Rehash? WHY do manufacturers bundle thin interconnects? (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Smailus]

There is nothing wrong technically with Monster cables that I could imagine would make me not want thier product. The problem with Monster cables is the insane price. If Sony was putting Monster cables (or any brands) in there, they would still only cost $20 or so for the kit - in bulk, without the middle men and stores and advertising, etc - the stuff doesn't cost that much.

The cables are all the same physically - they use the same copper or whatever conductors - they can confrom to the same specification. The difference is cosmetic with colorfull heatshrink, custom printing and fancy anodizing or plating.

Electrically a 12 guage speaker wire from Home Depot looks IDENTICAL to a 12 guage speaker wire from Monster.

If the interconnects are in the box, they 1) would likely not be branded regardless of who makes them, but if they are, who cares, and 2) not cost what they cost on the 'end cap at Best Buy'.

 

[John Walker]

My 2 cents

I agree components should come with basic cables. How frustrating is it to by a printer for you computer, open it at home and realize they were too cheap to include the USB cable! It creates a real negative experience with the whole purchase.

Most non-critical users are satisfied with the included cables. Enthusiasts are going to have their own ideas about brands of cable and can freely give away the cheap stock cables.

If you unit came with fluorescent heat shrink brand-X cables and you didn’t like brand-X you would be upset with having to pay for them anyway with the component. Even if you liked brand-X, some others may view that as overkill and pure marketing.

For what its worth a friend bought a LINN system (non-HT) and it came with some fine LINN cables. I don’t think they make cables so he really doesn’t know what he’s got.

There’s enough cable trickery out there that I would be suspicious of “fat” cables in the box.

We as consumers just come to expect basic cables with components and none with speakers.

John

 

[John Garcia]

The difference is cosmetic with colorfull heatshrink, custom printing and fancy anodizing or plating.

There is a large variance in grades of copper, not to mention the type of stranding (including solid, single conductor), number of conductors, dielectrics, etc... influence how a particular wire may affect the sound, small though it may be. Typically, the only type of plating used in speaker wire is silver.

Speaker wire is the last place I would recommend one tweak their system, but I consider it a worth while purchase, but as I said, after you have spent the time and money on other aspects of a system.

I really don't care what the cables look like, because I rarely ever see them, nor does how they look matter to how they sound.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

The cables are all the same physically - they use the same copper or whatever conductors - they can confrom to the same specification

Now I see the basis for your position. I'm afraid you are incorrect that all cables are the same physically. Just because they look the same or are called "RG6" does not mean they respond the same.

There are differences in impedence, capacitance/ft, frequency response, types and count of shielding, external size, etc. The differences are both physical and electrical. Some you can see, some you cannot.

For an education, go to the Belden cable website and select all the Coaxial cables that are of type RG6.

www.belden.com - Products and Services - The Belden Catalog

Type in RG6 in the search window.

You will get 27 different models of coax - each with different physical or electrical properties.

You DONT have to understand what the different specs mean, just note that there is a LOT of properties that make one coax different from the other. Click on these 2 models:

1695A
1152A

One of these cables is your 'Cheap' RG6 coax that you might be able to buy at your local electronics supply house to wire your home with CATV signals or install a satalite dish.

The other is a video coax cable that can handle the needs of composite through 1080i High Def video.

Yet, they look nearly the same in your hand.

Cables ARE confusing - you cant just look at one and tell how good it would be for some application. You have to go to the specifications.

(But most people go to the hardware store and just buy the black "RG6" coax that's on the shelf without being aware of the issues.)

 

[Thomas Smailus]

I took a peak at what you indicated:

Part 1152A - Coax Broadband CATV - RG-6

Part 1695A - Precision Video Cable for Analog & Digital - RG-6/U

The two are not the same. In fact, 1695A, is not an RG-6, it is an RG-6/U cable.

RG-6 is a specification that determines a minimum set of characteristics for the cable. RG-6/U is a different spec. Just as the different upgrades to the CAT5 specification.

RG-6 is not equivalent to the term 'coax', or is 'coax' equivalent and interchangable with RG-6, nor are they interchangable with RG-6/U

Some variations between the cables Belden makes, that have the same electrical specification, have to do with non-electrical issues such as fire-retardation, to meet requirements of cables that penetrate fire break walls in commercial building code, and other non-electrical issues. Some diferences are electrical but related not to the signal transmission directly, but to things like shielding against interference - they provide additional improvement over the spec of the cable, say with double or quad shielded cable.

The point I was trying to make (and I just used the speaker wire example to illustrate the 'brand' issue someone brought up) - was that if RG-6 specification cable is the cable to do the job, then any RG-6 cable will do the job. Now if I need more shielding, then any quad-shielded RG-6 will do the job. If RG-6/U is called for, then ANY BRAND of RG-6/U will do the job.

I don't see major manufacturers putting flourescent heat shrink cables in a box if they chose to go with thicker 'proper' cables. They would go with the standard black (unless the industry decides silver cables is also the way to go). If electronics manufacturer Z decided, "I'm putting thick 'proper' interconnects in the boxes from now on and we will utilize manufacturer Y of such cables to provide them to us," I would be willing to bet that manufacturer Y of such cables will be required to make them to the specification of electronics manufacturer Z for there to be a contract.

There are always folks who like to tweek things - there will be folks who want specially colored cables, or ones with certain connector ends, etc. Those people are not the issue. The issue was that there really would be no down-side to putting the thicker 'proper' cables in with boxes with the components for an irrelivant cost increase to the consumer, on the higher-end equipment (let me repeat, on the higher-end equipment, not the $100 dvd player or the $350 reciever). So can it be that there is an almost negligible benefit to thicker 'proper' cables in 95% of the installations that the higher end equipment goes into and thus the thicker 'proper' interconnects are indeed not needed?

Like I said, to many, especially those of us here on these forums, its a religious debate that will never be resolved. The benefit for many users, especially folks that pop in or are new to the game, is they can follow such debates and hopefully think about what they want and need and decide for themselves what they feel are the 'proper' cables for their setup.

 

[Cagri]

You seem to change the subject here. I understand that your question is actually intended to help prove your opinion which you've disclosed in your last post.

"I don't find the issue that complicated. The specs of cables that I use are there, I know them. It's upto me to go and buy a more expensive cable with same specs with the cheaper one if I want, and even if the scientific facts tell me that there is no audible/visible difference between the sound/picture out of these two cables, I am still free to believe that there is a difference, and buy the more expensive one. "

As long as there are people thinking like above, that's the answer of your initial question: Electronics companies will generate marginal LOSS if they'd included more expensive cable within the box. This is simple logic. And valid till you convince an adequate proportion of the potential customers that two same specs cables are going to produce 100% identical sound/picture.

 

[Carl Johnson]

Including a mid grade cable would be a no win situation for the manafacturer. Most consumers will settle for any cable that will get them a picture and would choose another brand rather than pay a higher msrp and the rest will be complaining that a $20 cable isn't good enough.

 

[Thomas Smailus]

My intention is not to prove anything but to get a discourse on the issue going. Who said the quote you are giving? Where am I changing the subject? These threads do wander a bit as folks respond with new information and sometimes does sidetrack the discussion, but the main topic is still valid as far as I can tell.

I'm just not conviced by your simple logic[i/]. HOW is it a marginal loss to include more expensive cables? Whats the math that gets you there. I sell unit X for $y. I put 'better cables' in and that costs me (the manufacturer) an additional $20, so now I sell unit X for $(y+20). {all to the distributors, of course, who then sell to the retailers for $20 more who then possibly sell to the consumers for $20 more, worst case. There is NO change in the profit margin for the manufacturer. The only possible loss would be if what Carl alludes to takes place, that is that most consumers would choose another brand rather than pay $20 more. My basis for the discussion, however, was that 1) Most Consumers do not buy $600+ recievers - they buy the lower end $300-400 lines - the question is what should be packaged with the upper lines of the manufactures - the ES and Elite type lines and the like. 2) Consumers who will switch from brand x to brand y because y is $20 less expensive (which is likely anyway (a $20 price difference) since, I cannot remember seeing units from 2 makes costing the same anyway - but lets assume they are the same normally) - I don't see those consumers as the critical consumers buying this class of equipment - that is the ES and Elite type lines. Those consumers are, again, the bottom end that buy the basic grade $300 recievers or home theaters in a box. We are not messing with the cables in those kits - leave those the way they are. We are talking about the cables in the units that cost much more than the bottom end mainstream components that may do the same functions, where the consumer has made a conscious decision to purchase a significantly more expensive component for better preformance and construction. It is still my contention that THAT consumer will NOT switch to another make because it is $20 cheaper because it has the thinner cables in it, after they have carefully selected the component they want based on features, look and even price.

Finally, if the $20 cable upgrade produces the 'better and sufficient cables' - which was another basic assumption for the discussion: that the upgraded cables included by the manufacturers are of that specification required to carry whatever signals they are carrying - then anyone left that is complaining the cables are not good enough is really buying cables they don't need. There is some specific electrical specification of cables that is the required type for the connections made. Anything above that is of no additional benefit to the signal carried and can only be cosmetic, moral, or who knows what benefit to the user. To some folks, if you included the thickest, heaviest shielded cable there is, they still would not be happy. Those folks are a small minority I believe and such irrational thinking cannot really play into the decision on what cables to include.

Its a matter of one issue: What are the proper cables to be included for the interconnect between components, to carry the signals they should carry. That can be clearly defined for 99% of the users I would think (not those who live next to a radio station tower or run the system in an industrial plant of course). Whatever that requirement is - make THOSE cables the standard set in the boxes. Done. Charge whatever additional small cost that is to the consumer (on the upper grade components only, remember).

 

[John Garcia]

Whats the math that gets you there. I sell unit X for $y. I put 'better cables' in and that costs me (the manufacturer) an additional $20, so now I sell unit X for $(y+20).

Sorry, this is not how it works. These companies are in business to do one thing: MAKE MONEY. That extra $20 hurts their bottom line. If they increase the cost of manufacture by $20, to recoup that cost, they will charge an additional $40-80 to hit their profit margins for the product. A large percentage of people will use whatever is included and never know the difference, thus the inclusion of the "cheap" cables. A small percentage will seek out "decent" cables about the level you are talking about, and the percentage of people that will seek out relatively expensive cables is comparatively low. In the end, I don't see the cost benefit for these companies is there, or they would be doing it right now.

 

[Thomas Smailus]

If the cables cost $20 more, why can they not just increase the price to the wholesalers by $20. Where does the need to add $40-80 come from. If you are saying that for every screw and inch of wire in the box, they maker marks it up 100-200% to get a fixed percentage profit margin, that I can believe. But the $20 is just a guess... its likely to be much less. I'm sure they pay $1 for the cables they do include, due the sheer volume they have on them. Including RG-6 video interconnects would cost maybe $20 more with the 100% profit margin factored in.. the real cost, only those in the industry can know. Arguing its $20 this way or $40-80 that way doesn't solve the problem. If manufacturer wants to make 100% profit on each unit and cannot take a 99% profit, then they may mark up each part. However, there is no reason that the better cables HAS to impact their bottom line at all. Otherwise, there would be no ES or Elite or what have you lines at all, they would just sell the 100% plastic cased, bottom Best-Buy line and thats it. They know there is a market out there for customers who expect a little more.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

We've gotten WAY beyond the basics here so I'm going to move this thread over to the Tweeking and Connections forum.

 

[Cagri]

Who said the quote you are giving? Where am I changing the subject?

Thomas, the words in the quote are mine, they're quoted because I actually don't think like that. I think it does not matter who said them, they are representing opinions of a significant portion of customers, that was the point.

Well, I said you change the subject because you posted the thread in the basics forum as a basic question, but then I saw that you already have the answer for the question. On top of that your answer for the question is a potential subjectivist/objectivist debate starter on cables.

BTW, in addition to what John has said about the "maths" of marginal loss; for your marginal cost to be economically feasible, it should be equal to your marginal income. In your example, you simply present this equation, that's fine. But what you're missing is; this equation has to be valid for the overall cost and the income as well. That is, if you increase your cost by $y and increase the px of your product by $y, but by doing so if your sales are dropping, that means you've lowered your profits.

What I am suggesting fom here on is; if the companies are not doing what you've been suggesting, it must be because they have made their research and found out that they'll not be able to retain their sales, they'll lose market share, thus they'll lose money.

Possible reasons of the drop of sales we have tried to discuss in previous posts.

 

[David_Rivshin]

One thing to keep in mind while thinking about such things is that companies often decide on a price first, and then determine what they can fit in for that price. IOW to spend $20 more on a cable results in spending $20 on something else. If they wanted to hit a higher price point they would simply design a product with that pricepoint in mind from the beginning.

Also cables are not the only thing that can be improved for what seems like pennies. They could spend $20 more and upgrade all their caps to ones of higher quality. Besides possibly having a greater benefit to the consumer than spending $20 more on the cable, caps are things that cannot be changed by the user, while cables are. I would certainly rather have better caps come in the box that a better cable. Along the same lines they could spend $10 for better resistors with tighter tollerances. Or $5 for for supper cushioned rubber feet (for a transport), or $10 for higher quality connectors, or $3 for higher quality internal wiring, or $5 for buttons on the remote which are rated for 100k pushes instead of 20k, or $20 for a larger power transformer, or $10 for larger and better designed heatsinks, or $20 for a higher quality composite to S-video converter. The list of such items is practically endless. Where does one draw the line? A product team could basically nickel and dime themselves right out of their target price range. One of the jobs when designing a product is to determine at what quality level each component should be to provide the best performance/price (really revenue/cost).
Engineers often have to fight for their piece of the pie, and management has to weight the improvements given by every tweak against what has to be sacrificed for it (profit per unit or other features). Such is the world of product development. And it does apply to all types of products, not just audio equipment or consumer electronics.

On a slightly different side of this topic just because someone is spending what seems like alot of money on a piece of electronics does not mean that they are knowledgable or discriminating. Many people spend alot of something just because they think that makes it better or gives them some status. It only takes one look into a Bose store to prove that point. Those people could care less about the quality of the cable in the box (and usually aren't aware cables can have different quality, unless a salesman tries to sell them some expensive cable). But they will be quite displeased if them come home and they don't have everything they need, which includes cables and batteries for the remote.

Just my $0.02,
-- Dave

PS. All numbers used above are pure speculation, since I have no real knowledge of them, but I trust that they get my points across.

 

[Mike Boniferro]

The cables that come in the box are 'emergency cables'
They serve a purpose, in the event of an emergency (you forget to purchase proper cables or the salesperson didn't tell you about them) then they will get your equipment hooked up when you get home.
But put yourself in the manufacturers shoes... if you were trying to decide what type of cables to include with a DVD player, what would they be? Do you include coax or optical... composite, s-video or component? Surely including all of those would drive the price of the product up more than it could ever be worth it.