Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:55, 1 September 2013

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Corporate Tax Haven

There have been a few mentions in the article about Monster Cable's corporate filing being off-shore. This has been expanded on to note the discussion and link to Monster's current corporate filings.

Founded Date?

What year was this company founded? The infobox states 1979, but the actual article states 1978.

Monster Cable was founded in 1978 and the page should be updated to reflect this. TedAtM (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Construction Quality

While it may be true that when it comes to the copper, a cable is a cable, why aren't there any points/counterpoints with regards to the build quality of Monster Cables? I find that the Turbine Connectors, for example, do make a difference...as does the braiding on the higher-end cables (not even cats can chew through it), and the balanced construction and dedicated shielding layers. What I do NOT buy into is the 'direction' of the cables...since when are cables directional? It'd be great if this article was fleshed out properly with more details about this... --75.176.185.207 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias? (Formerly no headline)

Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge bias in this article? Where's the bit about how Monster Cables are extremely overpriced, and in some cases, especially with digital optical cables (a poor cable won't cause a 2 to be placed in a stream of 1s and 0s), are absolutely no better than a cheap cable you can find on eBay. Also don't forget about how they sue pretty much anyone who has "monster" in their domain name

I have changed the article to reflect the over pricing of their product.

I believe that monster cables have a profound effect on the quality of sound. on my sytem, with all monster cables(no cheap copper wires)sound quality is extraordinary. perhaps the person above me has cheaper wire running from the reciever to his speakers. add to that you can get these so called expensive cables for $20 on ebay, they are very much worth it and better than above stated.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

This is very likely the placebo effect at work, you're hearing the improved sound quality because you *want* to, and who wouldn't want to, after spending a small fortune on Monster Cable products? One should attempt a double-blind test involve other cables, before being so certain they're actually working so much better.

I suspect many customers of these products are not familiar with the aforementioned concepts. Shawnc 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. Monster cable is generally thicker...which is the only thing that matters in speaker wire. Ex: 12 gauge Monster sounds better than 18-gauge speaker wire. But 12-gauge Monster and 12-gauge cheap speaker cable sound the same. There is no difference in speaker wire of the same gauge. And the digital paragraph above is totally correct. Andrewwski 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, digital is only 1s and 0s. Either you have it or you don't. Look at the post above, what will thin cable do, put a 2 there? No. The picture/sound will just stop totally if the cable is overloaded. I'll get you citations later.Andrewwski 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can say digital is digital, but it is possible to lose a 1 or 0 somewhere along the way. Just think of regular cables as regular dvd's, and monster cables as blu ray or hd dvd, both are digital, but blu-ray is a thousand times better. It is possible to have better quality, even in digital. This aerticle is not neutral.

It is not possible to lose a 1 or 0 somewhere along the way. Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is a difference in encoding: "Blu-ray discs are more expensive, but hold more data -- there, that's all" . Also about losing signal quality in a digital system: "in digital systems, degradation can not only be detected but corrected as well." 24.131.16.114 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A cable for a digital signal can have poor or insufficient quality for the application. In most cases (and certainly for HDMI and the other digital applications for Monster Cables products) insufficient quality causes complete failure to pass the signal or else momentary obvious dropouts. For cases (like TCP over Ethernet) where there is a retry mechanism, the effect of insufficient cable quality is reduced transmission rates (due to lost packets, causing retransmissions). For HDMI, longer runs and higher bandwidths (e.g., "deep color") require higher quality cables for longer cable runs in order to maintain the signal. Bottom line: for digital audio/video, if it's working and there are no dropouts, your cable is fine and the world's best cable won't provide any better quality. Learjeff (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned individual above must be a plant for Monster Cable. If they sue everyone left and right to "protect their name", then why wouldn't they hire people to hit the internet and spread the ridiculous garbage about their audio cables being "superior" in the face of solid evidence that proves otherwise. Spark plug manufacturers often make the same claim and they are also lying to you. It is all in the marketing. 75.44.35.141 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Bill

I'm amazed any company would have a plant who is so clearly a moron. I'd expect the dumbest corporate marketing slimeball to be better informed than that 68.227.254.206 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Analog_signal

Yes...

I understand that, however, have you ever heard of magnetic interference? Of course, either it's digital or it isn't, but stating that they will yield NO higher quality than that of the cheapest cables is far untrue. For example, if you go buy cables from some street person and hook them up, and they have only a PVC coating on them, and the room has a hundred electronic devices in it, there is a high possibilty of something going wrong. Besides any of this, since research hasn't proven your statement, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. See WP:CITE for more information. Thanks, Alex43223 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you have quite a bit electromagnetic interference that interferes with the signal, you will lose the signal completely. But, if you have a signal, then you have it. There's no inbetweens.

Digital waveforms are square waves. That means they are either on, or off. Either they are at their peak voltage or lowest voltage. There are no in-betweens. That is why a digital signal cannot be inbetween.

Analog waveforms, however, are usually a sine wave, but they also may be other types. A sine wave fluctuates constantly but is not either "on" or "off" but rather has in-betweens.

This is why a digital signal is not dependent on the cable type used. Andrewwski 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty bland statement to make, although I'm not going to sit here and try to defend monster cable, cable construction can matter if you have the potential of dealing with crosstalk. This is also ignoring the fact that no consumer is going to need enough insulation to protect their equipment from industrial level noise. Azgard 74.33.232.213 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but digital signals - albeit comprised of ones and zeros - are NOT transmitted using square waves. There is a good article on modulation right here on Misplaced Pages. Mesdale (talk)

No sorry, that is incorrect. Modulation is a method for combining and separating multiple signals and multiple channels through a single medium. An example would be all the channels you get on Cable TV through a single coaxial cable. Between the TV and the video output, there is no need for modulation, and the signal sent through the HDMI cable is a TMDS which is discreet 1s and 0s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.46.143 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i'm the only one who noticed this, but Monster does not only sell digital audio cables. Analog cables are not just on or off, therefore cable quality can make a difference. I think this article is biased to Monster Cable products being worth the money. It's a matter of opinion really, and the better your equipment, the more sensitive it will be from interference that can be introduced through poor cabling. As far as digital cable goes, yes, it's either "on" or "off", but loss and bandwidth can be issues. For example, some HDMI cables use super-thin copper wire and cannot support the new HDMI 1.3, which is required to transmit the new 1080p resolution. Also, some inexpensive HDMI cables don't support HDCP content protection protocol, which can make that new cable useless on many newer set top boxes and DVD players.

I know that. However, Monster most strongly markets their digital cables...digital coaxial audio, digital optical audio, DVI, and HDMI. Cable quality will fall under two categories...it works or it doesn't. If it is analog cable, yes, cable quality is very important. However, there is much cheaper cable available that provides just as good of a signal as Monster. AS long as it's thick enough and shielded enough, it'll work well. Just get some heavily shielded RG59 and solder or compression ends. If you've ever taken a Monster cable apart, you'll find that it's mostly foam with a thin layer of shielding and a center conductor thinner than that of many cheaper cables.

And Monster's speaker wire helps none either. There's practically no difference between speaker wires of the same gauge.

Again, with HDMI, if a cable will transmit HDMI 1.3, then it transmits all of it. If not, it doesn't work.

HDMI is very problematic with HDCP. Often it has to do with equipment as well. As long as the cable isn't too thin, it should work fine. Andrewwski 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital signal transmission

Digital signals are transmitted as near square waves, true. Depending on the type of signal being transmitted, the protocol in use, and a few other factors, the actual voltage on the line will be a varying square wave between two voltages, sometimes 0 and 5 volts, sometimes 12 volts and -12 volts... it depends on the protocol. The protocol determines how the sender & receiver represent a 1 or a 0. If the implementation of the protocol includes error detection, or some form of error detection and correction (EDAC), such as parity check, manchestor encoding, or various other techniques, incorrect signals will be ignored or not received. There are several ways interference can cause signal degradation and/or loss of signal; cross coupling, outside EMI...

If there is no error detection or EDAC in the HDMI protocol, and no encoding, rather a simple square wave of 1's and 0's (unlikely), it's possible for various 1's and 0's to be misinterpretted (1 can look like a 0 or 0 can look like a 1), and the result would again depend on the protocol. It could cause artifacting and intermittent picture, rather than no picture at all.

But! In the case of HDMI, which uses the TMDS protocol, it will depend on the hardware, but the most likely result of a cable problem will be no picture, with an unlikely but possible result of an intermittent picture - either way you will know if the cable is working or not, quite quickly. No slight image degradation is likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/TMDS

If you really want to compare Monster's cables, audio or digital, to other cables, all that's needed is a wavefunction generator and a oscilloscope. It's possible to measure the performance (or lack thereof) of one cable versus another. But most people don't bother, because those who know how to use this equipment usually already know that the physical cable construction materials and manufacturing technique determine the signal quality - not advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

monster cables vs coat hanger blind test

its not biased, most people would agree. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadamzz (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

source of the test is in the article, and this test has at least one bias... "A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass)" ... Potentially a second source in the mastering of whatever CD they were listening to (recent jazz, as most recent pop music overuses dynamic compression which would impact the test, see below) and a third in the absence of precision on the source used, as to test the weakest link - cables - you have to make sure all oher links are very high end (source or D/A conversion, amp, speakers). without any information on this, the object of the test is useless (just imagine doing a headphones quality test with an iPod, compared to, say, a CD through an apogee D/A converter... the detail to be heard / respected in the signal will just be absent in the first case).

On high quality cables (actually bigger and threaded cables is what makes them quality, not the brand or whatever else) The difference is noticeable on high dynamics music, certainly not on smooth jazz (which is likely to be over-compressed if it is a recent record). I did a similar test to some friends between thin out-of-the-box and fatter dedicated cables, there was no obvious difference either on over-compressed (dynamic compression, standard pop music) or smooth (lounge, classical, easy rock) music. However when playing more aggressive and demanding sounds, with more dynamics (it was most obvious on an autechre record)... the difference was clearly audible.

Additionally I remember a test 128kb MP3 vs wave on a Pavarotti record, which had a 60% identification rate, mostly due to poor electronics, phones and D/A converters on the user end and .... the over-compressed (dynamic compression during mastering) sound of the original record. a similar test on a track with more dynamics got a 90% identification rate.

Actually whatever this brings in, I'd still suggest to remove the link on the coathanger test as it does not present properly defined experimental conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.103.19 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Jeans responds

There's something of an amusing read over here. It appears to be a quite a cogent response to a threat of litigation from Monster Cables. It might be pertinent to include a reference to it in the article perhaps under something along the lines of litigious behaviour. --EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the response letter a nice read ubdeed. However, should this article say: "The owner of Blue Jeans Cable responded that 'Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.'"? I don't see how him missing litigation is relevant to the article. Stating that he wrote he wasn't intimidated (doesn't need a quote) alone would be better. Also much more important is that Monster never actually responded, but that part is missing. That's my two pence worth. 193.173.38.232 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason the full quote is relevant is because the owner of Blue Jeans Cable is a former litigator. It's a humorous set of words that is actually rather important to the feeling of the quote because it suggests the owner is not taking Monster Cable's lawsuit seriously in any way shape or form, which given their history of frivolous litigation, is in fact very relevant. That's my feeling. I think it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.187.53 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the fact that Monster Cable is currently incorporated in Bermuda, with reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.254.94 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ted from Monster Cable here. Monster Cable Products, Inc. is California Incorporated with an LLC In Nevada as well. TedAtM (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Tagged

This article is ripe with weasel words, glitzy pretentious phrases, and a general sense of "we're better because we're better". I've marked various examples with the necessary annotations, and removed some of the more flagrant displays of 'we let our advertiser edit our article'. For particular examples of idiot editing, see the edits by Edjthompson. My favorite was a bunch of pseudo scientific babble of technical terms meant to go over people's heads, then saying "Not so expensive now, is it?"Ftc08 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

COI

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hi. I'm here on Monster's behalf and would like to help improve the article from the Talk page. My hope is by offering content and making requests we can bring the article up to Misplaced Pages's standards, with a little help making sure we stay neutral and aligned with Misplaced Pages's content policies.

To start, I was hoping an impartial editor would consider if the False Advertising section is UNDUE. I can only find a couple brief blurbs and press releases on these issues, which relate largely to Engadget, a publication the company has had disputes with, as explained in the Misplaced Pages article. If there is something salvageable, I leave it up to an impartial editor's judgement, but I can't find any source material to suggest this is an important part of the company's reputation/history.

Appreciate the help in advance. CorporateM (Talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Most feel that "controversy" sections are problematic and should be avoided.

The first section is basically about folks saying "a less expensive brand works just as well". This is a common statement about many products, This could be good material for the article, but certainly should not be spun into into being called a "controversy". I will probably move / rename this section.

The next section is basically building a case that they go too far in trying to protect or expand trademark rights related to the word "Monster". Not sure what to say about the overall topic, but I see some pretty severe wp:ver and almost-wp:blp violations. The wording in essence states that for each of those cases 1. Monster went after them 2. That doing so was controversial. A minority of them have sourcing of any kind, and I've not found any that were sourced for both assertions. I plan to tag or remove some of them. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some edits. More are needed, but I would consider removal of all of the material in that section to be going too far. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much more practical you giving it a quick run-through than having me submit a lot of Request Edits - at least to get it to a decent starting point. The trademark and performance topics need to be re-written, but definitely belong. Though as you mention the trademarks section could be trimmed down to the more notable cases. The Candlestick stadium is unsourced and is currently explained in a less controversial way than it should be, but I will correct this later on.

I would still think the False Advertising section could be cut in half if not more. The Energizer Holdings lawsuit is only sourced to their website, which doesn't even support the material. And the only available source for the dispute with Engadget is Engadget itself, a primary source in this case. However, I leave it up to your judgement and won't belabor the point. The article is in such terrible shape, but getting better now thanks to your help. CorporateM (Talk) 17:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to emphasize, I did some editing, but more needs doing. I really think that the battery item needs to go, and was going to delete it, but took the cautious route (for now) and tagged it instead. Going just from memory, I believe that the Candlestick item was in one of the sources. Finally, I mis-spoke in my previous post, I was mistakenly thinking that you had suggested deleting all of the "controversies" material, so please ignore my "but I would consider removal of all of the material in that section to be going too far." as it was answering a question that was never asked. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. I went ahead and closed my Request Edit. I didn't know if you were going stick around for future edits, but if you are, I'd be open to any suggestions on where we focus next. I've already collected a lot of good sources on Monster's early history for a draft I'm working on about the company's founder, so I was thinking of starting with their early history and working down. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

• One idea might be to integrate more of the specialized external links in as sources. Of course their use would be limited as primary sources, but the would be more integrated into the material that they are related to.North8000 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think that a slight expansion and organization of the "products" section would be in order. Care should be taken to focus on what they are known for / already successful in, not what they seek to establish or claim a presence in. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• I took out some of the controversies material for good reason. But I think that their aggressive effort to expand their legal dibs on the word "monster" and the pushback / resentment that it has generated has had significant coverage and certainly belongs. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I'll take on the Products/Reception section and the Trademark issues first. CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Some draft materials

I've prepared a few first drafts of material for consideration by impartial editors. I know this is a lot of material at-once and some of it covers complex and nuance topics. I'd be happy to go through them one-at-a-time, or whatever is easiest. Hopefully these will at least provide a starting point for future fine-tuning. CorporateM (Talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Performance debate over whether cables make a difference

Notes: This is a very complex and nuance topic that does not lend itself to being easy to do with a COI. That being said, I do think this is "better" and "more neutral" than the current and it will continue to improve through other editors and eventually the GA process. Two things I want to point out:

• There's a sentence or two about Monster's POV that I think could be trimmed slightly now that I'm giving it a fresh look
• North previously removed the comment about a forum post claiming the cables are similar to a wire hangar. I've included it below using the most reliable source I could find (a blurb in Wired), so that an impartial editor can decide whether to include it based on the best information available. It is kind of gossipy (only covered in a few blurb by the tech-gossip pubs), but I feel it is best to provide the information I've found and leave those decisions to a regular volunteer.

I commend you for reinserting what I took out on the coat hanger stuff as it shows how cautious you are being regarding your COI. However, as someone with expertise in the field I consider the coathanger thing to be a meaningless stunt. Also as someone with expertise in that field I feel that that section is very confusing. The first and most important thing you could do to un-confuse it would be to separate it (or at least clarify it for each statement) between video/RF and audio cables. Not that my "thumbnail" this can be used, if you want a quick overview to help sort it out, at audio frequencies (speaker cables), total resistance is all the really matters. Presuming mostly-copper cable and at least medium quality connections, the two main factors that contribute to this are the length of the cable and the gauge / thickness of the cable. At video and RF frequencies, things get much more complicated and other nuances matter. The coathanger test (i.e. a length shorter than would be used in real life, and don't forget that length is immensely important) is what I would call a "cheating stunt". The real benefit of better (larger gauge) speaker wires is present when you compare them to common small gauge speaker wires (which are common). When you compare them to non-speaker wires (such as wires designed for carrying power) there becomes less of a difference or no difference. "Lamp cord", (typically 18 gauge, and gauge numbers go in the reverse to sizes) which is at the lower end of the "power wire" scale is a case of less of a difference. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always great to have a subject-matter expert available and there is no systematic way of finding one, so I am glad I stumbled across one! I've revised it below to exclude the forum post issue. I looked into the sources and identified each one specifically as audio or visual and moved things around so each paragraph was either audio or video. I also trimmed just a few words from Monster's POV. I put audio first, because the tone seems more speculative in that category, to avoid the appearance of creative positioning, but I don't see any reason to do it in any specific order. If I can find one, I'd like to find a recent source with a better scientific test of the audio cables, but my understanding is the only way to test it is by listening. Maybe that's what needs to be added. CorporateM (Talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading this source. I'll add it in a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done That helps balance the debate a little bit on the audio section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Long complex story short, it looks good.North8000 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with retailers

Note: This is to expand on the first paragraph of the current Pricing and Performance section. One side of the coin is that retailers are very happy with Monster's margins and they spend money on sales incentives instead of advertising. The other side of that issue is that this makes salespeople highly motivated to push the cables and raises accusations that they are not a good value.

Products

Notes: This is also hard to do because there are 6,000 products spanning a wide-range of electronics. I focused substantially on the various audio, video, HDMI cables they are best known for and tried to keep it as concise as possible. I think a subject-matter expert at Monster might have some good feedback on this later on.

Early history

I have already researched and written a lot of Monster's early history for the article on Noel Lee, so that seemed like a sensible thing to add as well. I would also like to move all the controversies currently in the article into the History section as well, as they appear to mostly take place at specific dates in history, as oppose to the performance debate, which is a timeless and long-standing issue deserving of its own section.

References

1. ^ Kessler, Michelle (January 16, 2005). "Is Monster Cable Worth it?". USA Today. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
2. "Speaker Cables: Science or Snake Oil" (PDF). Speaker Builder. Nelson Press.
3. Greenhill, Laurence. "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, August 1983, quoted at Speaker Wire: A History.
4. ^ Franco, Robert (December 28, 1998). "Selling Sizzle with Sizzle". Forbes. Cite error: The named reference "two" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. Rothman, Wilson (June 14, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable, Part 2 (Verdict: Cheap Cables Keep Up...Usually)". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
6. Beschizza, Rob (June 7, 2007). "Should you pay $120 for a 2 meter HDMI cable?". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
7. Captain, Sean (August 2, 2005). "The Cable Game". Retrieved May 9, 2013.
8. Rothman, Wilson (June 6, 2007). "The Truth About Monster Cable". Gizmodo. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
9. Gaylord, Chris (July 23, 2009). "Why are HDMI cables so expensive?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
10. ^ Beschizza, Rob (February 19, 2008). "Monster Cable Defends Overpriced Cables: The Short Form". WIRED. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
11. "Packing the Deal". CBC. February 20, 2008. Retrieved July 25, 2013.
12. ^ Wortham, Jenna (11 January 2010). "A Smaller Player Mounts Must-See Events". The New York Times. p. 8.
13. "Monster Cables, Mosnter Ripoff: 80% Markups".
14. ^ Kessler, Michelle (January 16, 2005). "Monster move puts name on Marquee". USA Today. Retrieved February 26, 2013. Cite error: The named reference "usa" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
15. ^ Evangelista, Benny (November 8, 2004). "'Head Monster's' winning ways". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 26, 2013.
16. ^ Ulanoff, Lance (January 9, 2009). "Monster Pulls Out of Audio Cables, Goes Green". PC Magazine.
17. ^ Williams, Stephen (January 6, 2011). "Monster Meets Miles, Again". The New York times. Retrieved January 6, 2011.
18. Arseniuk, Melissa (January 10, 2009). "CES Brings Shimmering Star Power to Invite-Only Crowd". The Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
19. ^ Stevens, Cindy (November/December 2010). "Monster's Noel Lee - Down to the Cable". Vision. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
20. Company Website, Monster Cable Products, retrieved May 9, 2013
21. ^ Taub, Eric. "Monster Cable Sells 'Cheap' Version". The New York Times.
22. Graham, Jefferson (April 28, 2013). "Monster Cable Lowers Prices During Recession". USA Today. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
23. Hachman, Mark (September 6, 2007). "Monster Assigns Speed Grades to HDMI Cables". PC Magazine. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
24. Then, Ewdison (January 16, 2007). "Monster Cable Outlets to Go". Retrieved May 9, 2013.
25. "Monster Cable GameLink 360 Line-Up Review".
26. Berardini, César. "Monster Cable GameLink 360 S-Video A/V Cable Review (Xbox 360)". Team Xbox.
27. Monster Games, Monster, retrieved May 9, 2013
28. Laposky, John (March 26, 2007). "Monster Cables Beat AppleTV To Market". Retrieved May 9, 2013.
29. Cliff Edwards (2012-01-13). "Beats Electronics Is Breaking Up with Monster". Business Week. Bloomberg News. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
30. Joe Pollicino (13 January 2012). "Monster and Beats Electronics discontinue partnership, audiophiles rejoice". Engadget. AOL Tech. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
31. Kepler, Adam (October 1, 2009). "Now Thumping, Lady Gaga Headphones". The New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
32. Fekadu, Mesfin (June 25, 2010). "LeBron James to Release His Own Line of Headphones". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
33. Davies, Chris (June 25, 2010). "Monster Signs LeBron James for Customer Headphone Line". Slash Gear. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
34. Josh Quittner (23 July 2008). "Dr. Dre's Headphones: Chronically Good". Time Magazine. Time Inc. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
35. Denison, Caleb (January 6, 2012). "Monster Clarity HD Model One Review". Digital Trends. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
36. Aguilar, Mario (October 4, 2012). "Monster Katana Ears-On: This Sounds Too Good to Be Bluetooth". Gizmodo.
37. Speakers, Monster, retrieved May 9, 2013
38. Greenwald, Will. "Monster Cable Tron ID Disc iPod Dock". PC Magazine.
39. ^ Safer, Will (April 30, 2009). "How Monster Cable got wired for growth". Fortune Magazine. Retrieved February 26, 2013.
40. Wilkinson, Scott (October 12, 2012). "Monster Founder Noel Lee Gets Geeky About Cables". Home Theater Geeks. Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity.

Requested article move

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

As noted by the San Francisco Chronicle here, the company shortened its name to just "Monster Inc." Currently Monster Inc. is a redirect to Monsters, Inc. the movie, so I think we may need an admin to move this page to the proper title. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (companies), I think this title would be acceptable ("If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form" - implicitly allowing such uses). I'd like to have some more input before I make the move though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Almost every company is Inc/Incorporated. We don't have Microsoft Inc. (except as a redirect) etc. Does Monster use Inc. as a major part of their branding now? I think not. Their URL is MonsterCable.com. Their Logo+Name appears to be just "Monster". The copyright notice and "company info" on their website is "Monster Cable Product, Inc", so from the "old/current" name, we are dropping the inc for the current article name. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The company info page says it was founded as "Monster Cable Products, Inc.", but later just refers to it as "Monster" (no "Inc."). Since there is a Wiki-page on Monster, maybe something like Monster (company)? I agree with Gaijin that the Inc. may not be necessary. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not opposed to moving to Monster (company). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Monster (company) sounds fine otherwise this article would just include their products. The products may have been an older name but to retain it as the article name would confuse our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• That's unanimous approval for "Monster (company)", so move done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Malik Shabazz disagrees with the consensus from Gaijin42, Crisco 1492 and Canoe1967. He has boldly moved the article to "Monster Cable". CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the article in response to a request by User:Cantaloupe2, who asserted it was noncontroversial. (See WP:G6.) Seeing as how it wasn't, I'll be happy to undo the move. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the page already existed as Monster Cable, then it moved as the full name, then to "Monster (Company)". When I tried move it back, the original page was clogging it. It isn't Malik's fault. I didn't expect any "controversy" as to many, that brand is known as "Monster Cable", which should be used per WP:UCN. If the consensus (which I must note, is not numbers count) says it should remain as "Monster (company)", then so be it. I don't really care Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the page already existed as Monster Cable, then it moved as the full name, then to "Monster (Company)". When I tried move it back, the original page was clogging it. It isn't Malik's fault. I didn't expect any "controversy" as to many, that brand is known as "Monster Cable", which should be used per WP:UCN. If the consensus (which I must note, is not numbers count) says it should remain as "Monster (company)", then so be it. I don't really care Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? A non-redirect page hasn't existed at Monster Cable since 2005 (!). Monster Cable Products, Inc was the original title, then several moves happened. As for consensus not being a numbers game: hard to call unanimity not consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Membership of tens of thousands, and a a "aye and nay" votes of a handful vs one" what ya call that one? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests