester Logic":
>I'm ROTFLMAO that you are comparing an article by an authoritative source
>like
>Forbes magazine with the rants of a person who has so much confidence in
>what
>he posts that he posts under an alias.
You can ROTFLYAO all you want, but to come up with
just ONE scenario that would fit the numbers given would
do worlds of good to support your CLAIMS.
Your failure to do this leaves you with two choices:
continue your current tack and look like a know-nothing
or retract the article as evidence to support your claim.
>>Either you can wave your hands about, protesting that you shouldn't have
to
>explain
>>the discrepencies in the article between their (Forbes') fantasy and
reality,
>or
>>you can work out a scenario on your own that fits the numbers given. If
you
>>cannot support the contentions you made based on the article, then you
cannot
>submit it as
>>any sort of proof.
>I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can produce a detailed profit and
>loss statement.....
That's not what's being asked for. All you need to do is create a simple
model. You can do that, right? You've got Excel ;-)
>..... that would provide a valid comparson of the profits associated
>with two classes of SKU's
>based on a few fragmentary numbers in a magazine article.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that the sound of backpedaling? ;-). Sounds like you are saying
that the data in the Forbes article is not reliable....kinda' undermines
your argument, no?
>Why not present your challenge to someone with a better knowlege of the
>facts of the matter than I, like say the guy at Forbes who wrote the
article?
Well, if you didn't know what you were talking about, why didn't you just
say
so. ;-)
teebo
******************************************
trot...@my-dejanews.com
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> Trotsky wrote in message <36A305FF...@mc.net>...
>
> >Well, unlike you, I work in the audio biz, and all I can do is ask you the
> >question I've asked thrice before: Bose Corp. makes more money fleecing
> people
> >with inferior speakers than all the cable manufacturers combined--do you and
> >the ghost of Malcolm Forbes have a commentary on *that*?
>
> I've been searching for words to express this thought in that you would
> understand, given I think I've already said it 3 times. I think what Bose is
> doing is not the great service to their customers that they would like many to
> believe.
>
> If you think the Bose selling tactics to the public are bad, you ought to hear
> about how they try to sell to large, automotive OEM's...
>
>
Arny, there are only two interpretations of your response here: RCP, or being
an asshole, although my opinion is its both. Could you please explain to the
group, now that you have agreed with my premise that the profits of high end
cable manufacturers are completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose,
why you then choose to fixate on the wire biz and the silly Forbes article
anyway? Do you understand the question?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Fear3000
>>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>Andrew Thibault wrote :
>>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>>Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity.
>Apparently not as reliable as you'd like 'em to be...
Even without modeling the problem, and just *looking* at the supplied numbers,
one can see there's something wrong. We have quoted mardins of 30% [a/v] and
45%[cable], yet the cable is responsible for 30% [!!!] of gross profit, while
accounting for only 2%[!!!] of sales volume. C'mon, this is an accessory item!
>come up with
>just ONE scenario that would fit the numbers given would
>do worlds of good to support your CLAIMS.
He can't because there are no reasnoble senerios that would fit the "data" in
the article! If he could, he would have done so, and not ignored my posts
rebutting his CLAIM for days!
>Your failure to do this leaves you with two choices:
>continue your current tack and look like a know-nothing
>or retract the article as evidence to support your claim.
He's too insecure to admit he's wrong, so I'd say the former wins. ;-)
>>I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I can produce a detailed profit and
>>loss statement.....
>That's not what's being asked for. All you need to do is create a simple
>model. You can do that, right? You've got Excel ;-)
Arnold claims to be a businessman, yet he can't even work within the
constraints given in the article he sites as "proof" of his CLAIM! He needs
Excell - for what I don't know - which, if anything, greatly showcases his
inability to collect data within the confines of a relatively abstract
environment, and then create a working business model. First he's an "audio"
engineer [of the usenet variety], now he's a commerce "analyst". What's next:
a dentist?
>>..... that would provide a valid comparson of the profits associated
>>with two classes of SKU's
>>based on a few fragmentary numbers in a magazine article.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is that the sound of backpedaling? ;-).
That's all he's been doing, not able to back his CLAIM!
He's running away like a scared rabbit; he even ignored my calculations for
*days* hoping I'd forget about him - fat chance!
>Sounds like you are saying that the data in the Forbes article is
>not reliable....kinda' undermines your argument, no?
He has *no* argument, just a CLAIM based on hearsay and his own religeous
paranoia - no proof. He's never worked in the audio buisiness, he knows zip
about analyzing operational constrains relative to running a business. He's as
much of a baffoon as Fester; his words are just smaller. ;-)
>Well, if you [Arnold] didn't know what you were talking about,
> why didn't you just say so. ;-)
Because he's pompous enough to talk the talk, but not man enough to walk the
walk. ;-))
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
George M. Middius
>Arny, there are only two interpretations of your response here: RCP, or being
>an asshole, although my opinion is its both. Could you please explain to the
>group, now that you have agreed with my premise that the profits of high end
>cable manufacturers are completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose,
>why you then choose to fixate on the wire biz and the silly Forbes article
>anyway? Do you understand the question?
My theory is that the 'borgs are only interested in being
argumentative and oppositional against the normals. Since the
normals all agree that Bose speakers are crap, there is no
negativity to be harvested from taking the same position.
Normals, however, are open-minded about wire, and that is
wide-open ground for 'borg attacks. Hence They choose to
ignore the Bose question and create strife over wire
questions.
George M. Middius
Fear3000
>why you [Arnold Krufish] then choose to fixate on the wire biz and
> the silly Forbes article anyway?
Greg,
It's obvious that the sales figures in the article are incorrect, yet he's
beeting the cracked drum, because he has *nothing* else to refer to as possible
backing for his absurd CLAIM! He's not even competent enough to audit my model,
yet he claims to be a "businessman". GMAGDFB!
It's also obvious that his aim, like Fester's, is to "save" a soul, much like
the inconsiderate assholes who ring our door bells on Saturday mornings. I keep
thinking that if Arnold was a brighter guy, he'd modify his behavior and try to
sway newbies with kindness and intellect, and not with slanderous inuendo and
token measurments.
Neither he, nor Fester have heard shit, they don't even know what most gear
*looks* like, but that doesn't stop them from making ludecrous generalisations.
It only makes them look more foolish, and their comments worthless.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990119070910...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>>Show me a business model that would follow your logic. Give it a shot!
>>>I'd love to see it!
>
>>Not my job.
>
>Sure it is! You said that my calculations were flawed - prove it!
Showing an alternative calculation, based on speculation, proves nothing. The
problem with your business model is that you claim it is a standard for
comparison, when in fact, it is based on rough estimates and speculation.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990119065851...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>>Andrew Thibault wrote:
>
>>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>
>
>Obviously not since their numbers make no sense what so ever.
What is so tough with the concept of asking the author of the article to
substantiate his claims?
trotsky
Fear3000 wrote:
> >trot...@my-dejanews.com (Greg, is that you?) said:
Yep! My news server was roached, but I had a sick(th) sense that Krufish was going
to say something really stupid, so I went the DN route.
>
>
> >why you [Arnold Krufish] then choose to fixate on the wire biz and
> > the silly Forbes article anyway?
>
> Greg,
> It's obvious that the sales figures in the article are incorrect, yet he's
> beeting the cracked drum, because he has *nothing* else to refer to as possible
> backing for his absurd CLAIM! He's not even competent enough to audit my model,
> yet he claims to be a "businessman". GMAGDFB!
Even if the sales figures were correct (and a publication like Forbes has NO excuse
for publishing figures that haven't been checked and rechecked), Arny still hasn't
the guts to come up with a decent lie as to why he has fixated on the cable biz.
To say Forbes has credibility discussing audio issues is phucked, as well.
>
>
> It's also obvious that his aim, like Fester's, is to "save" a soul, much like
> the inconsiderate assholes who ring our door bells on Saturday mornings. I keep
> thinking that if Arnold was a brighter guy, he'd modify his behavior and try to
> sway newbies with kindness and intellect, and not with slanderous inuendo and
> token measurments.
You are unequivocally correct, it *is* a holy war to them. If we are to
differentiate between the two, though, Fester is the madman in the pulpit looking
for souls to save, and Krugles is the guy 'bent out of shape by society's pliers,
trying to drag everyone in the hole that he's in', to paraphrase Dylan in "It's
Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding."
>
>
> Neither he, nor Fester have heard shit, they don't even know what most gear
> *looks* like, but that doesn't stop them from making ludecrous generalisations.
> It only makes them look more foolish, and their comments worthless.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Fear3000
Those dudes sure don't get out much, despite their 'extensive' industry contacts.
(Note to Kruger--having a bunch of Potter and Brumfield relays does *not* mean you
have a lot of industry contacts.) To hear those prick-fors talking about
turntables is proof alone there is no God.
trot...@my-dejanews.com
Agreed.
P.S. My news server still isn't retrieving all the messages properly--who
knew that Yorx made main frames?
Arny Krüger
trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <782dcu$760$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <zYZo2.8$yq1...@news.flash.net>,
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> Trotsky wrote in message <36A305FF...@mc.net>...
>>
>> >Well, unlike you, I work in the audio biz, and all I can do is ask you the
>> >question I've asked thrice before: Bose Corp. makes more money fleecing
>> people
>> >with inferior speakers than all the cable manufacturers combined--do you
and
>> >the ghost of Malcolm Forbes have a commentary on *that*?
>>
>> I've been searching for words to express this thought in that you would
>> understand, given I think I've already said it 3 times. I think what Bose
is
>> doing is not the great service to their customers that they would like many
to
>> believe.
>>
>> If you think the Bose selling tactics to the public are bad, you ought to
hear
>> about how they try to sell to large, automotive OEM's...
>>
>>
>
>
>
>an asshole, although my opinion is its both. Could you please explain to the
>group, now that you have agreed with my premise that the profits of high end
>cable manufacturers are completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose,
>why you then choose to fixate on the wire biz and the silly Forbes article
>anyway? Do you understand the question?
>
I have not agreed that "the profits of high end cable manufacturers are
completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose". I see no reliable
evidence that is the case.
However, letsee what we can do with numbers in evidence:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm says:
"Lee, a short, crisp 50-year-old with a mechanical engineering degree from
California Polytechnic State University, started this firm in 1977. He's since
built it to expected sales of $90 million for 1998, more volume than almost
all of Monster's competitors combined. Lee probably nets 10% pretax."
This puts Lee's personal takings at $9 million per year.
This suggests that the high end cable market has sales of about $200 million.
Now, what about Bose?
http://www.hoovers.com/capsules/40673.html suggests that it is 1998 Sales
(mil.): $850.0 (est.)
1-Yr. Sales Growth: 13.3% (est.)
Bose is on Forbes list of the 400 richest americans. However, he's been making
money a lot longer than Noel Lee. See October 12, 1998, issue of Forbes for
more information.
My conclusion: evidence at hand is inconclusive.
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote:
>>>>Show me a business model that would follow your logic. Give
>>>>it a shot!
>>>>I'd love to see it!
>>>Not my job.
>>Sure it is! You said that my calculations were flawed - prove it!
Now Arnold says:
>Showing an alternative calculation, based on speculation, proves nothing.
Nothing other ther than possibly showing that the figures provided by you in
support of you wild CLAIM can not work in a given context. First you told me
that I did not understand the term "gross profit". When I asked you to correct
me - you ran away. Then you said that there could be 1000 ways to look at the
supplied numbers. I asked you to show me even a *single* alternate senerio,
but.....you ran away again! Now you tell me it's speculation.
How is that exactly? Show me the flaws in my logic, genius! It's obvious that
you can't, but you're not man enough to admit that you are wrong, and that your
CLAIM is in reality just an OPINION, and an illfounded one at that.
>The problem with your business model is that you claim it is a standard
> for comparison
The standard for comparison is my experience in the hi-fi business. That's what
makes me absolutely positive of my CLAIM, which I can and have proved.
>it is based on rough estimates and speculation.
Wrong! The only speculation is in the body of the article which you repeatedly
quote as "Gospel". I made *one* assumption - the median prices of the goods in
question - feel free to use other reasnoble numbers! I'm sure you've tried, but
things still don't add up. Well....that's what happends when *you* talk out of
your ass, Arnold baby.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote:
>>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>>>Andrew Thibault wrote:
>>>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>>>Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity
>>Obviously not since their numbers make no sense what so ever.
>What is so tough with the concept of asking the author of the article to
>substantiate his claims?
YOU were the one that made the CLAIM that dealers make an unusually high profit
on cables. When I told you that was not so, you wipped out this article, as you
always do, as proof positive of your "righteousness". The burdain of proof is
on you, not the author. He did not post that bullshit on RAO, YOU did!!!
Since we know now that the figures stated in Forbes at at the very least
"inconclusive" [I'm trying to be kind]. Do you have any other proof for your
CLAIM about the profit on audiophile cables? I suspect that you do not; you're
not one to hold things back ;-). I hope you understand that this is the reason
why you're looking more like a lying coward than usual. ;-)
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
> Glan...@ipo.net (George M. Middius) wrote:
?
>>
>> My theory is that the 'borgs are only interested in being
>> argumentative and oppositional against the normals.
It's like there is no real disagreement over the basic issues between these
two groups? ROTF!
>> Since the
>> normals all agree that Bose speakers are crap, there is no
>> negativity to be harvested from taking the same position.
There is plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a Midbot clone to have
problems with Bose. However, there are some Bose supporters among those who
disagree with the Midbot most of the time.
Diversity is not a strong point among the Midbot clones. They walk in
lock-step. Their opinions are very similar, and lack correlation with the real
world.
There is diversity on the Bose issue among those who oppose the group-thought
of the "Normals". Comes from being real, thinking human beings, I guess.
>> Normals, however, are open-minded about wire,
Umm, you call knee-jerk "I want it, I want it, gimme more wire" being open
minded? Just because you are open minded does not mean that your head has to
be a vacuum.
>> and that is wide-open ground for 'borg attacks.
The "Normals" Lack of thought and understanding of relevant technical issues
makes them an easy target. You can hear them constantly grunting "I hear
differences, I hear differences, I hear differences". They live to hear
differences, I guess. Music only exists to allow them to hear differences
among equipment, I guess. Screw sitting down and turning on your stereo to
listen to music. Obsess over subtle differences that are probably imagninary!
Got to hear differences among equipment! Hey, whatever winds your clock,
Goerge!
>> Hence They choose to
>> ignore the Bose question and create strife over wire
>> questions.
Yet another figment of the Midbot mind. Go back to your green pen collection,
George, and "fix" some more of your CD's. If you keep hassling the people that
Zip doesn't like, maybe he'll give you a deal on your next Harmon Kardon
integrated amplifier...
Gruvmyster
> Trotsky wrote:
> >Well, unlike you, I work in the audio biz,
(Unlike *you* I used to...)
> >and all I can do is ask you the question I've asked thrice before: Bose Corp.
> makes more money fleecing people with inferior speakers than all the cable
> manufacturers combined--do you and
> >the ghost of Malcolm Forbes have a commentary on *that*?
> I've been searching for words to express this thought in that you would
> understand, given I think I've already said it 3 times. I think what Bose is
> doing is not the great service to their customers that they would like many to
> believe.
> If you think the Bose selling tactics to the public are bad, you ought to hear
> about how they try to sell to large, automotive OEM's...
Not to mention that most Bose speakers are sold by salespeople, who probably only
have the customer's best interests (and the SPIF check) in mind...
Funny Singh would've missed that one...:-)
Doug
--
"There are some people that if they
don't know, you can't tell 'em"-- Louis Armstrong
Fear3000
>However, letsee what we can do with numbers in evidence:
>http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm says:
>"Lee, a short, crisp 50-year-old with a mechanical engineering
>degree from California Polytechnic State University, started this firm
>in 1977. He's since built it to expected sales of $90 million for 1998,
>more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined.
>Lee probably nets 10% pretax."
>This puts Lee's personal takings at $9 million per year.
>This suggests that the high end cable market has sales of about
>$200 million.
Oh...I see. You seem to have no problem costructing a model of total cable
sales, by all manufacturers based on a *single* figure, but you accuse me of
dealing with speculation....all in the same day!!! Sheesh! What a two-faced
creep you are: how can you look at yourself in the mirror?
The simple truth is that you're a sniveling crybaby, lacking the maturity to
admit that your CLAIM relating to cable profits has zero proof and foundation.
Just keep insisting that you're an idiot, and I'll be right there to re-enforce
that notion - ask Fester! ;-)
Please show your constraints, assumptions and calculations you used relative to
you CLAIMING that total high end cable sales are ~$200M. It's amazing that you
can present such an absurd CLAIM evidenced by you using the figure for Monster
sales as a base nimber with no other stats in sight!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Stewart Pinkerton
Hmmmmmmmm. Which part of "expected sales of $90 million for 1998,
more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined" did you
fail to understand when claiming that a $200 million total cable sales
figure estimate had no statistical basis?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Trevor Wilson
George M. Middius wrote in message <36a9c36e...@news.supernews.com>...
>My theory is that the 'borgs are only interested in being
>argumentative and oppositional against the normals. Since the
>normals all agree that Bose speakers are crap, there is no
>negativity to be harvested from taking the same position.
>Normals, however, are open-minded about wire, and that is
>wide-open ground for 'borg attacks. Hence They choose to
>ignore the Bose question and create strife over wire
>questions.
>
>George M. Middius
**Interesting thoughts, George. It has always made me wonder why the borg
never challenge Bose devotees about their product. I am confident that few
(borg) would own them.
BTW: I think that borg is the plural of borg.
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Trotsky
>
> trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <782dcu$760$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >an asshole, although my opinion is its both. Could you please explain to the
> >group, now that you have agreed with my premise that the profits of high end
> >cable manufacturers are completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose,
> >why you then choose to fixate on the wire biz and the silly Forbes article
> >anyway? Do you understand the question?
> >
>
> I have not agreed that "the profits of high end cable manufacturers are
> completely innocuous compared to those of Dr. Bose". I see no reliable
> evidence that is the case.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm says:
>
> "Lee, a short, crisp 50-year-old with a mechanical engineering degree from
> California Polytechnic State University, started this firm in 1977. He's since
> built it to expected sales of $90 million for 1998, more volume than almost
> all of Monster's competitors combined. Lee probably nets 10% pretax."
>
> This puts Lee's personal takings at $9 million per year.
>
> This suggests that the high end cable market has sales of about $200 million.
>
>
> http://www.hoovers.com/capsules/40673.html suggests that it is 1998 Sales
> (mil.): $850.0 (est.)
> 1-Yr. Sales Growth: 13.3% (est.)
>
> Bose is on Forbes list of the 400 richest americans. However, he's been making
> money a lot longer than Noel Lee. See October 12, 1998, issue of Forbes for
> more information.
>
> My conclusion: evidence at hand is inconclusive.
Yeah, that's what Clinton is saying, too. In point of fact, you have
completely validated my position. If Monster's sales for '98 was 90 million,
then the '98 sales for all "high end" wire manufacturers combined--Nordost,
XLO, Audioquest, Straightwire, MIT, etc.--would be *at best* 200 million. We
can say $250 million just to estimate on the high side. Thus Bose Corp. makes
more than HALF A BILLION DOLLARS (as Dr. Evil might say) more than the wire
companies you say are fleecing the poor stupid clueless audio customers.
Sounds like you might want to get your Best Buy ass in the chair and start
typing an explanation of what your supposed position is.
Trotsky
Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > Glan...@ipo.net (George M. Middius) wrote:
> ?
> >>
> >> My theory is that the 'borgs are only interested in being
> >> argumentative and oppositional against the normals.
>
> It's like there is no real disagreement over the basic issues between these
> two groups? ROTF!
Blind dismissal of a valid observation.
>
> >> Since the
> >> normals all agree that Bose speakers are crap, there is no
> >> negativity to be harvested from taking the same position.
>
> There is plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a Midbot clone to have
> problems with Bose. However, there are some Bose supporters among those who
> disagree with the Midbot most of the time.
George used no specific name-calling in his post--not so with Arny.
>
> Diversity is not a strong point among the Midbot clones. They walk in
> lock-step. Their opinions are very similar, and lack correlation with the real
> world.
>
> There is diversity on the Bose issue among those who oppose the group-thought
> of the "Normals". Comes from being real, thinking human beings, I guess.
Garbled, incomprehensible "thoughts" spewed onto Usenet.
>
> >> Normals, however, are open-minded about wire,
>
> Umm, you call knee-jerk "I want it, I want it, gimme more wire" being open
> minded? Just because you are open minded does not mean that your head has to
> be a vacuum.
Incomprehensible and mean-spirited simultaneously--quite an accomplishment.
>
> >> and that is wide-open ground for 'borg attacks.
>
> The "Normals" Lack of thought and understanding of relevant technical issues
> makes them an easy target. You can hear them constantly grunting "I hear
> differences, I hear differences, I hear differences". They live to hear
> differences, I guess. Music only exists to allow them to hear differences
> among equipment, I guess. Screw sitting down and turning on your stereo to
> listen to music. Obsess over subtle differences that are probably imagninary!
> Got to hear differences among equipment! Hey, whatever winds your clock,
> Goerge!
Random capitalization--a sign of illiteracy. Blatant diatribes that scream "I
don't get it!" over and over. Comic book style use of exclamation points!
>
> >> Hence They choose to
> >> ignore the Bose question and create strife over wire
> >> questions.
>
> Yet another figment of the Midbot mind. Go back to your green pen collection,
> George, and "fix" some more of your CD's. If you keep hassling the people that
> Zip doesn't like, maybe he'll give you a deal on your next Harmon Kardon
> integrated amplifier...
More blatant insults, merely indicating George has nailed his weak position to
a cross, where it belongs.
Trotsky
What did I miss, Bootsy? Are you claiming that audio salesmen with extensive
knowledge of the industry like Zip and me are the same as your average Bose
salesman? How thick is the bullshit going to get for your trolls? Do you
EVER have anything substantive to add to the discussion? You're
worthless--sorry to sound so much like your drill sergeant.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990119232116...@ng17.aol.com>...
>>>>>it a shot!
>>>>>I'd love to see it!
>
>>>>Not my job.
>
>>>Sure it is! You said that my calculations were flawed - prove it!
>
>Now Arnold says:
>
>>Showing an alternative calculation, based on speculation, proves nothing.
>
>Nothing other ther than possibly showing that the figures provided by you in
>support of you wild CLAIM can not work in a given context.
I am not the original provider of the figures at
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm . I believe that person's
name is Robert La Franco. You can contact him at
http://www.forbes.com/contact/ .
>First you told me that I did not understand the term "gross profit".
No, I said that term has many meanings, and that an accountant could advise
you of them better than I.
>When I asked you to correct me - you ran away.
No, I sent you to the horse's mouth. Been there yet?
>Then you said that there could be 1000 ways to look at the supplied numbers.
Prove me wrong.
>I asked you to show me even a *single* alternate senerio,
>but.....you ran away again! Now you tell me it's speculation.
No, I said that while it would be easy to provide alternative scenarios, since
they would all be based on speculation, it seems like it would be a waste of
time.
>How is that exactly? Show me the flaws in my logic, genius!
Your first logical flaw is that you think you can do practical dollars and
cents accounting based on fragmentary numbers from a magazine article on a
different topic.
Your second logical flaw is that you decline to work with the author of a
document you are criticizing.
Hihs name is Robert La Franco. My name is Arnold B. Krueger. Your name is
unknown. Here, "unknown", meet Robert La Franco, the guy with more answers
than me!
>It's obvious that you can't,
Not with any meaningful degree of reliability.
>but you're not man enough to admit that you are wrong, and that your >CLAIM
is in reality just an OPINION, and an illfounded one at that.
My claim is that there is a magazine article By Robert La Franco at
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm that says:
"(Monster Cable) Founder, chairman and sole owner Noel Lee even lets the star
salespeople zoom around in his 13 sports cars, including a $200,000 Ferrari.
Lee needs good salespeople because his product requires lots and lots of
selling."
"Buy a $400 stereo from the Good Guys in California and chances are you'll
also walk out with $50 worth of Monster cables. Buy a $1,000 Marantz amplifier
from Ken Crane's Home Entertainment in California and you'll get sold on a
$100 connecting cable."
"Salespeople get fancy trips. Store owners get fancy markups. Most of the
customers, after all, come to the store armed with competing price quotes on
the CD changers and the amplifiers. The wires, in contrast, are an
afterthought and don't have to be competitively priced. Monster's cables
typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the more visible audio and video
components hover around 30%."
"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster accounts
for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
Please prove that my claim is not accurate.
>>The problem with your business model is that you claim it is a standard
>> for comparison
>
>The standard for comparison is my experience in the hi-fi business. That's
what
>makes me absolutely positive of my CLAIM, which I can and have proved.
Then prove it to someone who matters, like say Robert La Franco's boss.
>>it is based on rough estimates and speculation.
>
>Wrong! The only speculation is in the body of the article which you
repeatedly
>quote as "Gospel". I made *one* assumption - the median prices of the goods
in
>question - feel free to use other reasnoble numbers! I'm sure you've tried,
but
>things still don't add up. Well....that's what happends when *you* talk out
of
>your ass, Arnold baby.
Actually, the probable source of the claim about Ken Crane's profit is, unhh,
Ken Crane? ;-)
you know Ken, right, you are both in the same business, right? ;-)
So why not just phone up Ken Crane and get the straight dope from him??
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990119233243...@ng17.aol.com>...
>
>>>>>Andrew Thibault wrote:
>
>>>>>But you use the Forbes article to sustantiate your claims.
>
>>>>Because they are a reliable source, a known quantity
>
>>>Obviously not since their numbers make no sense what so ever.
>
>>What is so tough with the concept of asking the author of the article to
>>substantiate his claims?
>
>YOU were the one that made the CLAIM that dealers make an unusually high
profit
>on cables.
Really. Wanna quote me?
>When I told you that was not so, you wipped out this article, as you
>always do, as proof positive of your "righteousness". The burdain of proof is
>on you, not the author.
Good thing you are not a lawyer... The burden of proof of a document like the
Forbes article posted at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
would be, err, uhhh, (this is a really tricky point of law, folks!) Forbes?
>He did not post that bullshit on RAO, YOU did!!!
Prove that it is BS - prove it to the author or his boss, and I'll salute you!
Or, just have your good friend Ken Crane pop in and support your claims... ;-)
Arny Krüger
Roland Mabo wrote in message <36A23C39...@algonet.se>...
>ale...@yahoo.com skrev:
>>
>> In article <369F79B4...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com>,
>> Steve <sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> > I am just wondering what is to be considered 'good' speaker cable? With
>> > my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
>> > solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
>> > which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
>> > speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
>>
>> Its easy to spot a difference when you KNOW which cable is being used. The
>> trick is do spot a difference when you DON'T know which is being used. I
>> doubt you or anyone could tell the difference if you didn't know what cable
>> was plugged in.
>
>I've been astonished many times by the fact that the differencies
>between speaker cables actually can be so big. I recently switched
>speakers from Dali 104 to Audio Pro A2.42 Live. I had them connected
>with AudioQuest F14 cable. This solid core worked very well with the
>Dali's. Having a fast, tight and responsive sound character.
>They replaced Dali's own multistrand cable, giving an openess to the
>sound. Since the Dali's had a strong bass that needed much control, the
>lean bass of the F14 matched them perfectly.
>
>With the Audio Pro A2.42, this tightness turned to an upfront and bright
>presentation with weak, if still very tight, bass. It was time for a
>change. Tara Labs Omi was the solution. They added bass weight and also
>a pleasing warmth to the upper bass/lower midband, while keeping the
>high frequency detail.
>
>My wife, who previously was rather sceptical about the idea that cables
>can tune
>the sound, could also hear the same differencies as I could, when I
>switched the cables back and forth.
Ah, now that is solid proof if I ever saw it.
Proof of what, you ask?
Proof of ignorance of even the basics of experimental design.... ;-)
Arny Krüger
ale...@yahoo.com wrote in message <77r2rd$5nc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <369F79B4...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com>,
> Steve <sfy...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> I am just wondering what is to be considered 'good' speaker cable? With
>> my recent speaker purchase the salesman sold me some Audioquest F14
>> solid core speaker wire. Prior to this I was using 12ga stranded wire,
>> which he showed me a comparison between the two wires using the same
>> speakers, I could actually hear the difference.
>
>Its easy to spot a difference when you KNOW which cable is being used. The
>trick is do spot a difference when you DON'T know which is being used. I
>doubt you or anyone could tell the difference if you didn't know what cable
>was plugged in.
Ask Greg Singh and Steve Zipser about how "obvious differences" become very
hard to hear when they can't see what is playing...
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990119083853...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>
>I'd like to remind Arnold of the exact figures used, in hopes of stimulating
>his business "savy".
>
>Arnold CLAIMED that audiophile wire products suffer from an extremely high
>dealer mark-up.
Nope.
>He sited this article from Forbes magazine as "proof":
That's "cited", right? (I mean it is at Forbes magazines web site, so it is
sited, too...) ;-)
>http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
Rodger, dodger, Mr. Paranoia... ;-)
>The crux if the article [which dealt with cable by default, concentrating on
>profiling the owner and founder of the firm - Noel Lee] , as it pretains to
>Kruger's CLAIM, states:
>
>"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the more visible
>audio and video components hover around 30%.
OK, that is in the article.
>Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
>Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster accounts
>for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit. "
OK, that is in the artcle, too.
>The figures seemed very "odd" to me, so I constructed a basic model:
Out of whole cloth, a grossly simplified profit model, and speculative
numbers.
>Arnold wrote:
>
>>>> Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial
>>>> magazine, Forbes has to say about this:
>
>>>>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer.
>>>>At Ken Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne,
>>>> Calif., Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
>>>> of gross profit."
>
>I then wrote:
>
>The very same article also said:
>
>"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the
>more visible audio and video components hover around 30%. "
>
I don't bother to check speculative numbers from a person whose basic
existance is even more speculation.
I need to get a cup of coffee and pee. Bye!
BTW, the article mentions one Ken Crane, a HiFi shop owner as the source of
some of these numbers. The article was written by Robert La Franco. Has our
good buddy here reviewed the matter with the people who made the claims and
presumably provided the numbers? Nooooooo!
I hereby claim that I'm not Robert La Franco, Ken Crane, Noel Lee or the
accountant for any of the above. They would know the facts, not me, and not
"Fear3000", whoever he is (unless he is secretly Robert La Franco, Ken Crane,
or Noel Lee)
But "Fear3000" says he is in the business, so maybe he knows Ken Crane or Noel
Lee.
I know someone who knows Noel Lee, but I would not presume upon that
friendship...
Does "Fear3000" even know someone who knows Noel Lee...? ;-)
How would we know he's not lying?
We wouldn't. We don't even know who "Fear3000" is....
Arny Krüger
PHil908256 wrote in message <19990116225449...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>A cable I personally like and recommend is
>Kimber Kable 4TC or 4VS.. They have one of the lowest Inductance geometries
in
>the industry.
>Inductance is one of your bigger enemys of the ampspeaker interface.
Actually, inductance is the friend of just about any power amp. Capacitance is
more like an enemy.
Know the difference beween inductance and capacitance?
Gruvmyster
> fear...@aol.com (Fear3000) writes:
> >Please show your constraints, assumptions and calculations you used relative to
> >you CLAIMING that total high end cable sales are ~$200M. It's amazing that you
> >can present such an absurd CLAIM evidenced by you using the figure for Monster
> >sales as a base nimber with no other stats in sight!
> Hmmmmmmmm. Which part of "expected sales of $90 million for 1998,
> more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined" did you
> fail to understand when claiming that a $200 million total cable sales
> figure estimate had no statistical basis?
Do not argue with Fear. He has friends. He is a genius.
Hell, *I* even got that one. I'm very stupid. I know because "They";-) tell me all
the time.:-)
Gruvmyster
> **Interesting thoughts, George.
Bwaqhahahaha!
> It has always made me wonder why the borg
> never challenge Bose devotees about their product.
How often would you write "they suck"?
> I am confident that few (borg) would own them.
I know if at least one...
> BTW: I think that borg is the plural of borg.
Who cares? I think the plural of the Middiot is still the Middiot.
Fear3000
>>>Fear3000 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Show me a business model that would follow
>>>>>> your logic. Give it a shot!
>>>>>>I'd love to see it!
Krufish says after using the said piece as "evidence":
>>>>>Not my job.
>>>>Sure it is! You said that my calculations were
>>>> flawed - prove it!
>>Now Arnold says:
>>>Showing an alternative calculation, based
>>> on speculation, proves nothing.
I then said:
>>Nothing other ther than possibly showing that
>>the figures provided by you in support of you
>>wild CLAIM can not work in a given context.
Now the Krufish is backpeddling as fast as he possibly can:
>I am not the original provider of the figures
You ARE relative to this forum, and that's what counts on RAO!
>>First you told me that I did not understand the
>> term "gross profit".
>No, I said that term has many meanings
OK...let's hear some of the alternatives, MR. "Businessman" ;-)
>and that an accountant could advise
>you of them better than I.
1. YOU made this CLAIM; YOU back it.You're even welcome to consult a real
businessman and post some of the "many meanings" of Gross Profit in a retail
environment.
2. I'm very well educated in accounting and business management, along with
having setup accounting process systems on the retail level - unlike your
ignorant ass, I do not need to consult anyone on this matter.
>>When I asked you to correct me - you ran away.
>No, I sent you to the horse's mouth.
You are the "horse's mouth"; you posted it as proof. Your failure to back your
CLAIM coupled with blatantly obvious diversionary tactics is the definition of
"running away", hypoctite!
>>Then you said that there could be 1000 ways to look
>>at the supplied numbers.
>Prove me wrong.
You're running away from the issue again, chickenshit. You made the CLAIM of
"1000 ways", but you can't even come up with *one*. How about either retracting
the bullshit or providing some (any) examples? ;-)
>>I asked you to show me even a *single* alternate senerio,
>>but.....you ran away again! Now you tell me
>>it's speculation.
>No, I said that while it would be easy to
>provide alternative scenarios, since they would all
>be based on speculation, it seems like it would be a
> waste of time.
Since it's so "easy", how much time could it take? You told me 2 days ago that
you were going to fire up Excel [lol] and crunch some numbers; what happend?
Nothing worked? Or do you lack the competence to construct a set of relevant
constraints?
>> Show me the flaws in my logic, genius!
>Your first logical flaw is that you think you can
>do practical dollars and cents accounting based
>on fragmentary numbers from a magazine article on a
>different topic.
Obviously I can. You, or any of the other "borg" have yet to dispute my model.
Why don't you show me exactly where my figures or my pocess is flawed?
>Your second logical flaw is that you decline to work
> with the author of a document you are criticizing.
Wrong again my fine feathered "friend". The piece I'm criticizing is YOUR post
to RAO. So far the author [you] has done nothing but deflect the issue and
obfuscate the facts relative to his [your] CLAIM [you know...the one you
*can't* prove].
>>It's obvious that you can't, [dispute me]
>Not with any meaningful degree of reliability.
Thanks for admitting that you just lost. That's *twice* in two days, in the
*same* thread. Not to bright, are you?
Try it anyway coward; let's see a model - I'm curious to examine your "logic"
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
< a repeat post snipped>
Krufish,
Since you responded identicly to my last post, you can read my respective
reply. It's a sorry sight to see a "man" have so few ideas, that he can't even
vary his comments [a la Fester]. ;-)
The main point is still on the table. You CLAIMED that cable is a very high
profit item, and have yet to prove it., making you a lying windbag!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Fear3000
<re-post of my model snipped in hopes of saving bandwidth]>
>I don't bother to check speculative numbers from a
> person whose basic
>existance is even more speculation.
OK, I'll bite. Which figures are "speculative"? The *only* assumtions made
dealt with the median prices of cables and a/v gear - feel free to suggest
other figures.
Why haven't you done so? Is it because any reasnable numbers do not fit the
figures stated?
>I need to get a cup of coffee and pee
WTF does this mean? Does it make sense to you?
Obviously you are not able to challange my model, so you're resorting to baby
talk.
>Bye!
Keep running sissy, maybe you'll run into Fester. :-))
I'm not done with you yet! So far I've fried you thrice in three weeks, and
there's more to come! :-(
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
>But "Fear3000" says he is in the business, so maybe
> he knows Ken Crane or Noel Lee.
For the record: I did work in the business, unlike the Krufish, but I do not
any more; I left about 18 mths ago.
I met Noel Lee once at a show [*very* briefly], and I've never heard of Ken
Crane before you used the article mentioning his name as proof for your CLAIM
>How would we know he's not lying?
>We wouldn't. We don't even know who "Fear3000" is....
My identity has *nothing* to do with YOUR CLAIM.
PROVE it of STFU!!!
Fear3000
>
>> fear...@aol.com (Fear3000) writes:
>
>>>Please show your constraints, assumptions
>> and calculations you used relative to you
>>CLAIMING that total high end cable sales
>>are ~$200M. It's amazing that you can present such
>>an absurd CLAIM evidenced by you using the
>>figure forMonster >sales as a base nimber with no
>>other stats in sight!
[My comment was addressed to the Krufish who seems to have problems rebutting
my model, calling it "speculation, yet *he* posted this drivel based on a
*single* constraint!!!]
Stewart sticks his nose between the hinges:
>> Hmmmmmmmm. Which part of "expected sales of
>> $90 million for 1998, more volume than almost all
>>of Monster's competitors combined" did you fail
>>to understand when claiming that a $200 million
>>total cable sales figure estimate had no statistical basis?
1."... more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined" Does this
mean the the aggregate earnings of Monster's competitors are $20M or $89M;
there's no way to make a "workable" assumtion.
2.What does "almost" mean? What company has greater earnings than MC in
*consumer* cable-accessory sales?
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Talk about speculation! It's interesting that Krufish can post a half assed
"analysis", but lacks the intellect to tackle a well thought out model which is
based on more than *one* constrain. ;-)
Fear3000
>I'm very stupid.
Nice to see an individual realize his limitations.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Trotsky
>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > fear...@aol.com (Fear3000) writes:
>
> > >Please show your constraints, assumptions and calculations you used relative to
> > >you CLAIMING that total high end cable sales are ~$200M. It's amazing that you
> > >can present such an absurd CLAIM evidenced by you using the figure for Monster
> > >sales as a base nimber with no other stats in sight!
>
> > more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined" did you
> > fail to understand when claiming that a $200 million total cable sales
> > figure estimate had no statistical basis?
>
>
> Hell, *I* even got that one. I'm very stupid. I know because "They";-) tell me all
> the time.:-)
>
Geez, Bootsy, even your sarcasm effing sucks.
Michael Mulvaney
Earlier, Fear3000 <fear...@aol.com> wrote:
>1. YOU made this CLAIM; YOU back it.You're even welcome to consult a real
>businessman and post some of the "many meanings" of Gross Profit in a retail
>environment.
Actually, forbes made the claim.
>2. I'm very well educated in accounting and business management, along with
>having setup accounting process systems on the retail level - unlike your
>ignorant ass, I do not need to consult anyone on this matter.
I think you are misreading the article. First it give some industry
average markups for cables and components, and then it lists Ken
Cranes relative profits for those two items. It doesn't mention
whether or not Ken Crane's follows the industry averages or not.
>You are the "horse's mouth"; you posted it as proof. Your failure to back your
>CLAIM coupled with blatantly obvious diversionary tactics is the definition of
>"running away", hypoctite!
Um, no, the horse's mouth is either Forbes or Ken Crane's. the
article does not offer enough evidence to ascertain the validity of
the numbers.
>Obviously I can. You, or any of the other "borg" have yet to dispute my model.
>Why don't you show me exactly where my figures or my pocess is flawed?
Your model is based on the assumption that Ken Cranes uses the industry
standard mark-ups, a fact that is NOT claimed in the article.
>Wrong again my fine feathered "friend". The piece I'm criticizing is YOUR post
>to RAO. So far the author [you] has done nothing but deflect the issue and
>obfuscate the facts relative to his [your] CLAIM [you know...the one you
>*can't* prove].
That doesn't make any sense at all. Arny did prove his claim: its on
the Forbes web site. All your calculations can't take that away.
--
Michael Mulvaney
Stewart Pinkerton
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>
>>> fear...@aol.com (Fear3000) writes:
>>
>>>>Please show your constraints, assumptions
>>> and calculations you used relative to you
>>>CLAIMING that total high end cable sales
>>>are ~$200M. It's amazing that you can present such
>>>an absurd CLAIM evidenced by you using the
>>>figure forMonster >sales as a base nimber with no
>>>other stats in sight!
>
>[My comment was addressed to the Krufish who seems to have problems rebutting
>my model, calling it "speculation, yet *he* posted this drivel based on a
>*single* constraint!!!]
>
>Stewart sticks his nose between the hinges:
>
>>> Hmmmmmmmm. Which part of "expected sales of
>>> $90 million for 1998, more volume than almost all
>>>of Monster's competitors combined" did you fail
>>>to understand when claiming that a $200 million
>>>total cable sales figure estimate had no statistical basis?
>
>1."... more volume than almost all of Monster's competitors combined" Does this
>mean the the aggregate earnings of Monster's competitors are $20M or $89M;
>there's no way to make a "workable" assumtion.
Of course there is! More volume than *almost* all competitors
combined, means *less* volume than *all* competitors combined, hence
the total market is somewhat more than twice Monster's figure. QED.
>2.What does "almost" mean? What company has greater earnings than MC in
>*consumer* cable-accessory sales?
Almost all means less than all.
Stewart Pinkerton
>>From: Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net>
>
>>I'm very stupid.
>
>Nice to see an individual realize his limitations.
Shame that so many others don't..............
George M. Middius
>BTW: I think that borg is the plural of borg.
Only on Star Trek, where it is a collective proper noun -- "she
is Borg" or "we are Borg". On RAO, the Audio 'Borgs are merely
cyborgs of an assimilative nature, but obviously not nearly as
advanced as the Star Trek Borg. For one thing, the Borg have
superior technology. For another, they sublimate their egos
totally (except for the Hive Queen, as seen in "First Contact").
If those two characteristics don't demarcate a clear distinction,
then perhaps everything *is* all the same.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply