Reviews and advertising.
Patrick Turner
alegations were made that AudioEnz acted as
advertiser of
Slinkylink cables.
Readers could be attracted to Slinkylink,
or be repelled, depending on their ability to
decipher what was said about these interconnecting
wires.
Let's review what was said.
From A.Enz :
Some believe there’s little
difference between a cheap cable and those of
extravagant prices. They’re
wrong of course – different cables do sound
different
and anyone serious about
getting quality audio from their stereo should pay
attention to them – although
shelling out thousands is also ridiculous in my
opinion.
AE says there is uncertainty in a sonic outcome, in
buying new cables.
Buyers should be forgiven for expecting a certain
result when spending.
At $400 for a one metre RCA
interconnect and $525 for a three metre pair of
speaker cables Slinkylinks
are clearly aiming at the audiophile market.
Ordinary members of the public would never pay this
much.
What sets
their product apart is
they’re made of silver rather than the usual copper.
Furthermore the silver wire
is surrounded by a layer of air thus there’s nothing
to
interfere with signal –
“Plastic coating kills cable” says the user manual.
“Every time
metal wire touches anything,
the signal deteriorates…It’s called dielectric loss
and
every material has its own
dielectric property…The most optimum substance for
leaving a signal intact is
air…Slinkylinks unique design surrounds wire
conductors in
air, to deliver unhindered
audiovisual signals.”
But some material of some kind must touch the wire,
so there must be some
dielectric loss effect;, the wire doesn't just hang
in the centre
of a plastic tube unassisted. And the insulation is
still around the outside of the internal
wire. What effect does the distance away from the
wire make to the conductor?
Measurements of the dielectric losses are not
detailed,
and no URL site is given as a reference for people
well on the way to doubting what
AE is saying.
Unlike some, Slinkylinks
don’t attempt to blind you with science and keep
their
theoretical literature
simple and approachable (if suspiciously vague).
Impressive
theory alone is worthless –
it all depends on how it sounds whether it be made
of
silver, copper or lead!
I think Slinkylink is leading people up a certain
garden path,
just like nearly all other cable makers,
out to make a quid out of bits of wire.
Sure they are " suspiciously vague " in their
literature.
Unfortunately, most audiophiles know very very
little about
audio engineering, and get lulled by techno talk
that
is incomprehensible.
Prices are very reasonable
considering silver cables
habitually
fetch high prices. “Silver,”
say
Slinkylinks “is nature’s
best natural
conductor. And thin is good
too, the
thinner the better. That’s
why
Slinkylinks silver
conductors are just
0.25mm thick.” Plus the
speaker
cable is packaged fetchingly
in what
could pass for a biscuit
tin. Cute.
Probably these bits of wire will be horribly
fragile.
Sure there is no need for thick wire in
interconnects,
and thin is OK, but 0.25 mm is THIN, and easily
broken.
Its also very cheap for the make to supply.
Although the cables seem
sturdy and
well built – the tough
“bullet-plug”
RCA terminations are sourced
from
Eichmann Products in
Australia and
are in use on several well
regarded interconnects in the USA and elsewhere – at
first glance the Slinkylinks
appear rather ordinary looking. Fine with me, no one
ever sees the things anyway!
How do they sound?
Eichmann plug details are not given, but they are
made from
copper with a small % of telurium, and great claims
are made about this elsewhere
from this review.
The terminations in the connectors, I am told, is at
one small point,
not around the whole round RCA plug and socket.
This is to preserve the small dimension of the
conductor through
the RCA plug and socket.
In my system the Slinkylinks
replaced my Nordost Solar Wind (copper)
interconnects (which
retailed a couple of years back for around the same
as the
Slinkylink interconnect) and
the speaker cables replaced my Audioquest Forrest +
which at around $500 also
priced close to the Slinkylink speaker cable.
What happens in another 2 years when the novelty
again wears off, and you get bored with the
"old wires"? shell out again for the next wiring
fad?
First off both new cable
pairs sounded harsh and brittle – a sure sign that
some
break in time was needed. I
returned to them three days later after having put
CDs
on repeat for that time. The
improvement was palpable. Indeed I hadn’t heard my
system sound so dynamic
especially at the top end – it was more open, more
extended and more detailed.
Ah, now here is the really fanciful paragraph of
all,
which set my BS detectors really screaming.
Why would it be that cables "break in", and why
would they improove?
surely as cables age, they get worse at what they
are meant for,
and should deteriorate, not improove.
No doubt blind AB tests were carefully done by
panels of listeners
to proove the accuracy of what happens after 3 days.
On Ibrahim Ferrer’s superb
self-titled CD the musician’s were more easily
separated and subtle nuances
unnoticed before were now apparent. Nice. There
was more resoloution all
round – yet whilst the bass was tighter and faster
than
before it also seemed a
little quieter in the mix, not as “fat” as I was
used to. I also
found that I needed to turn
the volume higher to get the same level.
No doubt accurate level tests were carried out using
a voltmeter to
measure the mysterious increase in gain caused by
wiring.
Whether the overall sound
was better or worse than with my copper cabling
really
comes down to personal taste
- though the characteristics of silver cables were
quite distinctive to my ear.
A superb top end, wonderful detail and faster,
tighter
bass – if that’s what you
like Slinkylinks are for you.
So regardless of what is claimed, its still just
personal taste......
Do audition Slinkylinks as
system synergy and personal taste account for much.
If
you’re after silver cabling
it’s really a no-brainer. The Slinkylinks
interconnect
impressed me the most –
things simply sounded more natural (what better
qualification can one get?)
and I’m seriously thinking of buying a pair.
I find when audiophiles say they are "seriously
thinking about buying..."
what they are really doing is just dreaming.....
And system synegy is a matter of luck in choosing
an array of audio items which complement each other,
but how to get it right? Its more a matter of pot
luck.
The lack of a bi-wireable
speaker cable is my only real complaint – especially
when Slinkylinks are aimed
at the audiophile. Slinkylinks recommend using two
sets
of Slinkylink speaker cables
use with bi-wired speakers.
Slinkylinks can be proud of
these products. Both hold their own with others
costing
three or four times the
price and have the added advantage of being locally
designed and manufactured.
I could easily provide folks with equally wonderful
sounding bits of wire for a
fraction of the slinkylink price.
The other thing which concerns me is the apparent
lack of shielding around the
active conductors. So what stops all sorts of noise
entering these wires?
From reading the review, I wouldn't touch slinkylink
with a barge pole.
I am of course tight as a fishes proverbial, and
$500 for wiring
is a complete waste of money, if you have not also
got a very good listening room,
got a very good set of speakers,
got a very good set of amplifiers,
got a very good set of recordings.
By good, I don't mean expensive, just well chosen
for decent sonics.
I have struggled to hear any
differences at all with different wiring to
speakers,
or between pieces of equipment.
I can go down to Jaycar, get 4 x gold plated RCA
plugs,
and some shielded wire, and run myself up a pair
of interconnects inside an hour for a cost of $20.
So how do the brethren in charge of slinkylink
sleep,
when really, most of what they offer is plastic and
fresh air?
Anybody able to proove a single claim about sonic
improvements
due to wiring replacements by exotic materials,
should now set our to do so, now is your chance.
I have used fine wire interconnects with thin
lightly twisted
silver plated wire wrap wire, teflon coated,
I have tried some simple copper foil wires
and have used a variety of other wiring to get
signal from A to B,
and seriously, I don't hear very much difference.
Others I know who say they do always shy away from
rigourous tests,
and insist their hearing is superior to most, and
able to tell
wiring differences a mile off.
I politely agree, of course, one cannot argue with
folks
determined to avoid logic.
One of the easiest things an audiophile can do
to his system is change wiring.
Hence it is also the most profitable for suppliers.
The least easy thing that the 'phile can do,
is change his room, they are not forsale at the
glitzy shop,
with its shiny wares, so not much profit, and mags
don't advertise
builders available to provide the right sized room.
But without a good room, you are in deep sonic dodo.
If you cannot spend the $20 and an hour to make
cables,
then there are some ready made cables in the $50 to
$100 range which will
do justice to your music.
With all due respect with what AudioEnz was trying
to do in providing the public with
informative reading, I suggest that such reviews
don't tell the full story, and that in future you
could try to be more informative.
Buyers Beware!!!
Just my 2.83 volts worth........
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3CF62775...@turneraudio.com.au...
> In a recent posting,
> alegations were made that AudioEnz acted as
> advertiser of
> Slinkylink cables.
>
> Readers could be attracted to Slinkylink,
> or be repelled, depending on their ability to
> decipher what was said about these interconnecting
> wires.
>
> Let's review what was said.
>
> From A.Enz :
> Some believe there's little
> difference between a cheap cable and those of
> extravagant prices. They're
> wrong of course - different cables do sound
> different
> and anyone serious about
> getting quality audio from their stereo should pay
> attention to them - although
> shelling out thousands is also ridiculous in my
> opinion.
>
> AE says there is uncertainty in a sonic outcome, in
> buying new cables.
> Buyers should be forgiven for expecting a certain
> result when spending.
>
> At $400 for a one metre RCA
> interconnect and $525 for a three metre pair of
> speaker cables Slinkylinks
> are clearly aiming at the audiophile market.
>
> Ordinary members of the public would never pay this
> much.
>
> What sets
> their product apart is
> they're made of silver rather than the usual copper.
>
> Furthermore the silver wire
> is surrounded by a layer of air thus there's nothing
> to
> interfere with signal -
> "Plastic coating kills cable" says the user manual.
> "Every time
> metal wire touches anything,
> the signal deteriorates.It's called dielectric loss
> and
> every material has its own
> dielectric property.The most optimum substance for
> leaving a signal intact is
> air.Slinkylinks unique design surrounds wire
> conductors in
> air, to deliver unhindered
> audiovisual signals."
>
> But some material of some kind must touch the wire,
> so there must be some
> dielectric loss effect;, the wire doesn't just hang
> in the centre
> of a plastic tube unassisted. And the insulation is
> still around the outside of the internal
> wire. What effect does the distance away from the
> wire make to the conductor?
>
> Measurements of the dielectric losses are not
> detailed,
> and no URL site is given as a reference for people
> well on the way to doubting what
> AE is saying.
>
> Unlike some, Slinkylinks
> don't attempt to blind you with science and keep
> their
> theoretical literature
> simple and approachable (if suspiciously vague).
> Impressive
> theory alone is worthless -
> well built - the tough
> "bullet-plug"
> RCA terminations are sourced
> from
> Eichmann Products in
> Australia and
> are in use on several well
> regarded interconnects in the USA and elsewhere - at
> pairs sounded harsh and brittle - a sure sign that
> some
> break in time was needed. I
> returned to them three days later after having put
> CDs
> on repeat for that time. The
> improvement was palpable. Indeed I hadn't heard my
> system sound so dynamic
> especially at the top end - it was more open, more
> extended and more detailed.
>
> Ah, now here is the really fanciful paragraph of
> all,
> which set my BS detectors really screaming.
>
> Why would it be that cables "break in", and why
> would they improove?
> surely as cables age, they get worse at what they
> are meant for,
> and should deteriorate, not improove.
> No doubt blind AB tests were carefully done by
> panels of listeners
> to proove the accuracy of what happens after 3 days.
>
> On Ibrahim Ferrer's superb
> self-titled CD the musician's were more easily
> separated and subtle nuances
> unnoticed before were now apparent. Nice. There
> was more resoloution all
> round - yet whilst the bass was tighter and faster
> than
> before it also seemed a
> little quieter in the mix, not as "fat" as I was
> used to. I also
> found that I needed to turn
> the volume higher to get the same level.
>
> No doubt accurate level tests were carried out using
> a voltmeter to
> measure the mysterious increase in gain caused by
> wiring.
>
> Whether the overall sound
> was better or worse than with my copper cabling
> really
> comes down to personal taste
> - though the characteristics of silver cables were
> quite distinctive to my ear.
> A superb top end, wonderful detail and faster,
> tighter
> bass - if that's what you
> like Slinkylinks are for you.
>
> So regardless of what is claimed, its still just
> personal taste......
>
> Do audition Slinkylinks as
> system synergy and personal taste account for much.
> If
> you're after silver cabling
> it's really a no-brainer. The Slinkylinks
> interconnect
> impressed me the most -
> things simply sounded more natural (what better
> qualification can one get?)
> and I'm seriously thinking of buying a pair.
>
> I find when audiophiles say they are "seriously
> thinking about buying..."
> what they are really doing is just dreaming.....
> And system synegy is a matter of luck in choosing
> an array of audio items which complement each other,
>
> but how to get it right? Its more a matter of pot
> luck.
>
> The lack of a bi-wireable
> speaker cable is my only real complaint - especially
** Dear Pat,
the most important single characteristic of "Slinkylinks" was not even
mentioned by AudioEnz, nor yourself for that matter, and that is their
remarkable power to separate things.
Slinkylinks are in fact designed, engineered, packed, marketed and
reviewed by AudioEnz in such a way as to maximise their capacity to separate
fools from their money.
Regards, Phil
michael w
"Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:tfqJ8.1365$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>
> Slinkylinks are in fact designed, engineered, packed, marketed
and
> reviewed by AudioEnz in such a way as to maximise their capacity to
separate
> fools from their money.
>
>
More of your unsubstantiated twaddle.
Where's your proof that AudioEnz is involved in the design etc of
SlinkyLinks ?
cheerio
AudioEnz
extraordinary outburst!
I have no problem with people spending very little amounts of money on
cables, or what Patrick (and I, for that matter) would consider ludicrous
amounts of money.
All I do is encourage people to make up their own minds when looking at
buying cables, speakers, CD players, amplifiers etc. And that will often
include the decision not to buy anything.
But I do object to any person telling others that the must or must not buy
certain audio products. It is entirely up to each person to make the
decision the is right for themselves.
To answer one of the points made by Patrick Turner, the descriptions of the
cables were a précis of the manufacturers claims, not an endorsement by the
writer or by AudioEnz. You'll see a similar précis of the product in just
about any review in AudioEnz.
Phil Allison's claims about a commercial tie-in between the Slinkylink
cables and AudioEnz have the same veracity as any other of Mr Allison's
claims - zero.
Michael Jones
Editor, AudioEnz
---------------------
New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
http://www.audioenz.co.nz
email: info at audioenz dot co dot nz
Phil Allison
"michael w" <spam...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:YSwJ8.5145$7N.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
** AudioEnz did the review (possibly, who knows who actually wrote it).
The post was not ambiguous since everyone knows they are not the maker.
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
"AudioEnz" <nospam...@spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:B91CFB19.5DD9D%nospam...@spamblock.com...
> Patrick Turner's normally quiet and sane postings have turned into an
> extraordinary outburst!
** Oh my god, another dealer rats on you. Shame, shame.
>
> I have no problem with people spending very little amounts of money on
> cables, or what Patrick (and I, for that matter) would consider ludicrous
> amounts of money.
>
> All I do is encourage people to make up their own minds when looking at
> buying cables, speakers, CD players, amplifiers etc. And that will often
> include the decision not to buy anything.
** Liar, what you do is plant ideas in people's minds to make them buy.
>
> But I do object to any person telling others that the must or must not buy
> certain audio products. It is entirely up to each person to make the
> decision the is right for themselves.
** You exploit the power of suggestion, very effective marketing.
>
> To answer one of the points made by Patrick Turner, the descriptions of
the
> cables were a précis of the manufacturers claims, not an endorsement by
the
> writer or by AudioEnz. You'll see a similar précis of the product in just
> about any review in AudioEnz.
** So your so called reviews are re-writes of the maker's line of
bullshit?
>
> Phil Allison's claims about a commercial tie-in between the Slinkylink
> cables and AudioEnz have the same veracity as any other of Mr Allison's
> claims - zero.
** You are a fucking arsehole. I said you did a review and that is true.
I haved posted nothing but true statements while you and your rag post
nothing but OTT marketing bullshit.
I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz ........ sheep love it.
No love, Phil
Mal P
Lifestyles at the Newsagents today. It was the issue where "Editors
choice" awards were handed out, and reviews of the winning products
were present. For several of the products awarded, including ME, I
noticed that the reviewer actually ended up "owning" the item that was
reviewed. Hmmm. Call me Ishmael, but somethings not right with this
capacitor.
Cheers,
Mal
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message news:<3CF62775...@turneraudio.com.au>...
Phil Allison
"Mal P" <pandor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20bc8b69.02053...@posting.google.com...
> In related news, I was browing the latest issue of Audio & Video
> Lifestyles at the Newsagents today. It was the issue where "Editors
> choice" awards were handed out, and reviews of the winning products
> were present. For several of the products awarded, including ME, I
> noticed that the reviewer actually ended up "owning" the item that was
> reviewed. Hmmm. Call me Ishmael, but somethings not right with this
> capacitor.
>
> Cheers,
> Mal
** I heard Louis Challis was in the habit of exchanging good reviews
for the right to keep the product.
When he reviewed the Quad ESL 63 he phoned the dealer "Arrow
Electronics" and asked if he could keep them since he liked them so much.
The dealer just could not do this for him, since they cost over $10,000. He
offered them for landed cost but Louis wanted them for free.
Louis then explained that if he did not get to keep them his review
would be altered so it was less favourable to the speakers.
And so it was.
Regards, Phil
Richard Freeman
> extraordinary outburst!
What is etraordinary about people being annoyed by BS it has been
Happening since man was Made/Evolved/was created
> I have no problem with people spending very little amounts of money on
> cables,
Glad to hear it
> All I do is encourage people to make up their own minds when looking at
> buying cables, speakers, CD players, amplifiers etc. And that will often
> include the decision not to buy anything.
Let me quote "Some believe there’s little difference between a
cheap cable and those of extravagant prices. They’re wrong of
course"
you directly accuse those of us who are not discerning of being wrong
as I have said in another thread there is some truth in this statement
but it is so vague as to either be accidental or deliberately
deceptive
> But I do object to any person telling others that the must or must not buy
> certain audio products. It is entirely up to each person to make the
> decision the is right for themselves.
True and I do not believe anyone has said not to buy stinkylinks
however we are bagging out the claims made for them instead - a
different naked Emperor entirely
> To answer one of the points made by Patrick Turner, the descriptions of the
> cables were a précis of the manufacturers claims, not an endorsement by the
> writer or by AudioEnz. You'll see a similar précis of the product in just
> about any review in AudioEnz.
Does this mean stuff is not tested you merely regurgitate the
manufacturers claims ?
> Phil Allison's claims about a commercial tie-in between the Slinkylink
> cables and AudioEnz have the same veracity as any other of Mr Allison's
> claims - zero.
There is more validity to Mr Allisons claims than there are for the
slinkystinks cables
Regards
Richard Freeman
Trevor Wilson
>
>
>
> I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
**Fortunately, that is solely your opinion. I, for one, welcome Michael. His
presence here is enlightening and interesting. And before you veer off into
one of your bizarre diatribes, Michael has never reviewed a product I sell
(AFAIK). I have, in fact, disagreed with Michael, in the past and will
likely do so, in the future.
I find your tactic of attempting to remove people who disagree with you,
rather childish and extremely fascist. There is plenty of room for
disagreement, without resorting to insults and profanity.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cf6e930$0$31828$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:M2yJ8.1494$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
>
> **Fortunately, that is solely your opinion.
** Have you done a survey? What an arrogance.
I, for one, welcome Michael.
** You would - a fellow vampire.
His presence here is enlightening and interesting.
** It is sickening and offensive.
And before you veer off into one of your bizarre diatribes, Michael has
never reviewed a product I sell
** Professional courtesy?? Like sharks not biting lawyers.
> (AFAIK). I have, in fact, disagreed with Michael, in the past and will
> likely do so, in the future.
** But you condone his methods - the vampire penache.
>
> I find your tactic of attempting to remove people who disagree with you,
> rather childish and extremely fascist. There is plenty of room for
> disagreement, without resorting to insults and profanity.
** How many have I been advised me to go away? This NG is full of
fascists and childish folk. You are easily the worst.
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au ...... no outrage to outrageous
>
>
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Mal P" <pandor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20bc8b69.02053...@posting.google.com...
>
> > In related news, I was browing the latest issue of Audio & Video
> > Lifestyles at the Newsagents today. It was the issue where "Editors
> > choice" awards were handed out, and reviews of the winning products
> > were present. For several of the products awarded, including ME, I
> > noticed that the reviewer actually ended up "owning" the item that was
> > reviewed. Hmmm. Call me Ishmael, but somethings not right with this
> > capacitor.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mal
>
>
> ** I heard Louis Challis was in the habit of exchanging good reviews
> for the right to keep the product.
>
**I suspect Mr Challis may regard the above statement as slander. I
certainly would. I can tell you that I have personally delivered product to
Mr Challis' office and there was never any understanding that the product
would not be returned after any published review. For the record: Mr Challis
reviewed two versions of the ME75 amplifier. One review was extremely
complimentary, whilst the other was rather matter-of-fact. After he had
completed his tests, I went down to his office and collected the amplifier
(both times). After the (very positive) review was published, I 'phoned him
and thanked him for the professional and very accurate measurements and
statements about the ME products.
I wonder what Mr Challis would think of your comments?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3cf6e930$0$31828$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:M2yJ8.1494$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
> >
> > **Fortunately, that is solely your opinion.
>
>
> ** Have you done a survey? What an arrogance.
**No other poster has suggested that another poster should leave this group.
It seems you are the only fascist here. Everyone else seems happy to support
the notion of free speech. Off you go to your book-burning. Have a nice
time.
>
>
>
> I, for one, welcome Michael.
>
>
> ** You would - a fellow vampire.
**Utter nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> His presence here is enlightening and interesting.
>
>
> ** It is sickening and offensive.
**Only to you, it seems. I've not seen a complaint from any other readers.
>
>
> And before you veer off into one of your bizarre diatribes, Michael has
> never reviewed a product I sell
>
>
> ** Professional courtesy?? Like sharks not biting lawyers.
**Nope. I've argued with Michael in the past. Sometimes I consider he is
wrong. I see no problem in your fascist attitude of attempting to silence
him, however.
>
>
>
> > (AFAIK). I have, in fact, disagreed with Michael, in the past and will
> > likely do so, in the future.
>
>
> ** But you condone his methods - the vampire penache.
>
>
> >
> > I find your tactic of attempting to remove people who disagree with you,
> > rather childish and extremely fascist. There is plenty of room for
> > disagreement, without resorting to insults and profanity.
>
>
> ** How many have I been advised me to go away? This NG is full of
> fascists and childish folk. You are easily the worst.
**Perhaps you might care to re-write this again. Try English. It is my first
(and only) language.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
>
> "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:zEBJ8.1615$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > "Mal P" <pandor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:20bc8b69.02053...@posting.google.com...
> **I suspect Mr Challis may regard the above statement as slander. I
> certainly would.
** It ain't slander since it ain't false.
I can tell you that I have personally delivered product to
> Mr Challis' office and there was never any understanding that the product
> would not be returned after any published review.
** Even Louis Challis didn't want to keep a stupid ME amp - he had lots
of better ones already.
For the record: Mr Challis
> reviewed two versions of the ME75 amplifier. One review was extremely
> complimentary, whilst the other was rather matter-of-fact.
** I saw the aftermath in the Electronics Today letters pages. ME (Peter
Stein as I recall) had a real ding dong with Loius over the max current
output.
Louis had the last word and it wasn't very nice. He made out a case
that MEs specs were a fraud.
> I wonder what Mr Challis would think of your comments?
** Shoud I give a hoot? Most of his reviews were bought and paid for by
the equipment suppliers and then sent on to ETI. Louis was a hi-fi review
"gun for hire".
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au .... outrage is the game
>
AudioEnz
at ri...@atps.net wrote on 31/05/2002 03:08 PM:
> you directly accuse those of us who are not discerning of being wrong
> as I have said in another thread there is some truth in this statement
> but it is so vague as to either be accidental or deliberately
> deceptive
No I did not directly accuse anyone of anything. If you look at the review
you will see that I did not write it.
Furthermore, do you really expect that everyone who has an opinion that is
different from your to restrain themselves from expressing that opinion,
merely because your opinion if different?
> Does this mean stuff is not tested you merely regurgitate the
> manufacturers claims ?
Stuff not tested? Do you mean the claims or the product itself? My writers
listen to the products under review - that is how we come to our
conclusions. The claims? No, I really don't care about the claims - I don't,
for instant, measure a tweeter to make sure that it really has a 25mm
diameter instead of 24.8mm.
> There is more validity to Mr Allisons claims than there are for the
> slinkystinks cables
Really? So tell me exactly how I make any money on sales of Slinkylink
cables. You, by agreeing with Allison's claims have said that I derive
income from the sales of Slinkylink cables - where is your proof?
Or don't you have any?
Trevor Wilson
>
> **Nope. I've argued with Michael in the past. Sometimes I consider he is
> wrong. I see no problem in your fascist attitude of attempting to silence
> him, however.
**Whoops. Make that: "I see SERIOUS problems in your fascist attitude...."
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
>
> "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:_XBJ8.1622$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > > I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
> > >
> > > **Fortunately, that is solely your opinion.
> >
> >
> > ** Have you done a survey? What an arrogance.
>
> **No other poster has suggested that another poster should leave this
group.
** Bullshit, there are any number about me. Advice to killfile,
statements about plonking, advice that this would be a better place without
me - this last one from AudioEnz's Michael Jones.
My recommendation is just the same as all these.
> >
> > I, for one, welcome Michael.
> >
> >
> > ** You would - a fellow vampire.
>
> **Utter nonsense.
** Do hi-fi vampires sleep hanging upside down? Do you sleep at all?
>
> >
> > His presence here is enlightening and interesting.
> >
> >
> > ** It is sickening and offensive.
>
> **Only to you, it seems. I've not seen a complaint from any other readers.
** Try Richard, or Patrick.
> > And before you veer off into one of your bizarre diatribes, Michael has
> > never reviewed a product I sell
> >
> >
> > ** Professional courtesy?? Like sharks not biting lawyers.
>
> **Nope. I've argued with Michael in the past. Sometimes I consider he is
> wrong. I see no problem in your fascist attitude of attempting to silence
> him, however.
** Dealers have attempted to silence me. That is why I am here now.
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au ..... a fascist outrage
>
>
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> Really? So tell me exactly how I make any money on sales of Slinkylink
> cables. You, by agreeing with Allison's claims have said that I derive
> income from the sales of Slinkylink cables - where is your proof?
** I made no such claim. However, you are in the business of hi-fi
promotion so it is absurd to say you have no financial interest in the sales
of any product you review - "scam in a can" or otherwise.
Love, Phil
Trevor Wilson
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3cf6f138$0$31829$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:_XBJ8.1622$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > > > > I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
> > > >
> > > > **Fortunately, that is solely your opinion.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** Have you done a survey? What an arrogance.
> >
> > **No other poster has suggested that another poster should leave this
> group.
>
> ** Bullshit, there are any number about me. Advice to killfile,
> statements about plonking, advice that this would be a better place
without
> me - this last one from AudioEnz's Michael Jones.
**ONLY because of your continued use of profanity and personal insults. If
you would only stick to the facts, figures and issues, then I doubt anyone
would complain.
>
> My recommendation is just the same as all these.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > I, for one, welcome Michael.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** You would - a fellow vampire.
> >
> > **Utter nonsense.
>
>
> ** Do hi-fi vampires sleep hanging upside down? Do you sleep at all?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > His presence here is enlightening and interesting.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** It is sickening and offensive.
> >
> > **Only to you, it seems. I've not seen a complaint from any other
readers.
>
>
> ** Try Richard, or Patrick.
>
>
>
> > > And before you veer off into one of your bizarre diatribes, Michael
has
> > > never reviewed a product I sell
> > >
> > >
> > > ** Professional courtesy?? Like sharks not biting lawyers.
> >
> > **Nope. I've argued with Michael in the past. Sometimes I consider he is
> > wrong. I see no problem in your fascist attitude of attempting to
silence
> > him, however.
>
>
> ** Dealers have attempted to silence me. That is why I am here now.
**And you are entitled to be. In fact, your comments about audio and audio
equipment are most welcome. Your continued personal insults and profanity,
is not.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
AudioEnz
bi...@bigpond.com wrote on 31/05/2002 04:14 PM:
> ** I made no such claim. However, you are in the business of hi-fi
> promotion so it is absurd to say you have no financial interest in the sales
> of any product you review - "scam in a can" or otherwise.
Lack of sign of any logical thought process noted yet again.
Phil Allison
>
> "Phil Allison" <bi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:VuCJ8.1639$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > statements about plonking, advice that this would be a better place
> without
> > me - this last one from AudioEnz's Michael Jones.
>
> **ONLY because of your continued use of profanity and personal insults.
** So you were totally wrong as usual. BTW How many insults have I
copped? Those who were insulted got what they deserved.
> > ** Dealers have attempted to silence me. That is why I am here now.
>
> **And you are entitled to be. In fact, your comments about audio and audio
equipment are most welcome. Your continued personal insults and profanity,
is not.
** I see, you omitted my right to post on any relevant matter. So I
cannot speak the truth as I see it. I cannot speak on the ethical behaviour
of dealers like you and reviewers like AudioEnz.
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au outrage is my name, outrage is my game.
Love, Phil
>
>
AudioEnz
bi...@bigpond.com wrote on 31/05/2002 04:14 PM:
> ** I made no such claim.
Said Phil earlier:
> Slinkylinks are in fact designed, engineered, packed, marketed and
> reviewed by AudioEnz in such a way as to maximise their capacity to separate
> fools from their money.
Looks like a claim to me.
Trevor Wilson
**Nothing wrong with speaking the truth. Lies, profanity and unsupported
innuendo, is unacceptable, however. So far, you have provided no evidence of
the nonsense you speak of.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> Patrick Turner's normally quiet and sane postings have turned into an
> extraordinary outburst!
My response to the review about cables is not an "extraordinary outburst",
just an intelligent thinking man's thoughts.
Let's face it, after you write something, don't you ever ask
yourself, "what are folks really going to think, and question?"
Responding here saves me from writing a letter to your magazine, and risk
having
it not published.
I simply give some food for thought, and once you digest what I said,
perhaps you would earn more respect, and generate more sales of whatever you
are selling.
>
> I have no problem with people spending very little amounts of money on
> cables, or what Patrick (and I, for that matter) would consider ludicrous
> amounts of money.
I don't either, it was the journalism which needed less THD,
and the content expressed needed 20 dB attenuation of the BS factor.
The review expertise needs a tweak, upwards, basically an improved SNR.
> All I do is encourage people to make up their own minds when looking at
> buying cables, speakers, CD players, amplifiers etc. And that will often
> include the decision not to buy anything.
>
> But I do object to any person telling others that the must or must not buy
> certain audio products. It is entirely up to each person to make the
> decision the is right for themselves.
>
> To answer one of the points made by Patrick Turner, the descriptions of the
> cables were a précis of the manufacturers claims, not an endorsement by the
> writer or by AudioEnz. You'll see a similar précis of the product in just
> about any review in AudioEnz.
>
> Phil Allison's claims about a commercial tie-in between the Slinkylink
> cables and AudioEnz have the same veracity as any other of Mr Allison's
> claims - zero.
Perhaps Mr Allison's comments are generated by the severe cynism gripping
many readers of hi-fi magazines. Any makers with adds in a magazine don't
exactly like
reviews along the lines of " this gear is pretentious over priced crap."
Oh no, and if reviewers give bad reports, legal action is considered,
and withdrawal of advertising, which might hurt a magazine.
So who owns the magazine?, the advertisers, or the editor and
readers who just enjoy reading about the new and exciting/boring
gear being put out by makers.
In fact magazines are on the way out, because they are so full of BS,
and despite the fact that makers pay magazines a handsome figure for the
an add, the price of magazines has gone up and up.
It is specifically very difficult to review audio gear.
That's because recorded music sound is such a subjective thing, like poetry,
or art, sculpture, photography, whatever, and what one man/woman likes,
no body else might.
But somebody has to fill a page somehow,
and I know it ain't always easy.
And I guess the Web is what has drawn people away from magazines
that one used to buy at a newsagent.
However, I don't think they are any better informed via the web.
But that's the nature of the media today, anyone can say whatever they like,
anytime, and there is no lie detector test.
So, everyone could consider decent BS detector aquisition.
I have not purchased any hi-fi mags for a year or more.
What is in them for my interest?
Almost nothing it seems, except plenty glossy pics
of gear it I will never buy, and half baked reviews,
with almost no technical merit.
When I used to buy magazines, it was for the DIY articles.
Don't let me stop you reaching a more interesting
standard for your magazine, which I have never noticed in the newsagent.
Patrick Turner
Trevor Wilson wrote:
I have to agree with TW here.
There is no need to shoot the messenger.
And some messengers come with such messages,
that gumboots, broom, shovel and wheelbarrow
are required negotiating equipment,
but please, no revolvers are necessary.
The innitial concern was the BS in reviews,
and the vested interests of reviewers, and makers.....
The public don't like being conned.
Somebody said, was it Mark Twain?,
"I only know what I reads in newspapers"
Maybe I got the anecdote wrong,
but please, DON'T believe all you read,
or what you are told.
Patrick Turner.
AudioEnz
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 07:36 PM:
> Don't let me stop you reaching a more interesting
> standard for your magazine, which I have never noticed in the newsagent.
Er, that's because it's on the internet, Patrick. Shouldn't you have
discovered this before launching into this diatribe about my hi-fi magazine.
> reviews along the lines of " this gear is pretentious over priced crap."
I can tell you that Panasonic were extremely unhappy with my review of their
awful widescreen TV. Sound like you're assigning views o my magazines that
in reality belong to other publications.
> So who owns the magazine?, the advertisers, or the editor and
> readers who just enjoy reading about the new and exciting/boring
> gear being put out by makers.
I've always subscribed to the philosophy that the interests of the readers
come first. I think it was John Atkinson (long-time Stereophile editor and
before that, editor of Hi-Fi News) who put it something like this:
If you put the interests of the advertisers first, then you will lose
readers. If you put the interests of your readers first, then you may lose
some advertisers. But as you keep your readers, then eventually the
advertisers will come back.
Putting the readers first is the only viable option - both financially and
in the interests of producing a magazine that I would want to produce.
AudioEnz
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 07:36 PM:
> I simply give some food for thought, and once you digest what I said,
> perhaps you would earn more respect, and generate more sales of whatever you
> are selling.
Patrick,
first, I am not selling anything.
Second, I appreciate that you find that cables do not sound different to
you, and that you find that the cable industry makes some weird claims.
I'm sure that you also appreciate that many sincere audio listeners find
that cables do sound different. I (and obviously the writer of the
Slinkylink review) find that cables do sound different.
I know that your views make sense to you, and have no intention of telling
you that your views are incorrect, that you are deaf, crooked or somehow
stupid because your views do not coincide with mine.
I ask that you offer me the same courtesy.
Phil Allison
> **Nothing wrong with speaking the truth. Lies, profanity and unsupported
> innuendo, is unacceptable, however. So far, you have provided no evidence
of the nonsense you speak of.
** Listen you fucking halfwit, even if I got all the evidence needed to
put you and your ilk in jail and shoved it up your arse on a stick you would
continue to say over an over that there was "no evidence".
Just what sort of evidence do you expect me to present????? What would
you agree proved you were a charlatan. There is nothing at all - is there?
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au ....... charlatan on a stick
Love, Phil
>
>
Phil Allison
Phil wrote to AudioEnz
> > > I recommend you get off this NG and stay off.
Patrick wrote:
> I have to agree with TW here.
** My post is both a recommendation and a warning of what may be to
come.
Agree with TW if you care to have yourself associated with his
charlatanism.
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> in article RECJ8.1642$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com, Phil Allison at
> bi...@bigpond.com wrote on 31/05/2002 04:14 PM:
>
> > ** I made no such claim. However, you are in the business of hi-fi
> > promotion so it is absurd to say you have no financial interest in the
sales
> > of any product you review - "scam in a can" or otherwise.
>
>
> Lack of sign of any logical thought process noted yet again.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz
** Feining incomprehesion is a really silly tactic - just make you look
like the fraud you are.
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> in article RECJ8.1642$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com, Phil Allison at
> bi...@bigpond.com wrote on 31/05/2002 04:14 PM:
>
> > ** I made no such claim.
>
> Said Phil earlier:
>
> > Slinkylinks are in fact designed, engineered, packed, marketed and
> > reviewed by AudioEnz in such a way as to maximise their capacity to
separate
> > fools from their money.
>
> Looks like a claim to me.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz
** Well, you are a stupid kiwi shithead. It says AudioEnz "reviewed by
AudioEnz in such a way " - that is all.
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> in article 3CF727FA...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 07:36 PM:
> first, I am not selling anything.
** Liar, yes you are. You are selling everything on your site by
promoting it with your suggestive words.
>
> Second, I appreciate that you find that cables do not sound different to
> you, and that you find that the cable industry makes some weird claims.
>
> I'm sure that you also appreciate that many sincere audio listeners find
> that cables do sound different. I (and obviously the writer of the
> Slinkylink review) find that cables do sound different.
** Lunatics are sincere too - your conclusions are wrong. Even the most
sincere listeners "hear" differences that do not in reality exist.
>
> I know that your views make sense to you, and have no intention of telling
you that your views are incorrect, that you are deaf, crooked or somehow
stupid because your views do not coincide with mine.
** Same old mantra - can't you hear the difference???
>
> I ask that you offer me the same courtesy.
** In your arse, fraud.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz ....... even sheep have trouble swallowing this crap
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
** Like any editor, you put your own interests first. The rest of the
above is pure hypocrisy. That is all.
Love, Phil
Oscillatus
>> With all due respect with what AudioEnz was trying
>> to do in providing the public with
>> informative reading, I suggest that such reviews
>> don't tell the full story, and that in future you
>> could try to be more informative.
I missed you original post Patrick, but happily I got to read it via Phil's
reply.
Well said old man!
Phil Allison
"Oscillatus" <Oscil...@spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921FCCC547E86O...@210.49.20.254...
** How do you get information out of people who don't have any? Without
test facilities or qualifications in electronics and psychology you are
bound to get the sort of brain dead drivel AudioEnz of full of.
Much easier to get blood from stones.
Regards, Phil
Oscillatus
> ** How do you get information out of people who don't have any?
> Without
> test facilities or qualifications in electronics and psychology you
> are bound to get the sort of brain dead drivel AudioEnz of full of.
Well I WAS astounded to hear him claim that their reviews were stricly non-
technical (my words, not his). I really don't see how a hifi review can be
done that's non-technical. Speaking of oxymorons :-)
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> in article 3CF727FA...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 07:36 PM:
>
> > Don't let me stop you reaching a more interesting
> > standard for your magazine, which I have never noticed in the newsagent.
>
> Er, that's because it's on the internet, Patrick. Shouldn't you have
> discovered this before launching into this diatribe about my hi-fi magazine.
It makes no difference what media conveys the message you want to put
out.
> > reviews along the lines of " this gear is pretentious over priced crap."
>
> I can tell you that Panasonic were extremely unhappy with my review of their
> awful widescreen TV. Sound like you're assigning views o my magazines that
> in reality belong to other publications.
All I picked on was the article on Slinklink cables.
But reviewers are seen as brilliant, mediocre, or idiotic.
There are a lot of audiophiles who are suspicious of what a reviewer might say.
All I want you to know, is that many folks, often with enough money
to buy expensive products, are that way because they
have the ability to think.
> > So who owns the magazine?, the advertisers, or the editor and
> > readers who just enjoy reading about the new and exciting/boring
> > gear being put out by makers.
>
> I've always subscribed to the philosophy that the interests of the readers
> come first. I think it was John Atkinson (long-time Stereophile editor and
> before that, editor of Hi-Fi News) who put it something like this:
>
> If you put the interests of the advertisers first, then you will lose
> readers. If you put the interests of your readers first, then you may lose
> some advertisers. But as you keep your readers, then eventually the
> advertisers will come back.
A fair point. Readers want to know about what's out there.
And without favour or bias.
> Putting the readers first is the only viable option - both financially and
> in the interests of producing a magazine that I would want to produce.
So if readers can access and read your site for free, who pays you?
( If it is not too offensive to ask?)
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> in article 3CF727FA...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 07:36 PM:
>
> > I simply give some food for thought, and once you digest what I said,
> > perhaps you would earn more respect, and generate more sales of whatever you
> > are selling.
>
> Patrick,
>
> first, I am not selling anything.
So, doing it all for nothing?
You are indeed free to do that......
I do not know all the circumstances about your existance,
so I ask, without prejudice.......
> Second, I appreciate that you find that cables do not sound different to
> you, and that you find that the cable industry makes some weird claims.
>
> I'm sure that you also appreciate that many sincere audio listeners find
> that cables do sound different. I (and obviously the writer of the
> Slinkylink review) find that cables do sound different.
I aknowledge just that. I am at ease with folks who believe cables
make a difference. I know many. I don't hear very much,
and when tests are done, or demos done to show differences,
there is never any scientific rigour applied to the tests,
and levels are different, even different recordings are used,
and there is never a blind test where people even with truly gifted hearing
abilities are asked to pick cable A, from cable B.
So I take ALL claims with a grain of salt.
I have even substituted a 50 watt tube amp with a class AB mosfet based amp
during a musical evening once, with four friends
present, just by flicking an unseen AB switch behind the pile of gear,
and nobody noticed anything, until I pointed it out later.
I know it was a mean and tricky thing to do, but everybody
eventually was amused......
Maybe they thought I could build a reasonable amp,
no matter how I did it.
> I know that your views make sense to you, and have no intention of telling
> you that your views are incorrect, that you are deaf, crooked or somehow
> stupid because your views do not coincide with mine.
>
> I ask that you offer me the same courtesy.
Of course, I would never deny your right to be here in the forum,
even if I disagreed with every sylable.
When I saw the post on slinky wires, I
thought, "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
Maybe you ought to run articles on alternatives to expensives,
like good sounding cheapies.
Patrick Turner.
Oscillatus
> So if readers can access and read your site for free, who pays you?
> ( If it is not too offensive to ask?)
Interesting question.
Oscillatus
> "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
>
Now ain't that the question!
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
Phil, when you are trying to get an alternative point of view across
to other posters, and infront of the silent millions of Australians
trying desperately to follow what you are saying,
it pays to leave the messenger in good shape, and not half
strangle the fella during negotiations.
Yes, I do sometimes agree with TW, in the spirit of the moment,
and no,
I would not try to hunt you off the NG.
We all know you have something to offer,
like the many people here.
But nobody can force anyone to change religions.
And I believe in a fair go for all.
I don't always agree with everyone, that's for sure.
But hell, if a couple of old bastards can't discuss a bit of audiological
something
even though they disagree, and have a beer later,
then you're missing the quintessential way of being in
this wonderful country of ours.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
** Doug Self has a potted history of the evil that is "subjective
reviewing" on his site - have you ever read it?
Anyone curious may check out www.dself.demon.co.uk for some light
reading.
Regards, Phil
Oscillatus
>
> ** Doug Self has a potted history of the evil that is "subjective
> reviewing" on his site - have you ever read it?
>
>
I skimmed through it a few weeks ago as it happens.
Patrick Turner
Oscillatus wrote:
My expectations of a review is to get a broad picture
of the gear reviewed, both technical ( objective ), and subjective.
When technical aspects are mentioned, such as cable capacitance
and dielectric constants and losses, they need to be quantified for me
to have meaning, so I can go away and perhaps do calculations.
I am technically literate.
But most folks are not, and would not realise the nature of say capacitance,
even if one bit them on le derriere.
Its not enough to convince me to mentally accept any claims
unless the review offers strong evidence for the truth in any claim.
OK, so even if we find out all the physical attributes,
ie the engineering terms for what is present, we might ask,
"yeah OK, but how does the darn thing sound?"
SET amps are an example of often "measure like garbage,
but sound like heaven".
At the end of the day, any subjective review is only what one man writes,
not what a hundred all experience.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
> Phil, when you are trying to get an alternative point of view across
> to other posters,
** No Pat,
that is not what I am doing, that is apparently what you think I should
be doing.
> Yes, I do sometimes agree with TW, in the spirit of the moment,
> and no,
> I would not try to hunt you off the NG.
** That is nice to know.
> We all know you have something to offer,
** Some here are very concerned about what I have to offer.
> > But nobody can force anyone to change religions.
> And I believe in a fair go for all.
** Does that also include criminals too?
>
> I don't always agree with everyone, that's for sure.
> But hell, if a couple of old bastards can't discuss a bit of audiological
> something even though they disagree, and have a beer later,
> then you're missing the quintessential way of being in
> this wonderful country of ours.
** Please go back to sleep.
> Patrick Turner.
>
>
Regards, Phil
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CF75AD1...@turneraudio.com.au...
>
> > Phil, when you are trying to get an alternative point of view across
> > to other posters,
>
> ** No Pat,
>
> that is not what I am doing, that is apparently what you think I should
> be doing.
Perhaps you might clarify then.
>
>
> > Yes, I do sometimes agree with TW, in the spirit of the moment,
> > and no,
> > I would not try to hunt you off the NG.
>
> ** That is nice to know.
>
> > We all know you have something to offer,
>
> ** Some here are very concerned about what I have to offer.
Maybe very concerned, sure, but mostly unshakeable.
If we see they are like the bloke with blinkers on,
strapped to their bulldozers, rumbling forwards,
there is no need to disrupt progress, soon they
come to Sydney Harbour, and crossing in a dozer is
a problem.
>
> > > But nobody can force anyone to change religions.
> > And I believe in a fair go for all.
>
> ** Does that also include criminals too?
A criminal is somebody convicted by judge and jury,
not someone who holds a scandalous oppinion,
or even appears to hold what to either of us
think is an absurdly illogical point of view.
I won't be party to a kangaroo court on the news group.
>
>
> >
> > I don't always agree with everyone, that's for sure.
> > But hell, if a couple of old bastards can't discuss a bit of audiological
> > something even though they disagree, and have a beer later,
> > then you're missing the quintessential way of being in
> > this wonderful country of ours.
>
> ** Please go back to sleep.
Maybe you would prefer I was asleep,
but I can't be told when to sleep.
Unless of course that new Russian bombshell shiela
who just became Miss Universe whispers into my ear late one evening,
"Darlink, I must be sleepink mit youse for a vile...."
I would even fake sleep.
Patritski Turnovoski
>
> > Patrick Turner.
> >
> >
>
> Regards, Phil
Phil Allison
>
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3CF75AD1...@turneraudio.com.au...
> >
> > > Phil, when you are trying to get an alternative point of view across
> > > to other posters,
> >
> > ** No Pat,
> >
> > that is not what I am doing, that is apparently what you think I
should be doing.
>
> Perhaps you might clarify then.
** I have no intention of having a nice chat with someone who does not
rate the consideration that requires.
> > ** Some here are very concerned about what I have to offer.
> > > > But nobody can force anyone to change religions.
> > > And I believe in a fair go for all.
> > ** Does that also include criminals too?
>
> A criminal is somebody convicted by judge and jury,
** No, it is anyone known to be doing a criminal thing. Ordinary
folk have to be able to identify them and take whatever action is
appropriate in the circumstances. Yelling and pointing is one possibility.
> I won't be party to a kangaroo court on the news group.
** Then you are party to harbouring.
> >
> > ** Please go back to sleep.
>
> Maybe you would prefer I was asleep, but I can't be told when to sleep.
** Not at all, it is a comment on the present.
Regards, Phil
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CF76B18...@turneraudio.com.au...
> >
> >
> > Phil Allison wrote:
> >
> > > "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3CF75AD1...@turneraudio.com.au...
> > >
> > > > Phil, when you are trying to get an alternative point of view across
> > > > to other posters,
> > >
> > > ** No Pat,
> > >
> > > that is not what I am doing, that is apparently what you think I
> should be doing.
> >
> > Perhaps you might clarify then.
>
> ** I have no intention of having a nice chat with someone who does not
> rate the consideration that requires.
>
> > > ** Some here are very concerned about what I have to offer.
> > > > > But nobody can force anyone to change religions.
> > > > And I believe in a fair go for all.
>
> > > ** Does that also include criminals too?
Yes, criminals are entitled to a fair go.
In this country we are considered innocent until proven guilty,
so I leave that to the authorities to administer.
I am just a bloke, and
even if I believe someone is a crim, I cannot discriminate
against that person until he is convicted.
Look what happened to Lindy chamberlain.
proir to dismissal of charges that she murdered her child,
would I have been wrong to talk to he prior to her conviction?
Or after?
What gives me the right to vilify anyone?
If I had to visit a jail, and discuss audio with the guys,
I would not talk down to them.
I can choose what I do.
>
> >
> > A criminal is somebody convicted by judge and jury,
>
> ** No, it is anyone known to be doing a criminal thing. Ordinary
> folk have to be able to identify them and take whatever action is
> appropriate in the circumstances. Yelling and pointing is one possibility.
Yeah, sure, but vigilante groups tend to get the wrong bloke, or the wrong
sheila.
One needs proof about criminals, allegation won't stick.
One can think the worst of some of the folks around you,
but what one alleges, might not be all there is to the matter,
and juries don't always agree, and I NEVER agree with any single person
who sets himself up as copper, lawyer, judge, and jury,
and then passes sentence.
> > I won't be party to a kangaroo court on the news group.
>
> ** Then you are party to harbouring.
You may like to think so,
but could I be convicted of an offense by taking part in
discussions?
It would first require convictions of criminality
of some contributors to this NG.
But I see nothing that they do that warrants a waste of time
at huge cost to the public purse.
Do we need to call the police,
and have culprits arrested?
I think not, but feel free to phone them right now.
The legal system is, IMHO, flat out coping
with the drug dealers, crooks, et all,
and handing out millions to guys who dive head first into
100 mm of water at the beach.
Should you wish to reform the system, then become a lawyer,
take action, and get elected to parliment, and get them all
to vote your legislation reforms into law of the land.
Probably, pushing sand up hill with one's nose might be easier.
> > > ** Please go back to sleep.
> >
> > Maybe you would prefer I was asleep, but I can't be told when to sleep.
>
> ** Not at all, it is a comment on the present.
>
> Regards, Phil
Nothing more about reviews and advertising then ?
I must admit I enjoyed the old time reviews
in the early days of hi-fi when all sorts of patently crummy gear
was touted as being superlative.
The language was not so slinky as it is now, it was kinda
naive and awkward, and still filled the pages with
laughter provoking statements.
Maybe not much has changed.
Nobody is perfect, or ever was perfect.
On the other hand, many old reviews of technical aspects of gear were
very illuminating, when the product was genuinely good.
When it was appalling, one could easily read between the lines.
Writing a real bad review might have led to getting the sack.
Being an independant freelancer now might bring you a defamation suit.
Once those lawyers clamp their jaws on your bum, its like a mob
of pitbull terriers.
Threre are always conflicts of interest somewhere in jounalism,
where the journal accepts advertising, look at talk back radio!
and what of political bias in the ABC and the newspapers?
Some activism is laudable towards change,
and probably, Ghandi in India in the 40s achieved the
greatest result, without violence, just noble perserverance.
But he had a vision, and ideas.....
I remember the 60s and 70s marches against the vietnam war.
It seems nobody wants to march for anything much these days,
least of all for reform in audio press reports on the Internet,
and limits about what can and cannot be said about bits of wire.
Patrick Turner.
AudioEnz
Oscil...@spamblock.com wrote on 31/05/2002 10:39 PM:
> Well I WAS astounded to hear him claim that their reviews were stricly non-
> technical (my words, not his). I really don't see how a hifi review can be
> done that's non-technical.
Non-technical simply means that there are no measurements taken. Easy to
understand.
AudioEnz
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 10:56 PM:
> When I saw the post on slinky wires, I
> thought, "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
I don't believe that such a cable can be commercially sold for $50. (btw,
the interconnect is $350 NZ dollars).
You (as in you specifically, Peter Turner) may be able to make one for your
own use for $50, but you would not be able to manufacture, pay for your time
(or pay someone else wages for manufacturing), package, distribute, finance
the accounts and include a sufficient retail margin for such a product to
sell for $50.
The question really is this: is the product worth the money?
Most dealers in New Zealand (where, it needs to be said, is where the
product is for sale - not in Australia) will loan the cables to people who
are interested in them.
These people can try them in their own systems and decide, without any
pressure, if the cables make sufficient difference to justify the
expenditure. To me this is ideal for trying out hi-fi products.
> Maybe you ought to run articles on alternatives to expensives,
> like good sounding cheapies.
I run plenty of reviews on good (often great) sounding, inexpensive hi-fi
equipment. If you had looked at AudioEnz before firing off on the cable
review, you would have seen this.
On the front page of AudioEnz you will see links to the following high value
audio products:
- Kef Q1 loudspeakers
- Project Debut Phono turntable
- Mitsubishi SL1-U projector
- Rotel RMB-1095 multichannel power amplifier
- Panasonic AE100 video projector
- Denon AVR-1802 Av receiver
- NAD C521 CD player
One of my main aims with AudioEnz is to find good sounding and affordable
hi-fi (and, if you insist) home theatre equipment.
Your focus on the one (1) audio cable review that I have published in over
15 years is noting short of extraordinary.
AudioEnz
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 10:56 PM:
> I aknowledge just that. I am at ease with folks who believe cables
> make a difference. I know many. I don't hear very much
I don't hear the dramatic cable differences that some people say they hear.
(But then my mum doesn't even hear the differences between speakers!)
But I do hear enough to purchase Kimber cable for my own hi-fi system. And
I'm glad that I did.
btw, Patrick, did you see the cable articles by Ben Duncan in Hi-Fi News a
few years back? Duncan came up with some measurement techniques that he said
correlated with listening tests. I can't understand the technicals of
this,but you probably would.
AudioEnz
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 11:30 PM:
> My expectations of a review is to get a broad picture
> of the gear reviewed, both technical ( objective ), and subjective.
There are reviewers and magazines that will meet the criteria that you find
important (Martin Colloms from Hi-Fi News comes to mind, although I suspect
that you'd disagree with many of his opinions, particularly over the sound
of cables).
I know enough on audio technicalities to keep me out of trouble, and enough
to stop myself (and my writers) publishing statements that are technically
silly.
For a subjective (listening) based magazine, that is more than sufficient.
And more than you'll find in some listening-based magazines.
> I am technically literate.
> But most folks are not, and would not realise the nature of say capacitance,
> even if one bit them on le derriere
Correct, most folks are not technically literate. To most people, a
technical slant to a review is something that they skip over (at best) or
simply avoid the publication.
There's room for both technical publications and listening based
publications. AudioEnz is the latter.
Phil Allison
> I know enough on audio technicalities to keep me out of trouble, and
enough to stop myself (and my writers) publishing statements that are
technically silly.
** Then what don't you use that knowledge and stop publishing
technically silly statements - your rag is full of them now?
Maybe you know sweet FA in reality.
> There's room for both technical publications and listening based
> publications. AudioEnz is the latter.
** Yes, there is room for Astronomy and there is room for Astrology.
Well most rags find room for the latter anyway.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz ...... full of woolly thinking just to suit sheep
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> Non-technical simply means that there are no measurements taken. Easy to
understand.
** Non-technical means a lot worse than that. All rational thinking is
abandoned. All the human race has ever discovered about the laws of nature
too. All that is worth anything about the art and science of audio
reproduction is thrown in the dunny.
If AudioEnema was printed on paper then it could serve at least one
useful purpose.
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz ..... feeding the sheep a lot of dip
Love, Phil
Phil Allison
> Yes, criminals are entitled to a fair go.
> In this country we are considered innocent until proven guilty,
> so I leave that to the authorities to administer.
> I am just a bloke, and
> even if I believe someone is a crim, I cannot discriminate
> against that person until he is convicted.
** The authorities depend on honest citizens reporting illegal
activities then acting as witnesses in court and doing jury duty. We are all
part of the justice system - it would fail completely if left only to those
in uniform.
I never said anyone on the NG was a criminal, but I have a pretty good
idea what constitutes "obtaining a benefit by deception" and what is allowed
under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Acts and what is not.
All it takes for the bastards to completely take over is that honest
folk sit and do nothing. This seems to be what you are recommending.
One is either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which are you?
Regards, Phil
Phil Allison
> in article 3CF756E6...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 10:56 PM:
>
> > When I saw the post on slinky wires, I
> > thought, "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
>
> I don't believe that such a cable can be commercially sold for $50. (btw,
> the interconnect is $350 NZ dollars).
>
> You (as in you specifically, Peter Turner) may be able to make one for
your
> own use for $50, but you would not be able to manufacture, pay for your
time
> (or pay someone else wages for manufacturing), package, distribute,
finance
> the accounts and include a sufficient retail margin for such a product to
> sell for $50.
** Snake oil can be expensive to extract.
>
> The question really is this: is the product worth the money?
** You don't care, its job is to seperate fools from theirs.
>
> Most dealers in New Zealand (where, it needs to be said, is where the
> product is for sale - not in Australia) will loan the cables to people who
> are interested in them.
** Who is that? Gullible and suggestible audiophools who seem to be
hot to trot?
>
> These people can try them in their own systems and decide, without any
> pressure, if the cables make sufficient difference to justify the
> expenditure. To me this is ideal for trying out hi-fi products.
** After the correct thoughts are subtly planted in their minds.
> Your focus on the one (1) audio cable review that I have published in over
15 years is noting short of extraordinary.
** No, it is just that the cable thing is such a fucking obvious fraud.
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz ..... sheep dip on the web
Love, Phil
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> in article 3CF756E6...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 10:56 PM:
>
> > When I saw the post on slinky wires, I
> > thought, "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
>
> I don't believe that such a cable can be commercially sold for $50. (btw,
> the interconnect is $350 NZ dollars).
That puts it at about AUD $300.
Still expensive, for the materials and labour involved..
> You (as in you specifically, Peter Turner)
Patrick Turner, BTW,
> may be able to make one for your
> own use for $50, but you would not be able to manufacture, pay for your time
> (or pay someone else wages for manufacturing), package, distribute, finance
> the accounts and include a sufficient retail margin for such a product to
> sell for $50.
I routinely provide a pair of handmade cables using
4 x goldplated RCA plugs, and two metres of screened wire,
for less than $50, on a one at a time basis.
If I set up and mass produced them in Oz, I could sell them
even cheaper. But I wouldn't, because ready made cheap cables
from Taiwan are already here in the shops.
I have friend who runs a hi-fi outlet here who makes interconnects for AUD $250
a pair,
and he uses Neutrik RCA connectors, and silver plated
wire wrap wire which is very fine and delicate, and he finds folks
like the sound, and pay the price, and they believe him when he looks them in
the eye
and says "these will improove your sound".
I can't hear any difference, I don't know anyone who can.
But hell, sales guys are always out for that little extra earner.
He reckons the cables are worth it as his time is worth a pro's
$80 per hour, and to plat the wire, and solder connections, and
purchase the Neutriks is a good deal.
But I work for $8 per hour.
I have had to repair a broken wire in one set of cables
this guy sold to a client of mine.
Not a worry, easily repaired, the customer seems to think the slight
fragility is a minor worry since the sound is OK.
How easy to repair broken Slinkys?
> The question really is this: is the product worth the money?
Indeed.
> Most dealers in New Zealand (where, it needs to be said, is where the
> product is for sale - not in Australia) will loan the cables to people who
> are interested in them.
>
> These people can try them in their own systems and decide, without any
> pressure, if the cables make sufficient difference to justify the
> expenditure. To me this is ideal for trying out hi-fi products.
I do hope they compare using proper comparison techniques.
> > Maybe you ought to run articles on alternatives to expensives,
> > like good sounding cheapies.
>
> I run plenty of reviews on good (often great) sounding, inexpensive hi-fi
> equipment. If you had looked at AudioEnz before firing off on the cable
> review, you would have seen this.
It makes no difference if you had reviews for a thousand
less expensive cables. The issue was focused around the slinky links.
> On the front page of AudioEnz you will see links to the following high value
> audio products:
>
> - Kef Q1 loudspeakers
> - Project Debut Phono turntable
> - Mitsubishi SL1-U projector
> - Rotel RMB-1095 multichannel power amplifier
> - Panasonic AE100 video projector
> - Denon AVR-1802 Av receiver
> - NAD C521 CD player
>
> One of my main aims with AudioEnz is to find good sounding and affordable
> hi-fi (and, if you insist) home theatre equipment.
Your aims are laudable, go to it with godspeed....
> Your focus on the one (1) audio cable review that I have published in over
> 15 years is noting short of extraordinary.
It was brought up in discussions on this NG.
Its not an extroadinary thing to happen.
I have had my hand made items become the subject
of arguments here on the NG,
and regardless of what was said, I am no worse off
for all that.
Criticism well aimed, is an aid to me,
criticism not so well concieved, but aimed at me,
is water off a duck's back.
In a days time, the 3 million australians reading every posting
will have completely forgotten about it, or deleted it out of their
PCs.
Keep up the good work,
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> in article 3CF75EBE...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 11:30 PM:
>
> > My expectations of a review is to get a broad picture
> > of the gear reviewed, both technical ( objective ), and subjective.
>
> There are reviewers and magazines that will meet the criteria that you find
> important (Martin Colloms from Hi-Fi News comes to mind, although I suspect
> that you'd disagree with many of his opinions, particularly over the sound
> of cables).
I don't have the time to delve continually into details of reviews.
> I know enough on audio technicalities to keep me out of trouble, and enough
> to stop myself (and my writers) publishing statements that are technically
> silly.
>
> For a subjective (listening) based magazine, that is more than sufficient.
> And more than you'll find in some listening-based magazines.
>
> > I am technically literate.
> > But most folks are not, and would not realise the nature of say capacitance,
> > even if one bit them on le derriere
>
> Correct, most folks are not technically literate. To most people, a
> technical slant to a review is something that they skip over (at best) or
> simply avoid the publication.
>
> There's room for both technical publications and listening based
> publications. AudioEnz is the latter.
Hmm, just remember,
many discerning listeners may hear things different to the way you do.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
AudioEnz wrote:
> in article 3CF756E6...@turneraudio.com.au, Patrick Turner at
> in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 31/05/2002 10:56 PM:
>
> > I aknowledge just that. I am at ease with folks who believe cables
> > make a difference. I know many. I don't hear very much
>
> I don't hear the dramatic cable differences that some people say they hear.
> (But then my mum doesn't even hear the differences between speakers!)
>
> But I do hear enough to purchase Kimber cable for my own hi-fi system. And
> I'm glad that I did.
>
> btw, Patrick, did you see the cable articles by Ben Duncan in Hi-Fi News a
> few years back? Duncan came up with some measurement techniques that he said
> correlated with listening tests. I can't understand the technicals of
> this,but you probably would.
I did read one of Ben's books I was lent a few years back about audio,
mainly about the history and trends in SS amps.
I don't recall if there were things I needed to know that I don't already know
about
cables.
And no, I havn't seen his articles in Hi-Fi News.
I also have never heard any dramatic sound improvement when
having to change a cable, and this happens all the time,
since I am always testing peoples gear in my lounge,
changing things around,
and you'd think I would have noticed something, sometime,
but it hasn't happened.
Changeing speakers, or amps has made a difference,
but never cables, but of course the cables I use are up
to sufficient standard to be
considered blameless.
There are no Nordost Valhalla amoungst the rack of spare cables I use.
Patrick Turner.
Mal P
> There are no Nordost Valhalla amoungst the rack of spare cables I use.
What cables do you use?
Cheers,
Mal
Oscillatus
news:B91E2F37.5E004%nospam...@spamblock.com:
>> Well I WAS astounded to hear him claim that their reviews were
>> stricly non- technical (my words, not his). I really don't see how a
>> hifi review can be done that's non-technical.
>
> Non-technical simply means that there are no measurements taken. Easy
> to understand.
No it doesn't. I wonder what the term for that would be. Non-metric
perhaps? Things can get quite technical without measuring things, and your
magazine does exactly that. Why do you speak of dielectrics for example?
That certainly is a technical discussion. As are statements like saying
silver is the best conductor and the thinner the better.
Your magazine, if this article is an example, has considerable technical
content, and unfortunately seems to misuse it.
Patrick Turner
Mal P wrote:
Speaker cables are 'cable talk' cabling,
rather like heavy duty electrical two core wall
wiring, plain copper multistrand wires, rated at maybe 20 amps
Terminations are locally made Gallard and Trewin 4 mm dia gold plated
banana plugs, with wires soldered into the plugs.
These are similar to Jaycar, but better made.
Jaycar are OK, even though they are only nickel plated.
I don't hear any difference with the plating material
for terminations.
Connection tightness and cleanliness is more important.
Interconnects are mainly Jaycar gold plated RCA plugs, with soldered on
coaxial screened wire, which is 75 ohm rated impedance for
data transfer, and has about 70 pF pf per metre,
and utterly negligible R and L, since the Rout of the preamp
is about 600 ohms.
Others I have are 5 mm x 0.25 mm thick copper foil strips glued eitherside
of
foam double sided adhesive tape, and some with the foils side by side
in between clear polyester reinforced adhesive tape.
Thes are fairly robust and can flex without breaking themselves after
10 flexings, as they act like a flexible piece of ribbon.
Nordost do it this way, except they use some thicker
polycarbonate plastic, or stuff like that to encase
the runs of foils, and ensure robustness.
Cost of the foil cable is very very low.
I got enough foil from a window leadlighting place,
and some tape from BBC hardware.
It don't matter if it breaks after awhile, just cut the end off with
scissors,
and resolder the foils.
The foil cables are prone to noise, especially
if the Rout of the preamp is high, since they are not screened,
ie, coax with a platted outside screen, and inner conductor.
The dielectric of the coax screened wire is a soft plastic, it
seems to be polythene, which has a dielectric constant of about 1.5,
so dielectric losses are very low,
and negligible at audio frequencies.
In the integrated amps, the cables are a 50 mm peice of fine
solid core telephone hook up wire, from the
anode of a gain stage DC blocking cap to the volume pot,
and I could not fit Valhallas in there even if I tried,
and of course, there is no cable equal or as good as none at all.
Patrick Turner.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mal
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> I know enough on audio technicalities to keep me out of trouble, and enough
> to stop myself (and my writers) publishing statements that are technically
> silly.
So why did the bit about the cable in question 'breaking in' get
published?
Don't get me wrong Michael, I have no problem with your reviews, though
you know yourself that the 'breaking in' part is simply not true, yet it
got published.
Just curious.
Rick.
--
Rick Stadelmaier
Equinox Audio
http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au
ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au
Sydney, Australia
AudioEnz
ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au wrote on 2/06/2002 02:06 AM:
> So why did the bit about the cable in question 'breaking in' get
> published?
>
> Don't get me wrong Michael, I have no problem with your reviews, though
> you know yourself that the 'breaking in' part is simply not true, yet it
> got published.
I don't know that at all, Rick.
So why was that published? Because that is what my writer experienced.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> I don't know that at all, Rick.
No disrespect to your knowledge Michael, however perhaps you should
investigate the science behind the properties of this commonly
misunderstood product in audio.
> So why was that published? Because that is what my writer experienced.
Ok, let me put it this way, I'm not saying your writer heard no
improvements to his system after 3 days, however, to claim it was due to
the cables breaking in is not the answer. It is more likely due to the
components in his system warming up (which, by the way would likely have
taken only 1/2 - 1 hour or so, generally), as we all know most
electronics have a temperature at which they operate most efficient.
Perhaps your writer was in a much better frame of mind during his second
listening session (after the 3 days), as we all know that our attitude
plays a part in how we perceive a system to sound also.
I feel, if your writer experienced what he claimed in the review, then I
suggest he look for other reasons, because it simply can not be the wire
breaking in.
Science dictates this, not me.
Oscillatus
news:3CF951EB...@equinoxaudio.com.au:
> Perhaps your writer was in a much better frame of mind during his second
> listening session (after the 3 days), as we all know that our attitude
> plays a part in how we perceive a system to sound also.
Much more than we would like to believe. Apart from anything else, the
brain adjusts to cope with whatever it is experiencing, so over time, we
get used to things. So, other than short term fatigue from a bad sound, we
may well experience that an otherwise poor component, 'breaks in' over a
few days. It doesn't really of course, it's us/we that are breaking in.
>
> I feel, if your writer experienced what he claimed in the review, then I
> suggest he look for other reasons, because it simply can not be the wire
> breaking in.
> Science dictates this, not me.
Science should be present in a magazine that doesn't purport to
technicalities? :-)
Phil Allison
"Rick Stadelmaier" <ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3CF951EB...@equinoxaudio.com.au...
> Ok, let me put it this way, I'm not saying your writer heard no
> improvements to his system after 3 days, however, to claim it was due to
> the cables breaking in is not the answer. It is more likely due to the
> components in his system warming up (which, by the way would likely have
taken only 1/2 - 1 hour or so, generally), as we all know most
> electronics have a temperature at which they operate most efficient.
>
> Perhaps your writer was in a much better frame of mind during his second
listening session (after the 3 days), as we all know that our attitude
> plays a part in how we perceive a system to sound also.
>
> I feel, if your writer experienced what he claimed in the review, then I
> suggest he look for other reasons, because it simply can not be the wire
> breaking in.
> Science dictates this, not me.
>
> Rick.
** Even Rick can see through the hi-fi cable fraud - it is that blatant.
Good post,
Love, Phil
Richard Freeman
>
> I'm sure that you also appreciate that many sincere audio listeners find
> that cables do sound different. I (and obviously the writer of the
> Slinkylink review) find that cables do sound different.
>
> I know that your views make sense to you, and have no intention of telling
> you that your views are incorrect, that you are deaf, crooked or somehow
> stupid because your views do not coincide with mine.
>
> I ask that you offer me the same courtesy.
You seem to keep pushing this line although it is blatent to anyone
who reads the stinkylinks article in the following Statement "Some
believe there’s little difference between a cheap cable and
those of extravagant prices. They’re wrong of course –
different cables do sound different and anyone serious about getting
quality audio from their stereo should pay attention to them" where
does this statement say that those who do not hear any difference
between reasonable cables are not wrong ????
Richard Freeman
> One of my main aims with AudioEnz is to find good sounding and affordable
> hi-fi (and, if you insist) home theatre equipment.
Very laudable
> Your focus on the one (1) audio cable review that I have published in over
> 15 years is noting short of extraordinary.
The Irony is that if you had not leapt to the defence of the article
the original posting would probably have been gone and forgotten by
now .... however now the credibility of your publication has been
dragged down into the mire of the credibility of the BS artists who
sell and market "high quality interconnects" and I need to warn you
that these lying toerags have no credibility at all ....
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz
Richard Freeman
corporate cynic
Richard Freeman
> I'm sure that you also appreciate that many sincere audio listeners find
> that cables do sound different. I (and obviously the writer of the
> Slinkylink review) find that cables do sound different.
>
> I know that your views make sense to you, and have no intention of telling
> you that your views are incorrect, that you are deaf, crooked or somehow
> stupid because your views do not coincide with mine.
>
> I ask that you offer me the same courtesy.
You seem to keep pushing this line although it is blatent to anyone
who reads the stinkylinks article in the following Statement "Some
believe there is little difference between a cheap cable and those of
extravagant prices. They're wrong of course different cables do sound
different and anyone serious about getting quality audio from their
stereo should pay attention to them" where does this statement say
that those who do not hear any difference between reasonable cables
are not wrong ????
Richard Freeman
AudioEnz
at ri...@atps.net wrote on 2/06/2002 05:06 PM:
> The Irony is that if you had not leapt to the defence of the article
> the original posting would probably have been gone and forgotten by
> now ....
Possibly it might have. That the posting was titled "Reviews and
advertising", which suggested that there was a tie up between AudioEnz
reviews and advertising, meant that I had an obligation to speak up.
> however now the credibility of your publication has been
> dragged down into the mire of the credibility of the BS artists who
> sell and market "high quality interconnects" and I need to warn you
> that these lying toerags have no credibility at all ....
We've been through this before Richard, though you keep wanting to return to
this subject.
You probably know many sincere and honest people who "know" that cables
sound different. You probably also know many sincere and honest people who
"know" that cables can't possibly make any difference.
AudioEnz
> You seem to keep pushing this line although it is blatent to anyone
> who reads the stinkylinks article in the following Statement "Some
> believe there’s little difference between a cheap cable and
> those of extravagant prices. They’re wrong of course –
> different cables do sound different and anyone serious about getting
> quality audio from their stereo should pay attention to them" where
> does this statement say that those who do not hear any difference
> between reasonable cables are not wrong ????
Richard,
that is the view of the author of the article. Simple enough, really -
different people have different views. Just as you and I have different
views.
AudioEnz
ri...@equinoxaudio.com.au wrote on 2/06/2002 10:59 AM:
> No disrespect to your knowledge Michael, however perhaps you should
> investigate the science behind the properties of this commonly
> misunderstood product in audio.
Rick,
you assigned a statement to me. When I objected ("I don't know that at all,
Rick.") you assigned another statement to me.
Please do not assign statements to me that I did not make. Thank you.
Phil Allison
Simple enough, really - different people have different views. Just as you
and I have different views.
** Not simple at all. There are things that are matters of fact, like
what time it is or whether it is raining or not. One would not be happy
about a variety of opinions on these matters.
The "Scam in a can" cables either have the audible effects your
reviewer says he heard or they do not. If not then then you are party to a
fraud and should face the legal penalties.
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnema ..... 3 million sheep can't be wrong.
Love, Phil
Oscillatus
news:B9202BBD.5E3A7%nospam...@spamblock.com:
> that is the view of the author of the article. Simple enough, really -
> different people have different views. Just as you and I have different
> views.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz
But you keep claiming to be the editor. You therefore cannot sidestep the
blame if you perpetuate the myth.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> > No disrespect to your knowledge Michael, however perhaps you should
> > investigate the science behind the properties of this commonly
> > misunderstood product in audio.
>
> Rick,
>
> you assigned a statement to me. When I objected ("I don't know that at all,
> Rick.") you assigned another statement to me.
Yes, I assigned the first statement to you, assuming you would know that
cables do not break in.
Though, how is the above comment, a statement with which I have assigned
to you?
All I suggested was for you to research cable properties.
I know I wouldn't want something printed on my website, which if
questioned, my only answer could be "I don't know that at all".
Christian
>
> Of course, I would never deny your right to be here in the forum,
> even if I disagreed with every sylable.
> When I saw the post on slinky wires, I
> thought, "but why is a $50 product selling for $500?"
> Maybe you ought to run articles on alternatives to expensives,
> like good sounding cheapies.
Perhaps Michael should run an article with double-blind tests done between
very cheap cable, mid-priced cable and v. expensive cable and see what the
results are. I don't really understand why this issue should have to be
discussed ad nauseum when it can't be THAT hard to produce some empirical
results one way or the other.
AudioEnz
wrote on 5/06/2002 04:03 PM:
> Perhaps Michael should run an article with double-blind tests done between
> very cheap cable, mid-priced cable and v. expensive cable and see what the
> results are. I don't really understand why this issue should have to be
> discussed ad nauseum when it can't be THAT hard to produce some empirical
> results one way or the other.
Discussions on double blind tests produce an awful lot of heat but very
little light (I refer you to the mis-named rec.audio.high-end newsgroup for
an example of rhetoric being repeated ad nauseum).
Several double-blind tests have been performed on audio equipment. The
results almost always point towards no differentiation between the products
tested. (Note: this is not the same as "there was no difference", as a DBT
cannot prove that).
There are broadly two schools of though with DBTs.
The first is that DBTs are the ultimate and only real way to differentiate
between products. People with this view also tend towards saying that all
amplifiers, cables, CD players etc must sound the same as they have not been
differentiated under DBT conditions.
The second school of thought is that there is something inherently wrong
with audio DBTs if they cannot show up the wide variations in sound of
equipment that are experienced by people every day.
I've never had the opportunity to take part in a DBT, but I know that there
are switching devices available to help facilitate audio DBTesting.
[I hope that this newsgroup doesn't turn into another never-ending diatribe
on the pros and cons of DBT, as seen in rec.audio.high-end]
Oscillatus
news:adk2id$k7k$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au:
> Perhaps Michael should run an article with double-blind tests done
> between very cheap cable, mid-priced cable and v. expensive cable and
> see what the results are. I don't really understand why this issue
> should have to be discussed ad nauseum when it can't be THAT hard to
> produce some empirical results one way or the other.
It isn't, but they don't want to. Any sort of scientific test would do.
Oscillatus
news:B923EEAF.5EB9C%nospam...@spamblock.com:
> in article adk2id$k7k$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au, Christian at
> reje...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/06/2002 04:03 PM:
>
>> Perhaps Michael should run an article with double-blind tests done
>> between very cheap cable, mid-priced cable and v. expensive cable and
>> see what the results are. I don't really understand why this issue
>> should have to be discussed ad nauseum when it can't be THAT hard to
>> produce some empirical results one way or the other.
>
> Discussions on double blind tests produce an awful lot of heat but
> very little light (I refer you to the mis-named rec.audio.high-end
> newsgroup for an example of rhetoric being repeated ad nauseum).
Don't go there.
>
> Several double-blind tests have been performed on audio equipment. The
> results almost always point towards no differentiation between the
> products tested. (Note: this is not the same as "there was no
> difference", as a DBT cannot prove that).
>
That is correct.
> There are broadly two schools of though with DBTs.
>
> The first is that DBTs are the ultimate and only real way to
> differentiate between products. People with this view also tend
> towards saying that all amplifiers, cables, CD players etc must sound
> the same as they have not been differentiated under DBT conditions.
>
> The second school of thought is that there is something inherently
> wrong with audio DBTs if they cannot show up the wide variations in
> sound of equipment that are experienced by people every day.
Stand way back from these couple of observations and it is real easy to see
what's going on. Schools of thought always support the notions that uphold
their own beliefs.
>
> I've never had the opportunity to take part in a DBT, but I know that
> there are switching devices available to help facilitate audio
> DBTesting.
>
> [I hope that this newsgroup doesn't turn into another never-ending
> diatribe on the pros and cons of DBT, as seen in rec.audio.high-end]
>
>
I would ignore the thread if it did.
What I cannot understand is why hifi thinks it is exempt from sound
scientific testing principles. Honestly the methodology for 'proving' or
'disproving' theories is well honed. Unfortunately it is also often
misapplied, and maybe that's what get's it a bad name.
Still hifi 'schools of thought' ignore it at their peril.** If they want to
be taken seriously, then they need to shape up.
** note I don't take sides with this statement.
Chuan Chew
AudioEnz <nospam...@spamblock.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Discussions on double blind tests produce an awful lot of heat but very
> little light (I refer you to the mis-named rec.audio.high-end newsgroup for
> an example of rhetoric being repeated ad nauseum).
>
> Several double-blind tests have been performed on audio equipment. The
> results almost always point towards no differentiation between the products
> tested. (Note: this is not the same as "there was no difference", as a DBT
> cannot prove that).
>
> There are broadly two schools of though with DBTs.
>
> The first is that DBTs are the ultimate and only real way to differentiate
> between products. People with this view also tend towards saying that all
> amplifiers, cables, CD players etc must sound the same as they have not been
> differentiated under DBT conditions.
I don't know how valid this generalisation is. Why would people who
argue for DB testing draw a priori conclusions?
Perhaps you've misconstrued the statistical principle of the null
hypothesis ("there is no difference"), which places the evidentiary onus
on one who claims that a difference exists.
> The second school of thought is that there is something inherently wrong
> with audio DBTs if they cannot show up the wide variations in sound of
> equipment that are experienced by people every day.
This seems to be a self-contradictory school of thought -- either the
differences in sound are experienced or they're not, so the components
shouldn't have to be sighted. Just because DBTs don't always show
differences doesn't mean that they never do.
I believe I can hear differences in some audio components, but if a DBT
proved me wrong in any instance, I'd have no problem admitting that the
difference, as I perceived it, was imagined.
> I've never had the opportunity to take part in a DBT, but I know that there
> are switching devices available to help facilitate audio DBTesting.
I think it would be instructive for your readers (I am one) if AudioEnz
conducted some DBTs on (for example) interconnects, speaker cables or
amps.
You have access to a wider range of test equipment than many of us, and
it's always fun to muck about with even more hi-fi gear. :-)
Cheers,
--Chuan, who is currently too lazy, and isn't yet spending enough money,
to set up his own DBTs ;-)
Oscillatus
3BB16E.180...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> I think it would be instructive for your readers (I am one) if AudioEnz
> conducted some DBTs on (for example) interconnects, speaker cables or
> amps.
I'd be a keen reader of the results as well.
Phil Allison
> Discussions on double blind tests produce an awful lot of heat but very
> little light (I refer you to the mis-named rec.audio.high-end newsgroup
for an example of rhetoric being repeated ad nauseum).
** Fool's babble.
>
> Several double-blind tests have been performed on audio equipment. The
results almost always point towards no differentiation between the products
tested. (Note: this is not the same as "there was no difference", as a DBT
cannot prove that).
> There are broadly two schools of though with DBTs.
** Yes, the well established scientific one and the looney anti-
scientific one.
> The first is that DBTs are the ultimate and only real way to differentiate
> between products. People with this view also tend towards saying that all
amplifiers, cables, CD players etc must sound the same as they have not been
differentiated under DBT conditions.
>
> The second school of thought is that there is something inherently wrong
BTs if they cannot show up the wide variations in sound of equipment that
are experienced by people every day.
** Oh, but I have to know which one it is or I can't tell any
diffference.
>
> I've never had the opportunity to take part in a DBT, but I know that
there are switching devices available to help facilitate audio DBTesting.
> [I hope that this newsgroup doesn't turn into another never-ending
diatribe on the pros and cons of DBT, as seen in rec.audio.high-end]
** If DBTs were to be accepted widely then your on-line rag would
vanish back up your behind whence it came.
>
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz .... self appointed and self employed
Love, Phil
paul packer
>
> ** Listen you fucking halfwit, even if I got all the evidence needed to
>put you and your ilk in jail and shoved it up your arse on a stick you would
>continue to say over an over that there was "no evidence".
What a delightful person you are, Phil. And how nice of you to so
completely prove Trevor's case for him that no sane person could doubt
which of you is making the more sense. Please keep up this
self-destructive exercise.