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/ (https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/)
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/ (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).
> I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles
Sounds quite clickbaity to me, to be honest.
Hah I find this brilliant, especially the comment section!
First, the typical feelie ("I feel it's true so it must be true") gets all upset and spouts typical fallacious nonsense which includes the occasional anti-scientific statement and then Toxic Cables 'Frank' is putting his foot down that physics (conductivity of alloys) must have changed in the last decades, so the article is invalid - without providing any sources or any evidence to back up his claims!
Audiophile equipment manufacturers like that should be called out on their dishonesty, their BS claims and flat out lies.
And the article also shows nicely how such audiophile manufacturers do not advance the hobby but retard it and even make huge technological steps backwards, while making a living conning money out of people like 'Nigel'.
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/ (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).
You're free to post and show how it's done.
se
I skipped the article and went straight to the laughs section.
> I'd hoped a blog called "audiotruth" could have interesting articles
Sounds quite clickbaity to me, to be honest.
Does Wordpress pay bloggers for clicks? I had a blog on there back in 2007 when the Obama "birther" thing was in full rage and don't recall any such plan.
se
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/ (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).
You're free to post and show how it's done.
se
Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.
[/quote]
Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.
[/quote]
You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.
And as I've long argued, the people you're referring to shouldn't be called "subjectivists." They're not. They're what I call "pseudo objectivists." A true subjectivist would never attempt to assert that their subjective perceptions are due entirely to actual audible difference. A true subjectivist only cares about their subjective experience and never tries to pass it off as anything more than that.
se
You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.
I went back to the blog to find a couple of quotes to post here, but really his tone in all his responses to beautox and Nigel doesn't win any points for convincing someone who disagrees. He doesn't have to be nice for me or anyone, if he doesn't want to. But if he wants to convince anyone, not just preach to the choir, a respectful tone is needed.
Easy. Don't tell subjectivists they're delusional or stupid, just point out (as he did) some evidence of bias and illusions, and don't be mean. Help them, and if they don't want the help, ignore them. The derogatory tone is why I graded him down. As for the answers to Frank, he should have stuck to the material of the article and not gotten side-tracked. His defense of high-prices for copper cables make it just look like a tiff between vendors.
So, you're critiquing the optics of *comments*. So tiresome.
Did *you* start to question the substance of the argument in the *article*, because the tone of the comment replies disappoints you? Did you become 'unconvinced'?
- If so I would posit that the problem could be the delicacy of your sensibilities, and not with the substance of the argument.
- If not, then are you just worried that the gentle reader might be confused because the blogger is doing it wrong? If that's the case, and if it's 'easy', then go ahead and post there to show how to do it right.
And as I've long argued, the people you're referring to shouldn't be called "subjectivists." They're not. They're what I call "pseudo objectivists." A true subjectivist would never attempt to assert that their subjective perceptions are due entirely to actual audible difference. A true subjectivist only cares about their subjective experience and never tries to pass it off as anything more than that.
You mean "pseudo subjectivist" if you define a "subjectivist" that way.
General tenets of the audiophile subjectivist position would be:
- subjective impressions that one arrived at in biased listening 'tests' always trump data gathered in controlled listening tests or measurements
- there are hidden magical properties in audio components that we cannot measure
- if someone asks for an explanation then simply pick a random phenomenon in physics that is remotely related and exaggerate, distort or blow it out of proportion until it seems to fit the question
- N people all heard the same so they cannot err
- the right feelings are enough evidence to even make outlandish claims come true
- a true upgrade always causes an audible improvement - human hearing is unlimited
...
And this leads to the nonsense spread by some of the audiophile manufacturers, as dealt with in above article. And the nonsense in magazines. And the nonsense in forums.
I never understood the label "objectivist". It makes no sense. Is an "objectivist" audiophile someone who likes audio but does not listen to it?
So, you're critiquing the optics of *comments*. So tiresome.
Did *you* start to question the substance of the argument in the *article*, because the tone of the comment replies disappoints you? Did you become 'unconvinced'?
- If so I would posit that the problem could be the delicacy of your sensibilities, and not with the substance of the argument.
- If not, then are you just worried that the gentle reader might be confused because the blogger is doing it wrong? If that's the case, and if it's 'easy', then go ahead and post there to show how to do it right.
LOL. Wow, I shouldn't have posted in this thread. Sorry.
My history in this thread: OP links a blog article and specifically calls out the comments section. I read it all. I give my 2cents (obviously overpriced ;-)
Since I have a personal bias against ad hominem attacks and uncivil discourse in either direction (subj->obj; obj->subj), I pointed that out. The only take-home message I got was the interesting graph of the conductivity of silver when alloyed with gold. Otherwise, no convincing or unconvincing on my part. I have no interest in showing anyone how to do it. I'll just point out that civil behavior works best IMO.
I'm curious - did I say something offensive with my 2 cents? Did you like the article or comments? I didn't. But I suppose I should just drop this topic.
You mean "pseudo subjectivist" if you define a "subjectivist" that way.
I think "pseudo objectivist" is more apt. While they will often
call themselves subjectivists, everything else that comes out of their mouth is stated as if it were objective, but is never substantiated with any objective evidence.
But whether you want to call them, they are decidedly not true subjectivists. Their vanity and ego is simply not content with that.
General tenets of the audiophile subjectivist position would be:
- subjective impressions that one arrived at in biased listening 'tests' always trump data gathered in controlled listening tests or measurements
- there are hidden magical properties in audio components that we cannot measure
- if someone asks for an explanation then simply pick a random phenomenon in physics that is remotely related and exaggerate, distort or blow it out of proportion until it seems to fit the question
- N people all heard the same so they cannot err
- the right feelings are enough evidence to even make outlandish claims come true
- a true upgrade always causes an audible improvement - human hearing is unlimited
...
And this leads to the nonsense spread by some of the audiophile manufacturers, as dealt with in above article.
That's a very good summary. May I steal it?
I never understood the label "objectivist". It makes no sense. Is an "objectivist" audiophile someone who likes audio but does not listen to it?
I think it depends on context. I'm with Pirsig on this and see no reason why the two cannot peacefully coexist.
When I want to get at the truth of something simply for the sake of my own knowledge and understanding, I wear the objective hat. When I simply want the pleasure and enjoyment of listening to music, I wear the subjective hat.
se
You don't have to say they're delusional or stupid. They accuse you of saying that when they get all defensive.
I went back to the blog to find a couple of quotes to post here, but really his tone in all his responses to beautox and Nigel doesn't win any points for convincing someone who disagrees. He doesn't have to be nice for me or anyone, if he doesn't want to. But if he wants to convince anyone, not just preach to the choir, a respectful tone is needed.
Convincing someone who disagrees with what? Yeah, things got a bit scrappy in the replies. But that was on issues that had nothing to do with the article itself, and yeah, I can't disagree that it would have been better to have not allowed that distraction to have crept in.
What I found hilarious was that the only "defense" against the article was the empty assertion that it was just a "bunch of made up garbage." The irony was downright painful.
se
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/ (https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/)
That's quite a tiff for an unknown blog with only one article.
"Audiotruth" seems to have been a name applied to a line of AudioQuest products at one time, but that's probably just a coincidence.
Maybe regular cables would work better if the Talisman demagnetizer or custom capacitors or fuses where used.
Maybe regular cables would work better if the Talisman demagnetizer or custom capacitors or fuses where used.
Hehehe.
I think whe whole "cable debate" is secondary (or even tertiary). The main thrust of the article seemed to be about lying. And the owner of Toxic Cables when he had a chance to respond, just doubled down on that lie. It's not a matter of a cable manufacturer saying they use a silver and gold alloy and state or imply that this will result in better sound. You can argue that until the cows come home.
Rather, when a customer expressed concern about the possible effect on the conductivity using such an alloy (this customer was of the belief that conductivity was pretty much "everything"), he was assured by Toxic Cables that even when alloyed with 1% gold, that the conductivity of the alloy was still higher than copper.
I don't have it at my fingertips, but you can Google some of the text in the quote and find the original post on HeadFi to see it in its original context.
The only defense Toxic Cables offered was to say that the article was just made up garbage.
se
on the other hand from the pictures I've seen, there might be real actual snake oil on toxic cables.
that's something really unique.
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).
I'm largely in agreement with this, though I don't think he was too unreasonably harsh. But if indeed Frank is right in thinking that audiotruth is from a company that makes $300 cables, as audiotruth's own replies appear to indicate, I would say he's likely guilty of the same thing. Exactly how do you stay in business selling $300 cables without making ridiculous audiophile-baiting claims? How do you even sell them if you're honest? And if he's from AudioQuest, well, they have stuff that ranges from overpriced to obscenely overpriced to disgustingly overpriced and contradictory to the spirit of the article/blog post and its author's pseudonym.
I'm largely in agreement with this, though I don't think he was too unreasonably harsh. But if indeed Frank is right in thinking that audiotruth is from a company that makes $300 cables, as audiotruth's own replies appear to indicate, I would say he's likely guilty of the same thing. Exactly how do you stay in business selling $300 cables without making ridiculous audiophile-baiting claims? How do you even sell them if you're honest? And if he's from AudioQuest, well, they have stuff that ranges from overpriced to obscenely overpriced to disgustingly overpriced and contradictory to the spirit of the article/blog post and its author's pseudonym.
The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:
http://theaudioguild.com (http://theaudioguild.com)
If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.
se
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.
But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.
Although the comparison is ridiculous (sorry se) it's a bit like selling expensive watches. You don't need to tell your customers that your watches are more precise than others (whether that's actually the case is another story) because that's not what the customer is looking for primarily anyway.
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.
But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.
Although the comparison is ridiculous (sorry se) it's a bit like selling expensive watches. You don't need to tell your customers that your watches are more precise than others (whether that's actually the case is another story) because that's not what the customer is looking for primarily anyway.
Thank you for the kind words, xnor.
I have been discussing audio in online forums such as this for about 30 years. And during that 30 years I have been consistent in being critical of the outlandish claims made in this industry.
And no need to apologize for the comparison. When it comes to the pleasure and enjoyment of listening to reproduced music, I am simply not a utilitarian. I want more than just a list of specs and features. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Each choise is valid and just depends on the particular individual.
What I design I design first and foremost for myself. I don't do anything "for the market." That's why I only sell just one model of headphone cable, one model of interconnect cable and one model of loudspeaker cable. I allow for some color and materials options on them, but that's it.
I hope more blog posts will follow.
Might be of interest: Electrical Resistivity of Ten Selected Binary Alloy Systems (http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd221.pdf) [pdf]
I hope more blog posts will follow.
Might be of interest: Electrical Resistivity of Ten Selected Binary Alloy Systems (http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd221.pdf) [pdf]
I can just see the typical reader grinding through that.
se
Page 276-277:
at 293°K (about room temperature)
Ag 100% = 15.87 nΩ·m
Ag 97%, Au 3% = 22 nΩ·m
roughly a 40% increase in resistance.
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ... it's just 16.78 nΩ·m.
Page 276-277:
at 293°K (about room temperature)
Ag 100% = 15.87 n?·m
Ag 97%, Au 3% = 22 n?·m
roughly a 40% increase in resistance.
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ... it's just 16.78 n?·m.
Yeah. Frank doesn't really know what he's doing, so he just assumed that adding a little bit of gold to silver wouldn't have much of an effect. But he just doubled down on the stupid when he was confronted with the truth. Funny.
(http://q-audio.com/images/thestupid.jpg)
The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:
http://theaudioguild.com (http://theaudioguild.com)
If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.
se
I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies. I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible! But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.
But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.
This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect. If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well. They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works and I had no exposure to your company prior to your post, nor your correspondences on other forums. You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue. I don't mean to be offensive with any of this, just voicing my thoughts based on what information I've seen.
If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue.
Hi if. Do you listen strictly with human ears (blind) at home/for pleasure all the time?
Looks, aesthetics, more subjective type parameters etc. play zero role in all your purchase choices (audio, car, watches, etc)?
Just curious.
cheers,
AJ
btw I have cables that cost 10x Steves in my system (hey they were free) and I've been kicked off numerous "audiophile" forums for illegal possession of a brain and thus enraging the mob
I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies.
Thank you. Accepted.
I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible!
While we also sell interconnect and loudspeaker cables, the vast majority of our sales are headphone cables and it is in this market where we are most well known, by quite a margin.
But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.
Ok.
This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect.
You're free to be as cynical as you like and interpret even being honest and straightforward as a form of deceptive marketing practice. But I hope I never get invited to any parties where you'll be in attendance because you strike me as a rather miserable person who looks for the worst motivations in people even if you have to fabricate them.
If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well.
As I've said, we sell headphone cables almost exclusively. Furthermore, our headphone cables are made for just one company's headphones (though we do offer adapters for use with headphones from a couple other companies). If you ever had any experience with the stock cable that comes with these headphones, you would understand the remark about microphonics.
And even beyond the scope of a particular manufacturer, if you had much experience with headphones you would understand that microphonics is a common issue, because most all headphone cables are fashioned using extruded plastic constructions. If you tap on them or they smack up against something, it can be very annoying. We don't use any extruded plastics. Except for the wire itself, everything else in our cable is textile-based. And this does indeed go a long way toward eliminating microphonics which can indeed be a significant issue with other cables.
They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works...
I have no control over what other people bring to the table as regards their subjective experience.
But here is my "business model" such as it is in a nutshell.
What I design and sell was first and foremost designed for myself. I have absolutely no desire to chase the market and design what I think will sell, which is why I only offer one headphone cable, one interconnect cable and one loudspeaker cable. And I just figure that if I like it, there may be others will like it as well. If so, great. If not, I'm not going to go back to the drawing board to try and come up with something they will.
And in offering it for sale, I don't blow any smoke up peoples' bottoms. I stick to here's what it is, this is what it is made of, and this is what it costs.
I really don't do any marketing. I don't use customer testimonials, I don't advertise, and I don't seek out reviews. If I do any marketing, it's simply having a nice looking website. That's it.
You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue.
I'm selling to adults, not five year olds.
And I have a bit different take on the "reality-based mindset" than others.
There is only one reason that I listen to reproduced music. And that is my own subjective enjoyment and pleasure. Period.
If someone says a certain something sounds subjectively better to them, there is simply no valid argument against it, unless you are prepared to call them a liar, which would be rather absurd.You can argue all day long that this certain something does not alter the signal in any way so as to actually be audibly different than some other certain something. However that does not change the reality of the subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of the reasons behind it. And in my opinion, it is only that subjective experience that is of any real meaning to the individual when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music.
So I really don't care about how people go about achieving their subjective enjoyment. Some things sound subjectively better to me too, even though I know that it's not likely to be due to any actual audible difference. But I simply don't care because the subjective experience is the only "reality" that means anything to me when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music.
And why shouldn't it be? There is a tremendous amount of subjectivity throughout the entire chain, from the building of an instrument, to its playing, to its recording, mixing and mastering. Why should all that subjectivity suddenly come a screeching halt when that recording is reproduced?
Where I draw the line is when people take those subjective experiences and try to pass them off as something more than that. When they assume that if they subjectively perceive some difference, that it must be due to some actual audible difference, and that it must be the experience of others, and if not, it's only because that person is either deaf, their equipment sucks, or both. And it is that erroneous notion that I have spent a considerable amount of time arguing against.
The problem is that this whole thing has been portrayed as "objectivists vs subjectivists." But there is no real "vs." Objectivity and subjectivity can peacefully coexist. Typically those who the objectivists rail against aren't really subjectivists. Real subjectivists do not pass of their subjective experiences as anything more than that. Real subjectivists don't have the immense vanity and ego that these "pseudo objectivists" or "pseudo objectivists" however you wish to describe them (I prefer "pseudo objectivists" myself) that causes them to be in complete denial of their humanity and all the weaknesses and limitations that go along with it.
When it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I am a true subjectivist. In that context, it is only the subjective experience that has any real meaning to me. However when it comes to the understanding of realities outside of that context, I'm as objective as it gets. And I see no conflict with that. They are two entirely different contexts and I practice each within its own context.
My subjective enjoyment of reproduced music can be summed up in this quote from
Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance:The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed. — Robert Pirsig
se
The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:
http://theaudioguild.com (http://theaudioguild.com)
If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.
se
I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies. I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible! But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.
But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.
This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect. If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well. They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works and I had no exposure to your company prior to your post, nor your correspondences on other forums. You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue. I don't mean to be offensive with any of this, just voicing my thoughts based on what information I've seen.
as the reality of gold amalgam seems to be clear to everybody except toxicbuddy(who seemed like a nice guy from what little relation I had with him), I can say that Steve Eddy on headfi is more often in trouble for taking the factual side than the opposite. he got blocked from a topic for being part of a merry group calling out on some idiotic plug you put between your amp and your headphone, that claimed to do everything except your coffee.
he's always trying to stay true to facts and pretty strongly voiced against snake oil. but after that he also recognizes that the happiness of a dude might not solely come from how technically good a product is. so making stuff pretty(in addition to making them right) might become a positive bias to listening to music for example. I don't think I've ever seen him go beyond that.
now about the industry, you see that lies can go pretty far if well enough formulated to avoid being sued for it. we live in it all day long, as much as I hate the cable legends I read on the net, you can't expect people to actually kill their own marketing on purpose when it works so well with lies. when everybody's making false claims, just not making any is already damn conservative. and no doubt SE is missing out on sales, just by not jumping on the headfi cable section's bandwagon with ponies and magic dust.
but I'm biased, we're e-buddies from headfi(I never bought him anything and he never even tried to tell me about it).
but I'm biased, we're e-buddies from headfi(I never bought him anything and he never even tried to tell me about it).
Thank you for the kind words, castleofargh.
No, you've never bought anything from me, and I've never even tried telling you about it.
But don't you see? That's just part of my evil deception. By not telling you about it, that leaves a void in your mind that eventually will start nagging at you. Before you know it, you will no longer be able to take it and will be compelled to ask. And when you do, I'll simply tell you what they are, what they're made of and what they cost. But that won't be sufficient to completely fill that void. And you won't be able to help yourself. "HOW DO THEY SOUND?" you'll be asking yourself. Next thing you know, I get a little email from PayPal, and laugh my evil laugh all the way to the "Transfer to bank account" pull down menu.
se
Exactly how do you stay in business selling $300 cables without making ridiculous audiophile-baiting claims?
Cogito:
Does the $300 price tag by itself "make" or "suggest" or "imply" any ridiculous audiophile-baiting claim?
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ...
Pure copper does not stay pure copper forever though, so insulation could at worst matter. And "at worst" isn't even hypothetical: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost (http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost)
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ...
Pure copper does not stay pure copper forever though, so insulation could at worst matter. And "at worst" isn't even hypothetical: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost (http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost)
You pretty much have to go out of your way to get such an epic fail for the insulation (that's from chlorine compounds leeching out of the PVC).
se
For headphones I only choose quality insulation
(http://i.imgur.com/iG0aK.jpg)
99.999999% kink and twist free as well.
For headphones I only choose quality insulation
99.999999% kink and twist free as well.
I wouldn't want to mess with the person braiding that.
se
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.
So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.
But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....
Yes, you are indeed having trouble getting your head around this.
The issue of the article is not about mixing gold with silver making electrical conductivity worse. The article says nothing at all as to whether reduced conductivity is a good thing, a bad thing, or utterly meaningless.
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.
When a customer expressed concern about the conductivity of the silver-gold alloy in question, a customer who expressly stated that they believed that "the more conductivity the better," and was also of the belief that a less expensive, all copper cable sold by Toxic Cables might actually be better, Frank responded by assuring that customer, tha even with the 1% gold in one model cable, and bit more than 1% gold used in his top of the line cable, the conductivity would hardly be affected and would still have a conductivity higher than that of copper.
This is not a matter of opinion. The claim is one which is unambiguously verifiable or falsifiable. And in this case it was shown to be false. And by a pretty good margin. As the article showed, the effects of alloying silver with gold with respect to electrical conductivity have been well established for over a century.
When one uses false statements in the course of convincing someone to part with something of value, in this case money, that is fraud. And that is what the article was about.
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
Replace "the sword" with "fraud" and you've got it.
se
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.
So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.
But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
As far as I see it, Steve's cables actually provide a benefit over most standard cables, since they seem to be softer and less susceptible to microphonics than the thinner and stiffer stock cables. I think it's also fair to claim that this can lead to better sound quality, by way of reducing induced acoustic noise. Is that worth $300? We're talking about an actual tangible benefit, so maybe it is worth it to a lot of people. I'm sure an objective test for cable microphonics already exists, which could definitely prove Steve's claims about his cables.
In contrast, the Toxic cables made with 1% (or more) gold in the mix are objectively and measurably worse than a stock 100% copper cable, yet the owner (Frank) keeps making claims that his silver/gold alloy cables are much better than ordinary cables, when in fact the resistance is significantly higher. Is this difference audible? Probably not, but the issue here is not so much the quality of the cables, but rather the outright lies that the owner of Toxic Cables keeps repeating.
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.
The difference between an objective vs purely subjective claim?
Well, let's just say conductivity claims aren't subjective.
cheers,
AJ
So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.
I believe that in a nutshell is how the luxury-goods market works.
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.
In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
ASA (http://asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx)
I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.
It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.
Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.
In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
ASA (http://asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx)
I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.
It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.
Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.
Looks like they deal with actual advertising, not claims made in response to a post on a message forum.
se
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.
In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
ASA (http://asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx)
I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.
It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.
Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.
Looks like they deal with actual advertising, not claims made in response to a post on a message forum.
se
The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.
The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.
Is there any claim on the website saying that silver with 1% gold is more conductive than copper?
se
The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.
Is there any claim on the website saying that silver with 1% gold is more conductive than copper?
se
Not directly. Rather than drag quotes from the website, look for yourself. There are claims about electrical and sonic benefits, which I seriously doubt could be substantiated.
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ...
Pure copper does not stay pure copper forever though, so insulation could at worst matter. And "at worst" isn't even hypothetical: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost (http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost)
I have some of that green wire, and while it looks like $#!! it can be cleaned up with fine sandpaper and even soldered. Only a tiny amount of the copper is involved with the corrosion.
As far as I see it, Steve's cables actually provide a benefit over most standard cables, since they seem to be softer and less susceptible to microphonics than the thinner and stiffer stock cables.
Cable microphonics? Please tell me a TOS-8 compliant story about THAT!
As far as I see it, Steve's cables actually provide a benefit over most standard cables, since they seem to be softer and less susceptible to microphonics than the thinner and stiffer stock cables.
Cable microphonics? Please tell me a TOS-8 compliant story about THAT!
Ok ok, in the strictest correct definition of the term "microphonics" (physically-induced electrical signals/noise), that is certainly not a factor at all in normal headphone usage.
However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics#Other_uses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics#Other_uses)
I am of course referring to the common use of the term when talking about headphones, namely the tendency of cable movement to cause vibration and therefore noise to be transmitted to the ear. Anyone who's used IEMs has experienced this, and it also affects normal headphones to a certain degree. My point is that a cable which can reduce this effect could be considered a worthwhile upgrade.
And you knew full well what I meant.
I would love to see the DBT version of that. Someone who is not in the same room with you moves the cables of your earphones in such a way that you can only receive audible stimulus and nothing else.
I am imagining an elaborate wire and pulley setup.
Not directly. Rather than drag quotes from the website, look for yourself. There are claims about electrical and sonic benefits, which I seriously doubt could be substantiated.
Yes. Like the gold being "injected," and that it fills in "cracks" in the silver. THere he's just repeating nonsense from Siltech who started this whole silver-gold alloy thing.
Also, that the gold adds a "touch of extra punch in the low end frequency response." A curious claim given that cables are low pass filter. But the Frank is just a hack who has no real understanding of even basic electronics.
And that it allows the signal to transmit faster.
So yeah, there is stuff on his website that would make for a valid ASA claim.
se
Cable microphonics? Please tell me a TOS-8 compliant story about THAT!
Wouldn't fall under TOS-8 as it has nothing to do with any subjective claim about sound quality.
I know "microphonics" isn't the most appropriate technical terminology, but "microphonics" is the common term used by headphone users to describe the level of acoustical noise produced due to mechanical handling of the cable. Some cables act like the tube on a stethoscope and transmit vibration to the headphone/earspeaker/IEM and can be very annoying.
This is most problematic with cables with extruded plastic insulations. The extruded plastic is pretty good at transmitting vibration. Particularly with harder plastics because they're better at transmitting higher frequency vibrations.
With my cables, with the exception of the thin film of enameling on the individual strands of the litz wire, all the insulation is textile based (one of the primary reasons for using litz is to maintain electrical insulation in case the cables have something spilled on them). The braided silk sleeving isn't very efficient when it comes to transmitting vibration, so cable "microphonics" are significantly reduced compared to most other cables.
Here's how it's constructed:
se
I would love to see the DBT version of that. Someone who is not in the same room with you moves the cables of your earphones in such a way that you can only receive audible stimulus and nothing else.
I would hold my breath if I were you.
se
Gold plating does of course protect against corrosion ... now disregarding the horror case I posted above: can't you just use the common copper shine before tightening the nut around your wires?
Not directly. Rather than drag quotes from the website, look for yourself. There are claims about electrical and sonic benefits, which I seriously doubt could be substantiated.
Yes. Like the gold being "injected," and that it fills in "cracks" in the silver. THere he's just repeating nonsense from Siltech who started this whole silver-gold alloy thing.
Also, that the gold adds a "touch of extra punch in the low end frequency response." A curious claim given that cables are low pass filter. But the Frank is just a hack who has no real understanding of even basic electronics.
And that it allows the signal to transmit faster.
So yeah, there is stuff on his website that would make for a valid ASA claim.
se
well gold is yellow, the sun is yellow, more bass sounds warmer QED
also I remember someone who once was famous in the audio world saying in a 1997 publication:
"And they say silver, I choose gold
I'm not afraid to be alone
Someone will judge his gentle soul
Let the boy cry and he will know"
glad I could help.
glad I could help.
Hehehe.
The whole conductivity thing is a red herring. Some cable makers have even used ferromagnetic resistance wire (i.e. wire used to make wire wound resistors), whose conductivity is in the basement. Has to be. You're making resistors with it. And the cables were very well received.
Alloying silver with gold is just playing the game of doing something different just for the sake of being different to stand out and create a "new & improved" bias in the minds of customers.
se
glad I could help.
Hehehe.
The whole conductivity thing is a red herring. Some cable makers have even used ferromagnetic resistance wire (i.e. wire used to make wire wound resistors), whose conductivity is in the basement. Has to be. You're making resistors with it. And the cables were very well received.
Alloying silver with gold is just playing the game of doing something different just for the sake of being different to stand out and create a "new & improved" bias in the minds of customers.
It's the placebophile market. Two words: Sighted Evaluations. Science and reason left the building long ago.
What nobody knows is whether any of this actually sells, and more importantly sells profitably.
Interesting stats:
Monster's web site activity (http://www.similarweb.com/website/monsterproducts.com)
versus
Hydrogen Audio's Web Activity (http://www.similarweb.com/website/hydrogenaud.io)
Gold plating does of course protect against corrosion ... now disregarding the horror case I posted above: can't you just use the common copper shine before tightening the nut around your wires?
Huh? No idea what you're on about.
se
Patina on copper a horror case? I'm afraid he doesn't know what he's on about, either.
What nobody knows is whether any of this actually sells, and more importantly sells profitably.
Interesting stats:
Monster's web site activity (http://www.similarweb.com/website/monsterproducts.com)
versus
Hydrogen Audio's Web Activity (http://www.similarweb.com/website/hydrogenaud.io)
I'm not quite sure I get what's supposed to be interesting about those stats.
I mean, Hydrogen Audio exists solely as a website, whereas Monster is a manufacturer with product in retail establishments around the world, as well as huge e-tailers like Amazon.
If you took a random poll of people who have an interest in any kind of audio gadgetry and ask them if they've ever heard of Monster Cable vs Hydrogen Audio, I think Hydrogen Audio would lose by quite a large margin.
I'm not knocking Hydrogen or defending Monster. I'm just not seeing how a comparison of website statistics is saying anything interesting or meaningful. It's apples and oranges.
se
Gold plating does of course protect against corrosion ... now disregarding the horror case I posted above: can't you just use the common copper shine before tightening the nut around your wires?
Huh? No idea what you're on about.
He's talking about a well-known comment relating to the fact that every once in a while the wrong insulation gets molded onto the wrong wire and the wire corrodes. It think it was Home Deport that sold a ton of 12 gauge clear plastic insulated findely stranded low voltage wire (AKA speaker wire) with this problem. It literally turned green and black in a few years.
Surface corrosion on metals like Copper, Silver, and Brass looks horrible on the outside but as long as you don't mess with the terminations, the conductors generally remain bright inside the connectors. A well- installed connector has what is known as a "Gas tight seal" at those points, and the gas tight means no corrosion where it matters.
If you do mess with the terminations the corrosion comes right off with a little work. I used 240 grit wet/dry sandpaper for my clean up jobs, but a wide range of alternatives including Brasso metal polish would also work. I then soldered some, put some other into screw-down dual Banana Plugs, etc. No audio systems were ever harmed!
Yeah, I know all about that. Just that it was posted as a reply to my original post so I thought it had some sort of relevance to that.
se
Surface corrosion on metals like Copper, Silver, and Brass looks horrible on the outside but as long as you don't mess with the terminations, the conductors generally remain bright inside the connectors. A well- installed connector has what is known as a "Gas tight seal" at those points, and the gas tight means no corrosion where it matters.
I would use "bare wires" connectors like these in the old days: http://www.htd.com/core/media/media.nl?id=...9f9d6c5b7da864b (http://www.htd.com/core/media/media.nl?id=670&c=589892&h=32e9b9f9d6c5b7da864b)
Certainly not gasproof ... I have assumed that if fitted tight, there wouldn't be much corrosion in the contact surface. Not that it ever was a problem back then with me, things had to be moved around too often for the connectors to gather visible rust.
(Nowadays I run active speakers, so I don't fit speaker wires.)
Surface corrosion on metals like Copper, Silver, and Brass looks horrible on the outside but as long as you don't mess with the terminations, the conductors generally remain bright inside the connectors. A well- installed connector has what is known as a "Gas tight seal" at those points, and the gas tight means no corrosion where it matters.
I would use "bare wires" connectors like these in the old days: http://www.htd.com/core/media/media.nl?id=...9f9d6c5b7da864b (http://www.htd.com/core/media/media.nl?id=670&c=589892&h=32e9b9f9d6c5b7da864b)
Certainly not gasproof ... I have assumed that if fitted tight, there wouldn't be much corrosion in the contact surface. Not that it ever was a problem back then with me, things had to be moved around too often for the connectors to gather visible rust.
(Nowadays I run active speakers, so I don't fit speaker wires.)
If the nuts holding bare wires are kept adequately tight, if they are eventually removed there can still be bright metal where the nuts contact the bare wires. That indicates a local gas tight seal.
It doesn't matter if the conductor is corroded away from the contact points. Its strictly a cosmetic problem. There would be a problem if the corrosion detracted significantly from the amount of conductive material, but with copper wires in reasonably dry environments, it does not.
In wet environments where there is a significant voltage drop between the conductors, copper can become completely eaten away, and this can be observed with power line wiring in very wet areas. But this is irrelevant to speaker wires because the voltage drop isn't there and the environment isn't wet.
Maybe you should start selling gold alloyed cables, Steve. You can't argue with stupid and the world is getting stupider. It would be easier to sell Nigel a $1000 cable than to convince him that he's wrong. Look at advertisements and labels for all popular products: it's all hype. Being an honest person has only limited one's success for the most part in the examples I can think of. Not many people care about the "truth" in this world, and why should they?
If all the stupid in the world angers you, you have to be very careful and strategic about how you attack it. Unfortunately, the stupid is quite powerful. By rational argument, at best you can hope to annoy them to the point where they bother to discredit (ruin) your character (via ad hominem attacks on a grand scale). They have a state, government, and police force to protect them and to enforce their will. They have a justice system to get rid of people that threaten them in a way that sounds pleasant, nice, and sophisticated. They have a media to entertain them and keep their minds distracted from desiring to think too much. Most of the world is on their side. Many are not too stupid themselves but leech or survive off the stupid and therefore will defend the system as it works in their favor.
Of course you're probably only interested in combating stupid on a small scale, in the context of audio engineering, but the problem is much larger than that. Even if you succeeded in this context, you'd need a strategy for tackling the stupid that comes next (perhaps you're not ambitious and so appeasing the higher stupidity would be good enough for you). That strategy will almost certainly be based in deception, not in honest rational discussion.
But the issue isn't about hype, it's about fraud.
Sure, you can say your silver-gold alloy cable "sounds better," but that just goes toward subjective preference, against which there is really nothing to argue. However if you're selling a cable using silver alloyed with at least 1% gold, and then go on to claim that even with the 1% gold the wire is still more conductive than copper, then that is an objective claim that is provably false. And since that claim is made in the course of getting someone to part with their money, it is fraud.
It is particularly bad that even when confronted with the truth, Toxic Cables actually doubled down on their false claim, instead of correcting themselves and apologizing to their customers.
se
But the issue isn't about hype, it's about fraud.
Indeed
Sure, you can say your silver-gold alloy cable "sounds better," but that just goes toward subjective preference, against which there is really nothing to argue.
Better only exists if there is a difference, and the presence or absence of a difference is usually a fact.
The exception occurs when there is a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion can exist even when there is in fact no difference.
So, if I say that you will have a better opinion of my product, that is strictly off in the land of opinion.
But if I say my audio gear has better sound, then it must at least sound different, whether or not our opinions agree.
But the issue isn't about hype, it's about fraud.
Indeed
Sure, you can say your silver-gold alloy cable "sounds better," but that just goes toward subjective preference, against which there is really nothing to argue.
Better only exists if there is a difference, and the presence or absence of a difference is usually a fact.
The exception occurs when there is a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion can exist even when there is in fact no difference.
So, if I say that you will have a better opinion of my product, that is strictly off in the land of opinion.
But if I say my audio gear has better sound, then it must at least sound different, whether or not our opinions agree.
Yes but you can never prove that they don't sound different, you can only point to absence of proof that they do.
But the issue isn't about hype, it's about fraud.
Indeed
Sure, you can say your silver-gold alloy cable "sounds better," but that just goes toward subjective preference, against which there is really nothing to argue.
Better only exists if there is a difference, and the presence or absence of a difference is usually a fact.
The exception occurs when there is a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion can exist even when there is in fact no difference.
So, if I say that you will have a better opinion of my product, that is strictly off in the land of opinion.
But if I say my audio gear has better sound, then it must at least sound different, whether or not our opinions agree.
Yes but you can never prove that they don't sound different, you can only point to absence of proof that they do.
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.
But the issue isn't about hype, it's about fraud.
Only superficially. The underlying issue is that people are stupid and buy into hype, which makes fraud even an intelligent thing to do for someone looking to make money. You can say he's morally wrong, which is your subjective opinion of him, but you can't say he's not successful. If people were smarter and more rigorous, they wouldn't be deceived so easily, whether "fraudulently" (deception deemed illegal) or otherwise (deception deemed legal).
Sure, you can say your silver-gold alloy cable "sounds better," but that just goes toward subjective preference, against which there is really nothing to argue. However if you're selling a cable using silver alloyed with at least 1% gold, and then go on to claim that even with the 1% gold the wire is still more conductive than copper, then that is an objective claim that is provably false. And since that claim is made in the course of getting someone to part with their money, it is fraud.
Not really. You can't prove anything except by definition. I challenge you to prove one thing.
It is particularly bad that even when confronted with the truth, Toxic Cables actually doubled down on their false claim, instead of correcting themselves and apologizing to their customers.
In your opinion, but in their customers' opinion (ie. Nigel's opinion) they are right and you're an idiot.
Better only exists if there is a difference, and the presence or absence of a difference is usually a fact.
In the objective sense. But I wasn't speaking in the objective sense.
The exception occurs when there is a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion can exist even when there is in fact no difference.
So, if I say that you will have a better opinion of my product, that is strictly off in the land of opinion.
But if I say my audio gear has better sound, then it must at least sound different, whether or not our opinions agree.
I tend to prefer leaving the phrase "better sound" of "sounds better" in the subjective domain as it is our own subjective experience that means anything at the end of the day. I leave things like that alone unless someone goes off the reservation and begins making objective claims about their subjective experience.
se
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.
se
Steve may I once again point you the direction of the UK Advertising Standards Authority.
ASA (http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx?gclid=CIza0fX748QCFaV82wodLWcAYQ)
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
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?
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
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
That's like the perfect fraud.
1) Make claim of sounding better.
2) Define 'sound' so that 1) is unfalsifiable.
3) Profit.
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
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.
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/ (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.
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/ (https://audiotruth.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/silver-gold-2/)
Don't forget to mention that you are the author.
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/ (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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974) if you aren't following).
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...974#entry149481 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481)
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 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974) if you aren't following).
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...974#entry149481 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Will that ease his concerns about whether the ASA will find that Toxic Cables is committing fraud?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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
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 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108737&pid=895104&mode=threaded&start=#entry895104)
se
Don't forget to mention that you are the author.
What does it matter who the author is?
To date, you haven't been able to refute a single word of it.
se
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.
Yes, deleted by moderators as you had accused us of fraud, claiming pins to be solid silver when they were only plated according to you
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?
When was it ever said that we had anything made in China? Why would we not use expensive shells, you expect us to go the cheap route as you always do. There might be a number of companies in China making copies, but we don't wish to use copies
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:
My reply on MOT rules was in regards to the posts you were making on the thread
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.
Friendly and helpful after you accused me of deception and fraud on the thread before your PM
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.
Would this be the same Mel Famey you seem to be friends you, the same one that posted on my Facebook page with a link to your blog and calling me a fraud, you are having a laugh right
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?
You are more then welcome to buy a cable from me and do as you wish, just like your friend, another manufacturer did when he accused me of falsely advertising my cables and saying he would be having it tested, that was 3 years ago and never heard back from him on the matter
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.
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.
Seems my customers don't agree with you on this
se
As people have already said, if you feel anything about my company is a fraud, take it to the authorities and stop talking out your arse.
Don't forget to mention that you are the author.
What does it matter who the author is?
To date, you haven't been able to refute a single word of it.
se
Maybe you failed to see my post regarding the article you referred to being written before the Radio was even invented. You expect anyone to believe they had the technology then to properly analyze the exact conductivity of metals, let along metals when it has a single percentage of another added to it.
Why don't you come up with something that was written within the last decade maybe, rather then a 130 year old one.
Could you even point me to the equipment that was used those 130 years ago for conductivity tests?
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 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108737&pid=895104&mode=threaded&start=#entry895104)
se
Helpful, after accusing me of deception and fraud earlier in a thread, why all your posts on the matter were deleted by moderators. I am not the first company you have tried to tarnish and very much doubt i will be the last.
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.
And you're confusing the issue. There's no assumption that they have performed ABX testing prior to saying something sounds different to them. You keep injecting that in.
It's really very simple.
Let's say someone listens to say, two different cables. And they say that one cable sounds different from the other.
Are you saying that in their subjective experience that they didn't sound different to that particular individual?
Or let's take a better example of the point I am trying to make. Watch this video on the McGurk Effect:
http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0 (http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0)
Are you trying to tell me that when they switch the video of his face forming his lips to say "fa" instead of "ba," that it DOESN'T "sound different" to the listener? What does it "sound like" he's saying when you watch it? Does it "sound like" he's saying "ba" the whole time? Or does it "sound different" when they switch the video of his face?
se
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.
Crap. I wrote a bit of a lengthy reply, but I think I hit preview thinking I'd hit reply and lost it.
I'll shorten it a bit and make the most salient point.
Watch this video on the McGurk Effect.
http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0 (http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0)
Are you telling me that someone watching this video, that when they switch to him mouthing the sound "fa" instead of "ba," that it doesn't "sound like" he's actually saying "fa"?
And if that someone said that it "sounds different" to them when the video is switched that they would not be giving a true and accurate account of their subjective experience?
And would you not concede that it does indeed "sound different" to the listener and that no ABX test is going to refute that that was the listener's subjective experience?
se
Maybe you failed to see my post regarding the article you referred to being written before the Radio was even invented. You expect anyone to believe they had the technology then to properly analyze the exact conductivity of metals, let along metals when it has a single percentage of another added to it.
Why don't you come up with something that was written within the last decade maybe, rather then a 130 year old one.
If you had actually bothered to read the article, including the references at the end, you would have found that the article wasn't suppoted solely by the conductivity article published in the 1800s, but also an ARPANET-funded research project in 1966. Top wit:
In 1966, researchers at the University of Maryland, under contract with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, the civilian version of DARPA), revisited this issue, but within a broader range of temperatures. This research was published in the Journal of the Less-Common Metals.
Taking from original work by Augustus Mathiessen in 1860, they produced equations to plot the curve of resistivity (which is simply the reciprocal of conductivity) for silver-gold alloys ranging from 100% silver to 100% gold. They then produced a number of specific alloy samples and compared their resistivities to what was predicted by the curve. All of the samples fit perfectly to the curve (represented by the dots on the curve).Here's the specific reference cited in the article:
V. K. Iyer and R. M. Asimow, J. Less-Common Metals, 13 (1967), pp. 18-23
This is the second time I have pointed this out to you.
se
As people have already said, if you feel anything about my company is a fraud, take it to the authorities and stop talking out your arse.
More obfuscation and ad hominem. Still not a singe refutation of the article.
se
Could you even point me to the equipment that was used those 130 years ago for conductivity tests?
Although it's irrelevant given that the article's support was from research carried out in 1967 that you somehow managed to completely overlook, here is the response to your request about the conductivity testing that was carried out 130 years ago. This is a page from the 1885 piece cited in the article:
(http://q-audio.com/images/conductivity.png)
Of course you won't understand any of it, but this is the answer to your question none the less.
se
That's funny. Seems I'd created an account here under The Audio Guild back in February. Don't recall why I did. But I must have done it on my iPad because when I logged back in on my iPad, I used the auto fill password and didn't notice that the user name wasn't Steve Eddy. Sorry about that. The Audio Guld posts are mine. I noticed when I saw that The Audio Guild was the only user viewing this thread. Thought somebody was trying something funny then realized it was me.
se
I'll close this topic now, because i get the impression that this has become more of a bad blood situation between two people rather than a factual debate. Both parties had their say, and i doubt that it will come any closer to a conclusion.
Steve Eddy, please note that i had to disable your "The Audio Guild" account and give you a warning for multiple accounts, which is against our TOS #12.