Mark Waldrep In Trouble AGAIN

[SIY]

As it stands, his accusation feels legitimate to me, but it's difficult to make an informed judgement without knowing who the vendor was and how Mark's mic was positioned (could changes in the position of people around him or the means he used to conceal it have led to the 2dB discrepancy, for example?).

The vendor was a guy selling $17,000 power cords. And it's amazing how the errors in level measurement from an actual expert correlated perfectly with price.

The excuse-making for frauds always amazes and saddens me.

edit: FWIW, I've tested and used phone-based SPL meters. The ones I reviewed were quite reliable. I wouldn't count on it for, say, a 0.1 dB difference, but 2 dB is well within the range of trust.

 

[Jakob1863]

The vendor was a guy selling $17,000 power cords. And it's amazing how the errors in level measurement from an actual expert correlated perfectly with price.

The excuse-making for frauds always amazes and saddens me.

edit: FWIW, I've tested and used phone-based SPL meters. The ones I reviewed were quite reliable. I wouldn't count on it for, say, a 0.1 dB difference, but 2 dB is well within the range of trust.

No, if i understand it correctly the vendor guy did not sell the 17000 $ cable, but was a representative for the two other "quite" expensive mains cables.

And for good reasons there is something like due process......neglecting it did already a lot of harm in the past. That people like to throw it out of the window because they strongly belief in something does not amaze but surely saddens me.

 

[SIY]

Excuses, excuses.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Vendor took part in a single blind test and scored a positive response. The test was for dishonesty towards the membership.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I should explain my earlier point a bit more I think...

The foremost thing is that I do believe Mark on this.

But it's a very serious accusation he's making, with not only massive business consequences but also potential legal implications. Given the seriousness, I think it would have been sensible from the point of view of demonstrating his credibility to present his accusation completely transparently and with all the supporting evidence from the beginning. Now that he's done it the way he has, additional evidence that he brings forward now will seem tainted by the fact that it was only brought forward in response to his being ousted from the organisation.

I can imagine the reasons why he tried to take the middle path that he did, but I think it's very difficult to effectively be half a whistleblower.

 

[SIY]

But it's a very serious accusation he's making, with not only massive business consequences but also potential legal implications.

Legal risk is near-zero and the accusation is no more serious that accusing someone selling perpetual motion machines of fraud. No way the fraudsters want to go through discovery. That was why I was more than happy to name names in public when looking at ripoffs like Bybee and Synergistic Research and quack remedy peddlers like van den Hul.

Unfortunately, business consequences are also negligible- Randi's exposure of Uri Geller only made Geller richer. People love to believe things that aren't true but are fun stories.

 

[garbulky]

Well of course he got kicked out. I wouldn't have even given him that first chance they gave him. Nobody wants some undercover detective at an event they are hosting. Unprofessional behavior. If he wanted to actually do this, he should have gotten permission or at least let them know. The way the internet works, now the only thing people now know out of whatever gathering they had was his shenanigans not the actual event itself. Of course the show organizers don't want that.

 

[Jakob1863]

As mentioned above, Mark Waldrep wrote one or two similar blog post about another manufacturer a couple of years ago with even less factual data to back it.
Afair it was reported he withdraw it after receiving one of those "cease and desist letters" , so it seems to be a legal risk.

As i´ve said it depends on what was claimed during the talk and what the accusations exactly is; strong beliefs about "fraudsters, peddlers" and all the things they never would do, can be quite damaging in legal fights.

And if one really believes that a accordingly designed mains (power) cable can´t have more attenuation at high frequency in comparison to an ordinary IEC cord, then
-) there is a bridge in Brooklyn on sale
-) he really must ask somebody who knows about physics

before getting in legal trouble.

Edit: added "a couple of years ago"

 

[SIY]

Nobody wants some undercover detective at an event they are hosting.

Especially if the event is to promote a ripoff.

 

[Purité Audio]

Well of course he got kicked out. I wouldn't have even given him that first chance they gave him. Nobody wants some undercover detective at an event they are hosting. Unprofessional behavior. If he wanted to actually do this, he should have gotten permission or at least let them know. The way the internet works, now the only thing people now know out of whatever gathering they had was his shenanigans not the actual event itself. Of course the show organizers don't want that.

I don’t really see the problem of an ‘undercover detective’ if you have nothing to hide?
Keith

 

[Sal1950]

Well of course he got kicked out. I wouldn't have even given him that first chance they gave him. Nobody wants some undercover detective at an event they are hosting. Unprofessional behavior. If he wanted to actually do this, he should have gotten permission or at least let them know. The way the internet works, now the only thing people now know out of whatever gathering they had was his shenanigans not the actual event itself. Of course the show organizers don't want that.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say.
Yea, tell the cheaters they will be tested so they can remove the cheating first!
"Unprofessional behavior" is running a rigged listening test and then being pissed when your called out.
If you don't want to be caught cheating, don't cheat, that's a pretty simple premise.

 

[Soniclife]

I don't see a denial or justification of the volume tampering, is there one?

The previous taken down posts are in the following thread.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/parlor-trick-exposed.389/

 

[Cosmik]

What I don't understand is, if you're not naming the charlatan salesman and brand, why name the event?

If he'd just said "I recently attended an audio show at a hotel/shop/club where an invited salesman demonstrated...", the point would have been exactly the same but he wouldn't have been in danger of libelling someone.

As it was, he wasn't intending for his report to actually change anything, so why not just keep it as a non-specific observation and anecdote? Maybe some people might even have suspected that he was referring to their event, but plausible deniability would just be part of the fun.

 

[amirm]

Nobody wants some undercover detective at an event they are hosting.

Let's say they were definitely cheating. What method would have been acceptable to find that?

If that was declared ahead of time, he would have shown the door so we wouldn't know there was cheating.

If he confronted the vendor, it would cause a conflict and much more problem for the show than after the fact.

Since as consumers we want cheaters to be found, I don't see a different approach than the one he used.

 

[Soniclife]

One of the things I find surprising about this is that they feel they need to cheat. I'm quite sure Derren Brown or similar could run a dem where nothing was changed, and people like Amir and Mark were free to measure what was being done and state they could see no difference, but the whole room would be convinced one 'system' was better than than the other. This sort of stuff has been going on throughout human history.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Let's say they were definitely cheating. What method would have been acceptable to find that?

If that was declared ahead of time, he would have shown the door so we wouldn't know there was cheating.

If he confronted the vendor, it would cause a conflict and much more problem for the show than after the fact.

Since as consumers we want cheaters to be found, I don't see a different approach than the one he used.

I agree there is justification for his undercover actions, but as a matter of strategy, I think he would have done it all much more effectively if he'd :

• come straight out with all his evidence, firstly to the company he accused
• secondly, given them an opportunity to respond before publication
• finally, published all his evidence, as well as the company's response

Then we would have seen everyone with their cards on the table and been able to make a more informed judgement (which would likely have fallen in Mark's favour). I'm simply talking in terms of strategy btw.

Alternatively, I agree with @Cosmik, better to just speak generally without naming the event, or the cables, or giving any other identifying information. Put it in the category of observation rather than accusation.

The middle ground just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ron Party]

It's not libel if it is the truth.

 

[garbulky]

Let's say they were definitely cheating. What method would have been acceptable to find that?

None. Unless he was asked to by the people that invited him....he needs to mind his own beeswax. I don't get invited to a party by my friends and then reveal that the band was lipsyncing, the wine is cheap, and the food was microwaved. Nobody wants that rubbish.

 

[garbulky]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say.
Yea, tell the cheaters they will be tested so they can remove the cheating first!
"Unprofessional behavior" is running a rigged listening test and then being pissed when your called out.
If you don't want to be caught cheating, don't cheat, that's a pretty simple premise.

Who's talking about the cheaters? I couldn't care about them.

 

[andreasmaaan]

None. Unless he was asked to by the people that invited him....he needs to mind his own beeswax. I don't get invited to a party by my friends and then reveal that the band was lipsyncing, the wine is cheap, and the food was microwaved. Nobody wants that rubbish.

Unrelated contexts. We're not talking about a private gathering where the aim is to have a good time. We're taking about a public gathering designed to give companies the opportunity to market their products to the consumers.