"As the drive current levels (amperage-current/electron mass) change in different audio systems, the response of this cable will change as the fluid is a free-floating molecular slurry and the individual molecules have the opportunity to directly react to the change in current mass. i.e. the current mass steers the fluid into specific alignments. Dynamically, in real time."
Holy cow, can't ANYBODY sell interconnects or cables without slinging this sort of buffalo chips?
Our own KBK has finally reached the market! My father used to bring Wood's metal home for me. I think it was liquid with simple warming. This stuff must be related.
I hadn't noticed it was Ken's. That explains the... ummmm... explanation. It's typical of contemporary audio journalism that the guy who wrote the article never bothered to say, "Wait a minute, that's all nonsense."
Just curious, is anybody aware of any initiative to sue these businesses for fraudulent advertising? Or at least writing some sensible letter to the BBB?
Guess not, not because there isn't a case, but because there is no money worth the trouble. Win the case an get compensated with a couple of RCA $10K cables plus expenses in $2K power cables. All yours to sell
I recall a UK vendor being hit with some fines for false claims about power cords recently, but can't remember their name. It wasn't the cable manufacturer, but the supplier. They later hired Ben Duncan to do some measurements to "prove" the benefits of the aftermarket cord.
Back in 1991, there was some discussion of this at the 91st AES convention. There is a very entertaining article about this event in an Audio Critic PDF entitled, "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers". Aczel is definitely over the top here, but this particular article had me howling with laughter. It's my favorite audio article ever. Part of the reason is that I've read the writings of several of the people referred to in the article, and he describes them perfectly.
Do you think that Ben Duncan is not a proper evaluation engineer? Your answer might get you in trouble. Perhaps the Brits can get you for character defamation. They are touchy about that sort of thing, I am told.
It depends on what he's evaluating I guess. I read his article on this. He was doing vector network analyzer measurements of the power cord at RF frequencies, and it was clear that he did not do any of the VNA calibration techniques that have been known since the '60s, and required for valid measurements. Uncalibrated VNA measurements are basically worthless.
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that people think that I would bother with cable differences, if my associates and I had not evaluated them seriously, over the decades. Unfortunately, I am tired of repeating myself on the internet, so I won't go into details that are already here somewhere. Of course, we HAVE to make good equipment, in order to sell it, when we do not have the advertisement budget of many large companies. That is why we pay attention to small details, such as quality cable, connectors, etc.
It would be at least be consistent with the long history of actions mainstream manufacturers force from the Federal Trade Commission.
Define "proper."
Though very knowledgeable, Duncan has a track record of publishing out-of-context data to support fancy wire (the Stereophile article he wrote at the behest of one of the manufacturers is a classic case of "correct, but you left out the most important part..."). He's a hired gun, paid to put forth a case biased toward the folks who pay him, just like I am in patent cases where I'm an expert witness.
Though very knowledgeable, Duncan has a track record of publishing out-of-context data to support fancy wire (the Stereophile article he wrote at the behest of one of the manufacturers is a classic case of "correct, but you left out the most important part..."). He's a hired gun, paid to put forth a case biased toward the folks who pay him, just like I am in patent cases where I'm an expert witness.
I'm a 'hired gun' and proud of it. It means that I can work in audio and not 'compromise' myself doing something else, like making bottle caps or some such. However, I turn down offers to 'prove' what I cannot measure or at least figure why something sounds a certain way. I bet that Ben Duncan does the same thing. Why don't you bring it up with him?
I would not be too hard on Ken. His "Goo" paint on screen product is serious and has plenty of testimonials. For a while I tried to create a painted on screen with projection but now I am solely LCD. They just installed a couple of the Clearchannel LED billboards here and I am surprised at the color fidelity improvement over the last few generations.
🙄 I guess it's worth $2000 per bucket then. A mate got results as good as anyone could want from another brand that cost him about $50.
Last edited:
You got me there Glen, I have not surveyed the market. So shoot me, as one of my compatriots says.
Boss shot gun of course, not sure about Brautigan but Hemingway went this way for sure (messy).
Boss shot gun of course, not sure about Brautigan but Hemingway went this way for sure (messy).
Last edited:
A great lecture. I wish I had Aczel's cold blood and dry humor
No wonder some famous designers are, 20 years later, still pissed at AES
So would I if I were in his situation. Or yours. Not good for business.
That's one of the nice things about not actually working in the audio business anymore, I don't have to worry about what I say. 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.