Russ Andrews - Sawyers Disc Technology
- Thread starter Taff63
- Start date
- Status
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
This is all utter cobblers. This company sells IEC leads for £2.5k. Their marketing man must be worth his weight in gold.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
The leads I use are not Russ Andrews. I wouldn't touch a RA product. The marketing style and price is enough to put me off.
The Mark Grant leads that I use cost £50 each.
The Mark Grant leads that I use cost £50 each.
darrylfunk
Banned
tony, i think we are mostly... but steven has basically said that his gadgets reduce distortion from the low freq all the way up to highs....as if reducing or damping a cable reduces microphonics getting to his gear....he then jumps to the conclusion that this is like a microphone picking up all frequencies but then agrees with you that this is not the case....he needs to make up his mind.
a case of a little knowledge being a bit dangerous and not realising that nearly all differences being heard can be explained.
that is if there are actually any differences, some people don't seem to want the challenge of being asked to show these 'huge' improvements by using a recording or a blind repeatable test.
it's odd to me that steven has come to own a nice system that if anything is highly conservative tech wise but he believes some very strange ideas about his furniture!!!
i have several times said why doesn't he just move the amp into another room or a cupboard that stops acoustic feedback but he hasn't answered that point.
a case of a little knowledge being a bit dangerous and not realising that nearly all differences being heard can be explained.
that is if there are actually any differences, some people don't seem to want the challenge of being asked to show these 'huge' improvements by using a recording or a blind repeatable test.
it's odd to me that steven has come to own a nice system that if anything is highly conservative tech wise but he believes some very strange ideas about his furniture!!!
i have several times said why doesn't he just move the amp into another room or a cupboard that stops acoustic feedback but he hasn't answered that point.
YNWOAN
100% Analogue
Tony, could you please be significantly more specific as to what time 'a lot later' consists of?
I would put to you that this is optimistic conjecture at best.
aquapiranha
pfm Member
Now, now, no need for sarcasm! This is precisely why I stopped buying hifi mags years ago. How can you trust a publication to give you an honest opinion of a product when they are taking money via advertising from the manufacturer? Plus stip things like the so called unbiased reviewer who went to work for nordost etc..
djftw
Heterodox Member
Mr Randi's response in this case would no doubt be the same as the one he gave to the guy from Stereophile who did it with MIT cables - it's not a cable, it has some components in it... Indeed his conditions seem to be so stringent that I doubt you couldn't get away with using two cables that didn't display the same LCR!
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
The test with Randi is simple, the LCR values do have to be broadly similar, as that is the claim made by the manufacturers, that cables of similar values sound different. Not surprisingly a cable with a large parallel network an wildly varying impedance at differing frequencies sounded different- tone controls tend to do that.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
it makes little difference if the magazine in question takes adverts or not. If they do not like all the product that they review no one buys the magazine and no manufacturer submits product for review- they go out of business.
it's a business, if you want unbiased critique demo it at home- yourself
it's a business, if you want unbiased critique demo it at home- yourself
... which when I do, I am told its all 'emperors new clothes'
TBH thats exactly the response I expected (though not necessarily from yourself)
If a magazine takes advertising; they are being bought
If a magazine doesnt take advertising; we are being taken for a ride
If manufacturer proves his claims; 'well, he would wouldn't he'
etc, etc.
*gives up, leaves the topic*
TBH thats exactly the response I expected (though not necessarily from yourself)
If a magazine takes advertising; they are being bought
If a magazine doesnt take advertising; we are being taken for a ride
If manufacturer proves his claims; 'well, he would wouldn't he'
etc, etc.
*gives up, leaves the topic*
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Quite. Best thing you've said in ages Simon.
djftw
Heterodox Member
The thing that baffles/irritates me though is that the original challenge press release reads thus...
Now the problem is (not that Monster are in the habit of making the specs of their cables easy to find - if anything they are more guilty of spewing pseudoscientific rubbish than Pear, at least they give you some meaningful figures), that there does not seem to be an equivalent LCR Monster Cable and in this original challenge they don't seem overly concerned that capacitance and inductance might have audible effects anyway! Monster are also in the habit of adding some components to their cables (although some of them don't do anything except add perceived value*) so his subsequent email to Michael Fremer regarding the MIT cables he proposed using (because they broadly match the Anjou in electrical characteristics) seems a bit unfair.
My beef, in so much as I care (which I broadly speaking don't except when someone uses it to suggest that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my NACA5 and the 24AWG stuff from Dollar Tree), is that the goal posts are actually very different to what I would take from that press release which is all most people have read! He has built into the conditions that you must "prove paranormal ability", Framer was asked to agree in advance that he was demonstrating paranormal activity and that any differences couldn't be explained scientifically. Framer doesn't believe that he can do anything "paranormal", he thinks any difference he can hear is down to the engineering of the cable - so basically Framer can't take the challenge without saying in advance that he is a charlatan! Essentially the two agree, but Randi is able to continue to maintain that no one has taken his challenge knowing that most people just read that press release and don't look into it any further!
For my two pence, I think Randi has been, basically, a bit of a dick on this one; his original complaint seems to have been that 'Dave Clark and his ilk speak utter nonsense in a form of gibberish characterised by excessive use of superlatives' in Randi's own words Clark's review of the Anjou was "hilarious and preposterous", and I doubt there are many people on here who could read it and disagree! However, to the best of my knowledge no cable manufacturer or reviewer claims that audible differences in cables are down to paranormal phenomena - so the challenge as it stands is not constructive, just a way of riling "audiophiles"** and providing ammo for somewhat ill informed "sceptics", making it harder for 'real sceptics' to actually convince the hi-fi community that the scientific method can explain what actually does make an audible difference and debunk the guff!
*
**Hate that term, makes it sound like a perversion - mind you, some people here do seem to have a fetish for black shiny PVC
darrylfunk
Banned
i don't understand why people are upset over randi as he has made no spurious claims....fremer tried to rig the contest by using an extreme cable so he had more chance of i.d.ing it.
hi-fi people can be very odd.
if you use extremes of 'cable designs' you probably will be able to identify the cables... but then that wouldn't be fidelity would it? as one cable would sound predictably inferior to a cable designed to be appropriate for the job in hand, in other words no strange lcr properties and a half decent dialectric and properly fitting plug.
this is why the hi fi business is not going forward....it has to many charlatans flogging foo....
hi-fi people can be very odd.
if you use extremes of 'cable designs' you probably will be able to identify the cables... but then that wouldn't be fidelity would it? as one cable would sound predictably inferior to a cable designed to be appropriate for the job in hand, in other words no strange lcr properties and a half decent dialectric and properly fitting plug.
this is why the hi fi business is not going forward....it has to many charlatans flogging foo....
Reading this thread with a bit of smile
But for those that keep suggesting that magazines review based on advertising spend please look at the following I posted before regarding this.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1237378#post1237378
One thing I would say the engineers I used to work with, and I don't suppose it is uncommon, used to design with measurements first and finish the design with listening and measuring. Seems like the two are too hard to separate in these discussions, and hence the arguments will continue ad infinitum!
But for those that keep suggesting that magazines review based on advertising spend please look at the following I posted before regarding this.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1237378#post1237378
One thing I would say the engineers I used to work with, and I don't suppose it is uncommon, used to design with measurements first and finish the design with listening and measuring. Seems like the two are too hard to separate in these discussions, and hence the arguments will continue ad infinitum!
I know very well that you don't get a review unless you have spent £x on advertising. The other favourite is that last month's review sample is this month's star prize, if nobody fancies keeping it. Don't believe me? Have a look through your back issues and see how many times there is some bit of kit you've never heard of that gets a decent review, then pops up as a prize next month. Magazines are a business and there to entertain, they aren't going to print a bad review as that really would kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. They may as well make it part of the business model.
Actually you'd be surprised how difficult it can be for magazines to get hold of review stock. That is why they often get the same brand reviewed.
It is also the same stock that goes out to shows, sometimes demos, backs up dealers in case of shortage on the shop floor, goes out for photography and advertising pics, etc. It is often transported round the country buy a rep well versed in setting it up correctly, and may be at one magazine one month and not able to go out to the others the next due to being in transit.
Also these thing are sold round the world and if your review stock it say the US, or Germany it won't be in the UK for review. You have to get demo stock to potential dealers if you want them to stock it
You have to be a pretty large manufacturer to be able to afford, hold, and distribute review stock to multiple places at any one time, and frankly managing it was a full time job for just the UK side of where we were.
And then you have to replicate this across the range, 5 models in the line. 3 lines. So 15 products of perhaps 5 review/show units of each. Adds up very quickly and is a huge investment in stock
We had a warehouse full of gear.
Many manufacturers can't and don't bother on a large scale, and cannot afford to advertise either.
Thats why the same brands come up regularly
Tony L
Administrator
<moderating>
I've split out Steven & Simon's test to a nice fresh new thread here. I may go back and move a few more posts over later as I'm not really sure where the most sensible breakpoint lies. I've also decided to lock this one as in other respects it was ending up a bit too much of an attack on a business / person, and I'm not certain that is either fair or good practice from pfm's perspective. Sometimes I find it extraordinarily hard to define where exactly the line in the sand should be!
Tony.
I've split out Steven & Simon's test to a nice fresh new thread here. I may go back and move a few more posts over later as I'm not really sure where the most sensible breakpoint lies. I've also decided to lock this one as in other respects it was ending up a bit too much of an attack on a business / person, and I'm not certain that is either fair or good practice from pfm's perspective. Sometimes I find it extraordinarily hard to define where exactly the line in the sand should be!
Tony.
- Status