Jump to content
IGNORED

Maybe spending stupid amounts of money on power cords isn't entirely harmless


Recommended Posts

I think their response is appropriate as these posts from Waldrep were inflammatory, clearly aggressive and libelous...he should be shut down and silenced.

Nordost can be accused of many things, cables of greater cost than the equipment they're attached to, etc...but flagrant and wilful dishonesty isn't one of them.

Waldrep should feel the full extent of any legal avenues available to the company...

End of rant.

Your rant assumes that not only Waldrep but also the individual who observed the demonstrator increase the volume between cable swaps are not telling the truth. Waldrep is an experienced record producer, the holder of a Ph.D. in music and an M.Sc. in computer science. Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he does know far more than a little bit about sound. His expressed views regarding the demo may very well be true but, at the same time, it is at least highly unlikely that he can prove them. It is "interesting" that, rather than defend the integrity of the demo or refute Waldrep's claims, Nordost chose to take legal action, an intimidation tactic IMO. Waldrep has notning to gain financially in making his claims.

 

While I am firmly in the camp of "cables can and do make a difference", that does not preclude the possibility that Nordost and other manufacturers resort to questionable, if not dishonest practices in demonstrating the qualities of their products at audio shows.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Your rant assumes that not only Waldrep but also the individual who observed the demonstrator increase the volume between cable swaps are not telling the truth. Waldrep is an experienced record producer, the holder of a Ph.D. in music and an M.Sc. in computer science. Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he does know far more than a little bit about sound. His expressed views regarding the demo may very well be true but, at the same time, it is at least highly unlikely that he can prove them. It is "interesting" that, rather than defend the integrity of the demo or refute Waldrep's claims, Nordost chose to take legal action, an intimidation tactic IMO. Waldrep has notning to gain financially in making his claims.

 

While I am firmly in the camp of "cables can and do make a difference", that does not preclude the possibility that Nordost and other manufacturers resort to questionable, if not dishonest practices in demonstrating the qualities of their products at audio shows.

 

Yes, and the first report to Mark by someone else, was they were altering volume on a preamp. Then, perhaps having read of Marks report, a day (or was it two days) later, Mark reports them changing tracks on a CD-R as they changed cables. Maybe Nordost had upgraded their carny act.

 

Certainly the C&D looks to be an act of intimidation. A business genuinely protecting its image in public it can also be said. There are other ways to do it. They didn't choose one that would convince us there was no subterfuge. Nor are they obligated to do so. The C&D may be the finest business decision. Simple, quick and effective to silence a critic. Except now there are more discussions on the internet than there were before the C&D. The Streisand effect. Maybe eventually more damaging than simply ignoring Mark would be. Most effective would have been to meet with and allow Mark an open audition where everything was up and up and convincing him their claims are real. Turn a critic into righteous publicity. Of course it may be that isn't possible if the effects Nordost claims are not at all real.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Your rant assumes that not only Waldrep but also the individual who observed the demonstrator increase the volume between cable swaps are not telling the truth. Waldrep is an experienced record producer, the holder of a Ph.D. in music and an M.Sc. in computer science. Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he does know far more than a little bit about sound. His expressed views regarding the demo may very well be true but, at the same time, it is at least highly unlikely that he can prove them. It is "interesting" that, rather than defend the integrity of the demo or refute Waldrep's claims, Nordost chose to take legal action, an intimidation tactic IMO. Waldrep has notning to gain financially in making his claims.

 

While I am firmly in the camp of "cables can and do make a difference", that does not preclude the possibility that Nordost and other manufacturers resort to questionable, if not dishonest practices in demonstrating the qualities of their products at audio shows.

You are clearly a Liberal. Your comments clearly allow some culpabilty on Nordost's behalf. So let's posit this action....a staged and concerted effort to deceive. This is worrisome.

Link to comment

You guys fight over the cable issues and what is or isn't real, proven etc BUT what this whole event so evidently points out is how broken our legal system is. The very poor always have a legal representative as they are always the victim and the very rich can outspend anyone (as this case points out by the guy OBEYING as ordered).

 

Since the majority of us belong in that in between category I wonder how many of you have been involved in lawsuits by some corporation or some small corporation with much more money than you have? Or some lawyer that takes a case on contingency while you are paying per hour to defend yourself, your livelihood and your family. Yup the American Legal System created by the American Political Machine is a bigger scam than any cable or audiophile company ever created.

Link to comment

Suggestion: let's not turn another thread into a political discussion

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Wow, what a load of ignorant, biased drivel.

 

+1

 

In any case not only was Mark pressured into removing his post but also a earlier one from a reader that claimed to see volume adjustments.

So what's next, is Nordost going to come here and demand Chris remove the posts by those of us who are supporting Mark or even just any of us that challenge the power cord audibility claims? Nordost should be sued for false advertising and be force to produce verifiable evidence of their claims.

 

The marshals name was "Nordost", he said he'd right this wrong

He'd make the hangman shut his mouth, if it took him all day long

He finally arrested Freak, and then he sent for me

To hang a fellow hangman, from a fellow hangmans tree

It didn't take them long to try him in their court of law

He was guilty then of "Thinking", a crime much worse than all

They sentenced him to die, so his seed of thought can't spread

And infect the little children, that's what the law had said

So the hangin' day came 'round, and he walked up to the noose

I pulled the lever, but before he fell I cut him lose

They called it a conspiracy, and that I had to die

So to close our mouths and kill our minds, they hung us side-by-side

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Yup the American Legal System created by the American Political Machine is a bigger scam than any cable or audiophile company ever created.
Isn't it about time you realized that your habit of resorting to hyperbole serves to undermine the credibility of your opinions as opposed to reinforcing it? :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment

If I understand correctly we have reports by two different people of tricks used to fool the "evaluation panel":

- volume was increased in the preamp from first to second play on first report

- Waldrep identified a volume change and he hypothesised that track volume was different in consecutive samples of the same song that were burned onto a CD

 

I wonder how many of those present in the room noticed that a difference in volume was the most obvious (and probably the only) change when cables were replaced?

I'm sure those thinking of possible causes were even less...

 

I am led to believe that audiophiles like to be fooled, as they tend to accept all manner of absurdities from the marketing departments and from magazine reviews whilst completely dismissing any attempt to critically evaluate performance from a technical perspective (logic and science stay out).

Many seem to be devoted supporters of this or that brand, believers of such and such attribute, worshipers of listening as the ultimate judge...but can they really listen?

Apparently not.

They'd rather believe, in their ears and in what they're told by the industry, in brand name and in price (irregardless of performance potential).

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "reports of an economic crisis have been greatly exaggerated"...consumers just have too much spare cash and don't seem to give it much value.

I'm off to buy a pair of £10k Raidho mini-"monitors"...for that amount of money they're bound to produce unrestrained dynamics and cover the whole audible frequency range with negligible amounts of distortion.

 

 

 

And I could say ooo-ooo-ooo

As if everybody knows what I'm talking about

As if everybody would know exactly what I was talking about

 

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
Wondering if Nordost will be demoing at Munich High End and if any CA members might be willing to check it out? I would guess that Chris C. is attending.

 

Don't forget to install a sound meter app... :)

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
Isn't it about time you realized that your habit of resorting to hyperbole serves to undermine the credibility of your opinions as opposed to reinforcing it? :)

 

It's not hyperbole. This whole issue is the right of some guy with limited resources refusing to defend himself because in the end it will cost him too much to fight. That is hyperbole? You just look for sophomoric ways to attack credible points you have no response to.

 

Have you ever gone the distance with a corporate behemoth? I have on several occassions. I have been part of this "legal system" more times than I care to count am very astute as to what it takes to go the distance and most corporations and wealthy (as well as governmental agencies) depend upon their main weapon, outspending you.

 

It's the biggest scam there is.

 

Firedog it's not political it's reality.

 

The guy was served with a cease and desist and caved in a NY minute.

Link to comment
Thats why they are not into making power cables LOL

 

Perhaps he could get down on his knees and thank them for other things they don't make such as overly compressed CDs and cigarettes.

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
It's not hyperbole. This whole issue is the right of some guy with limited resources refusing to defend himself because in the end it will cost him too much to fight.....most corporations and wealthy (as well as governmental agencies) depend upon their main weapon, outspending you... it's not political it's reality. The guy was served with a cease and desist and caved in a NY minute.

Sadly, that's exactly right. Faced with an antagonist whose resources far outstrip your own, the dilemma is whether it's worth jeopardizing your own security and future to fight something you believe is wrong. I too have had to make similar decisions that rubbed me against the grain but were in my family's best interest.

 

There is another reason for the C&D letter. If you do not actively try to enforce your legal protections, you can lose them. In the future, someone who clearly infringes on their intellectual property could use as a defense against legal action that they never pursued others doing similar things - successful defenses have been based on this. So if you have protectable IP, you have to show that you're trying to protect it or it becomes harder to do so.

Link to comment
You guys fight over the cable issues and what is or isn't real, proven etc BUT what this whole event so evidently points out is how broken our legal system is. The very poor always have a legal representative as they are always the victim and the very rich can outspend anyone (as this case points out by the guy OBEYING as ordered).

 

Since the majority of us belong in that in between category I wonder how many of you have been involved in lawsuits by some corporation or some small corporation with much more money than you have? Or some lawyer that takes a case on contingency while you are paying per hour to defend yourself, your livelihood and your family. Yup the American Legal System created by the American Political Machine is a bigger scam than any cable or audiophile company ever created.

 

Actually in many, if not most lawsuit cases involving poor people going up against big corporations, the corporations are the ones that usually loose. Lawyers don't make money suing poor people. They can't get anything out of them. So when a corp has its own legal department that deals with lawsuits, its for damage control. The idea is to loose a little as possible when they go to court. Why do you think practically every law firm in the US advertises that you only owe them money if you win? These guys make billions of dollars going after big corporations.

 

As to the rest of it, I'm not so sure I believe your story.

 

"The very poor always have a legal representative as they are always the victim and the very rich can outspend anyone"

 

"Since the majority of us belong in that in between category I wonder how many of you have been involved in lawsuits by some corporation or some small corporation with much more money than you have?"

 

You can't have it both ways. Court appointed attorneys are only used in criminal cases, not lawsuits. After reading your posts, I think the only reason the system is broken is because you lost your case. That's what everyone says when they lose.

Link to comment
Sadly, that's exactly right. Faced with an antagonist whose resources far outstrip your own, the dilemma is whether it's worth jeopardizing your own security and future to fight something you believe is wrong. I too have had to make similar decisions that rubbed me against the grain but were in my family's best interest.

 

There is another reason for the C&D letter. If you do not actively try to enforce your legal protections, you can lose them. In the future, someone who clearly infringes on their intellectual property could use as a defense against legal action that they never pursued others doing similar things - successful defenses have been based on this. So if you have protectable IP, you have to show that you're trying to protect it or it becomes harder to do so.

 

I get the last part of what you are saying and have no dog in this fight but just to point out that while so many are willing to vilify Nordost as the evil in the room, the real evil is the legal system Nordost so quickly utilized and the uneven playing field that has been created within our legal system. I have learned there is no such thing as a contract, you can be right and still be wrong, the rules that apply to one don't necessarily apply to others, that if you want to break into the big leagues you better be willing to put as much money up as the guy you are fighting and most of all no matter how good and strong your case, it's only as good and strong as the amount of money you have to defend your position AND THEN there is always the appeals process if you win where you can not only lose on the interpretation of the next judge but more likely lose because your financial resources have been stripped.

 

Hence why I ask all those who post here how many have actually been on the side of the table of the individual? I have been at least 10 times and have seen the real legal system in action not the fairy tales some believe.

Link to comment
Actually in many, if not most lawsuit cases involving poor people going up against big corporations, the corporations are the ones that usually loose. Lawyers don't make money suing poor people. They can't get anything out of them. So when a corp has its own legal department that deals with lawsuits, its for damage control. The idea is to loose a little as possible when they go to court. Why do you think practically every law firm in the US advertises that you only owe them money if you win? These guys make billions of dollars going after big corporations.

 

As to the rest of it, I'm not so sure I believe your story.

 

"The very poor always have a legal representative as they are always the victim and the very rich can outspend anyone"

 

"Since the majority of us belong in that in between category I wonder how many of you have been involved in lawsuits by some corporation or some small corporation with much more money than you have?"

 

You can't have it both ways. Court appointed attorneys are only used in criminal cases, not lawsuits. After reading your posts, I think the only reason the system is broken is because you lost your case. That's what everyone says when they lose.

 

You obviously missed my point regarding poor people. First, I am not referring to criminal cases. Second we are agreeing about poor people being represented.

 

By the way, I have NEVER lost a case I brought or one brought against me. That includes 6 major contract litigations and countless mediations regarding two large health care providers and the largest commercial developer in Florida, the Floridian Gov't including Lawton Chiles, the current Gov. of FL, Rick Scott, when he was the CEO of the largest hospital chain; among others during my business endeavors. They all depended upon the same strategy, namely outspending me as the playing field was by no means equal. I am one of those people who is willing to put it all on the line, are you or the others posting here? Obviously the guy who wrote that article isn't.

 

The most important lessons I have learned in my years protecting my trade and various businesses is to never trust a lawyer who tells you it is a "definite" as there is no definite, no matter how ironclad a contract supposedly is; and never ever allow your lawyer to negotiate anything on your behalf and to leave the "legalease" to them and ask their advice as it pertains to the law BUT leave the deal making to someone who understands the business AND then to check and recheck the contract because no one has your interest as much as you and when the dust settles, it is ultimately you and your checkbook on your own.

 

That is why I have persevered in every single one of my encounters in court, mediation or receipt of a threat, with the exception of malpractice cases where everything is predetermined and another scam between insurance companies and the plaintiffs attorneys and where "winning" is really losing.

Link to comment
I get the last part of what you are saying and have no dog in this fight but just to point out that while so many are willing to vilify Nordost as the evil in the room, the real evil is the legal system Nordost so quickly utilized and the uneven playing field that has been created within our legal system. I have learned there is no such thing as a contract, you can be right and still be wrong, the rules that apply to one don't necessarily apply to others, that if you want to break into the big leagues you better be willing to put as much money up as the guy you are fighting and most of all no matter how good and strong your case, it's only as good and strong as the amount of money you have to defend your position AND THEN there is always the appeals process if you win where you can not only lose on the interpretation of the next judge but more likely lose because your financial resources have been stripped.

 

Hence why I ask all those who post here how many have actually been on the side of the table of the individual? I have been at least 10 times and have seen the real legal system in action not the fairy tales some believe.

This is a tough social issue, since our legal system leaves enough wiggle room for "them that's got" to outmuscle and outlast "them that ain't got nothin' yet" (thank you, Brother Ray!). We know people who've been financially ruined by pursuing their dogged insistence that they would eventually prevail because they were right. I've had the restraint and common sense to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, which this time is forcing me and my 3 partners in a year-old startup to abandon a project that's already in the demo stage and has huge upside potential at very little cost (I already designed and created the system in question). And our struggle is not even over the product or IP ownership.

 

But the alternative is to advocate resource matching or some kind of handicapping between legal adversaries, which simply wouldn't fly even if it made sense (which I don't think it does). I don't like being David against Goliath, especially since they outlawed slingshots. But the simple truth is that I'd have more resources if I'd been more successful - so in truth, I'm the one responsible for my being David rather than Goliath. I don't know Mark Waldrep at all, and I certainly don't know how deep his pockets are - but I respect his decision to protect what he has. At least if he does this voluntarily, it doesn't establish legal precedent that could be used to push others around in the future, as would be the case if he lost in court and was forced to retract.

 

Too many use the legal system in ways other than those we hope and believe were in the minds of our founders in 1776. This makes me sad - I've always tried to do what I thought was right and honorable, which was reinforced by medical school and a career as a surgeon. But when I went to business school 18 years ago, I learned how the business community in general views such sentiment....and it's not pretty. Do I like what Nordost did? No, I do not. But I can't offer a reasonable alternative for them that wouldn't weaken them against gross infringement in the future. I budget for legal support and appropriate insurance in every startup, but I recognize the need to leave the table if the stakes get too high for me. Heck, I'm too cheap to spend hundreds of dollars for a power cable.

 

I want to play another day, and (I assume) so does Mark Waldrep.

Link to comment

$6000 power cables? I would think that a high quality power conditioner or other such device would offer far more improvement in sound quality.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
This is a tough social issue, since our legal system leaves enough wiggle room for "them that's got" to outmuscle and outlast "them that ain't got nothin' yet" (thank you, Brother Ray!). We know people who've been financially ruined by pursuing their dogged insistence that they would eventually prevail because they were right. I've had the restraint and common sense to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, which this time is forcing me and my 3 partners in a year-old startup to abandon a project that's already in the demo stage and has huge upside potential at very little cost (I already designed and created the system in question). And our struggle is not even over the product or IP ownership.

 

But the alternative is to advocate resource matching or some kind of handicapping between legal adversaries, which simply wouldn't fly even if it made sense (which I don't think it does). I don't like being David against Goliath, especially since they outlawed slingshots. But the simple truth is that I'd have more resources if I'd been more successful - so in truth, I'm the one responsible for my being David rather than Goliath. I don't know Mark Waldrep at all, and I certainly don't know how deep his pockets are - but I respect his decision to protect what he has. At least if he does this voluntarily, it doesn't establish legal precedent that could be used to push others around in the future, as would be the case if he lost in court and was forced to retract.

 

Too many use the legal system in ways other than those we hope and believe were in the minds of our founders in 1776. This makes me sad - I've always tried to do what I thought was right and honorable, which was reinforced by medical school and a career as a surgeon. But when I went to business school 18 years ago, I learned how the business community in general views such sentiment....and it's not pretty. Do I like what Nordost did? No, I do not. But I can't offer a reasonable alternative for them that wouldn't weaken them against gross infringement in the future. I budget for legal support and appropriate insurance in every startup, but I recognize the need to leave the table if the stakes get too high for me. Heck, I'm too cheap to spend hundreds of dollars for a power cable.

 

I want to play another day, and (I assume) so does Mark Waldrep.

 

I get it. Trust me. As a physician and businessman, I too understand where you are coming from. I personally choose to defend myself by being smarter than the other guy and forcing them to play on my home turf rather than theirs. In the end, what is occurring in the courtroom has absolutely no semblance of what our ancestors had envisioned. It is a rigged, hugely flawed system that has no concern with justice, in most cases at least.

Link to comment
I get it. Trust me. As a physician and businessman, I too understand where you are coming from. I personally choose to defend myself by being smarter than the other guy and forcing them to play on my home turf rather than theirs. In the end, what is occurring in the courtroom has absolutely no semblance of what our ancestors had envisioned. It is a rigged, hugely flawed system that has no concern with justice, in most cases at least.

 

I am not sure what we really want is "justice" - as much an unquestionable "fair impartiality" from the legal system. Justice could be twisted to be many things...

 

But I absolutely agree with you, if you are going to tangle with someone using the legal system, one had best be prepared.

 

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...