Ethan Winer Builds a Wire Null Tester

[SIY]

Regarding sellers, I used to believe that. After spending time at audio shows recently, hearing the pitch, watching how the audience is manipulated, and seeing the reactions to skepticism, I have changed my opinion. Especially about the guys who have been around for a while.

Reviewers are a more mixed bag, but they're pretty much out of my awareness, other than that superb guy who does reviews for AudioXpress. Man, he's great. I read every word.

 

[amirm]

Reviewers are a more mixed bag, but they're pretty much out of my awareness, other than that superb guy who does reviews for AudioXpress. Man, he's great. I read every word.

After or before writing them???

 

[SIY]

"Before" just confuses me. I'm old.

 

[RayDunzl]

"My next question is from Mr. Richard Feder from Fort Lee, New Jersey..."

Hmmm... Not sure if that was in the video, but you made me look:

Roseannadanna's Saturday Night Live commentary followed a strict formula. She usually read a letter from Richard Feder of Fort Lee, New Jersey, although she once read a letter from his wife, "Mrs." Richard Feder. (The Feders later re-located to Mount St. Helens, Washington.) The letter would include a series of questions, usually about a current social issue, to which Roseannadanna made derogatory comments about New Jersey before moving on to respond to the question. The name Richard Feder (pronounced as "Fay-der") was an in-joke; it was the name of an actual resident of Fort Lee who also happened to be the brother-in-law of SNL writer and segment co-creator Alan Zweibel.[3]

While answering the questions, Roseannadanna invariably digressed, launching into lengthy anecdotes, frequently having to do with an encounter with celebrities (Bo Derek, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Princess Grace, Gloria Vanderbilt, etc.) which had no relevance to the topic at hand. Invariably, the story led to Roseannadanna going into graphic detail about bodily functions or personal hygiene. The concept was that the celebrities had told her the graphic stories and she was simply relating them to the audience. She also provided response to these stories, which was the rhetorical question and catch phrase: "What are ya tryin' to do, make me sick?!"

 

[amirm]

 

[Blumlein 88]

But what about Emily Litella? Oh never mind.

 

[JJB70]

Paul McGowan's video is an extremely well crafted performance and very cleverly worded. Wearing a cloak of being a thoroughly engaging and affable chap he studiously avoided addressing the central issue presented by Ethan Winer's null tester video and instead made a rather well done sales pitch for his products which I suspect his target audience (let's be honest, how many of us are his target audience? Not many I'd wager) won't have realised and will happily lap up. That tells me that he knew exactly what he was doing, if I was polite I'd call it a disingenuous video, off line I'd probably be more blunt.

 

[agtp]

It continues to amaze me that having instant access to incomprehensively massive amounts of stored information does not actually make many people more knowledgeable or informed.

It amazes me, too. Ironically, this applies to many of the members on this very forum.

 

[agtp]

After dealing with the crap the believers deal out, day after day, year after year, it's no wonder he sometime behaves in the manner he does. I've encouraged him to be more active here at ASR, he's a greatly valued member of the scientific audio community.
I've been asked a number of times why I often reply to the phools with biting sarcasm and have said, "when discussion using science, hard facts, and common sense fail, all that's left is ridicule.

A J Southfield deserves a gold star for his sparky tongue.
In a battle of wit, most have come unarmed.

You’re an intriguing guy, Sal.

Have you ever heard the terms psychological projection or compartmentalization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

 

[March Audio]

Just watched this and got half way through and stopped. 5:20 (paraphrasing) "we listen to a fancy mains cable, swap it to a standard one and hear a difference, ergo there IS a difference"

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldnt be more untrue. A perception of difference does not mean there is one. Especially when it involves an audiophiles and sighted listening comparisons.

Deep breath, carry on watching.

 

[March Audio]

OK, next bit he goes on to say that EMI wont show directly in an (audio band) null test. Maybe not, but if it is having an audible effect, as is implied, it by definition has to be having an indirect effect in the audible band. Therefore of course it will show up in an audio band null test.

jeesh, you can only face palm. This is just a demonstration of a lack of understanding or just bullshit baffles brains.

 

[JJB70]

Silence! The maestro has spoken!

You can't argue with the real truth, I for one will never call expensive cables snake oil again.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Silence! The maestro has spoken!

You can't argue with the real truth, I for one will never call expensive cables snake oil again.

Is that Steve Gullibleberg?

 

[March Audio]

Is that Steve Gullibleberg?

I think the poor chap has missed the point. His ramblings about drinking alcohol etc; the difference is, and why we dont call alcohol "snake oil", is because alcohol actually does what it claims - it gets you drunk. We call high end $10k mains cables "snake oil" because they dont do what they claim.

sheesh

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Is that all alcohol is? What about very expensive alcohol that the average person could tell from a $5 bottle. He is not totally wrong as people can spend their $$$ as they see fit

 

[JJB70]

Steve Guttenberg has tried to do the same thing as Paul McGowan in defending the merits of over priced cables by studiously ignoring the real question and talking about something else (only without Paul McGowan's affable camera friendly persona and cleverly crafted script, the bumbling idiot next door without a clue approach of Steve just doesn't work as well for me).

As far as I'm aware there has never been any dispute that people can spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on. Personally if these cables were marketed on the basis of being able to claim maximum bragging rights when you attend parties on Oleg's mega yacht and make you feel better than the sort of riff raff that have to buy a flight ticket whenever they fly then I'd say fair enough (even if I can think of better things to display your wealth than a length of cable). The problem is they're not promoted as just being lengths of jewellery and a status symbol, they're being sold on the basis of improving sound quality. If a manufacturer claims they improve SQ then it is entirely right to call them out on it. Similarly if reviewers like Guttenberg pile in and try and persuade the gullible that they should be spending $$$$$$$s on cables then they should be called out on that. As others have noted, spending $100 on a night out will actually get you inebriated and maybe pass an enjoyable night in good company, i.e. it is not snake oil. Similarly, if you buy a boat you'd expect it to float, the analogy between spending $$$$$$$$$s on expensive cables and spending it on a boat would be if you bought a boat that sank when you put it in the water (well, unless it's a submarine).

Why does it matter? Does it even matter? I think what the likes of Guttenberg ignore in their shilling for manufacturers is that a lot of the people they're pushing to buy stuff are buying it in good faith thinking they really are getting something which will deliver better SQ, and the majority of those people are not oligarchs or oil sheikhs etc. To me reviewers are worse than the actual manufacturers as whereas I can see the rationale for a manufacturer to fleece the gullible and make $$$$$$$$$$$$s (however reprehensible that might be) I find reviewers who join the party are betraying the trust of their readers and selling their integrity for a few crumbs and to be allowed into some sort of inner circle of trusties by high end snake oil peddlers like Nordost, PS Audio, Audioquest, Furutech etc etc, I just find it despicable. Its dishonest and taking advantage of people who have extended some trust to those reviewers who are then sh*t on in return for that trust. Rant over. Sorry.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Steve Guttenberg has tried to do the same thing as Paul McGowan in defending the merits of over priced cables by studiously ignoring the real question and talking about something else (only without Paul McGowan's affable camera friendly persona and cleverly crafted script, the bumbling idiot next door without a clue approach of Steve just doesn't work as well for me).

As far as I'm aware there has never been any dispute that people can spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on. Personally if these cables were marketed on the basis of being able to claim maximum bragging rights when you attend parties on Oleg's mega yacht and make you feel better than the sort of riff raff that have to buy a flight ticket whenever they fly then I'd say fair enough (even if I can think of better things to display your wealth than a length of cable). The problem is they're not promoted as just being lengths of jewellery and a status symbol, they're being sold on the basis of improving sound quality. If a manufacturer claims they improve SQ then it is entirely right to call them out on it. Similarly if reviewers like Guttenberg pile in and try and persuade the gullible that they should be spending $$$$$$$s on cables then they should be called out on that. As others have noted, spending $100 on a night out will actually get you inebriated and maybe pass an enjoyable night in good company, i.e. it is not snake oil. Similarly, if you buy a boat you'd expect it to float, the analogy between spending $$$$$$$$$s on expensive cables and spending it on a boat would be if you bought a boat that sank when you put it in the water (well, unless it's a submarine).

Why does it matter? Does it even matter? I think what the likes of Guttenberg ignore in their shilling for manufacturers is that a lot of the people they're pushing to buy stuff are buying it in good faith thinking they really are getting something which will deliver better SQ, and the majority of those people are not oligarchs or oil sheikhs etc. To me reviewers are worse than the actual manufacturers as whereas I can see the rationale for a manufacturer to fleece the gullible and make $$$$$$$$$$$$s (however reprehensible that might be) I find reviewers who join the party are betraying the trust of their readers and selling their integrity for a few crumbs and to be allowed into some sort of inner circle of trusties by high end snake oil peddlers like Nordost, PS Audio, Audioquest, Furutech etc etc, I just find it despicable. Its dishonest and taking advantage of people who have extended some trust to those reviewers who are then sh*t on in return for that trust. Rant over. Sorry.

In fact, there have always been a debate on what people spend their money on. Quackery, kwakzalver, is a well-known term that colllquially is used beyond medicine:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery

And in economics we have the term rent-seeking:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Corruption is a related term. In ethics we talk about integrity. So it seems we have so many terms, definitions to understand the problem.

I would argue, it’s more of a modern trend that people think that we don’t need to discuss what people spend their money on, due to our belief in the market; the market will, according to theory, lead the price down to zero if there is zero value.

 

[JJB70]

The key thing is whether a product works as advertised, or in a more commercial environment does it satisfy the contractual specification?

I've spent a good part of my life either selling engineering services or buying industrial machinery and services. If the vendor supplies what they're contracted to supply to the agreed specification then if that specification is rubbish or inappropriate or it is something the buyer doesn't need then it is the buyers problem as the vendor has supplied what they were contracted to supply. On the other hand if a vendor fails to supply goods or services meeting the agreed specification and contractual clauses then it is the vendors problem and they'll face financial consequences.

Whether people should be buying products or services is entirely a matter for them, but if they do buy something then what they buy should deliver whatever has been agreed. In the case of expensive hi-fi cables they're being marketed and sold on a false premise which is why I object.

On the wider question, if people want to buy stuff which others think is a complete waste of money (keeping in mind most people out there would consider even the non-snake oil good stuff like the RME DAC to be a complete waste of money, it's a personal value thing) then that is entirely their choice provided the stuff is not sold on the basis of lies.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The key thing is whether a product works as advertised, or in a more commercial environment does it satisfy the contractual specification?

I've spent a good part of my life either selling engineering services or buying industrial machinery and services. If the vendor supplies what they're contracted to supply to the agreed specification then if that specification is rubbish or inappropriate or it is something the buyer doesn't need then it is the buyers problem as the vendor has supplied what they were contracted to supply. On the other hand if a vendor fails to supply goods or services meeting the agreed specification and contractual clauses then it is the vendors problem and they'll face financial consequences.

Whether people should be buying products or services is entirely a matter for them, but if they do buy something then what they buy should deliver whatever has been agreed. In the case of expensive hi-fi cables they're being marketed and sold on a false premise which is why I object.

On the wider question, if people want to buy stuff which others think is a complete waste of money (keeping in mind most people out there would consider even the non-snake oil good stuff like the RME DAC to be a complete waste of money, it's a personal value thing) then that is entirely their choice provided the stuff is not sold on the basis of lies.

You wrote: «...does it satisfy the contractual specification?»

This is a biased representation. In many parts of the world things are still governed by custom, habit, common sense, if you will - instead of contracts.

In some places this way - trust based interpersonal relations - work very well. But the world - in our age of globalization and one set of rules set - goes in the direction of more and more contracts. So when you buy a €10 product, you need to sign a hundred pages of small print contract text.

 

[andreasmaaan]

In some places this way - trust based interpersonal relations - work very well. But the world - in our age of globalization and one set of rules set - goes in the direction of more and more contracts. So when you buy a €10 product, you need to sign a hundred pages of small print contract text.

But look at expensive cable sale transactions in terms of contract, trust, interpersonal relationship, or any other metric you care to choose: the seller who promises audible (and in many cases even measurable) superiority to the purchaser is making a false representation.

Whether you characterise that as a contractual breach, an abuse of trust, or a lack of faith in the interpersonal relationship, it is unacceptable.