BlueMax

Wammer
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About BlueMax

  • Rank
    Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    near the sea :-), ,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TIU wrote: :DBeen doing that for years Nah nah na-nah na. Stop it guys! Don't want this thread closed now, do we? The mod do not realise that 'Dave the witty' and I wereonly playing. so I have deleted my posts. But my original comment is valid, ''It could take one or two prosecutions and heavy fines are to persuade not only RA but many others like him. As JB said "We are drowning in snake oil"
  2. Reports and challenges in the Guardian and the New Scientist did not persuade RA to mend his ways. ASA has no teethand I suspect RA will somehow side step them. It could take one or two prosecutions and heavy fines are to persuade not only RA but many others like him. As JB said "We are drowning in snake oil"
  3. I was introduced to 'perceived value' some years by The Institute of Marketing. Apparently the phrase was coined at Harward Business School. Thanks to internet, instead of me having to type it all up, I found this link: http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/perceived-value.php But some added notes: Tel and miller-8 are both correct. But 'perceived value' concept go beyond. 'perceived value' when expertly created will influence market forces. 'real value' is the 'perceived value' that a salesman create in the mind of the buyer. For the same product, a cleverer salesman can create a higher 'perceived value'. In either case, though the selling price may be vastly different, what remain the same is the state of mind that the salesman succeeded in taking the buyer to. If the salesman is an expert, he the selling price will be extortionate only to others and not to the buyer. The gullible buyer is so happy and contended under the 'magic spell' that there is no way he is going to return the item for a full refund.
  4. I thinkpeople in hi-fi forums and Wammers in particularare being a wee bit unfair on Russie and thatmagthat promotes his wares. Look at it this way. Those mains cables can be put together for a tenner by anyone who knows how to use a screw driver and wire up a plug. That being the case, our Russie is faced with the not-so-easy task of selling his cables at extortionate prices. Knowing fully well that hi-fi is very subjective, he creates an illusion to increase the perceived value of the product (as opposed to the real value). He is so good at it that he can even give a money-back guarantee to the gullible buyer living in the make belief world conjured up by Russie, the magician. Now whats wrong with that? PS In case I failed to convince any of you to go to Russie and pay up, try the thread below. HiFi WigWam - HiFi Forum > All things HiFI and AV > DIY > DIY Resources http://www.hifiwigwam.com/view_topic.php?id=183&forum_id=19
  5. Miller-8 wrote: They are both well and truly rattled. Paraniod even! Aren't theysupposed to beprofessional journalists and senior execs. One would have thought that theyare capable of tackling it better. As it stands their retorts and reactions are poor PR.Reflects badly on WHF. Glad that I am not a shareholder of Haymarket Publishing.
  6. Is RA in bed with Hi-Fi News also?! RA was challenged by the New Scientist last year after his 'cable directionality' claim in the Hi-Fi News magazine. "Yes, it is a statement of fact," the writer assured us. "Directionality is observable by listening test and measurable with test equipment. Regrettably, I am not at liberty to quote the measurements or their origin." :lol: New Scientist magazine, issue 2588, 27 January 2007, page 96 http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg19325882.500
  7. s2000db wrote: A Professor of Acoustics is not qualified? How could anyone be a Professor of Acoustics without knowing quite a lot about electrical engineering also? Russie is up to his tricks again. We all know about paying an 'expert'. If the investigation is not done independently IT MEANS NOTHING. Besides, one simply can not change the Laws of Physics. The Guardian Challenge, "If this isn't just a £30 kettle lead, I'll eat my hat" was made two years ago. Why did Russie fail to take that up?
  8. TIU wrote: So did I I am going to test the integrity of WHFand make a post at their forum, this evening.Similar to the one here. If they don't like it they can delete it on Monday morning, after everyone else had a chance to read it. Now the term witch-hunt springs to mind. What has WHF or its writers who you've never met (I presume) done to upset you? I don't get it. No! get those witch-hunt thoughts out of your mind! And no one said anything about WHF or its writers having done anything to upset me. LOL. For a simple explanation, scroll up and read my post about "How will the hi-fi press handle this development?" and responses. It is clear that some people are not happy about response by WHF so far. I am doing them a favour if anything by giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their integrity.
  9. Miller-8 wrote: So did I I am going to test the integrity of WHFand make a post at their forum, this evening.Similar to the one here. If they don't like it they can delete it on Monday morning, after everyone else had a chance to read it.
  10. How will the hi-fi press handle this development? Will they close ranks and try and sweep it under the carpet or will any of them alert their readership of this type of goings on? It will be re-assuring to see them report it at least as a news item!
  11. 2008 Grammy Award Nominees include these SACDs: Grechaninov: Passion Week (Chandos Records CHSA 5044) [sACD] Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 5; Fantasia On A Theme by Thomas Tallis; Serenade To Music (Telarc SACD-60676) [sACD] In 2007, a Grammy Award Winner was the Surround Sound SACD edition of Genius Loves Company by Ray Charles (Concord Records/Hear Music SACD-1033-6). I haven't listened to any of these but posted hereafter seeing the interest in VW.