Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Fool's Gold (Read 40329 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fool's Gold

Reply #26 –
Page 276-277:
at 293°K (about room temperature)
Ag 100%  = 15.87 nΩ·m
Ag 97%, Au 3% = 22 nΩ·m

roughly a 40% increase in resistance.

Just stick with pure, cheap copper ... it's just 16.78 nΩ·m.
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #27 –
Quote from: xnor on
Page 276-277:
at 293°K (about room temperature)
Ag 100%  = 15.87 n?·m
Ag 97%, Au 3% = 22 n?·m

roughly a 40% increase in resistance.

Just stick with pure, cheap copper ... it's just 16.78 n?·m.


Yeah. Frank doesn't really know what he's doing, so he just assumed that adding a little bit of gold to silver wouldn't have much of an effect. But he just doubled down on the stupid when he was confronted with the truth. Funny.

Fool's Gold

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:

http://theaudioguild.com

If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.

se

I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies. I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible! But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.

Quote from: xnor on
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff  i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.

But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.

This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect. If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well. They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works and I had no exposure to your company prior to your post, nor your correspondences on other forums. You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue. I don't mean to be offensive with any of this, just voicing my thoughts based on what information I've seen.

Fool's Gold

Reply #29 –
Quote from: _if on
If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue.

Hi if. Do you listen strictly with human ears (blind) at home/for pleasure all the time?
Looks, aesthetics, more subjective type parameters etc. play zero role in all your purchase choices (audio, car, watches, etc)?
Just curious.

cheers,

AJ

btw I have cables that cost 10x Steves in my system (hey they were free) and I've been kicked off numerous "audiophile" forums for illegal possession of a brain and thus enraging the mob
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Fool's Gold

Reply #30 –
Quote from: _if on
I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies.


Thank you. Accepted.

Quote
I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible!


While we also sell interconnect and loudspeaker cables, the vast majority of our sales are headphone cables and it is in this market where we are most well known, by quite a margin.

Quote
But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.


Ok.

Quote
This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect.


You're free to be as cynical as you like and interpret even being honest and straightforward as a form of deceptive marketing practice. But I hope I never get invited to any parties where you'll be in attendance because you strike me as a rather miserable person who looks for the worst motivations in people even if you have to fabricate them.

Quote
If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well.


As I've said, we sell headphone cables almost exclusively. Furthermore, our headphone cables are made for just one company's headphones (though we do offer adapters for use with headphones from a couple other companies). If you ever had any experience with the stock cable that comes with these headphones, you would understand the remark about microphonics.

And even beyond the scope of a particular manufacturer, if you had much experience with headphones you would understand that microphonics is a common issue, because most all headphone cables are fashioned using extruded plastic constructions. If you tap on them or they smack up against something, it can be very annoying. We don't use any extruded plastics. Except for the wire itself, everything else in our cable is textile-based. And this does indeed go a long way toward eliminating microphonics which can indeed be a significant issue with other cables.

Quote
They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works...


I have no control over what other people bring to the table as regards their subjective experience.

But here is my "business model" such as it is in a nutshell.

What I design and sell was first and foremost designed for myself. I have absolutely no desire to chase the market and design what I think will sell, which is why I only offer one headphone cable, one interconnect cable and one loudspeaker cable. And I just figure that if I like it, there may be others will like it as well. If so, great. If not, I'm not going to go back to the drawing board to try and come up with something they will.

And in offering it for sale, I don't blow any smoke up peoples' bottoms. I stick to here's what it is, this is what it is made of, and this is what it costs.

I really don't do any marketing. I don't use customer testimonials, I don't advertise, and I don't seek out reviews. If I do any marketing, it's simply having a nice looking website. That's it.

Quote
You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue.


I'm selling to adults, not five year olds.

And I have a bit different take on the "reality-based mindset" than others.

There is only one reason that I listen to reproduced music. And that is my own subjective enjoyment and pleasure. Period.

If someone says a certain something sounds subjectively better to them, there is simply no valid argument against it, unless you are prepared to call them a liar, which would be  rather absurd.You can argue all day long that this certain something does not alter the signal in any way so as to actually be audibly different than some other certain something. However that does not change the reality of the subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of the reasons behind it. And in my opinion, it is only that subjective experience that is of any real meaning to the individual when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music.

So I really don't care about how people go about achieving their subjective enjoyment. Some things sound subjectively better to me too, even though I know that it's not likely to be due to any actual audible difference. But I simply don't care because the subjective experience is the only "reality" that means anything to me when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music.

And why shouldn't it be? There is a tremendous amount of subjectivity throughout the entire chain, from the building of an instrument, to its playing, to its recording, mixing and mastering. Why should all that subjectivity suddenly come a screeching halt when that recording is reproduced?

Where I draw the line is when people take those subjective experiences and try to pass them off as something more than that. When they assume that if they subjectively perceive some difference, that it must be due to some actual audible difference, and that it must be the experience of others, and if not, it's only because that person is either deaf, their equipment sucks, or both. And it is that erroneous notion that I have spent a considerable amount of time arguing against.

The problem is that this whole thing has been portrayed as "objectivists vs subjectivists." But there is no real "vs." Objectivity and subjectivity can peacefully coexist. Typically those who the objectivists rail against aren't really subjectivists. Real subjectivists do not pass of their subjective experiences as anything more than that. Real subjectivists don't have the immense vanity and ego that these "pseudo objectivists" or "pseudo objectivists" however you wish to describe them (I prefer "pseudo objectivists" myself) that causes them to be in complete denial of their humanity and all the weaknesses and limitations that go along with it.

When it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I am a true subjectivist. In that context, it is only the subjective experience that has any real meaning to me. However when it comes to the understanding of realities outside of that context, I'm as objective as it gets. And I see no conflict with that. They are two entirely different contexts and I practice each within its own context.

My subjective enjoyment of reproduced music can be summed up in this quote from Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance:

The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed. — Robert Pirsig

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #31 –
Quote from: _if on
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
The company that Frank keeps alluding to is mine, and can be found here:

http://theaudioguild.com

If you can find any evidence of my engaging in fraud, deceit, or making any sort of "ridiculous audiophiles-baiting claims," you are free to take me to task for it here. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology.

se

I don't see anything fraudulent on the website, no. I also underestimated the fanciness of the cables (I must say, the terrazo style is quite visually appealing) and I'm sure that does add to the cost. With regards to that, you have my apologies. I suppose if you want to make cables that look how you like them to that's fine. Wouldn't do me much good since most of my cables are invisible! But what xnor said, if I'm understanding it correctly, is somewhat concerning to me.

Quote from: xnor on
I believe that such products can be sold by word-of-mouth advertising (you can better tell people the "right" stuff  i.e. what they want to hear if your audience is small and consists of like-minded people), customers spreading the biased subjective impressions I mentioned above, ... even creating some kind of mystery around such products will pique interest.

But, from my online public 'discussions' with se I have to admit that I cannot remember him making outlandish or unsubstantiated claims about his products. IIRC he is appealing to people "wearing the subjective hat" as he put it nicely, implying that his products will satisfy the subjective audiophile's need for a "special" experience.

This reads to me as though the marketing strategy is a sort of deception made kosher by not actually saying anything factually incorrect. If one tells the "right" thing to the people who believe fancy, expensive cables are capable of sounding better – like maybe saying that the design of these cables eliminates microphonics, which may well be true but perhaps implies microphonics are a serious problem in other cables – then they read that as justification for superior sound quality and assume all the other erroneous things they believe apply to the cables as well. They buy the cables, they do a sighted evaluation and let their imaginations run wild, they tell their friends about how much better these premium cables sound, and this may lead to further sales. That is, in this model the deception is relied upon, just left to the customer to create. I don't know if that is the way your business model works and I had no exposure to your company prior to your post, nor your correspondences on other forums. You say you've fought outlandish claims in the industry for 30 years and I don't doubt you; even more, if during that time you've changed anyone's course from audiophoolery to a reality-based mindset towards audio equipment, I applaud you for it. If it were me I'd probably write an explicit notice that these cables won't actually sound to human ears any better than those costing less than a tenth the price to clear my conscience but perhaps your reputation precedes you and your potential customers are aware of your standing on the issue. I don't mean to be offensive with any of this, just voicing my thoughts based on what information I've seen.


as the reality of gold amalgam seems to be clear to everybody except toxicbuddy(who seemed like a nice guy from what little relation I had with him), I can say that Steve Eddy on headfi is more often in trouble for taking the factual side than the opposite. he got blocked from a topic for being part of a merry group calling out on some idiotic plug you put between your amp and your headphone, that claimed to do everything except your coffee.
he's always trying to stay true to facts and pretty strongly voiced against snake oil.  but after that he also recognizes that the happiness of a dude might not solely come from how technically good a product is. so making stuff pretty(in addition to making them right) might become a positive bias to listening to music for example. I don't think I've ever seen him go beyond that.
now about the industry, you see that lies can go pretty far if well enough formulated to avoid being sued for it. we live in it all day long, as much as I hate the cable legends I read on the net, you can't expect people to actually kill their own marketing on purpose when it works so well with lies. when everybody's making false claims, just not making any is already damn conservative. and no doubt SE is missing out on sales, just by not jumping on the headfi cable section's bandwagon with ponies and magic dust.

but I'm biased, we're e-buddies from headfi(I never bought him anything and he never even tried to tell me about it).

Fool's Gold

Reply #32 –
Quote from: castleofargh on
but I'm biased, we're e-buddies from headfi(I never bought him anything and he never even tried to tell me about it).


Thank you for the kind words, castleofargh.

No, you've never bought anything from me, and I've never even tried telling you about it.

But don't you see? That's just part of my evil deception. By not telling you about it, that leaves a void in your mind that eventually will start nagging at you. Before you know it, you will no longer be able to take it and will be compelled to ask. And when you do, I'll simply tell you what they are, what they're made of and what they cost. But that won't be sufficient to completely fill that void. And you won't be able to help yourself. "HOW DO THEY SOUND?" you'll be asking yourself. Next thing you know, I get a little email from PayPal, and laugh my evil laugh all the way to the "Transfer to bank account" pull down menu. 

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: xnor on
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ...


Pure copper does not stay pure copper forever though, so insulation could at worst matter. And  "at worst" isn't even hypothetical: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost


You pretty much have to go out of your way to get such an epic fail for the insulation (that's from chlorine compounds leeching out of the PVC).

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #36 –
For headphones I only choose quality insulation


99.999999% kink and twist free as well.
"I hear it when I see it."

Fool's Gold

Reply #38 –
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.

So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.

But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Fool's Gold

Reply #39 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....


Yes, you are indeed having trouble getting your head around this.

The issue of the article is not about mixing gold with silver making electrical conductivity worse. The article says nothing at all as to whether reduced conductivity is a good thing, a bad thing, or utterly meaningless.

The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.

When a customer expressed concern about the conductivity of the silver-gold alloy in question, a customer who expressly stated that they believed that "the more conductivity the better," and was also of the belief that a less expensive, all copper cable sold by Toxic Cables might actually be better, Frank responded by assuring that customer, tha  even with the 1% gold in one model cable, and bit more than 1% gold used in his top of the line cable, the conductivity would hardly be affected and would still have a conductivity higher than that of copper.

This is not a matter of opinion. The claim is one which is unambiguously verifiable or falsifiable. And in this case it was shown to be false. And by a pretty good margin. As the article showed, the effects of alloying silver with gold with respect to electrical conductivity have been well established for over a century.

When one uses false statements in the course of convincing someone to part with something of value, in this case money, that is fraud. And that is what the article was about.

Quote
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Replace "the sword" with "fraud" and you've got it.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #40 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.

So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.

But he has got the right hump at the other bloke. On the basis that by putting gold in his mix he is actually making it measure worse. Even though it is designed to make the buyer feel good. So it might make it sound better etc etc....

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


As far as I see it, Steve's cables actually provide a benefit over most standard cables, since they seem to be softer and less susceptible to microphonics than the thinner and stiffer stock cables. I think it's also fair to claim that this can lead to better sound quality, by way of reducing induced acoustic noise. Is that worth $300? We're talking about an actual tangible benefit, so maybe it is worth it to a lot of people. I'm sure an objective test for cable microphonics already exists, which could definitely prove Steve's claims about his cables.

In contrast, the Toxic cables made with 1% (or more) gold in the mix are objectively and measurably worse than a stock 100% copper cable, yet the owner (Frank) keeps making claims that his silver/gold alloy cables are much better than ordinary cables, when in fact the resistance is significantly higher. Is this difference audible? Probably not, but the issue here is not so much the quality of the cables, but rather the outright lies that the owner of Toxic Cables keeps repeating.

Fool's Gold

Reply #41 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
I'm having trouble getting my head round this.

The difference between an objective vs purely subjective claim?
Well, let's just say conductivity claims aren't subjective.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Fool's Gold

Reply #42 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
So, it seems like Steve is well on his way to becoming the HA recommended supplier of 'high end' audio cables. On the basis that he doesn't actually come straight out and claim his cables sound any better than anyone else's. They just look and feel nice. So they make you feel good. So they sound better. To you. At that moment.


I believe that in a nutshell is how the luxury-goods market works.

Fool's Gold

Reply #43 –
Quote
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.


In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

ASA

I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.

It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.

Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.

Fool's Gold

Reply #44 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
Quote
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.


In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

ASA

I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.

It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.

Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.


Looks like they deal with actual advertising, not claims made in response to a post on a message forum.

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
Quote
The article is about the fraud perpetrated by Toxic Cables.


In which case you are dead in luck then. Toxic Cables are based in the UK. So all you need to do is get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

ASA

I checked the requirements as as far as I can tell from a 1st read the case qualifies no worries.

It does work. They have done garden shed enthusiasts, head-fi type sites (G Slee) as well as monster corps (Sony) in the past.

Let us know how you get on please. Be interesting. Guess you have to be prepared for a counterclaim but that'll be independent anyway.


Looks like they deal with actual advertising, not claims made in response to a post on a message forum.

se

The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.

Fool's Gold

Reply #46 –
Quote from: antz on
The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.


Is there any claim on the website saying that silver with 1% gold is more conductive than copper?

se

Fool's Gold

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Steve Eddy on
Quote from: antz on
The claims are there on Toxic Cables' website. Without any evidence presented.


Is there any claim on the website saying that silver with 1% gold is more conductive than copper?

se

Not directly. Rather than drag quotes from the website, look for yourself. There are claims about electrical and sonic benefits, which I seriously doubt could be substantiated.

Fool's Gold

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: xnor on
Just stick with pure, cheap copper ...


Pure copper does not stay pure copper forever though, so insulation could at worst matter. And  "at worst" isn't even hypothetical: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost



I have some of that green wire, and while it looks like $#!!  it can be cleaned up with fine sandpaper and even soldered. Only a tiny amount of the copper is involved with the corrosion.

Fool's Gold

Reply #49 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
As far as I see it, Steve's cables actually provide a benefit over most standard cables, since they seem to be softer and less susceptible to microphonics than the thinner and stiffer stock cables.


Cable microphonics? Please tell me a TOS-8 compliant story about THAT!