"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

Hi Iain, would you please email me a valid address? I have sent you a
couple of emails and they have all bounced.

Cheers Terry

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
k...
Iain Churches wrote

I talked on the phone with a chap today who
told me he had a very good idea for a high-end
loudspeaker cable.

It was based upon some thick twin co-axial with
two separate shields. He had then connected
the screen of the left wire to the inner of the right
wire, and the inner of the left wire to the screen
of the right wire. He made a cable like this for
both channels, and inserted it onto a 12mm
armoured hose-pipe, with Raychem 15mm shrink
sleeving at each end and "gold" terminals bought
from a car audio shop. He added, "I have found
there are great sonic advantages in this method"

There followed a long silence, and I, not knowing
quite what to say, replied: "Hmm! Interesting!
You might have something there. You
should make a quantity. It might sell well".

He replied: "I have. It does. At Euro 25 a metre!"

Iain

Scamming is a commitment you may both regret. Quite apart from not going
to heaven, which is actually far more important than you seem to have
realised, you get a reputation for being a ****. There's no going back.


Hmm. Just hd a thought. If the quantities become large enough,
he could get Tasker, or Van Damme, or Nokia to make the cables.
They will do so happily, and charge him for their services.
Does that make them ****s?

Iain Churches said:

Hmm. Just hd a thought. If the quantities become large
enough,
he could get Tasker, or Van Damme, or Nokia to make the
cables.
They will do so happily, and charge him for their
services.
Does that make them ****s?

Will they? Not with their brand names on.

Plenty people would say that most "high-end" cable producers
are dishonest, but in my view it doesn't make them ****s.
It's business and I quite like that. Anyway, apart from
their dubious performance benefits, their cables generally
do look and feel like serious pieces of kit and often use
quite exotic materials and quality manufacturing.

OTOH, if Mr Van Damme were to come to an audio newsgroup and
gloat about selling rubbish, that would make him a ****.

Three reasons IMO. First because it would be obviously,
foolishly, counter-productive; in wickyspeak, apparently,
"doing a Ratner":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_a_Ratner

Attached to this is the expectation that others in his peer
group would respond positively.

Second because as a celebration of the ignorance of others
it appears smug and conceited.

Third because I don't believe people are easily enough
fooled in large enough numbers for a scam to be a good bet
in most cases. Honest business is a much better bet for
clean money. I'm a communist, so I'm fervent in my faith in
market economics.

I still don't believe the story. He's pulling your leg.

Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
k...
Iain Churches said:

Hmm. Just hd a thought. If the quantities become large enough,
he could get Tasker, or Van Damme, or Nokia to make the cables.
They will do so happily, and charge him for their services.
Does that make them ****s?

Will they? Not with their brand names on.

Yes indeed. In a market driven economy, a manufacturer
will make you whatever you order, if the quantity is sufficient.

Plenty people would say that most "high-end" cable producers are
dishonest, but in my view it doesn't make them ****s. It's business and I
quite like that. Anyway, apart from their dubious performance benefits,
their cables generally do look and feel like serious pieces of kit and
often use quite exotic materials and quality manufacturing.

IMO manufacturing a "high-end" cable is not dishonest. But making false
claims for it certainly is. That is the distinction.

OTOH, if Mr Van Damme were to come to an audio newsgroup and gloat about
selling rubbish, that would make him a ****.

Has anyone gloated about selling rubbish? I think you are
getting a little over-excited here. Have you noticed by the way
the marked absence of audio designers and manufacturers from
groups like this one. Have you wondered why they never bother
to post here?

I still don't believe the story. He's pulling your leg.


We shall see. It is of no real consequence to me either way.
He is supposed to bring his pre-prod cable the
people concerned to have a look at, sometime next week.
If he doesn't show up, then your fears may be founded.

Iain

Iain Churches wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote

Plenty people would say that most "high-end" cable producers are
dishonest, but in my view it doesn't make them ****s. It's business and I
quite like that. Anyway, apart from their dubious performance benefits,
their cables generally do look and feel like serious pieces of kit and
often use quite exotic materials and quality manufacturing.

IMO manufacturing a "high-end" cable is not dishonest. But making false
claims for it certainly is. That is the distinction.

How would you define a high end cable ?

Graham

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:26:07 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Third because I don't believe people are easily enough
fooled in large enough numbers for a scam to be a good bet
in most cases. Honest business is a much better bet for
clean money. I'm a communist, so I'm fervent in my faith in
market economics.

I still don't believe the story. He's pulling your leg.

He may be. But you don't have to look far into the audiophool world
to see such things seriously marketed. I imagine the ridiculously
inflated prices are regularly discounted by kindly dealers :-) But
it's still a scam.

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:26:07 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Third because I don't believe people are easily enough
fooled in large enough numbers for a scam to be a good bet
in most cases. Honest business is a much better bet for
clean money. I'm a communist, so I'm fervent in my faith in
market economics.

I still don't believe the story. He's pulling your leg.

He may be. But you don't have to look far into the audiophool world
to see such things seriously marketed.

But we don't know about their profitability.

I imagine the ridiculously
inflated prices are regularly discounted by kindly dealers :-)

Of course - such a deal! ;-)

But it's still a scam.

Agreed.

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
k...
Iain Churches said:

Hmm. Just hd a thought. If the quantities become large enough,
he could get Tasker, or Van Damme, or Nokia to make the cables.
They will do so happily, and charge him for their services.
Does that make them ****s?

Will they? Not with their brand names on.

Plenty people would say that most "high-end" cable producers are
dishonest, but in my view it doesn't make them ****s. It's business and I
quite like that. Anyway, apart from their dubious performance benefits,
their cables generally do look and feel like serious pieces of kit and
often use quite exotic materials and quality manufacturing.

Fancy cables can deliver bragging rights in certain technically-ignorant
circles.

OTOH, if Mr Van Damme were to come to an audio newsgroup and gloat about
selling rubbish, that would make him a ****.

Three reasons IMO. First because it would be obviously, foolishly,
counter-productive; in wickyspeak, apparently, "doing a Ratner":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_a_Ratner

Agreed.

Attached to this is the expectation that others in his peer group would
respond positively.

Second because as a celebration of the ignorance of others it appears smug
and conceited.

Say "smug and conceited" three times almost anywhere in Europe and Iain
might come running! ;-)

Third because I don't believe people are easily enough fooled in large
enough numbers for a scam to be a good bet in most cases.

Judging by the amount of Monster Cable product that I see being remaindered
out in US electronics surplus markets...

Honest business is a much better bet for clean money. I'm a communist, so
I'm fervent in my faith in market economics.

Honesty is the best scam! ;-)

I still don't believe the story. He's pulling your leg.

Agreed.

"Ian Iveson" wrote:

Scamming is a commitment you may both regret. Quite apart
from not going to heaven, which is actually far more
important than you seem to have realised, you get a
reputation for being a ****. There's no going back.

Our current lives are important, mine certainly is to me. To postulate that you have
any control over any other life than your own current life is an illusion. And we
have so little control of our lives as it is especially when we put a trust in others
who ocasionally are not up for it. To make the most of our lives we ought to make it
worthwhile and when possible help others achieve the same.
I have not heard any words from anyone who supposedly went on to an afterlife about
how their afterlife turned out, and as I take it there enough historical accounts of
people who have tried to become worthy of some specific type of afterlife I have no
intent to follow suit in such matters unless it pleases me to comply with my friends
and family who for some reason or other require my participation in such attempts,
for example to volunteer some of my time to help other people is seen by someone else
as a way to earn a good afterlife and that is of importance to them, but to me it is
a way to help others in this life and that is important to me.
Point of perception, Ian.

If an idea to solve a problem works for some time and then is replaced by something
better then who is to say you cannot make money and earn a living trying to fullfill
a need?

Wether this cabling scheme really works providing better fidelity is a matter of
logic, experience, education and belief. Some apply all of only one to a situation
while others are more liberal and some do apply whatever needed at each ocasion.

But I think you have made this up. You need to think through
the problem of neat terminations if you want to make more
than the minimum wage.

I do not see a problem with someone providing what the buyers want provided the
service and goods are kept within the constraints of applicable laws, to that end the
principle discussed at the very beginning of this thread is a dated invention for
which there may be someone with a legal right to parts of the manufacturers earnings.

Now to claim this or that is better than something else can ultimately be tested to
death and will be in court if challenged on a patent. Wether it is actually true may
be a point of perceptence which if you really want to challenge it would have to be
argued against using some means of proof other than that you believe otherwise.

-Mikkel