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

[Priaptor]

Actually, you are supporting my point inasmuch as there is virtually no American institution that cannot be manipulated as a consequence of the out of control economic system. The legal system is not unique in that regard. The legal system is not inherently corrupt, but unscrupulous businessmen and/or companies are able to misuse it to their benefit and the detriment of others. .

 

You really don't get it. Are you a lawyer defending the legal system with preposterous presumption that if not for the corrupt businessmen manipulating the legal system the legal system would be just fine on its own standing.

 

The point about Corzine was he is a politician a member of the legal establishment just like Hillary and why politicians don't get prosecuted for crimes others, such as those evil Wall Streeters like Madoff or Patreus regarding the latter, are prosecuted for. How many tax evaders in our gov't or insider traders. How much manipulation has occurred by the justice department in every federal, state and local jurisdiction regardless of party? This you blame strictly on unscrupulous businessmen.

 

The point is anything that is corruptible is inherently corrupt itself especially the legal system.

[lucretius]

You didn't read my post.

 

"I don't know much about most cars, but there does exist readily available software to reprogram Volkswagen ECU's -- the dealer is supposed to remit the license fees after installing the software .."

 

"First, its simply not possible for a car dealer to take a car and reprogram it however they wish. They can only do 1 of 2 things. You can replace a PCM with a blank one and reprogram it with as built data. There are no choices involved when you do this. The module gets programmed with the data you get from the factory. Yes, in some instances it can be endeared manually, but it doesn't matter. You still have to enter the exact same data or the PCM won't work. 2, you can update an already working module with new software. But its the same thing again. Its a controlled, one shot deal with no choices."

 

I thought that's pretty clear. Of course the software is readily available. But the dealer is the only one who has access to it. This applies to any brand, not just Volkswagen. If I were to give you the update on a disc, you would have no way of installing it. You need the dealers diag computer and know how to deal with all the security measures. Also, like I said before, the dealer can't alter the software. Its exactly the same thing as updating software on a PC.

 

"In addition, if you have been following the VW fiasco, you would know that the manufacturer has multiple programs installed on the ECU's for their diesel cars, one for use in testing, and another for the driver's use. I am not sure why you would say that "you have a better chance of being struck by lightning"

 

You do have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. The multiple programs you refer to have nothing to do with the dealer or the customer. They come from the factory and can't be altered in any way. And that was the reason I responded to mansr's comment in the first place. Here it is again.

 

"So you take the car for a test drive, only to realise that the demo vehicle has had its ECU reprogrammed for better performance, and when you point this out, you receive legal threats."

 

The dealer couldn't do that even if they wanted to. Also, I probably should have mentioned that I grew up in the auto business and fixed cars for a good portion of my life. I've done thousands of updates and reprograms. I know the info I'm giving you here is correct.

 

I wasn't talking about domestic cars. The readily available software I spoke of is 3rd party (for performance tuning) and no, it's not simply the factory data and the ECU or TCU for that matter can be reprogrammed even without the help of a dealer, and often, multiple programs can be loaded on the same ECU as long as a method is devised to switch between the programs. As far as other programming goes, I can program the behaviour of lights, windows, radio display, etc., with 3rd party software on a Windows PC, with an easily obtained cable that interfaces with the vehicle's OBD-II port.

[Allan F]

The point is anything that is corruptible is inherently corrupt itself especially the legal system.

A contradictory, linguistically incorrect statement. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the meaning of 'inherently'. Over and out.

[master]

But Nodost are, from what I read in Mark's daily blog, guilty of fraud on several levels. What interests me about this scandal is that Nordost actually threatened legal action against a detractor. Look at it this way, suppose you were making and selling snake oil, a concoction consisting of nothing more than grain alcohol laced with eucalyptus oil. You advertise that this nostrum will cure: catarrh, "women's complaints", tuberculosis, erectile dysfunction, cancer, heart disease and asthma. Somebody comes forward in print and says that they had analyzed you product and found it could cure or treat none of those ailments that you advertise it will cure. Now, YOU know that your product is fraudulent. Armed with that knowledge, would you DARE to threaten your detractor with a libel suit, knowing that both you and your product are on such shaky scientific grounds?

Seems like a pretty stupid move to me.

 

Oh I believe Nordost is guilty... even without the proof and just based on Mark and his "theories".

 

However, what I'm saying is they are getting away with fraud (or I'm completely off base) because of the lack of proof.

 

Take the case of AQ, Mark had proof and the only way AQ could deal with that situation was by blaming a reseller/distributor. Maybe they were indeed innocent and the distributor was solely responsible for the videos, but that did not really help AQ in anyway. They still looked guilty (even if they were really innocent) only because Mark had the proof.

 

Now even if Nordost is guilty (as many of us believe, and only based on Mark and his observations), they (Nordost) are still winning this round for lack of proof. Mark should have known better than to publish unsubstantiated or unproven claims. At the very least he could have asked to play his own music. End of the day proof matters, otherwise its libel or at the very least slander and precisely why Nordost is able to get the retraction they want.

 

PS: I'm not saying Mark should get all ninja like an investigative journalist... but posting/publishing without proof is plain dumb and silly, no doubt as he's learned.

 

And doesn't our legal system dictate that everyone is innocent until proven guilty... nevermind we've already staked Nordost (myself included). But then my beliefs and observations are based on facts... I actually plugged in video RCA cables (cause I did not have extra audio cables) and I had a ton of video cables from all the DVD players I've used over the years. I used the video cables for a couple of weeks till the more expensive audio RCA cables arrived, and when they arrived and I plugged them in I could not hear a thing differently (other than the voice in my head they cost $600 and don't sound any different to the cheap off the shelf stock video cables that I got with cheap DVD players).

 

BTW I'm a believer in cables, just not that they improve anything. Good cables simply get out of the way and don't add anything to the mix, the same as good DACs. To me good cables are really no cables, that's why I'm so big on wireless and streaming, and of course based on real life experience.

[Allan F]

PS: I'm not saying Mark should get all ninja like an investigative journalist... but posting/publishing without proof is plain dumb and silly, no doubt as he's learned.

Reading what he published, I believe that he felt that he had proof of inappropriate increased volumes that accounted for the differences heard between the cables tested. At the same time, I am quite sure that he wasn't thinking in terms of presenting proof to a court of law, but rather he wanted to share experiential evidence with readers who might care. Had he worded his remarks somewhat differently, e.g. by presenting them in hypothetical terms as opposed to allegations of fact, his remarks most likely could not have been viewed as anything but opinion.

 

And doesn't our legal system dictate that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law and it applies only to a person or persons charged with a criminal offence. It has no application elsewhere.

[gmgraves]

The gross over-reaction of both Mark Waldrep and a lot of posters on this thread is because they are on a 'mission' to save audiophiles from themselves. We weak and pitiful owners and potential owners of Nordost cables simply don't have the gumption to arrange a home trial of cables in our system and use our own ears and judgement to decide whether or not the difference is worth the money, before using our own wallets.

 

No, instead we need to be 'saved' and hence the quasi-religious zeal that the 'extreme anti cable objectivists' or whatever they are called. go about their business. If you don't want to buy fancy mains cables or speaker cables, then just don't bother buying them. If Blue Jeans cables or whatever floats your boat then that's just fine. What on earth is the problem?

 

Richard, you are giving yourself ( And others) too much credit, here. I don't think that the majority of cable detractors really care what you buy, or how much you paid. To make an analogy, any time I find myself amongst a bunch of religious fanatics, I naturally find myself telling them how ridiculous religion is. I tell them that all religions are not just a construct, but an obvious construct at that, because if you analyze religions from belief in the Greek gods, to the Norse pantheon, to Hinduism, to the Abrahamic religions, they are all based on the same type of hierarchy, where the priest class is in charge, and the benefits of that religion are only available to the worshiper who obeys the priest classes "rules". I'm not impugning anyone's belief in a god here, it's just the organization of formal religions that is an artificial construct. In other words, my argument is with the idea of what I consider an irrational proposition, and I want to give my opinion. I don't want to change anybody's mind. I'm not proselytizing, but merely looking for a good debate. I think that most of the "cable sound" debunkers on CA are probably very similar to me in this respect. I started out by trying to save people from wasting their money, but I soon learned that I was dealing with a religious zeal here, and I was the one wasting something, I was wasting my time. So, I started just debating the issue for the fun of the debate.

[17629]

I wasn't talking about domestic cars. The readily available software I spoke of is 3rd party (for performance tuning) and no, it's not simply the factory data and the ECU or TCU for that matter can be reprogrammed even without the help of a dealer, and often, multiple programs can be loaded on the same ECU as long as a method is devised to switch between the programs. As far as other programming goes, I can program the behaviour of lights, windows, radio display, etc., with 3rd party software on a Windows PC, with an easily obtained cable that interfaces with the vehicle's OBD-II port.

 

 

You didn't read my post. Again. I was responding to mansr's response and your comment on VW. I made it extremely clear that all of my comments were in the context of working within the dealership network. Yes, anyone can go out and buy aftermarkets and do whatever you like. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You're just grasping at anything so you can say your right.

 

"As far as other programming goes, I can program the behaviour of lights, windows, radio display, etc., with 3rd party software on a Windows PC, with an easily obtained cable that interfaces with the vehicle's OBD-II port."

 

Sorry, but changing window and radio settings that doesn't count as programming. And just because you use a code scanner, windows based or not, doesn't count as programming a BCM either. We have a saying in the auto industry> "Its easy with the mouth wrench". Since you know so much, I'll ask you something. Pick any car you like and tell me what the procedure is for programming or updating a body control module. Also, consider the fact that a good portion of the updates and reprogramming we do are for other shops and dealerships. For example, if I work for Toyota and we take a Nissan in on trade and there is a problem with one of the modules, I have to take that car to Nissan for any programing.

[mansr]

Good point. While Nordost is but one example we see it everyday with supplements, etc claiming to cure everything and when studies show it is all BS not one of these snake oil companies threaten a lawsuit. In fact they have that super fast disclaimer at the end of their commercials stating that their products are worthless

 

Supplement vendors and other charlatans are suing critics ALL THE TIME, often alleging trademark or copyright violations. Some even have terms of sale stipulating multi-thousand dollar fines for posting negative reviews online (no, those are not enforceable). They include those disclaimers in the commercials to avoid themselves being sued by customers or the FTC.

[mansr]

A good example is the proliferation of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits, which are filed by companies to intimidate, and silence critics by subjecting them to unaffordable legal costs, forcing them to withdraw the criticism. Not only that, but the lawsuits are also often withdrawn before the matter goes to trial, having already accomplished their intneded purpose. In response, many jurisdictions in both the U.S. and Canada have enacted anti-SLAPP suit statutes to limit or prevent the practice. The effectiveness of these statutes varies considerably. depending on the breadth of their provisions.

 

That's exactly what Nordost did to Waldrep.

[mordante]

Waldrep was trolling Nordost and they replied in kind.

[mansr]

Waldrep was trolling Nordost and they replied in kind.

 

Hardly. He didn't threaten with a lawsuit. They did.

[wdw]

Supplement vendors and other charlatans ...C

It is so easy for you...your opinions are expressed as self evident truths...otherwise we're idiots or girly men.

NAD+ repletion improves mitochondrial and stem cell function and enhances life span in mice | Science

I suppose the research group that reported observed improvement in mitochondrial repair when using "supplements", in this case B3, in this article in the "Science" journal are charlatans as well.

Always seems to be an inverse relationship...the more fervent and declarative the opinions, the more dull-witted the source. On my ignore list, baby.

[lucretius]

You didn't read my post. Again. I was responding to mansr's response and your comment on VW. I made it extremely clear that all of my comments were in the context of working within the dealership network. Yes, anyone can go out and buy aftermarkets and do whatever you like. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You're just grasping at anything so you can say your right.

 

"As far as other programming goes, I can program the behaviour of lights, windows, radio display, etc., with 3rd party software on a Windows PC, with an easily obtained cable that interfaces with the vehicle's OBD-II port."

 

Sorry, but changing window and radio settings that doesn't count as programming. And just because you use a code scanner, windows based or not, doesn't count as programming a BCM either. We have a saying in the auto industry> "Its easy with the mouth wrench". Since you know so much, I'll ask you something. Pick any car you like and tell me what the procedure is for programming or updating a body control module. Also, consider the fact that a good portion of the updates and reprogramming we do are for other shops and dealerships. For example, if I work for Toyota and we take a Nissan in on trade and there is a problem with one of the modules, I have to take that car to Nissan for any programing.

 

What the heck are you getting at? I already mentioned the OBD port. And you obviously need a laptop, software, and a special cable to hookup to the OBD port and the USB of the laptop. At least this is how it's down for VW's -- it's not rocket science. Of course, one should ensure that all power draining components are turned off. It's advisable to hook the car up to a battery charger -- don't want to run out of power during an update. And, of course, one must turn the car to the ON position.

[mansr]

On my ignore list, baby.

 

Awesome. Now I won't have to endure any more insults from that direction.

 

If only it worked that way...

[mansr]

What the heck are you getting at? I already mentioned the OBD port. And you obviously need a laptop, software, and a special cable to hookup to the OBD port and the USB of the laptop. At least this is how it's down for VW's -- it's not rocket science. Of course, one should ensure that all power draining components are turned off. It's advisable to hook the car up to a battery charger -- don't want to run out of power during an update. And, of course, one must turn the car to the ON position.

 

Guys, it doesn't really matter what is easy, hard, or impossible to do. Someone started the car analogy, and I continued it with a hypothetical situation that I hoped most people would see as fraudulent. I guess I was wrong.

[gmgraves]

Oh I believe Nordost is guilty... even without the proof and just based on Mark and his "theories".

 

However, what I'm saying is they are getting away with fraud (or I'm completely off base) because of the lack of proof.

 

Take the case of AQ, Mark had proof and the only way AQ could deal with that situation was by blaming a reseller/distributor. Maybe they were indeed innocent and the distributor was solely responsible for the videos, but that did not really help AQ in anyway. They still looked guilty (even if they were really innocent) only because Mark had the proof.

 

Now even if Nordost is guilty (as many of us believe, and only based on Mark and his observations), they (Nordost) are still winning this round for lack of proof. Mark should have known better than to publish unsubstantiated or unproven claims. At the very least he could have asked to play his own music. End of the day proof matters, otherwise its libel or at the very least slander and precisely why Nordost is able to get the retraction they want.

 

PS: I'm not saying Mark should get all ninja like an investigative journalist... but posting/publishing without proof is plain dumb and silly, no doubt as he's learned.

 

And doesn't our legal system dictate that everyone is innocent until proven guilty... nevermind we've already staked Nordost (myself included). But then my beliefs and observations are based on facts... I actually plugged in video RCA cables (cause I did not have extra audio cables) and I had a ton of video cables from all the DVD players I've used over the years. I used the video cables for a couple of weeks till the more expensive audio RCA cables arrived, and when they arrived and I plugged them in I could not hear a thing differently (other than the voice in my head they cost $600 and don't sound any different to the cheap off the shelf stock video cables that I got with cheap DVD players).

 

BTW I'm a believer in cables, just not that they improve anything. Good cables simply get out of the way and don't add anything to the mix, the same as good DACs. To me good cables are really no cables, that's why I'm so big on wireless and streaming, and of course based on real life experience.

 

I understand you fully. My point is two-pronged. 1) Mark Waldrep (who is a good EE with a PHD, BTW and a knowledgeable audio engineer with lots of experience - even if I do not agree with his microphone use and placement methodology) merely noticed an anomaly during a demonstration purporting to extol the virtues of Nordost's products. If Nordost were to actually instigate legal proceedings against Mark for libel, the onus, I believe, is on the plaintiff (Nordost) to prove that Mark's comments were (a) false, and (b) injurious and deleterious to their business and/or reputation. How can they prove (a)? The show is past. Proving that they did not alter the volume between demonstration samples is nigh impossible and basically comes down to "he-said, they-said". Such an argument cannot be proved one way or the other in a court of law without witnesses who were in the room with Mark when he was listening to/watching the demonstration and which are able to testify that Mark is wrong in his observations. This is very unlikely to happen. This fact certainly cannot have escaped Nordost's shyster's attention, and by sending out a cease and desist order, Mr. Gould is certainly betting that Mr. Waldrep will not want to pursue the matter further, and in this case, he was right. But I believe strongly that if Mark had challenged the cease and desist order by simply ignoring it, nothing further would have happened.

 

Not to open any cans of worms, here, but in a court of law, this can would definitely be opened by the defense. And that brings me to point 2).

 

Whether or not one believes in cable sound aside, the defense in a libel suit of this type would surely call into question the integrity of the plaintiff by calling forth witnesses of such sterling and unquestionable expertise as to be seen by the court as unimpeachable. An army of EEs and PHDs in Electronics and Physics would be paraded through the dock to show, with geometric logic and mathematical precision that Nordost's products cannot, under any circumstances, do for the sound of the purchaser's audio system, what Nordost claims it will do. While there might be some room in audiophile circles for a zealot-like belief that we don't understand the physics of cables completely - yet, and that the fact that we don't understand all we know about the subject leaves room for cable sound being possible, there are no maths that can point to that as a possibility. This means that there is no way that Nordost can disprove the defense's proposition (backed by lots of expert testimony supported by the laws of physics) that cables do nothing. Failing to prove that their product has any real worth, coupled with the prices they charge for some of their products, means that Nordost would stand discredited.

 

I don't think the management of that company is stupid enough to risk such an unmasking in a court of law.

[lucretius]

I don't think the management of that company is stupid enough to risk such an unmasking in a court of law.

 

Exactly!

[17629]

What the heck are you getting at? I already mentioned the OBD port. And you obviously need a laptop, software, and a special cable to hookup to the OBD port and the USB of the laptop. At least this is how it's down for VW's -- it's not rocket science. Of course, one should ensure that all power draining components are turned off. It's advisable to hook the car up to a battery charger -- don't want to run out of power during an update. And, of course, one must turn the car to the ON position.

 

You can read all the articles on the internet you want and you'll still be wrong. Your procedure is a joke. You left a few important things out. Anyone can buy a laptop and an OBD2 cable. Big deal. What software do you run on the laptop and who do you buy it from? Sure, you can buy a $25 piece of software to pull codes and fool with the PID's, and maybe even do an evap test. That's a far cry from updating the OS for your PCM. Even if you broke into VW and stole their computer, what are you going to do with it? Nothing, that's what. Who's going to give you the software that you'll need to program the specific module in question? As I'm sure you know, you can't program a PCM with just the software on the laptop. That's used for communicating with the car. You also need to download the software specific to the PCM as part of the upgrade. And to get that, you need to know how to deal with the security measures that are put in place by the manufacturer. How would you get around them?

 

I think I'll stop here with just the basics because I know I'm wasting my time explaining all this again. What's your next excuse going to be? I'm sure you'll come up with something good. I know. Just pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about, same as in your other posts. At least you'll be correct.

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for the BCM procedure I asked for in my last post.

[christopher3393]

ok, time for a music break:

 

[lucretius]

You can read all the articles on the internet you want and you'll still be wrong. Your procedure is a joke. You left a few important things out. Anyone can buy a laptop and an OBD2 cable. Big deal. What software do you run on the laptop and who do you buy it from? Sure, you can buy a $25 piece of software to pull codes and fool with the PID's, and maybe even do an evap test. That's a far cry from updating the OS for your PCM. Even if you broke into VW and stole their computer, what are you going to do with it? Nothing, that's what. Who's going to give you the software that you'll need to program the specific module in question? As I'm sure you know, you can't program a PCM with just the software on the laptop. That's used for communicating with the car. You also need to download the software specific to the PCM as part of the upgrade. And to get that, you need to know how to deal with the security measures that are put in place by the manufacturer. How would you get around them?

 

I think I'll stop here with just the basics because I know I'm wasting my time explaining all this again. What's your next excuse going to be? I'm sure you'll come up with something good. I know. Just pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about, same as in your other posts. At least you'll be correct.

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for the BCM procedure I asked for in my last post.

 

First off, no need to be rude. Second, it's not from an article off the Internet -- I own a VW and had my ECU updated with third party software and watched them do it. As for what software to run, see https://www.goapr.com/ (they provide software specific to the vehicle -- it replicates much from the car manufacture but the data is different for key variables). I wasn't talking about pulling codes - that software would be here Ross-Tech: VCDS. There are no specific security measures but one thing that's usually done is to pickup the VIN number before the rewrite, so that it can be recoded. Obviously, you have no familiarity with VWs or Audis.

[Allan F]

If Nordost were to actually instigate legal proceedings against Mark for libel, the onus, I believe, is on the plaintiff (Nordost) to prove that Mark's comments were (a) false, and (b) injurious and deleterious to their business and/or reputation. How can they prove (a)? The show is past. Proving that they did not alter the volume between demonstration samples is nigh impossible and basically comes down to "he-said, they-said".

Sorry, George, it's not quite that simple. Oral testimony is evidence. The person who did the demonstration could testify about the procedure he followed, indicating that nothing was done to alter the volumes. He might tender the CD he used in evidence. Other Nordost employees who assisted might testify to the same thing. Nordost could possibly present a witness to testify that that he had tested the CD with tracks of identical content but different track numbers, and found that the volumes were the same. Of course, the foregoing is just speculation on my part.

 

The onus of proof in a civil case is on a "balance of probabilities" or a "preponderance of evidence". Of course, Nordost's witnesses would be subject to cross-examination, but it would be quite difficult to cast doubt on their evidence. It is unlikely that Waldrep could offer more than his opinion regarding volume levels to counter Nordost. Unless there was also evidence upon which a judge could rely to make a finding of credibility against Nordost and its witnesses, he would most likely have to rule in the latter's favour. I say "likely" and "probably" because the outcome of a trial can seldom, if ever, be predicted with certainty.

 

Regardless, I doubt that it was Nordost's intention to go as far as to file a lawsuit and take the matter to trial. Their strategy more likely was to intimidate Waldrep to get him to remove his piece and issue a retraction - which is exactly what he did. They might not be able to present the evidence imagined in the first paragraph. Had Waldrep refused to do so and decided to fight Nordost, we don't know what Nordost's next step would have been or how things might have turned out. Waldrep might have saved himself a lot of money and aggravation by doing what he did, although I would expect that he wasn't very happy about doing so.

[lucretius]

... i.e., when it funds stuff like this: CEASE AND DESIST – RETRACTION | Real HD-Audio

 

Nordost gets my vote for weasel of the week!

[mansr]

Nordost gets my vote for weasel of the week!

Here's hoping they chew on a cable.

[wdw]

Nordost gets my vote for weasel of the week!

This is so completely juvenile....Nordost has done nothing that has been proven except antidotal evidence from a man known to have a particular animus towards audiophile cables. Nordost have built a worldwide network supplying numerous satisfied customers...what have you done that even gets close to that scale?

Weasel? Kid!

[tranz]

Where there is smoke...

 

Wonder if the sales rep who demoed is still working there.

 

I have been at demos where they would do A/B of some tweak (can't remember the company) and also noted that they did not play back the exact song and portion of a song. Red flags went up immediately.