| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Just to see you squirm.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Nothing at all - in fact I rather favor them and consider myself an advanced user when it comes to HP handhelds. I don't see a lot of value in knowing the conductor area, though, since no one besides Teo Audio is capable of building such cables. I suppose you could estimate the area if and when Teo releases impedance data.
Suit yourself
Yeah, you got me there. My bad.
From the few images I can access I'd estimate that the Teo speaker cables have a diameter of 8 to 10mm. My belief is that the Galinstan alloy is carried in either silicon or polyurethane medical tubing which is available in a dizzying array of types. Termination would be simple as Gallinstan is exceedingly sticky. It even sticks to glass so a metal post inserted into the end of the tube to seal it would have excellent electrical contact with the eutectic alloy inside. Then you just have to add a spade terminal, some plastic braid and lashings of super audio heat shrink and "hey presto" a liquid cable that not even the manufacturers understand!
The mundane aspects of this are that the cross sectional area of the cable would be something in the order of 50mm if I was to be generous and assume a tube with an inside diameter of around 8mm, leaving 2mm for wall thickness. If I was making them I'd probably shoot for more thickness in the tube because I wouldn't want any of that liquid metal escaping. These cables have to be shipped as "Hazmat" into the USA you know.
Anyway, it's late and I can't be bothered to do the calcs for the cable based on my theoretical cross section, maybe one of the other guys can do it?
Don't forget that the Audiophile ear can pick up the merest hint of improvement so it's conceivable that even if the Teo cables were only slightly higher resistance, the trained ear would perceive it.
Silver: 63.0
QUOTE: May: Geoff and I are friends. But he does test my patience at times.
-----------------------------------------
There's a fog upon L.A.
And my friends have lost their way
We'll be over soon they said
Now they've lost themselves instead
Please don't be long
Please don't you be very long
Please don't be long or I may be asleep
Well it only goes to show
And I told them where to go
Ask a policeman on the street
There's so many there to meet
Please don't be long (don't be long)
Please don't you be very long (don't be long)
Please don't be long or I may be asleep
Fresh_Clip, your post is so full of errors and erroneous assumptions that I don't know where to begin. So I won't.
You missed your calling, Geoff!
Changes in frequency response and possibly added distortion are the only effects normal lengths of normal wire can introduce. Much more in my AES Audio Myths Workshop video.
It's only a problem when someone who needs cables asks others for advice, and is told he should buy cables costing more than necessary. At heart this is a consumerist issue.
--Ethan
It looks more like an AES Propaganda Workshop, in which you cast aspersions upon subjective audiophiles with matter-of-fact snarky comments. I found JJ's talk interesting, and he did not make such comments yet did not disagree, which one must view as tacit approval.
By "more than necessary" I suppose any cable that conducts the signal from point A to point B will suffice, at least in your book. Fine. Do whatever floats your boat. But why do you feel compelled to make snide remarks about those whose opinions differ from yours?
It's been said that if something measures OK but sounds bad, you're measuring the wrong thing. At the heart of the problem is the insertion of a lot of "stuff" in the signal path for the sake of measurement. So the debate rages on ad infinitum.
The trouble is Brian that Teo cables do a worse job than seawater at getting the signal from A to B!
As far as my assumptions go, well, when you can't get the facts, you have to use your imagination. The liquid metal in the Teo cables must be carried inside a tube. No other method of construction would be practical. Medical tubing is robust and flexible and if I was constructing a cable to use liquid metal, that's how I'd do it. Tell me I'm wrong!
At least my research into electrical conductivity has revealed some new and interesting information about Galinstan. One interesting study was into the effects of AC on the metal. Now anyone who knows Maxwells 20 equations intimately enough to create super audiophile liquid cables would be able to name this equation.
Identify the equation and win a gift!
I admire Ethan for continuing to post on the forum. He will respond to questions with answers unlike the phalanx of tweak meisters here.
I'm going to check with my friend who works at the uni to see if he's got some medical tubing lying around. My goal is to create the first liquid cables with a superior conductivity to Teo cable. Mine will be filled with Pacific seawater!
I can't wait to experience the oceanic liquidity of the sound
P.S. Geoff, you were a little late with your non sequiter. I assume you were busy filling dime bags with polished stones...
Might it be the equasion "Liquids don't belong in cables" ?
QUOTE: P.S. Geoff, you were a little late with your non sequiter. I assume you were busy filling dime bags with polished stones...
Fresh_Grip - Sounds like you've got the same dis-ease that Ethan's got. Have you tried an ice cold shower?
How would you know?
Pot, meet kettle.
You can do anything you want, but I'm not telling you how they do it.
What's the gift? A pay-your-own-way trip to the next AES convention?
Oh, that's rich.
Do people hear the ocean roar when they get close to your ears?
You can put down the pipe now.
This is all good news - people are admitting to differences between cables!
Fresh_Clip, do you think you'd hear a difference between the Teo Cable and others?
(You'd have to run the volume way up if you used it between the preamp and amp, right?)
Now that you've elucidated those diferences, how about commenting on how they would affect how things sound!
Also, careful at looking at ionic conductors and equating them with electrical conductors.
OK
Now it is beyond reasonable doubt that conductive cables can influence the sound, can someone please explain why you need to spend extra money for a peice of audiophile fibre optic ? a digital cable can have no bearing on the sound quality, it is purely going to reproduce what is fed into it. This assumes of course that the cable is structually intact and reasonably well made.
Alan
Darned ionic conduction! Still, my research for the last Teo cables thread included some discoveries about AC and ionic conduction. Basically at low frequencies the ions can clump around the electrodes but that's in the hertz area as I recall. From what I remember, the seawater cables might be leaning towards a high pass filter to some extent but I have access to some awesomely powerful PA equipment so it might be worth an experiment!
As far as the "sound" of the Teo cables is concerned, well, I'd expect everything that went through them to sound quieter for starters. As to the actual effect that they might have on the reproduction I'd be thinking that my amp is going to have to work with significantly more series resistance and this may cause an audible effect. In addition to that, the increased resistance would become part of the crossover circuit for the speakers effectively and that might also cause a significant difference between Galinstan cables and copper cables.
Brian, how directional are the Teo cables? So many other high end cables are described as being directional and I'd be surprised if they'd left this feature out of the Teo ones.
As to the construction of the cables. the Galinsten must be contained inside the cable by some sort of force field if there is no tube. That's real bang for buck even in the $2400 price bracket!
No ideas on the formula yet?
I do not understand why people cannot separate the differences between PA equipment and one's personal sound system. This is why many 'pro' items, usable in sound reinforcement, don't work too well with discerning audiophiles. It is the same with these cables. The cables sounded OK to me, in fact the hi fi using them, sound pretty good. The fact that the material is amorphous makes complete sense as Dr. VandenHul has been working on that problem for years.
Are you suggesting the galinstan in these cables is not liquid, but is an amorphous solid or that it is an encapsulated in some way so that one can work with it as a solid?
I'm not speaking for John Curl, but the conductor material in the cables is in the liquid state.
Two features:
Most lubricious substance known to mankind. (IIRC)
Most reflective (wideband, but centered around visible light)
One Point: It is not 'Galinstan', like Kleenex and Ski-doo, both are brand names for respectively, tissue paper and snowmobiles. 'Galinstan' came about as a name centered around the original name for 'tin', and was created for uniqueness and ability to utilize such as a trademarked name, and the fact/point of a unique combination of these three elements that created the current record for a low temperature solidus transition point of -19C. 'Galinstan' specifically relates to the Geratherm mixture of these three elements.
The substance is a 'gallium-indium-tin eutectic', with a liquidus/solidus transition state that is below that of 'room temperature'. Relatively speaking, the fluid will have and does have a molecular mobility (inter-molecular, ie h20 to h20 molecule) similar to that of water.
OK, I got the definition of 'amorphous' slightly wrong. However, a liquid metal alloy could well be in an 'amorphous' state as well as in a liquid state for all practical purposes. Does anyone really know?
Still, the idea that VDH uses is to create an amorphous state in certain metal alloys, is similar to the 'liquid' state of the cables discussed here, as far as freedom from micro-cracks, etc.
Before I got into this particular aspect of transmission, I was fooling around with making glassy copper and made a few chunks of semi-conductive copper. The interesting bit was that I managed to get the chunks to have a relatively constant R reading across any two points of similar distance between the probes. This is indicative of a stable combination. The way it was executed would make this glassy or amorphous at the inter-molecular level. Which the very simplistic but consistent R readings tend to support.
Quote by Freako :-
>>> "why is it a problem that some people actually believe that cable A sounds better than cable B? There are more factors in this of which we don't know very much either, than just the properties of the cable." <<<
To which you, Ethan replied :-
>>> "It's only a problem when someone who needs cables asks others for advice, and is told he should buy cables costing more than necessary. At heart this is a consumerist issue." <<<
Now we are back with the Price 'diversionary thing'. The 'Price' consideration only comes in at the end - after a particular cable (or 'tweak' or equipment or....) has given an improvement in the sound. With No improvement heard, there would be no desire to buy or change, at whatever price !!!
I don't remember 'Price' coming into the discussion, Ethan, when Buddha described carrying out a listening experiment with different cables at last years Hi End Show (similar to another experiment this year which started this whole thread).
It does not seem to be "ONLY a problem when someone asks others for advice". Even when NO one is asking for advice on what cable to buy, you, Ethan, are challenging people's experiences that different cables can sound different, unless they (the cables) are 'faulty' as you suggested a year ago to Buddha, i.e "that if one cable sounds different to another cable, then one will be 'faulty'".
Quote by judicata from January 2009:-
>>> "it leaves room for improvements by switching cable." <<<
To which you, Ethan, replied :-
>>> "Yes, but only when 1) the other cable is outright lame or defective, or 2) the driving amp is inferior and can't handle normal amounts of wire capacitance." <<<
Quote by Buddha from his experiments at CES 2009.
>>> "Simplicity.
We had a pair of "Brand X" mass produced interconnects that were already 'burned in' and known to work just fine and Purist Audio Design kindly loaned us a pair of their interconnects.
We used Kind of Blue as our reference material and had people listen to an entire cut with one set of interconnects, and then the same cut with the other pair. We alternated which interconnect went first.
Only the person changing the interconnects knew which was which at any given moment, and we changed people doing the changing so there would be less chance of a 'tell' if one person did it every time.
We had 100% repeatability, 'accuracy,' and preference for the Purist Audio design interconnect.
100%.
WTF?
Obvious improvement in spatial representation (imaging) and feeling of air around instruments. This was commented upon without prompting and with different listening groups. For many trials, I was not even in the room and did not discuss what was happening.
_______
Then we tried the same thing with a smaller sample size comparing my Straightwire Maetros with the Purist Audio Design, and this time we had the same group of a half dozen listeners stay and keep track of preferences with multpile changes.
The opinion was split as to which was now preferred, but the preferences stayed locked in place. Each person's preference was consistent between the two cables.
Double WTF?
I've had the Straightwires for years, I know they 'work right,' and although there were differences of opinion as to which interconnect people preferred, the ability to consistently 'prefer' a cable stayed in place with changes.
Really, WTF?
So, then, we tried the "Brand X" interconnects between the Esoteric DV50S in the main room's system - no complaints, and we didn't tell anybody anything. We were just listening for ourselves.
The next day, we put in the Purist Audio design and we had listeners from the previous day come back and spontaneously offer, "The system sounds better today. You got it locked in now!"
Triple WTF? " <<<
Your reply Ethan's :-
>>> "If you send me the two cables people could distinguish every time, I'll measure them and tell you how they differ." <<<
Buddha's reply:-
>>> "Wow, three different cables that must somehow measure differently, eh?
What are the odds?" <<<
Your reply Ethan's :-
>>> "Also, just to be clear on cable differences generally, the only thing a cable can do is degrade the sound. It's not possible for any cable to increase fidelity. So when two cables sound different, one or both are losing fidelity." <<<
*************
No mention of a "Price" issue, Ethan !!!! The emphasis then, a year ago, was on 'measurements', the emphasis this year is on 'measurements' and emphasis over these past 30 years of people hearing improvements in the sound from different cables has been on 'measurements'. Doesn't that tell you something ? Doesn't it tell you that 'measurements' are NOT showing the answers ?
For the people who want to apply the generalisations that, therefore, the answer is "the placebo effect" at work, that it is "bias" at work, that it is "autosuggestion" at work, that it is "imagination" at work, that it is "audio faith healing" at work, that it is "effective marketing" at work, don't seem to appreciate that not only might they be referring to an unknown hypothetical person on a London bus who rushes out to buy a particular breakfast cereal, a particular brand of margarine, a particular brand of razor, a particular brand of watch, a particular brand of trainers just because some famous sportsperson endorses them, they are ALSO 'lumping in' with that generalisation, referring to and therefore generally dismissing the experiences of extremely skilled audio engineers who can HEAR different cables give different sound, who can HEAR differences in different AC power cables, who can HEAR some cables sound better connected one way round than another, who can HEAR such as Synergistic devices, Harmonix Discs, Schumann resonance devices give improvements in the sound when positioned in the listening room !!!!!
From my long involvement in the audio industry, I know that the people who have been prepared to 'go public' on matters of what they can hear are just the 'tip of the iceberg' - the rest 'of the iceberg' (even though they have had the same experiences) deliberately stay hidden !!! - far too terrified of being ridiculed to 'go public' !!!!!
The people (particularly people highly regarded in the audio industry) who HAVE BEEN prepared to 'go public', then I applaud them for their courage. I just wish there were more with the same courage !!
Freako is correct, "There are more factors in this of which we don't know very much either, than just the properties of the cable."
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
There's no doubt about it Ken. If you are doing all the things you say you are you're a real experimenter after all! Glassy copper eh? What method did you use to make it? From the brief bit of reading I've done (never actually heard of glassy metals before) it looks like it needs to be cooled very quickly and I quote;
Ah, the Julian Hirsch "everything sounds the same" tune. Riddle me this, Batman: How come you're so concerned about a bit more impedance in interconnects between preamp and amp, when in fact the amp's input impedance is many thousands of ohms? Do you think an infinitesimal percentage increase (sum of interconnects and amp input) will affect the sound one iota?
Are you saying measurable changes in cable characteristics don't influence the sound?
On the one hand, we are saying that we hear differences that are so subtle, they can't be measured, and on the other, we are saying that measurable differences can't be heard.
Brian, what you just said is exactly what Ethan says!
We're through the looking glass, people!
I should have known that post would get me in trouble!
What I meant to point out was the small overall increase in series resistance, outside of other parameters. Should we wait for Fresh_Clue's test results?
"Glassy metal alloys are tops among metals at recovering a shape after being deformed. "They make the world's best springs," says Gary J. Shiflet of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. They also absorb energy from an explosion better than conventional metals do."
Hmmmmm. Several applications spring to mind.
Shiflet is a professor in the Mechanical Engineering Dept. of University of Virginia, my alma mater. My undergraduate thesis was the design of a low thrust rocket for interplanetary travel, the thrust produced by bombarding a metal crystal (Fe) rod with highly accelerated ions. My degree was in theoretical fluids. Small world, ain't it?
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about electronics and output/input impedance. Competent modern audio circuits have a very low output impedance, and are meant to drive an input having a high impedance. If resistance is added in series by the wire, the wire's own capacitance rolls off higher frequencies. The more resistance and capacitance in the wire, the more the highs are rolled off.
BTW, you're welcome for the education. Hopefully you'll show a bit more humility in your future posts.
--Ethan
Capacitance rolls off high frequencies by definition. When the truth comes out about the measurements of these cables the point you tried to make will be rendered irrelevant.
Get over yourself, Einstein.
Ping, Buddha! I get it now. Last year it was the Purist Audio Aqueous Anniversary cables You know, the liquid-filled cables...This year, the Teo Liquid Cables. In a room filled with liquids that makes a good deal of sense. I'll drink to that. I suppose next year it will be those cute little liquid filled tube amps, eh?
Not if it's series capacitance.
A bit of increased resistance into a sink impedence with some capacitance is all this takes, though, to make an audible frequency response change.
Of course, if the driving impedence is low, but the drive power is also low, a bit of series resistance can prevent current limiting, etc, etc.
Lots of simple, obvious things to check before one would even dare to suggest that every cross-country cable in the world could not work, eh?
I had not heard of glassy metals. "1 million
Even if the Teos were a thousand times the resistance of a conventional IC (.1 ohms), the effects would be near zero in the audio band.
For instance using a lump capacitance of 250pf; comparing approx 2k ohm output impedance (Z) to 100 ohm output Z (includes IC), frequency response changes only approx .015db at 20khz and approx 0.4db at 100khz.
Now you're talking SAS! 0.15Db is just the kind of thing that the audiophile ear is detecting! This is undoubtedly the magnitude of most cable "differences" . Furthermore 0.4Db is a figure you could park a bus on within the audiophile environment. Reviewers and other golden eared listeners have droned on, loud and long, telling us that they can perceive these kinds of fractions of a Db!!
So if we have some agreement on this, the series resistance could be altering the system impedance and thus, altering the frequency responses within it by up to 0.4Db, well within the perceptible range of the trained, audiophile ear.
Astounding!
So is the reduced conductivity of the Galinstan like liquid metal in the Teo cable causing impedance alterations and thereby introducing a filtering effect? It is conceivable if you subscribe to the idea that 0.4Db is a fraction perceptible to your ear as most audiophiles claim.
I am gathering the parts for the seawater cables. I'll use hardware store clear plastic tubing and copper plugs. I'll make them 3 metres long. My plan is to test them against a copper cable. I'll set up a stereo amp with a mono source so I can A-B using the amp.
A few comments Clip. First, you misquoted me so check my comments again. Secondly, on page 26, you posted that there is basically only an order of difference, not a thousand times. This means the db difference will be much less than in my example. Glad to see you are willing to test some ICs.
Next my last post gives actual examples and how little db change vs large resistance changes. Ethan's attack on Brian was unwarranted.
Cheers.
QUOTE
Now you're talking SAS! 0.15Db is just the kind of thing that the audiophile ear is detecting! This is undoubtedly the magnitude of most cable "differences" . Furthermore 0.4Db is a figure you could park a bus on within the audiophile environment. Reviewers and other golden eared listeners have droned on, loud and long, telling us that they can perceive these kinds of fractions of a Db!!
So if we have some agreement on this, the series resistance could be altering the system impedance and thus, altering the frequency responses within it by up to 0.4Db, well within the perceptible range of the trained, audiophile ear.
Astounding!
-----------------------------------
Crikey, next thing you'll be bellyaching that copper digital cables simply cannot sound better than fiber optic digital cables, you know, being that it's all just 1s and 0s going through 'em.
I'm waiting for the results of the capacitance and inductance of this cable, as well as the series resistance.
It would also be good to know if this cable is coaxial or not. Given the ratio (b/a) for a coaxial could be very close to 1 for something with a large central conductor, there could be some very interesting results there.
0.15dB at 20kHz is not particularly detectable in most audio sources, to say the least, but we don't know the capacitance, or the actual transmission impedence of this critter yet.
It depends entirely on how much capacitance they also have! If those wires are so lame they have 100 times more resistance than normal Radio Shack RCA wire, why couldn't they also have 100 times more capacitance? I've also seen wire vendors stick "stuff" inline with their wires. Diodes? Capacitors? What sense does any of that make?
BTW Steve, aren't you supposed to include your company affiliation with every post?
--Ethan
LOL, and why do we have to wait for the truth to come out? This is exactly like the ridiculous thread about the ART magic saki cups "acoustic treatment" where Ted Denney promised data, then a year later finally posted it, but the data was faked and/or incompetent (take your pick, not that it matters).
Legitimate products come with legitimate data, and the vendors know how well their products work before they start selling them.
But all of that is beside the point. What I see in your posts is the sadly too-common combination of loud, opinionated, and wrong. Really Brian, first learn how this stuff works, then express opinions.
--Ethan
100 times capacitance of what? Vague to say the least. One can view the cables at:
http://www.teoaudio.com/technical.php
First consider good descent insulation has a dielectric constant that would approach typical ICs or less. Secondly, upon observation of the cables, the diameter, thus surface area of the liquid conductors is small, less than many typical coaxial ICs.
As far as resistance, 100 times approx .1 ohms or less (typical ICs) is only 10 ohms or less. 1000 times .1 ohms or less is only 100 ohms or less. The figures Fresh Clip presented on page 26 don't support high resistance ratios between same size copper to liquid conductor.
If we run into high capacitance and/or super high resistance I would be surprised.
Cheers.
100 times the capacitance of normal competent RCA wires you can buy at Radio Shack or MCM Electronics etc for $4 each.
I don't see any useful information there. The page claims to present "technical" info, yet it has nothing beyond the length and connector type. No specs, no explanation for how or why it's "better" than Radio Shack wires. Nothing remotely technical.
--Ethan
Sorry but not 100 times the capacitance of a RS IC. Not even 10 times. Check the photo for the diameter of the IC cable.
Cheers.
While I'm in the process of getting the parts for the saltwater speaker cables. I thought I might make some salt water interconnects just to see what the results might be.
WARNING, the following post contains pictures of audio test equipment. Some audiophiles may want to look away now.
Here's my rig. Potomac Oscillator and N&D Meter. I've never liked these, they have a separate transformer for the inputs on the N&D set with three taps. Why they couldn't build them into the unit (like every other one) I'll never know.
Here are the IC's. Two containers of water each 250ml. To begin the test I just used tap water for a baseline. The reference is a cable that just loops from the right output to the right input. The left input/output goes via the tubs.
I set the reference up at 0Db @ 1Khz and used the high impedance taps on the input transformers going to the N&D set.
Here's the tap water plot. I'm using the IEC/NAB spot frequencies as best as I can remember them and also throwing in 40Khz for the bats.
Interesting isn't it that you can get a fairly small signal through tap water this effectively.
Next is the salt water and to achieve that I just got two identical (we are running balanced you know) sachets of salt from a diner. I added them to the water, stirred them and then gave it around half an hour to diffuse. You'll be surprised at the results. Don't forget, thanks to Excel, the X scales on the graphs are markedly different ranges.
Pretty interesting eh? The 0.6Db lift at 60Hz made me check three times.
Want to know what the -3Db roll off point was???
88Khz!!!!!
Saltwater cables here we come!
It's the ratio (log ratio) of the inner and outer conductor diamater if it's a coaxial cable, and of the conductor radius vs spacing if it's a paired cable.
This can be tricky, if you have, for instance (these have no real relationship to real wires that I know of, mind you), .1 mm and 1 mm, the log ratio is going to be large.
If you have 1 and 1.1, it's going to be small.
The ratio of the capacitances would be log(10)/log(1.1), which is about a factor of 25.
Now, again, I have NO idea how these cables are made, I haven't had the opportunity to examine them, and I rather get the impression if I were to ask for it, I'd get a "hardy har har" rather than a cable.
But similar overall size can still result in strikingly different capacitance.
Yes!
And any information as to how it is constructed. If they were not silly expensive I would buy a pair just because they use a liquid for carrying the signal. This amuses me.
YEOW! MY EYES!
Balanced can be the way to go but - as again demonstrated above - requires twice the parts.
A typical LCR meter measurement @120Hz, the R of the 'Standard' RCA type Cable (there are four types/models) is 0.21 ohms with an approximate +/-0.015 ohm maximum deviation from that center point. A 6.5M cable of that same type measured approximately 1.25 ohm. Once again, this is a 'bog standard LCR meter' measurement.
This cable is, with connectors, almost exactly 46" from RCA tip to RCA tip, for a '1M cable'. This is a bit longer than normal, as the cables have slightly bulky and stiffened ends due to a need to protect the solid/fluid interface. The useful bendable length on the three models in 1M lengths is about 34-33 inches.
Fresh_Clip, that is so cool I can't believe it.
Send me a pair and I'll try them on people.
Kudos to you for doing this!
I seriously doubt there is going to be some abnormally high capacitance due to an ultra-thin dielectric as leakage or rupture (short) is not an option. Even if there were higher capacitance, the resistance would not be that high according to the data presented by Fresh Clip.
Let's assume the capacitance is a high 500pf. The total output Z and cable resistance could still be 1000 ohms; 1000pf/500 ohms, and still remain approximately -.015 db at 20khz. Exceptions are possible but not typical.
As you mention, let's do the sensible thing and not condemn another manufacturer.
Cheers.
LOL, and why do we have to wait for the truth to come out? This is exactly like the ridiculous thread about the ART magic saki cups "acoustic treatment" where Ted Denney promised data, then a year later finally posted it, but the data was faked and/or incompetent (take your pick, not that it matters).
Why are you starting this up again Winer, when this comment has nothing to do with cables? Is it to prove what a jackass you are? I think you already proved that more than well enough from the beginning to the end of the ART flame wars you started last year. Yes, it does matter both how you try to discredit other manufacturers, and the fact that you are still doing this. Never mind the fact that you are deliberately lying about Synergistic's data being "fake" or "incompetent", in order to try to harm the company's image. What matters is that you are doing this at all, once again. You want to harp about the rules? Ok. Well here's the rule you are continually breaking on our forum. Read carefully:
What I can't understand is, why are you constantly being given full freedom to violate this rule, while all other manufacturers here must adhere to it? And furthermore, at the same time you had the nerve to complain to JA that he's biased against you??
Legitimate products come with legitimate data, and the vendors know how well their products work before they start selling them.
How would you even know that Winer? Are you professing intimate knowledge of all vendors now, as well as all audio products? What other magical abilities do you wish to share with us? Most "legitimate" (whatever that means) audio products do not come with "legitimate data". That's because most audio consumers who have a working pair of ears do not care, and the more educated consumers already know such data is meaningless and can be trumped up. Such as yours for example. I showed in a post here last year how you were caught by a member on an acoustics forum, manipulating the "data" of a video test demonstration on your RealTraps company website, because the original test revealed that your products did not perform as you had hoped. And where was the "legitimate data" on your own products, in Stereophile's review?
What I see in your posts is the sadly too-common combination of loud, opinionated, and wrong.
Funny, because that's what most people see in yours.
Really Brian, first learn how this stuff works, then express opinions.
That's great. Now if only you would actually take your own advice once in a blue moon, whether it's about the ART resonators or the Furutech deMag, or any of the other high end products you ignorantly rant about without providing any scientific evidence for your hateful rants, you wouldn't have such a battered reputation today. First learn how stuff works Ethan, then express opinions. Until you do, you don't have an opinion. Do I have to remind you during your Furutech rants, of how you ignorantly yelled about how vinyl contains no magnetic material, and then after you were embarassed by being schooled otherwise, you stopped that sort of whining? Yet even after being educated here on the deMag, even after it was evident that you failed to hear what others could of its test files, the product shows up in your risible "AES Workshop Presentation". Where it is summarily dismissed, by way of the classic logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam". That's latin for "ignorants educating ignorants" Ethan.
LOL, and why do we have to wait for the truth to come out?
That pretty much says it all about you, doesn't it? You don't care about "truth", never have, never will. If you were even the least bit interested in what the ART system or Teo's cables are like, you'd have rushed your bum on down to a dealership and tried them out by now. Instead of bleating for two years about it. It's painfully clear that your only interest is not in "the trVth", but in destroying the reputation of other manufacturers, that you have all this thinly veiled contempt and hatred towards. But what should be clear to you by now, is that the rules oblige you to stop doing that on this forum.
Speaking of which, since you brought this up Ethan....
BTW Steve, aren't you supposed to include your company affiliation with every post?
Again, why are you starting this? Is it to draw attention again to your unyielding hypocrisy? Because of the fact that in the past, you were told many times by members here that you were not including your company affiliation, and you ignore them up until you had to be told by JA to do so. Are you worried we may have forgotten your repeated refusals to properly identify your company affiliation, how the staff here bent backwards and forwards to accomodate you constantly weaseling out of your obligation to use a proper sig, and you wish to remind us of this fact?
Steve has the most detailed com sig on this forum, was one of the first to comply with the rule, and unlike you, did not change his sig every other day. So I can't even understand what your latest whine is about, exactly? Unlike you, SAS signs his FULL name, his company name, his company address, and even his website link. Well else are you demanding that he include in his sig, a Mapquest route to his home? Whether he is now or ever has been affiliated with the communist party?
Now what's your excuse exactly, Ethan, for violating Stereophile's affiliation policy? It's not like you haven't been told enough times by the membership, or warned enough times by the management, that your sig is inappropriate, and that you are still trying to hide your commercial affiliation. And we've already heard the whine about "Everyone knows my name is Ethan Winer so I am allowed to violate the rules", and you didn't get far with that the first time. As we can see in the following link, as late as last Nov. 07th, your signature was this: "--Ethan". That's IT. "--Ethan". Not even your last name. This was a full five months after Stephen put up the affiliation policy.
(11/07/09): http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=Manufacturers&main=77410&type=post
What's notable about the above post, is that it was written nearly a week after John Atkinson made it very clear to you, that you have had repeated warnings about not complying with the Manufacturer's Policy, and that you will be banned if you do not follow the policy again. Since you clearly violated John Atkinson's decree, what I'd like to know is, why haven't you been banned yet?
John Atkinson wrote (11/01/09):
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=76747&type=post
After Stephen, John and others told you numerous times to stop violating the forum policy on identifying yourself, nearly 6 months after this policy was posted, the following quote is what Mr. Atkinson made clear to you, to get you to stop playing "hide and go seek" with your company affiliation signature. He gave you two specific choices about how you need to sign your name. Not only did you ignore him once again less than a week later, but you are still ignoring Mr. Atkinson's request today, by signing your name as simply "Ethan". Instead of the full name and title that he asked you to use.
John Atkinson wrote (11/01/09):
I think it's clear that you have been given enough warnings about this, clear that you violated the final warning you were given, and clear that you should no longer be allowed to post in these forums, only in the Manufacturer's section, as John has decreed.
Otherwise, it sets up a double standard that says "The rules apply to everyone EXCEPT Ethan Winer. End of story".
Winer, this is also what the Manufacturer's policy says. It was posted over 6 months ago. Not only have you violated it an infinite number of times since it was posted, but you continue to violate it after repeated warnings. Note the part in bold? I emphasized that for you:
Pages