Talk:Monster Cable

message: In the Recent history section, there is a sentence beginning with "Following the collapse of the Beats deal with Apple." There have been no mentions of Beats or Apple before that point. The relevant information starts two sections lower. Maybe it wasn't changed following an edit? I think some re-ordering would make the article work better for a first-time linear reader like me.
Hyperdimension (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history section 

message: 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/wiki/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)
thread_title:  Digital signal transmission 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Construction Quality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  monster cables vs coat hanger blind test 

message: What year was this company founded?  The infobox states 1979, but the actual article states 1978.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.69.205 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founded Date? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blue Jeans responds 

message: 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TedAtM (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Tax Haven 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV Tagged 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm reading this source. I'll add it in a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That helps balance the debate a little bit on the audio section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Long complex story short, it looks good.North8000 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some draft materials 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm reading this source. I'll add it in a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That helps balance the debate a little bit on the audio section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Long complex story short, it looks good.North8000 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance debate over whether cables make a difference

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: Not opposed to moving to Monster (company). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk/Stalk 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *A consensus, as defined at WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a legal body; there is no required percentage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *Would you care to illustrate where WP:CONSENSUS says it has to be out of all of Wikipedia? This is all about a discussion, and thus it weighs only what factors into a discussion (i.e. we can't try and say "Jimbo didn't vote so it's not consensus). When a decision is unanimous, by definition there are no majority or minority views, and there are no two different arguments which must be weighed against each other. You could have weighed in earlier, when the move request was still open, but you didn't. Now the consensus is already there and if you care enough about the title (as you obviously do, as you are replying here despite saying you don't care) you can start a new move request and see if consensus is in your favour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't really care. Some of the editors were quick to bully Malik as proclaiming he went against "consensus"?  Was there? At what point did it form? What's the cut off time and who declares "consensus has been reached unanimously? It's all too easy for interest group to utilize add up username counts if "aye, just cuz" type comment counted. I believe this is what are looking for. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested article move 

message: I took a shot at a second draft (below). I reduced the use of quotations and made quite a few edits both positive and negative. The negative NYT and PC World tests were not really proper implemented except as a cite for the word "reporters." I've put those in as a counter-point to the positive USA Today test. I mis-used the 1980 Speaker Builder source, because it looks like the "extremes of performance" comment was not specific to Monster and some of those sources were mostly positive, but I made them sound balanced in over-compensating for Crisco's observation that it had a very slight bias. 
I think this may swing the pendulum the other way (yet again) just very slightly, but (again) is more neutral than the current. It's getting really, really close. May just need a few small tweaks to get the balance perfect. CorporateM (Talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an audio/speaker cable reference in the HDMI section. (HDMI's aren't audio/speaker cables)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Reflist is all messed up on Talk. It's not displaying the right references. I've moved a copy of the draft here, where the references should display properly. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now that I see the reference I can see that there is an error in your text. They are saying that the impedance is within one ohm of the ideal, not that it is 1 ohm.   For those hoping for simplicity, I hate to say it but they are talking about a totally different meaning of impedance in the HDMI section.....characteristic impedance of the cable which is relevant for RF (video, but not audio)   For characteristic impedance, the ideal is for the cable and its connectors to match everything else (e.g. 75 ohms) whereas  for speaker wires / audio the goal for the cable is to get it as low as is possible. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Corrected below. Thanks! I also trimmed the second half of that sentence, which will adjust the balance slightly. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *After North is done, I'll move this in. Looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't planning much beyond making comments from the peanut gallery.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *Har har. In that case, whenever Corporate is ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Please do. If you two are content with this version "for now" we can move on to the Relationship with retailers" section below.  CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Second draft

message: I took a shot at a "Relationship with retailers" section in three paragraphs:
# Covers the topic in general (profit margins and sales incentives)
# 2 covers things from the consumer's point-of-view (aggressive sales, higher prices, etc.)
# The final paragraph covers things more from the retailer's point-of-view (perks)
I haven't gotten any feedback on it yet (see above) and would be very appreciate of anyone willing to spend some time giving it a look-over and adding it, or a modified version, depending on what they think is fair. CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in. I added rather than replaced, the existing paragraph sounded/sounds like a nice intro. But feel free to change or revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks North. I trimmed some repetition between my version and the prior. I was thinking, based on your comment, trimming this sentence might make it less editorialized: "According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price."[23]" It is properly sourced, but it's a bit of commentary, as oppose to encyclopedic facts. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno on that one sentence.  It is more about comparison of the price level of an accessory to the price levels of that accessory sold by others rather then falling under what I just described (gravitation towards types of add-ons with higher markup) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww fair enough. This section is "good enough" for now, so I'll mosy on to the next topic. Lots of ground to cover. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with retailers 

message: I've taken a shot at the Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster. The current section in article-space relies heavily on primary sources, though there are actually strong secondary sources available in The Wall Street Journal and The San Francisco Chronicle. I wasn't able to find much in terms of stories that cover the outcomes of individual disputes, probably because most are settled with non-disclosed terms.  
Being that there are 30 lawsuits in all, a challenging aspect is determining which examples to include and with how much detail. 
Would appreciate anyone willing to take a look and provide any feedback/edits/etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is an improvement  and has no COI issues.  I think that the change is net POV neutral.   On one side of the equation, it corrects a bit of a problem the other way, basically sythesis/OR by the editor to select and characterize some as "more controversial" and use primary sources, and unnecessary use of bulleting which tends to make it more "hammering".  On the other side of the equation, I think that the new version more fully communicates the core of the issue, which is assertions that they were  trying to get dibs on a word rather than just protect a trademark.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Perfect. I'll work on History next, then the Lead and that should be a wrap. Is it ok for me to move the Candlestick partnership to History? Seems obvious to me, but just checking. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademarks 

message: I'm research the History section and I think I'll keep some notes here as I notice stuff that may be helpful for other sections:
*According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
:::Therefore, the company makes cables for TVs, DVD and VHS players, computers, printers, video games, digital cameras and car entertainment systems. It also makes speaker wall mounts, power strips, alkaline batteries, cell phone chargers, leather phone cases, camera bags, headsets and screen- cleaning solutions.
:::And there are Monster cords, cases, wireless transmitters and car adapters designed for Apple Computer's hot-selling iPod digital audio players. Lee's musical background led him to start a small record label, Monster Music, with artists like Shana Morrison, daughter of singer-songwriter Van Morrison.
:::Monster's latest venture is high-tech furniture made by M-Design, a spin- off headed by Lee's son, Kevin Lee, 36, known as "Little Monster." The furniture, such as tables that hide big subwoofers, is designed to make home theater equipment blend in with its surroundings.
:::There's also an $8,000 Action Couch with a built-in wireless amplifier that causes seat cushions to rumble in sync with explosions and other noises during a movie.
:::Next year, Monster plans to introduce a line of wireless products, following yet another trend in home entertainment....
:::Leaving no stone unturned, Lee sells Monster Mints, the "Mints With Attitude," to entice a customer's last-second impulse purchase at the cash register. 
*Monster occupies 450,000 square feet of space in three buildings in San Bruno. Its products are sold in 15,000 stores and it owns 225 US patents.(SF Chronicle)
*"Monster already makes lines of power sources and other equipment for home theaters. Lee is working on a product that will allow gadget lovers to control all of their electronics from a single panel. He's developing wireless products that will someday replace speaker and audio/visual (A/V) cable. He's even pushing into furniture designed to hide high-end electronics." USA Today
*"To that end, Monster has embarked upon an aggressive push into the new "lifestyle" orientation of today's home entertainment products. The initiative consists of several new product lines that include amplifiers, speakers and A/V furniture, which are supplemented in the field by a program called Monster Reference Home Theater Music Experience—"MR. HiTME " for short. " (Dealerscope, 2004)
* Though I would normally include the origins of the company name, this is quite promo: "He called his new product, "Monster Cable," because of its monstrous size and powerful audio performance."
CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I've started on a draft History section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I will give it a few more read-throughs and do some more research tomorrow. It has a bit of an undue focus on recent events, but I believe this is both because of the abundance of recent sources and because it has been in the news more over the last decade. I'll keep working on it and have it ready soon. CorporateM (Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Crisco moved the draft History section into article-space, which contains the Trademarks and Candlestick controversies per WP:Criticisms. However, now there is some repetitive content in the dedicated Controversy sections and the History section. He asked that I get a second opinion about which should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 15:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: CorporateM asked me to take a look.   There is much duplication of material between the "trademark disputes" (notably, it's "disputes" not "controversies" which would be a different story) subsection and the "trademarks: section.   Should certainly be combined, but the question arises: into what section?  The material is almost all about the disputes, whether it be Monster disputing (on the grounds of trademarks) the use of the name by others, or the accusations and pushback against such activities.  There is very little material on trademarks aside from the disputes.  So I think that "trademark disputes is the more appropriate section. I'll merge.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:North8000!! Important clarification, it's not just two sections on the same topic that need to be merged, but the text in both sections are identical. It was just re-worded and re-ordered a bit so it made more sense in the History section. At this moment, the trademark disputes are now on there three times! Repeated with identical text. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it.  I'm assuming that the "3rd" was the temporary duplication that I added.  I did it thart way so that there would be a stage/version where  someone could see both the to-be-deleted section and the se3ction with its material merged in. I did them sentence-by-sentence so as to be sure that I didn't lose any material.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, the other one is the Candlestick Park sponsorship, which is covered both at the beginning of Recent History and in a dedicated section. After that there's a few areas I need to propose content for and it should be GAN-ready! CorporateM (Talk) 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademark related duplication

message: I threw together a quick draft of the Lead that is representative of the current article. Would greatly appreciate any input. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me know if that's better CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good in the areas that I brought up. I did one tweak. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks North! (he/she put in the new lead). I also made some tweaks to the Products section based on the Notes section above to eliminate the redundancy in talking about headphones and add some better information. They were fairly small changes in a less controversial area, that would be difficult to explain/ask for, so I made them boldly (or at least bold in the context of COI).  CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Monster Inc. manufactures and markets 6,000 different products, but is best known for audio and video cables. It also produces speakers, headphones, power strips, mobile accessories and audio devices for automobiles. The company was founded by an audiophile and engineer, Noel Lee, in 1979 by experimenting with different ways to build audio cables. It grew by doing demonstrations to convince the industry that audio cables made a difference in audio quality and by establishing relationships with retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margins. 
Over the years it created new divisions like Monster Music, Monster Game, Monster Mobile, Monster Photo and Monster Power. In the 2000s, Monster had legal trademark disputes regarding other companies or products that have "Monster" in their name, such as Monster.com and the movie Monsters Inc.. Monster said it needed to defend its premium brand, while critics said it was pursuing litigation against companies that do not have confusingly similar products. It began manufacturing headphones in a partnership with Dr. Dre in 2008, which ended in 2012, and it created other celebrity branded or Monster-branded headphone products.
Several tests done by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. Instead of advertising, Monster offers incentives to retailers and their salespeople to sell the cables. Retailers bundle high profit-margin cables with larger purchases that have smaller margins in order to improve profitability.
====Suggestions / feedback==== 
My suggestions: 
*Underrepresented: Needs a bit more on products, on the trademark controversies, and on relationships with retailers 
*Overrepresented:  Dr. De headphones deal.   Also from a prose standpoint, this is an abrupt topic change in the middle of a paragraph. 
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me know if that's better CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good in the areas that I brought up. I did one tweak. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks North! (he/she put in the new lead). I also made some tweaks to the Products section based on the Notes section above to eliminate the redundancy in talking about headphones and add some better information. They were fairly small changes in a less controversial area, that would be difficult to explain/ask for, so I made them boldly (or at least bold in the context of COI).  CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: My suggestions: 
*Underrepresented: Needs a bit more on products, on the trademark controversies, and on relationships with retailers 
*Overrepresented:  Dr. De headphones deal.   Also from a prose standpoint, this is an abrupt topic change in the middle of a paragraph. 
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me know if that's better CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good in the areas that I brought up. I did one tweak. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks North! (he/she put in the new lead). I also made some tweaks to the Products section based on the Notes section above to eliminate the redundancy in talking about headphones and add some better information. They were fairly small changes in a less controversial area, that would be difficult to explain/ask for, so I made them boldly (or at least bold in the context of COI).  CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions / feedback

message: I've gone ahead and nominated the article for a GA review. It usually takes a few months before we get a reviewer. Before we get one, I'll give the article a few more lookovers for copyedits and obtain some images we can use. If anyone has some feedback on anything it needs to pass a GA review, we can keep improving the article as well. Thanks to Crisco and North for all their help on this one! CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I uploaded a couple images I shot at Best Buy. A lot of the photos of HDMI cables and power strips didn't come out well, because the bright lights were creating a glare on the packaging, but I imagine we would prefer products out of the packaging anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article