Interesting article on cables...drama ensues...

See my reply above. What was more revealing was the reaction to his observations. I see many parallels on many of these threads.

I read the article. I understand where you're coming from. I've also spoken with both parties in a marriage after a divorce, as I'm sure have you. Regardless of what is "proven" by whatever evidence, the real truth usually lies somewhere between their opposing views of events. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps the fact that the writer has been ejected from at least one other group (by his own admission in the article) reveals an element in his character tending to lead him to controversy. Possibly of a self-righteous nature. I'm not claiming that is the case, but it's a possibility. Who really knows? Certainly not me.
 
Last edited:
I know there are two sides to every story but the responses seem to indicate that the head of the audio society was pissed that someone was caught cheating and Mark let the cat out of the bag. Doesn't say much for the integrity of that fellow at all.
I don't think anyone would argue that the audio world is full of snake oil salesman. I have no problem with there lies being made public, I believe it is a service to everyone.

BillWojo
 
Without knowing the methodology of an apparently surreptitiously-administered test, it is difficult to know exactly where error lies. I wonder things like: Were people moving around in the room? Was he using an app on a cellphone? And many other questions arise when you begin to consider the circumstances. Again, I don't know, and choose to reserve judgment.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the differences people say they hear between cables are purely imaginary.

I also don't think expensive cables are better.

I think a lot of high end cables sound different because they play with resistance/impedance values. In such cases they act as a tone control - the world's most expensive tone control.
 
Again, I don't know, and choose to reserve judgment.

I buy you an "e" to improve your judgement. :p

Anyway, you're certainly right, that one can't properly judge that affair without knowing the complete story. For example, I wonder, whether Mr. Waldrep has only written about this experience later on or he has also confronted the demonstrator right at the event. I.e., while I personally see nothing wrong in the quest for scientific truth, I nevertheless think that appropriateness should always be considered. And in this particular case I think the more appropriate approach would have been to confront the demonstrator right at the event or at least to inform the hosting audio society about the issue and see what they make of it, before writing anything about it, which might be embarrassing for that hosting audio society on the whole instead of just for that possibly cheating demonstrator (and the company he's working for).

On the other hand I wouldn't deem the reactions of the president of that audio society all too appropriate, either. Because in my view the problem rather shouldn't be, that a professional visitor may have discovered a fishy demonstration at one of their conventions or that he's used hidden technical equipment for that purpose, but rather, whether when, where, how and to whom that visitor presented his suspicions was fair towards the hosting audio society or rather not...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
I buy you an "e" to improve your judgement. :p

Anyway, you're certainly right, that one can't properly judge that affair without knowing the complete story. For example, I wonder, whether Mr. Waldrep has only written about this experience later on or he has also confronted the demonstrator right at the event. I.e., while I personally see nothing wrong in the quest for scientific truth, I nevertheless think that appropriateness should always be considered. And in this particular case I think the more appropriate approach would have been to confront the demonstrator right at the event or at least to inform the hosting audio society about the issue and see what they make of it, before writing anything about it, which might be embarrassing for that hosting audio society on the whole instead of just for that possibly cheating demonstrator (and the company he's working for).

On the other hand I wouldn't deem the reactions of the president of that audio society all too appropriate, either. Because in my view the problem rather shouldn't be, that a professional visitor may have discovered a fishy demonstration at one of their conventions or that he's used hidden technical equipment for that purpose, but rather, whether when, where, how and to whom that visitor presented his suspicions was fair towards the hosting audio society or rather not...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Actually, the "e" is optional. Many cite judgment as preferred. And, as I said, many questions arise, and yours are entirely on point.


EDIT: In discussing the spelling of judgment v judgement with lini, I didn't wish to do so in a new post, since it's OT anyway, so this is my response to his post below. Shakespeare didn't use the "e" but it was favored by the RV bible. Generally, the "e" is considered the British spelling and dropping the "e" an American one, but both have been widely used on both sides of the pond. Different sources may prefer one or the other, but consistency and consensus are unclear.

Being a poet of the mighty Vogon Order myself, Shakespeare is an entirely sufficient authority for me in this case. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
I thought I saw this closed. Might as well be. What is the topic, again? The OP mentions snake oil peddlers and liars (liers would be something else, I think), but isn't looking for debate? Just reinforcement, then?

Far as I can tell the topic seems to be a fool and his money - that is what I infer. Can we discuss other platitudes, as well?

I don't like the one about insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Actually, it is quite sane and people do it all the time. It's called practice, whether with a musical instrument, or some kind of ball, etc. OTOH, starting cable threads that don't flame out... may be a different story for this platitude. :biggrin:
Not even reinforcement. Just putting out an article about an audio show and a blogger. What I was trying to put forth was there was a possibility of chicanery going on by the vendor of certain cables, and that the blogger and the chairman of the show were at odds about whether it was OK for the blogger to put his information out for all to see. I have no idea if the cables actually did anything or not, if the seller did something sneaky, if the testing methodology was in any way sound, etc.
Personally, I don't care what people buy. If it makes them happy and they feel there is a difference, good for them. Up to, and including, magical wooden discs.
 
mh: Well, Oxford Dictionaries ("The world's Most trusted Dictionary Provider", they say... ;)) claim the usual spelling to be "judgement" in a general context, while "judgment" would be more usual in a legal context as well as in North America. Personally, however, I think it looks much better with the extra "e" - and I also think it makes more sense, as it's a judge-ment and not a jud-gment or a judgm-ent. :D

Grinnings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
Regardless of what is "proven" by whatever evidence, the real truth usually lies somewhere between their opposing views of events. That's all I'm saying.

If one side says one thing and the other something else, it is fair to assume the truth lies in the middle.

But Met Office says the sky is blue, and they give a scientific explanation why that is so. If somebody else comes along and says the sky is yellow, that doesn't make it green. The truth is not in the middle, but science is right and the sky is blue.

Whenever you are dealing with people making outlandish claims, the 'truth lies in the middle' assumption leads you down the rabbit hole.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/optics/why-is-the-sky-blue
 
If one side says one thing and the other something else, it is fair to assume the truth lies in the middle.

But Met Office says the sky is blue, and they give a scientific explanation why that is so. If somebody else comes along and says the sky is yellow, that doesn't make it green. The truth is not in the middle, but science is right and the sky is blue.

Whenever you are dealing with people making outlandish claims, the 'truth lies in the middle' assumption leads you down the rabbit hole.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/optics/why-is-the-sky-blue

Twistin' the night away, are we? So far, assumptions have caused many here to take a side. I have not.

I see you managed to include both politics and religion in that last post. Verboten.

Done.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I would want to belong to a scientific or technical society whose leader writes this: "You were invited to sell and listen, not do sudo scientific research." There's a whole lot wrong with that short sentence beyond the inexcusable misspelling.
 
Lies! There all lies!!! Yea I found that article typical of todays politics-The truth is out there you just have to sift through all the B.S. Another reason I stay away from clubs too! There is always someone who thinks they are above and beyond and knows it all. Sales people are the worst ones. My motto is-if its good to your ears and budget then who cares what the rest of the crowd says...I loved this article and folks who stand up to these kind of people as we all should.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I would want to belong to a scientific or technical society whose leader writes this: "You were invited to sell and listen, not do sudo scientific research." There's a whole lot wrong with that short sentence beyond the inexcusable misspelling.


BINGO! What kind of "society" demands one of its members shut up and tow the party line? If the leader of that society had been mad about the guy outing the sponsor, I can understand that. But demanding the author go back on what he said or be kicked out was above the pale. Open and rousing debate about items in this (or any) hobby is part of the fun. Being told to shut up and beg forgiveness makes me want to vomit.
 
I know there are two sides to every story but the responses seem to indicate that the head of the audio society was pissed that someone was caught cheating and Mark let the cat out of the bag. Doesn't say much for the integrity of that fellow at all.
I don't think anyone would argue that the audio world is full of snake oil salesman. I have no problem with there lies being made public, I believe it is a service to everyone.

BillWojo

Well, that's what the Blogger said happened ... we don't know if that's what actually happened.
Its written as if it was a very cut and dry issue - and very convincing to chose a side based on what is presented.
But - I have no fish in this fish-fry ...
 
I guess he wanted to get to the root of the issue...
I think there is smoke and fire...I read the linked material and 'Bob' told 'Mark' to bring his AIX discs...AIX is a proprietary unix-like OS made by IBM that does in fact have a sudo command! (am I good or what!)

but seriously...I am by no great shakes an audio god (programmer god yes, audio no) but I attended and passed enuf engineering and EE courses at CMU to know, without question, that if a claim re: audio is made wrt cables, the speaker is demented. So I tune them out (pun intended). That has always been my stance. BUT, that there is apparently a dark secret society that back and forths over this like rap artist dis-tracks and THIS is their main focus...well...just goes to show <insert lament statement about todays societal ills that suits you>

'Mark', should have let me write his first (and should have been last) reply. But I suspect he is nicer than I.

now our main task is to find out why 'Bob' has unix/linux on his mind...

onto more important topics, like why is thermal paste more expensive than gold?
 
Back
Top Bottom