I'm all about cables, but this is rediculous...

ton1313 · « **on:** 9 Sep 2005, 01:20 am »

http://www.sunnycable.com/files/SCT-2005%20Price%20List.pdf

Check out the prices for the top of the line stuff, especially the component video cable

ScottMayo · « **Reply #1 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 02:02 am »

Quote from: ton1313

http://www.sunnycable.com/files/SCT-2005%20Price%20List.pdf

Check out the prices for the top of the line stuff, especially the component video cable

Well, it's 3 cables, so it's three times the price. Seems fair.

What I find appalling is, there's no discount for 4m or more. I mean, he couldn't knock $5 off for bulk orders?

Seriously, if you like his cables, I can recommend a line of fuses to you.

And a bridge, and some nice antimatter woofers - for when "explosive slam" is just not enough...

---
Any bets it's really all repackaged Belden?

fabaudio · « **Reply #2 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 02:06 am »

Gee, I ONLY paid 100.00 for my 30ft component cable. I MUST be missing something!

mgalusha · « **Reply #3 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 02:45 am »

Only $60K for a 4m set of component video cables. Wow. I figured this must be some mighty special stuff and since they claim it's patented (pending anyway) a quick search on the US PTO site turned up this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Lo.IN.&s2=cable.TTL.&OS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable&RS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable

I'm fairly certain that is the stuff.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #4 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 03:50 am »

Quote from: mgalusha

Only $60K for a 4m set of component video cables. Wow. I figured this must be some mighty special stuff and since they claim it's patented (pending anyway) a quick search on the US PTO site turned up this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Lo.IN.&s2=cable.TTL.&OS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable&RS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable

I'm fairly certain that is the stuff.

Maybe: but then he's lying through his teeth on his Theory page at his site. He describes a completely different pile of hokum there - part of it provably sheer nonsense.

warnerwh · « **Reply #5 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 04:36 am »

Has anybody considered the fact that maybe this wire is worth the money? Just kidding of course

The amazing part I believe are the prices people are willing to pay. Look at the Agon ads and wire costing a thousand or more is common. I wish I could afford what some of that wire costs for electronics!

maxwalrath · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 04:42 am »

I just took out a home equity loan. I could spite them and buy cables that I'm pretty sure won't be worth $50k...then return them.

_scotty_ · « **Reply #7 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 04:46 am »

If I read his patent application correctly it sounds like he is trying to patent
the star-quad configuration. I could be wrong but I don't think he will get
a patent for this. It's kind of like trying to patent fire or the wheel.
Scotty

ScottMayo · « **Reply #8 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:00 am »

Quote from: _scotty_

If I read his patent application correctly it sounds like he is trying to patent
the star-quad configuration. I could be wrong but I don't think he will get
a patent for this. It's kind of like trying to patent fire or the wheel.
Scotty

It sounds like the patent suggests folding the conductor back on itself, in effect using 2 (3?) feet of wire for one foot of cable. Without the patent art I can't tell though.

Just read his website theory page. I don't think this is the same guy as came up with that patent. This Sunny fellow seems to be, like, "well I don't know what I did and it's kind of funky looking and I can spout a lot of total nonsense about time-smearing in strands, which a kid in junior high school could refute with a calculator, but I say it works, and let's not argue. At $5,000/m it's not worth an argument."

Gordy · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:02 am »

Ah, but now he can claim patent pending whether the product merits it or not! That's just a standard advertising ploy though, isn't it???

maxwalrath · « **Reply #10 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:04 am »

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=94563

they're right near san fran if anyone wants to hear someone try to justify a fifty-thousand dollar cable. bring the wife....

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #11 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:40 am »

I imagine these cables would be a match made in heaven with the "Best Speakers in the World" (only £1400) ..see:
http://www.worldsbestloudspeakers.com/

similar aspirations, similar credibility.

Russell

Gordy · « **Reply #12 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:47 am »

Quote from: Russell Dawkins

I imagine these cables would be a match made in heaven with the "Best Speakers in the World" (only £1400) ..see:
http://www.worldsbestloudspeakers.com/

similar aspirations, similar credibility.

Russell

Is that a miner's lamp???

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #13 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 06:20 am »

Quote from: Russell Dawkins

I imagine these cables would be a match made in heaven with the "Best Speakers in the World" (only £1400) ..see:
http://www.worldsbestloudspeakers.com/

similar aspirations, similar credibility.

Russell

miner's lamp...

Sunny Cable Technologies...shines a light on the sound...makes your music bright...they should not be used with Resolution Miner's Lamp loudspeakers as the combination will be too bright.

"The Resolution is the only loudspeaker in the world that delivers full range from only one drive unit with no woofer, crossover, ports or enclosure coloration."

You can always upgrade to the Purple Haze™

...or if you want to brighten up your sound a bit because the SCT cables didn't quite shine enough light on the situation...there is the Sunny Side Upgrade

ctviggen · « **Reply #14 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 10:57 am »

You can't claim "patent pending" unless it really is patent pending, as you can get fined for doing so. Now, that doesn't stop people, but it is illegal. I personally would have to reject this claim (as a patent attorney) because it's unclear. However, it does appear that they are taking the same conductor and looping it backward somehow -- but I didn't take the time to analyze the entire patent.

Honestly, I think many cable schemes could get patented, because most of them are based on hokum (pseudoscience) and the patent office isn't really going to know how to attack the validity of the patent. You rarely see a "this doesn't really work, does it?" rejection from the patent office. Only in perpetual motion machines and the like, when it's obvious it doesn't work.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #15 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 01:03 pm »

Quote from: ctviggen

Honestly, I think many cable schemes could get patented, because most of them are based on hokum (pseudoscience) and the patent office isn't really going to know how to attack the validity of the patent. You rarely see a "this doesn't really work, does it?" rejection from the patent office. Only in perpetual motion machines and the like, when it's obvious it doesn't work.

Right. Patented doesn't mean good - it means original. Intellectual property is indisputably property, but it doesn't have to be very, um, intellectual....

I created a patent (which became property of the company I worked for at the time) on the representation of a 3D spreadsheet. Was it useful? Well, probably not. We needed to protect the idea because it was part of a larger scheme that was important (at the time), but the patent was about as device that represented 3D spreadsheets, period - and probably pretty pointless.

But if you've occasionally wondered why there is no "Excel, 3D!" product out there, it's probably my fault.

audioengr · « **Reply #16 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:08 pm »

Quote from: mgalusha

Only $60K for a 4m set of component video cables. Wow. I figured this must be some mighty special stuff and since they claim it's patented (pending anyway) a quick search on the US PTO site turned up this:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Lo.IN.&s2=cable.TTL.&OS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable&RS=IN/Lo+AND+TTL/cable

I'm fairly certain that is the stuff.

This patent will never issue. Too bad they didn't bother to do a patent search. I've already patented this idea:

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06653555&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D6653555.WKU.%2526OS%3DPN%2F6653555%2526RS%3DPN%2F6653555&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=D34DAE394B8D

Steve N.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 05:29 pm »

Quote from: audioengr

This patent will never issue. Too bad they didn't bother to do a patent search.

Too bad? I expect they submitted just for the right to say "patent pending" - and when it comes back rejected, they will likely neglect to remove the comment about "patent pending" from the web site. An honest oversight, you understand. Who's going to call them on it?

audioengr · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 06:20 pm »

Quote from: ScottMayo

Quote from: audioengr
This patent will never issue. Too bad they didn't bother to do a patent search.

Too bad? I expect they submitted just for the right to say "patent pending" - and when it comes back rejected, they will likely neglect to remove the comment about "patent pending" from the web site. An honest oversight, you understand. Who's going to call them on it?

Actually, now I'm in a battle with the PTO and will probably have to hire my attorney again to get them to pay license fees for products sold in the US. It' actually fortunate that I read this thread....

chadh · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Sep 2005, 06:20 pm »

Quote from: audioengr

This patent will never issue. Too bad they didn't bother to do a patent search. I've already patented this idea:

Steve N.

So...umm...were yours selling for $60k per set?

Chad