advertisement


Parlour trick

Not true. The 'Patrick' part of the posts clearly states the volume level of the preamp was moved from displaying '58' to displaying '61'. The subsequent claims about tracks on a CD-R are way too close to repeating libel to discuss.
Dr Aix explicitly says that the volume level on the front of the amplifier stayed the same when he saw it himself.
 
So, what have I missed that isn't right out there in the world of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and potential libel?
A number of things.

The test was of the power cable for the CDP. So it was turned off between each track. The first report was from someone who observed (on the large display...) a volume change and wondered. Mark Waldrep then observed that the volume setting wasn't changing but the sound was louder on each run with the 'better' cable. As there is no way the power cable can cause this he hypothesised that something funky might be happening on the custom cut CDR being used for the demo. Supporting this as a possibility was that a different track was used for each round of the demo.

There's obviously no proof, you would have to steal the demo CD. And I suspect that that particular CD is sleeping with the fishes.

It would be trivial for Nordost to show that their mains cables affect the output of a CDP. Sue doesn't have to get tired listening, do it with science. I think the complete failure over many years to demonstrate the worth of their products speaks much louder than even a lawyer's letter or a dodgy CDR.

Paul
 
So, to recap, we have one report from some random bloke off the internet called "Patrick", who may work for a competing cable brand for all I know, and some bloke with an anti-cable agenda website who thinks he saw a track number change but doesn't have the confidence to stand by that view when challenged by the manufacturer. Basically it is all a whole lot of 'meh'. The positive thing is it may encourage more people to pay attention to procedure in all dems. I welcome that much at least.
 
... and some bloke with an anti-cable agenda website who thinks he saw a track number change but doesn't have the confidence to stand by that view when challenged by the manufacturer.

Afraid that to me that does seem a rather biassed way to put it which slants towards having us accept a particular conclusion.

As has been pointed out. Big companies or rich individuals can decide to sue and drag something though the courts. Take the example of Simon Singh who was sued by some of the 'alternative medicine' people. Cost him a lot of money to defend himself, and made his life hell for years. *In the end* he won, and got costs. But I doubt that really made up for all the stress, lost income, etc.

We don't know the rights and wrongs of this case one way or the other. And the reporter may simply have no evidence beyond a possible statement, etc, to present to a court. So neither his original assertions *or* his takedown should be considered as any kind of basis for a conclusion here on what actually happened, one way *or* the other.
 
So, to recap, we have one report from some random bloke off the internet called "Patrick", who may work for a competing cable brand for all I know, and some bloke with an anti-cable agenda website who thinks he saw a track number change but doesn't have the confidence to stand by that view when challenged by the manufacturer. Basically it is all a whole lot of 'meh'. The positive thing is it may encourage more people to pay attention to procedure in all dems. I welcome that much at least.
Mark Waldrep is a a pretty well known and respected figure. He is or was on the AES technical committee for hi rez audio. He does not have an anti-cable agenda website. He has a very interesting website devoted to the promotion of HD audio (which he produces).

It fair to say though that his position which is (or at least was not) extreme seems to have focussed increasingly on debunking rather than promoting. IIRC some while ago he felt that he had been muscled off some technical committee (possibly the one above). Can't remember whether that came before or after the HDMI thing.
 
I need to do some research. The thing that surprises me is that I've never heard of Waldrep. I spend a lot of time hunting down specific masterings and I'm an active member of the Steve Hoffman site etc - I tend to have heard of most mastering engineers, especially the outspoken ones! By saying that I've no real interest in high res digital aside from SACD, so I may have missed him if that is his area.
 
I need to do some research. The thing that surprises me is that I've never heard of Waldrep. I spend a lot of time hunting down specific masterings and I'm an active member of the Steve Hoffman site etc - I tend to have heard of most mastering engineers, especially the outspoken ones!
I have to confess that I've never bought one of his recordings. I've read lots of times comments to the effect that they are very good. The problem is that having argued carefully for the position that hi rez might be a good idea if very carefully recorded and produced, be refused to insist that the next big thing (DSD, MQA) was required. This left him slightly marginalised in the topsy turvey world of audio.
 
> Would sticking "alleged" in front of everything work for someone in your position chatting on an internet forum?
>
No.
That is interesting and not something I had thought about before. I guess it would tend to lead to insiders keeping quieter publicly than I would have expected when they suspect something is a bit off but lack anything of substance to support it. Not necessarily a bad thing.
 
some bloke with an anti-cable agenda website

I have just added a clause to my living will authorizing family members to cease my life functions immediately and by any means necessary should they ever come to the conclusion that I match the above description.
 
I have just added a clause to my living will authorizing family members to cease my life functions immediately and by any means necessary should they ever come to the conclusion that I match the above description.

I'd tread carefully, one can end up with such things accidentally!
 
It would be hard to prove volume changes at a HiFi show scenario had or had not happened. People moving around in the room would be enough to change volume and balance
 
Still not obvious. The blog made unsubstantiated allegations that could be commercially damaging. The demonstrator was accused of being a cheat. The manufacturers have the right to defend themselves from such claims. The demonstrator has a right to defend himself. Neither may merit such rights, but they have them. If they are cheating it would be simple to catch them bang to rights. Why not do so?

... and, fwiw, I think you should get a Chord Hugo or Hugo TT or even a Dave on trial.

Of course they have right to defend themselves, but what they have done hasn't zcheived the desired result as people's suspicions are still raised. It just looks suss. A situation that could been easily rectified by inviting the blogger to a demo he could scrutinise.

If the product and test are as claimed the blogger would be proved wrong and nordorst could gain a great marketing success.

Instead they got the lawyers. It is obvious.


Sorry this is off topic but I had an interesting experience with a Dave recently.

I know a group of audiophiles through my hi-fi dealer who get together regularly. I asked them to compare a track played by my Mdac and recorded by my a to d converter, just to see what people thought of the sound of the a-d. This was compared to the original file played back on the dealers high end system sourced with a Dave.

Blind text of course. Guess what, there was a strong preference for the inferior RE recorded track.

Go figure!
 
The issue is that if you are convinced there is a difference between 2 items...you actually hear it.. it's a trusim for the believer

I have on many occasions twiddled offboard eq bass settings of my subs and definitely heard a difference..only problem was that the eq was turned off......
 
For me to tell the difference between two things, I need to
a) concentrate on a very specific part of the sound (hihat, bass, guitar, whatever).
b) Make the switch very quickly
If I don't do either of the above I can't tell a difference accurately.
It's not so easy though when the change over takes minutes - so if I can't do a quick switch I usually live with each for a day or two before deciding.
 
Of course they have right to defend themselves, but what they have done hasn't zcheived the desired result as people's suspicions are still raised. It just looks suss. A situation that could been easily rectified by inviting the blogger to a demo he could scrutinise.

If the product and test are as claimed the blogger would be proved wrong and nordorst could gain a great marketing success.

Instead they got the lawyers. It is obvious.

Well, perhaps. But I suspect what would be more likely would be that the blogger would attend the demo and claim that he didn't perceive the level change he observed at the show dem, or, perhaps, would claim that he couldn't be sure that any changes he perceived correlated to those he reported observing at the show dem. Only he would know the truth of any claims he made, because we're talking about his personal, ie subjective, perceptions, remember. Which would make this a huge risk for Nordost, with a low probability of any sort of payoff.

If you were a businessman, and had the option to either: take this risk, with the chance of a favourable outcome depending on the honesty and goodwill of a person who has gone into print accusing you of cheating; or, send him a sternly worded letter from your lawyers, in all honesty, given your duty to your shareholders, which decision do you think you'd make?
 
Of course they have right to defend themselves, but what they have done hasn't zcheived the desired result as people's suspicions are still raised. It just looks suss. A situation that could been easily rectified by inviting the blogger to a demo he could scrutinise.

If the product and test are as claimed the blogger would be proved wrong and nordorst could gain a great marketing success.

Instead they got the lawyers. It is obvious.

The person in question has a reputation in the trade for making 'contentious' claims then refusing to do anything until legally obligated. In fairness, I've had no great run-ins with him, so I don't know whether this reputation is deserved or groundless.

Thinking about this cynically, making claims like this are good for site traffic, both to his forum and the AIX Records site. In a similar cynical vein, it's also better for one's online reputation to be 'gagged' than to 'back down'.

His music content - on DVD-Audio and Blu-ray - is supposedly consistently very good. I have a couple of his discs and they are excellent.
 
If you were a businessman, and had the option to either: take this risk, with the chance of a favourable outcome depending on the honesty and goodwill of a person who has gone into print accusing you of cheating; or, send him a sternly worded letter from your lawyers, in all honesty, given your duty to your shareholders, which decision do you think you'd make?
This is daft. It assumes Nordost are not aware of how their cables perform. Of course they do. No company is going to succeed without knowing in great detail how their products perform and developing their sales approach accordingly.
 
I anticipate some keen interest at exactly what goes on in Nordost demos in the near future. Will filming and recording be allowed? Will Waldrep be welcome?
 
This is daft. It assumes Nordost are not aware of how their cables perform. Of course they do. No company is going to succeed without knowing in great detail how their products perform and developing their sales approach accordingly.

I think you might be missing the point. im sure Nordost knows exactly how its cables perform. What it doesn't know, and can't control, is how the blogger might respond. He might claim not to have heard any difference, whether he actually did or not, in any new 'transparent' dem. Indeed, he'd be motivated to do so, partly to support his earlier claim, partly to continue his campaign and hence his credibility. This irrespective of whether he actually heard a difference or not. And only he would know whether he was truthfully reporting his subjective impressions.

Also, of course, if he did admit to perceiving a difference, this would not have the effect BE argues it would, because the doubters would just argue it was a sighted test...
 


advertisement


Back
Top