Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Fool's Gold (Read 40545 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fool's Gold

Reply #75 –
Steve may I once again point you the direction of the UK Advertising Standards Authority.

ASA

They have an enviable record of upholding complaints again both mega corporations (Sony) and small scale scammers (G Slee). You do not even have to prove yourself that the claims are false, it is the responsibility of the other party to prove their own claims are true.

Otherwise your continued whining is both unseemly and palpably wrong. Surely you must accet that if you take the moral high ground and repeatedly accuse a competitor of a serious offence, fraud, on someone elses public forum you have a duty to prove your point using the official channels created for exactly that purpose. It's even a free service, funded by the tax paying public.

Seriously mate. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

ed: rd spl

Fool's Gold

Reply #76 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I don't have to prove that they don't sound different to claim fraud if the fraudster himself can't prove that they sound different. 

The difference is what he sells, and if he can't prove that the difference actually exists, he's selling a non-existent product, which is ordinarily fraud.


I prefer to distinguish between "sounds different" and "audibly different."

How something "sounds" to us is the result of the gestalt which includes many things beyond the sound waves hitting our eardrums.


That's all fine and good, but what's the connection between the comment being responded to (which includes all that) and the response?

Fool's Gold

Reply #77 –
Your initial post about the ASA wasn't lost on me. It's on my to-do list. Just that I have a few other priorities at the moment which are ahead of it. Perhaps this weekend.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #78 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
That's all fine and good, but what's the connection between the comment being responded to (which includes all that) and the response?


How does one prove that something "sounds different" to them? Take a lie detector test or something?

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #79 –
That's like the perfect fraud.
1) Make claim of sounding better.
2) Define 'sound' so that 1) is unfalsifiable.
3) Profit.

"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #80 –
Quote from: xnor on
That's like the perfect fraud.
1) Make claim of sounding better.
2) Define 'sound' so that 1) is unfalsifiable.
3) Profit.


Quite so.

Though being subjective, 1) can only apply to that particular individual. Of course it carries at least the implication that if it sounds different to one person it should sound different to others.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #81 –
I wasn't serious, because playing such word games is in itself fraudulent.

That's no different from selling defect hearing aids to old people, claiming that they improve hearing but defining "hearing" as some nebulous subjective impression.
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #82 –
Quote from: SoundAndMotion on
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Thought this might make for a nice little scientific chew toy.

The person responding as "Frank" appears to be the person behind Toxic Cables.

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/

Disappointing. I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles. This is the only one, but the article is kind of interesting. In the comments though, audiotruth is disappointing. His handling of standard subjectivist arguments (I know what I hear. You science-y people don't know everything) was weak, B- at best, and when Frank baited him, his answers *do* sound as though he is a cable competitor of Frank (clearly the Toxic guy). Rather than respond intelligently to all, he just sounds like he's bashing his competition (C- for answers to Frank).


That would be correct, as the author of the article is the very same person that started this thread Steve Eddy who has been on my case from the very first day my company was mentioned on a forum, from my wires are too big, too my pins on plugs are not suitable and will break and when he does not get a response i can look forward to rude foul mouthed, abusive emails.

This is not even the first time as he has pulled similar stunts with other competitors of his before and bad mouthed them.

This is Frank from Toxic Cables

I will also mention that i have only ever once said that Silver/gold is still more conductive then copper, this was after doing my own tests with my Sigma Check unit which i have since sold and do not have the available/spare funds right now to buy another. The response at the time was to a friend of his, another cable manufacturer that was posting that silver/gold was 80% less conductive then copper, other then that, i have never ever posted regarding conductivity comparisons of any of my cables as i sell and make my cables based on quality/looks and how i myself find they sound.

This will be my only post on the subject.

Fool's Gold

Reply #84 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Thought this might make for a nice little scientific chew toy.

The person responding as "Frank" appears to be the person behind Toxic Cables.

https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/



Also let me state, how accurate do you expect people to believe a conductivity test carried out on metals to be, which was published before even the radio was invented.

Which state of the art equipment did they use and was the test carried out on a silver sample that contained gold, or was it an educated guess.

As stated before, i have never advertised my wares stating that silver/gold was more conductive then copper or anything else and the only comment you have and keep usin was in reply to yet another competitor that was trying to discredit my products. The same competitor that sold silver wire claiming 7N purity and purchased from a big name company, while in reality and admitted to me in email, was purchased on eBay at $1 a meter.

It's sad how some can't concentrate on their own business and instead focus on how to try and hurt another, going as far as to contact my good customers offering free cables if they don't buy from me. Contacting other owners complaining how my prices are effecting your sales.

The very first day i was mentioned on the web i received emails from you and your other manufacturer friend, accusing me of claiming my wire to be what it was not and a ton of other things, it's just very tiring.

Get on with it, concentrate on your business and customers and maybe then you will gain more custom then worry about how much sales i make.

Life would be so much better if we all just kept to ourselves.


As for going to the ASA or whatever it was to report i am making false claims about my cables sounding better, well i can just forward then to a 420 page thread of happy  customers.

Maybe also slow down on opening new account on various forums so that you can post a link to the article as you have been doing. My next step will be pursuing a libel suit.

Fool's Gold

Reply #85 –
Quote from: Frank D on
Get on with it, concentrate on your business and customers and maybe then you will gain more custom then worry about how much sales i make.

This is a public forum.

We have a personal messaging system for conversations between individuals.  Please consider using it rather than airing out your laundry here.

Fool's Gold

Reply #86 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Frank D on
Get on with it, concentrate on your business and customers and maybe then you will gain more custom then worry about how much sales i make.

This is a public forum.

We have a personal messaging system for conversations between individuals.  Please consider using it rather than airing out your laundry here.


Yes it is a public forum and i am making clear what his agenda is, as he failed to mention that he was the author of the blog.

Fool's Gold

Reply #87 –
You're a little late to the party as it was made clear three pages ago.

I respectfully suggest you consider whether this is an appropriate forum for you to defend your business practices.  You're not likely to find much support here (please refer to TOS #8 if you aren't following).

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...974#entry149481

Fool's Gold

Reply #88 –
Quote from: greynol on
You're a little late to the party as it was made clear three pages ago.

I respectfully suggest you consider whether this is an appropriate forum for you to defend your business practices.  You're not likely to find much support here (please refer to TOS #8 if you aren't following).

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...974#entry149481


Well, i am not looking for any support or anything else here, but giving my side rather then sit back and let someone try to tarnish my company here. after being warned on other forums of such behavior.

Out.

Fool's Gold

Reply #89 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
That's all fine and good, but what's the connection between the comment being responded to (which includes all that) and the response?


How does one prove that something "sounds different" to them? Take a lie detector test or something?



Do well in a relevant ABX test and there is no logical reason to question  their claim  that something "sounds different" to them.
 

Fool's Gold

Reply #90 –
Thanks for commenting, Frank. Steve does seem like he may be on a personal crusade to tarnish your reputation, here. It can be entertaining when one vulture goes after another.

Fool's Gold

Reply #91 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Thanks for commenting, Frank. Steve does seem like he may be on a personal crusade to tarnish your reputation, here. It can be entertaining when one vulture goes after another.

Thanks,

I am not sure if allowed, but if it is, i can post emails he sends me, out of the blue with just abuse.

Fool's Gold

Reply #92 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Do well in a relevant ABX test and there is no logical reason to question  their claim  that something "sounds different" to them.


That would prove nothing with regard to whether or not something sounded different to the listener.

As I clesrly stated previously, I distinguish "sounds different" from "audibly different."

The subjective gestalt determines how something sounds to a particular individual. This gestalt includes such things as psychological biases and other phenomenon which can conspire to cause someone to subjectively perceive there to be some difference, even when there are no actual differences. Just the same, it is this gestalt that determines how the world "sounds" to a particular individual.

So when someone says something sounds different to them, unless you're prepared to call them a liar, there is simply nothing to argue against that statement. That is simply their subjective experience. You can argue that the perceived difference wasn't due to an actual audible stimulus, but that doesn't change the fact that to the individual, it "sounds different."

se



Fool's Gold

Reply #93 –
I have a feeling this pointless line of inquiry rests solely on semantics as there doesn't appear to be any debate over the phenomenon.

Perhaps you should consult with the ASA rather than forum members.

Fool's Gold

Reply #94 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

Quote from: Steve Eddy link=msg=0 date=

How does one prove that something "sounds different" to them? Take a lie detector test or something?

Do well in a relevant ABX test and there is no logical reason to question  their claim  that something "sounds different" to them.


That would prove nothing with regard to whether or not something sounded different to the listener.

As I clesrly stated previously, I distinguish "sounds different" from "audibly different."


Hmm, Steve you missed the logical connection between the two.

I'll spell it out this time.

If a person reliably hears a difference in an ABX (strong evidence that the two sounds are audibly different) test then any claim they make that it sounds different to them would seem to have indisputable evidence backing it up.

Fool's Gold

Reply #96 –
Quote from: greynol on
Will that ease his concerns about whether the ASA will find that Toxic Cables is committing fraud?


Since his alleged concerns related to that issue seem to be the result of him arguing with himself...

no.

Fool's Gold

Reply #97 –
Quote from: Frank D on
That would be correct, as the author of the article is the very same person that started this thread Steve Eddy who has been on my case from the very first day my company was mentioned on a forum, from my wires are too big, too my pins on plugs are not suitable and will break and when he does not get a response i can look forward to rude foul mouthed, abusive emails.


I don't recall saying anything about wire being too big. However the "pins on plugs are not suitable and will break" I distinctly remember as this relates to the first contact I ever had with Frank.

It concerned something Frank had said in a thread over on HeadFi. It was a thread about a UK meet and in it, Frank said that Toxic Cables had produced the world's first cable made of solid silver, including all of the contacts. Since this was a cable for the Audeze LCD series of headphones, this would have had to have included the female contacts in the 4-pin mini XLRs (Audeze uses the male recepticle in their headphones).

Since I know a bit about connectors and contacts, and that no reputable manufacturer of connectors would use a pure metal for their female contacts (which are typically formed from sheet material and not machined from solid stock) I found the claim rather curious.

The inventor of the mini XLR is Switchcraft, a company I am very familiar with.

On their website, their short description for their female mini XLRs reads:

"TinI-QG "Mini XLR 4 Pin Female Cable Mount, Silver Pins..."

Before I go any further, I just want to say that I am friends with many in the industry, including those who are competitors, and we all help each other out when we can. And again, this was my first contact with Frank who at the time I had no beef with nor bore any malice.

From my perspective, it looked like Frank may have taken the bit on Switchcraft's website a bit too seriously, so I wanted to clarify it with him so he could avoid getting caught making false claims. I further wanted to tell him that you wouldn't want the female contacts made of pure silver anyway, as the female contacts rely on maintaining spring pressure to maintain proper contact and that pure metals make for very poor springs, which is why connector manufacturers use various alloys for female contacts, commonly a phosphor bronze, for just this purpose.

I still had my old printed a Switchcraft catalog (which they no longer produce) so I knew that the female contacts were not made of pure silver. The printed catalog said:

"Pin and Socket Contacts: Copper alloy, silver plated"

I had made a couple of queries to Frank on the thread, and when he hadn't responded, I assumed he hadn't seen them, so I decided to send him a PM on HeadFi. My PM was polite, respectful and with no other intention than to inform.

Here is the exact text of that PM that I sent to Frank on April 22nd, 2012:

Hello, Frank.

You were quoted over in the UK meet thread as saying:

"This cable has the same specs as the Silver Poison but instead of the mini XLR used on the Silver Poison this uses a higher quality Switchcraft shielded mini XLR. The largest difference in this cable is that the cable is Full Silver tip to tip, the first ever cable to be released that uses solid Silver for all the contacts, not silver plated. All contacts are machined from solid Silver."

Did you have Switchcraft make you some custom TA4F's with solid silver contacts? If not, then your statement above is incorrect. The female contacts on the female Switchcraft connectors are silver plated, not solid silver. Nor would you want them to be solid silver as solid silver doesn't make very good springs and female contacts would soon lose their contact pressure and fail, which is why the "copper alloy" Switchcraft is using is likely phosphpor bronze.

See underlined in red below:

The "underlined in red below" was a scan I had taken the time to make from a page in my printed Switchcraft catalog.

That's it. Nothing rude, foul-mouthed, abusive or in any way disrespectful. I even allowed for the possibility that he had had some custom female contacts made out of pure silver.

This is the very terse reply I received from Frank:

Post replied to and i suggest you refer to the MOT rules.

The post he replied to in the thread seems to have been deleted, but I seem to recall that he said he bought the shells from Switchcraft, but had the inserts made in China with solid silver female contacts.

This made absolutely no sense at all. Why would you buy expensive shells from Switchcraft, and then have contact inserts made in China, when there were already a number of companies in China making exact copies of the entire plug for a whole lot less than Switchcraft, who were still making them here in Chicago?

This seemed to have confirmed my suspicion that Frank had indeed made an erroneous conclusion based on what he saw on Switchcraft's website and that his reply in the thread saying he had inserts made in China (he'd already boxed himself in when he specifically said he was using Switchcraft's connectors) was just a desperate attempt to try and cover his ass.

Combined with his terse and confrontational reply to my PM, it was pretty clear that Frank just was a rather foul human being who would do or say anything to try and make a buck. And that's the day that I lost all respect for Frank. My reply to his PM was:

Nothing in the MOT rules against asking questions.

Oh well. At least now I know that all you care about is meaningless marketing ******** and not the reliability of the constituent components you use to make your cables.

So that, ladies and gentleman, is how all of this got started. I tried being friendly and helpful to someone I didn't even know, which has always been my nature, and found that I was dealing with a paranoid psychopath.

Quote
I will also mention that i have only ever once said that Silver/gold is still more conductive then copper, this was after doing my own tests with my Sigma Check unit which i have since sold and do not have the available/spare funds right now to buy another.


As if saying it only once (in a post that still exists and has been read my many and can still be read by many more) makes it any less a fraud?

And if you based your claim that 1% gold barely effected conductivity and that with 1% gold it was still more conductive than copper on your Sigma Check meter, then given the facts about silver-gold alloys, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your wire doesn't contain any appreciable amount of gold, let alone the 1%+ that you claim it does.

So even if your conductivity claims were true, that just makes your 1%+ gold claim the fraud instead.

Over on the audiotruth blog, you offered to provide a sample of your wire so that the conductivity claims could be tested. Poster Mel Famey took you up on that offer but there was no further response from you on that subject.

Now that the gold content of your wire is in serious question, Mr. Famey would also be able to do a chemical analysis of your wire to determine just how much gold it contains, to an accuracy of +/- 0.001%.

Will you provide a sample of your wire for analysis? Or will you continue to run and hide behind a smoke screen of ad hominem attacks?

Quote
The response at the time was to a friend of his, another cable manufacturer that was posting that silver/gold was 80% less conductive then copper...


And he was right. And all you've done since then is shuck and jive.

Quote
This will be my only post on the subject.


It may as well be, as you haven't had anything meaningful to say on the issue throughout all of this.

As I've said before, you're nothing but an unimaginative hack with a soldering iron who props himself up with BS marketing claims, buzzwords and numbers games. You're an embarrassment to those who actually know what they're doing who are not just DIY cable cobblers looking to make a buck.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #98 –
Quote from: Frank D on
Also let me state, how accurate do you expect people to believe a conductivity test carried out on metals to be, which was published before even the radio was invented.

Which state of the art equipment did they use and was the test carried out on a silver sample that contained gold, or was it an educated guess.


The radio wasn't invented until after 1967? That's funny. I seem to recall listening to a thing they called radio before 1967.

Did you read down to the references in the blog post? Here, let me help you:

V. K. Iyer and R. M. Asimow, J. Less-Common Metals, 13 (1967), pp. 18-23

Quote
As for going to the ASA or whatever it was to report i am making false claims about my cables sounding better, well i can just forward then to a 420 page thread of happy  customers.


That would be great if the ASA based their conclusions on "happy customers."

Quote
Maybe also slow down on opening new account on various forums so that you can post a link to the article as you have been doing.


Not very observant, are you, Frank. I've had this account on Hydrogen Audio since 2010.

Quote
My next step will be pursuing a libel suit.


Knock yourself out. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. Meaning you have to show that the claims made are false. So far you've done nothing of the sort. All you've managed to do is dig yourself deeper.

And just so you know, when such a lawsuit is initiated, a little thing called "discovery" kicks in, and it works both ways. Google it.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #99 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Thanks for commenting, Frank. Steve does seem like he may be on a personal crusade to tarnish your reputation, here. It can be entertaining when one vulture goes after another.


Hey, I'm a nice guy. The first contact I ever made with Frank I was reaching out to be helpful, and ended up pulling back a bloody stump, and have since lost all respect for him.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...rt=#entry895104

se