Friday, June 17, 2016

AudioQuest William E. Low: Open Letter






Statement Analysis is useful for far more than investigations and vetting.  It is useful in personal discourse as well as advertising.  From analyzing Annual Reports, to short commercials on television or in print, we are able to discern truth from deception.  

When anyone makes a public statement, the reader/listener will have an opinion on whether the subject is truthful or is deceptive.  This is presupposed in all areas of communication.  

Here is an odd sample for analysis regarding a controversy in the world of audiophiles and sales.  It is useful for studying analysis, though its content and length warrant much more analysis than is posted here.  For formal training for law enforcement, private companies, security and psychology experts, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

We often use Statement Analysis to analyze sales techniques, and shift the paradigm of "need to persuade" very much so from criminal investigations but lesser so from employment interview statements.  There is an expectation of an advertisement of persuasion that is weakness in a sentences, but it does not necessarily indicate deceptive need to persuade.  

William E.  Low owns "AudioQuest";  a company that sells expensive cables and electronics.  A video came out from another company that sells his products, specifically showing dramatic changes when using their HDMI cables. Instead of a $7 cable, the video showed that spending a great deal more money led to instantly recognizable improvement in sound quality.

 Example : view here


The video was found to have been manipulated using volume and shown to be a fraud.  

The video was not on the Audioquest official website but on a seller's website. 

AudioQuest did not request its removal until a year later, when a blogger tested the video and found audio enhancements used for the purpose of deception.  The viewer of the video is left with the impression of just how marvelous the expensive cables work compared to generic or inexpensive ones.  

The owner issued this statement. 

Question for analysis is regarding guilty knowledge.  Specifically:  

Did he know about the deception yet allowed the video to continue to deceive the public in order to profit?  

An Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest


I.  The Statement
II. The Statement With Analysis 
III. Conclusion

"An open letter from myself and AudioQuest to the community

—to everyone who cherishes the truth, regardless of their opinions about audio and digital cables, regardless of their opinions about AudioQuest.


For good reason, there is growing internet “buzz” about the recently published findings of Mark Waldrep on his Real HD-AUDiO blog.

Mark’s findings are very relevant, and the implied malfeasance is extremely serious.

I was first made aware of Mark’s post this last Friday, January 22. I immediately wrote to everyone at AudioQuest who either is in contact with Home Entertainment by D-Tronics (the store in Texas which created and posted the video in question), or who manages that relationship, or is involved in any way with our communication with the world at large.

Home Entertainment was contacted immediately, and was informed that there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the video. We asked that the video be taken down, and that we learn everything possible about the production of the video, and that AudioQuest be given the opportunity to analyze the video ourselves.

The video was taken down—however, unfortunately, despite repeated and insistent communication from AudioQuest, neither the dealer nor the production house they used have provided us with the promised password and/or link to the video. Adan Garcia, the manager at Pollux Castor, the production house, told AudioQuest that he didn’t have time to look into our situation—so all we have is our memory of the video. If we ever are given access, we will no longer be certain that it was the same video as previously posted.
I have already waited too long to make a statement—I cannot wait any longer. I would much prefer to be reporting on AudioQuest’s investigation, reporting that either Mark’s results cannot be duplicated, or thanking Mark for having brought to light a serious misdeed. Unfortunately, without the video to diagnose, I can only openly speculate and describe my and AudioQuest’s operative assumptions.

Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”. I asked for verification that that there had not been any enhancement or manipulation. The dealer was contacted, and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration. Maybe I was an optimistic sucker, hoping too hard that the seemingly impossible was possible—after all, playing these cables into a flat-panel TV and listening through the TV’s pathetic built-in speakers does reveal obvious audible differences, but that this magnitude of real-world audible difference should be seemingly even more obvious in a compressed video was astonishing.
In any case, AudioQuest did not object to the video, though AudioQuest also did nothing to publicize the video—it was not done by us or for us, and AudioQuest did not itself consider this video as a promotional opportunity. It was not posted on the AudioQuest Facebook page or otherwise used by AudioQuest in any way.

Digressing for a moment: Back in the days when S-Video was king, it was delightfully easy to switch between cables and show profound differences in video quality, but as much as I wanted to be able to place ads showing this difference, it was impossible to take a photo which showed the difference. The problem was that the damage done by a lesser S-Video cable was dynamic, as is the viewing experience, so I accepted reality and gave up. I did not even try to show a representative simulation. Had it already been the internet age, I could have posted an authentic undoctored video which would have shown what so many clearly saw at CEDIA. At the dawn of the internet age, Component video cable differences were as obvious, but no YouTube and only dial-up—nah.
So here I am today, engaging in damage control. Until AudioQuest is given the opportunity to examine evidence which contradicts Mark’s findings, my operative assumption is that Mark has truly discovered a lie, and that Mark has to the best of his ability, broadcast the truth about this lie.

Whether AudioQuest will initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for the video in question, against those who have misrepresented AudioQuest, is yet to be determined. Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored. Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count. An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.

Credibility is always a most precious phenomenon. That many audio products, that many products in general, deserve skepticism is a given. It is a shame for AudioQuest and for the whole audio industry to witness apparent evidence of such deceit and misinformation. However, an exception, even if there are also other exceptions, doesn’t disprove the honorability of the industry in general.

My personality is such that I’m always crying “foul” over unrealistic claims, about representations of video or photographic differences which are obviously false, impossible laundry detergent claims or whatever. I have to close with a mea culpa for damping down my own on-record skepticism about the Home Entertainment video. I’m sorry for all of us who care about our separate and collective credibility.William E. Low
Owner/AudioQuest

II.   "An open letter from myself and AudioQuest to the community

Where one begins their statement is always important.  We must note that it does not begin with the pronoun "I", nor with a direct greeting.  Instead, it begins with the passive voice. The "letter" comes before "myself."  The statement does not begin with the pronoun "I", which, statistically, reduces reliability.  Expected is:  Dear Consumers" or something along this line, "I now address..." in some form, beginning with the pronoun "I", which psychologically puts the subject (writer) "front and center" in his statement.  

He also not only avoids the pronoun "I" in the introduction, but is writing as the owner, yet includes "and AudioQuest", so as not to leave him "alone."

Recall the study done on CEO's, emails, and the pronoun "I" in which the author concluded that "leaders don't use the pronoun "I", of which I agree, unless it is that they are declaring good news:  then they are "front, center and alone" in the letter; sharing the lime light with no one.  Bad news, as well as guilt, seeks psychological coverage, from childhood on ("hey mom, everyone was doing it...") and sometimes shows itself in bizarre manner (see Blackburn murder and the pronoun "we") as a need to 'spread out' responsibility and guilt among others.  

Note next it is direct to "the community" which then changes to a smaller group in the community:

—to everyone who cherishes the truth, regardless of their opinions about audio and digital cables, regardless of their opinions about AudioQuest.

To "everyone" who is then specified as those who "cherish the truth", which is something we expect to hear. 

Next, he introduces a qualification to the "community" who was then reduced from "the community" to "everyone who cherishes the truth" but he is not done yet.  He further limits his audience to even fewer:

It is not only those who cherish the truth, but those who do so "regardless of their opinions..." about specific topics:

audio and digital cables 

their opinion of his company. 

By doing so, he lets us know that his target audience is limited, but he also employs a tactic (in an overall strategy) that is related to deception:  the red herring. 

This is to take the focus away from the purpose of the video and introduce a different topic:  this is a heated debate between those who say they "hear a difference" in expensive cables and those who say they do not, and that scientific tests show no different.  Because the division between the two groups is intense, the red herring can be used to emotional appeal to a certain group.  Since AudioQuest sells expensive cables, he invites his audience to pledge their allegiance.  

This is a common tactic of politicians and it is used to incense, divide, and seek loyalty.  Here, it does so before addressing the main issue.  This is to show weakness of position. 

Since audiophiles argue passionately about this topic, often turning into heated, angry arguments, this is akin to a politician who, when losing the debate screams, "my opponent doesn't care for children!" in an attempt to:

a.  divert attention from the issue at hand
b.  emotional inflame supporters 

Since this is where he chose to begin his open letter, Statement Analysis 101 tells us that the beginning is the priority and often the reason for the statement.    



For good reason, there is growing internet “buzz” about the recently published findings of Mark Waldrep on his Real HD-AUDiO blog.

He introduced Mark Waldrep by his work, not title.  This is an incomplete social introduction and indicates a negative view of the subject towards Mark Waldrep.  Before using the name, he tells us that there is "good reason" for the "growing internet buzz."

Please note the word "growing" is present tense.  This suggests impact of the "recently published findings" that continues to the writing of this open letter. The subject does not show favorable views of the writer, and he indicates impact by "growing."  

Mark’s findings are very relevant, and the implied malfeasance is extremely serious.

The "findings" are that the seller (employee of his company) working for a retail seller committed fraud via video of the subject's products.  He says these findings are "very" relevant (noted sensitivity) and "extremely serious" but he does not say whether the findings are true or not.  

Consider both "very relevant" and "extremely serious" as his own personal linguistic choices.  The analyst, therefore, expects to hear consistent descriptions of the video by the subject, even if the wording undergoes change:  it should be similar and consistent. 

If you read Mark's article, there is no "implied" malfeasance.  It is openly stated.  This should be viewed as "minimization" on the part of the subject.  

Statement Analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say.  He next introduces the element of time: 

I was first made aware of Mark’s post this last Friday, January 22. 

Note that passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility. A straight sentence would be:

"I saw the video..." or "I watched the video."  Instead, he was "made aware" (passive) and he was "first" made aware.  This is to tell us that there was, at least, a second time in which the video was importantly noted by him.  It avoids telling us that he watched it, and this brought him to say it was "very relevant" and "extremely serious." 

The specific date is given as "last Friday, January 22."  Even if you do not know the date of the writing, the use of "last Friday" tells us it was less than 1 week prior to the writing of the letter. 

Will this timing of "first made aware" continue to show sensitivity?

I immediately wrote to everyone at AudioQuest who either is in contact with Home Entertainment by D-Tronics (the store in Texas which created and posted the video in question), or who manages that relationship, or is involved in any way with our communication with the world at large.

The word "immediately" is important.  Since it is an 'unnecessary' word, its use to emphasize timing.  The analyst should be on alert for a possible delay in the timing of his action.  Please note that he contacted "everyone" in his company, but he does not tell us what he directed them to do, if anything.  This is missing information.  Expected is:  I contacted every head of department and instructed them to demand the fraudulent video be taken down.  Instead he uses passivity again.  Passivity in criminal cases has "the gun went off" while avoiding responsibility for who pulled the trigger, or, "a person stopped me on the street and robbed me", avoiding telling us if the "person" (gender neutral) was male or female.  

Home Entertainment was contacted immediately, 

Here the passivity is used again, concealing identity/responsiblity of who contacted Home Entertainment, and when the concealed person contacted them.  

and was informed that there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the video. 

Note the soft language and passivity:

a.  "was informed" is passive voice
b.  "very relevant" and "extremely serious" findings are, at this point, only "legitimate questions" about the "veracity" of the video. This change of language is not consistent.  

He has still not revealed what he told "everyone" in his own company related to this part of his business.  He now changes to the plural use of "we":  


We asked that the video be taken down, 

Note that there is a change of pronoun from "I" (strong) to "we", which further keeps the identity of the person (s) who made this contact concealed.

Next note that the owner is no longer active, but "we" is assigned, and that they only "asked" and not "told" them to take the video down.  This is weak language.  The video uses fake volume (audio) to make it seem like his cable has given dramatic and immediately discernible improvement.  

Why the use of the soft "asked" here?

First, it is reliably constructed in a sentence, but keep in mind the difference between "asking" and "telling":  When one "asks" and is not responded to according to the request, the one asking is then able to shift the burden from self to respondent.  


and that we learn everything possible about the production of the video, and that AudioQuest be given the opportunity to analyze the video ourselves.

If he was told about the fake video and he knows his own product, why would he need to learn "everything possible" about the production of the video?  This is because he would know if plugging in his cable would show the results the video showed, of which he said were "extremely serious."  

If your product was fraudulently represented, why would you need to learn "everything possible" about how the video was made?  If you have clicked on Mark's article, you are told how the fraud was perpetrated. 

This is another tangent as a tool of deception.  Please note that time is very sensitive to the author, and this is a way of 'lengthening' the process by which, as they await an answer, the video remains influencing customers.  

The video was taken down—however, unfortunately, despite repeated and insistent communication from AudioQuest, neither the dealer nor the production house they used have provided us with the promised password and/or link to the video.

"The video was taken down" is also passive voice.  Remember, they "asked" and now the passivity precedes "repeated and insistent communication", which is to avoid saying they "told" or "directed" them to take it down.  

When was it taken down? 

Even to the untrained eye, this is to raise concern about delay and that the language of "asked" does not match "insistent" in communication.  

Note the emphasis is not upon fraud, nor is any detail given about the taking down of the video (except to Statement Analysis in which the passivity gives us some insight) yet, the owner of the company wants to know how the trickery is done.  


 Adan Garcia, the manager at Pollux Castor, the production house, told AudioQuest that he didn’t have time to look into our situation

Here we come very close to a "confession by pronoun" where he does not say that the manager did not have time to tell us how they produced the false video, but "look into" (which may be Adan Garcia's language) but he calls it not the "fake video" or "fraudulent advertising" or anything else, but "our" (taking ownership) and "situation", which is soft, minimizing language.  The fraudulent advertisement is not something that is deceiving customers, it is a "situation."  

Recall the softening language where a murder, for example, is called, "an event" by those with guilty knowledge. 


—so all we have is our memory of the video. 

He reports that all "we" have; but he does not mention the findings that he gave specific descriptions to.  

Since plugging in the cable showed a dramatic change in audio, would not memory suffice?

Simply put, cable A, the cheap one, sounded quiet and muffled, but the expensive one, cable D, was loud and clear.  Enough to satisfy memory?

This is just writing, but in the case of experiential memory, put yourself in the shoes of the author (Statement Analysis 101) where you see your product being deliberately inflated to increase sales. 

Would you struggle with memory?



If we ever are given access, we will no longer be certain that it was the same video as previously posted.

He does not say why this would be relevant. This is a clever use of the tangent form of deception:  it is how the slight of hand was accomplished; not that customers were deceived.  

Time continues to be sensitive to the subject (writer) which leads to the question:

How long did he 'allow' the video to remain up, so as to profit?

Does this now make sense why the word "immediate", as an unnecessary word, entered his vocabulary above?

This is similar to assaults where the victim lays bleeding and the subject says, "...so I immediately called 911" which, often in the interview, is where we prove delay.  

I have already waited too long to make a statement—I cannot wait any longer. 

Time continues to be revisited by the subject further causing the analyst to know that time and delay must be part of the interview process to get to the truth. 

Recall his "immediate" reaction above, and the sensitivity of time continues here with "waited too long" and that he "cannot wait" any longer.  

This is to admit to delay of waiting and the reason for the delay:  not being given the attention by a named manager and not being given the password.  

This is "need to explain why" with no former question of "why did you wait?" asked.  This should be considered a very sensitive portion of the statement with the analyst asking:

"Did the company deliberately delay demanding the video of their product be taken down because they stood to profit by its fraud?" 

I would much prefer to be reporting on AudioQuest’s investigation, reporting that either Mark’s results cannot be duplicated, or thanking Mark for having brought to light a serious misdeed. 

Note the avoidance of saying "Mark's results were wrong!" as he still has the "memory" of the video, along with others ("we")

The subject now tells us why learning how the trickery is so important to him:  he needs some 'verification,'  This further suggests delay and tangent.  

Unfortunately, without the video to diagnose, I can only openly speculate and describe my and AudioQuest’s operative assumptions.

Deception Indicated.  

The subject saw for himself the obvious and silly fraud as well as the test results.  This is akin, in analysis, to "slowing down the pace" of the statement.  It is a form of avoidance.  



The element of "time", including the slowing down the pace and delay, re-enter the language:

Backing up about a year, to when the video was created

Note the use of passivity again.  He now uses passivity not only about time, but about the creation of the video.  This will raise the question about possible knowledge (permissible) or even distant connection to the creation of the video by the subject, himself.  At this point of the statement:

It is not clear that the subject knew of its making, and would be guilty for allowing it to be created.  We need him to address this reliably in the statement via the RD (reliable denial), which cannot use the plural pronoun.  


—I saw and heard the video. 

This is a reliable statement and a good example for those new to Statement Analysis to see.  This is, statistically, very likely to be truthful.  In a criminal investigation if the subject makes such a statement and, in his own words, defends it by saying, "I told the truth", the statistics of veracity exceed 99%.  

We now are given insight into his "memory" which was "all we had" to go by previously.  We listen for words that show "experiential memory in play" within his sentences.  

I found the audio difference “unbelievable”. 

This, too, is reliable.  Note the use of the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the lack of need for qualifiers or adverbs.  

Finding it to be "unbelievable" is also consistent language with the first assertion he made.  Here, we find the reason why defense attorneys tell their clients not to speak. 

He saw the video and he heard the audible differences and knows his cables would not produce anything like this.  He knows it is fraudulent yet we now see the 'slowing down of the pace' again:  

I asked for verification that that there had not been any enhancement or manipulation. 

What need of verification would be needed?  He knows his products do not cause this.  He knew that he did not "believe" in what he saw.  What "verification" would he want?

Next, note the two words:  "enhancement" and "manipulation" as part of his vocabulary, specifically used here.  

He knows the video is enhanced and it is manipulative to the public.  

Yet, he "asked" (soft language) for "verification"; which is not necessary.  This is to avoid:

"Take down the video now..." and further delays action.  "Asked" is weak, in itself, but weaker considering that the subject owns the company and the products that were being used. 


The dealer was contacted, 

Here, the passivity may be that he does not wish to name the person to whom this was assigned: contact the dealer.  Why this needs to be concealed is not know within the context.  Does he know?

We do find passivity to be objective depending upon circumstance. "A rock was thrown from the crowd" is appropriately used when the subject does not know who threw the rock. 

Since this is a personal letter from the owner, the passivity is not expected.  It is, in Statement Analysis, to deal with the "unexpected" in language.  

Why did he conceal the identity?  He does not make us wait long for our answer:  

and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration. 

The company was assured.  Two points:

1. "Audio Quest" now removes direct responsibility by keeping the identity of who the communicator was concealed.

2.  "was assured" is passive language.  This conceals the identity of not only who was given this assurance, but by whom it was given, as well.  This is a common signal of deception.  

He saw that which his own product did which it cannot and did not "believe" it, yet instead of demanding it be taken down, he had an "investigation" and an "assurance" which he does not want to reveal any details of; which serve to:

Allow the video to remain in place. 

It is difficult to avoid a conclusion at this point, as we know see the deliberate obfuscating of information from the owner (subject) and now seek to learn if the company, including the subject, had any guilty knowledge of the making of the video. 

As engineers and scientists, they know their products and the owner knew (his word) that what he saw was not to be believed.  He now turns to an emotional (note the length of the sentence) for the purpose of arousing pity:   

Maybe I was an optimistic sucker, hoping too hard that the seemingly impossible was possible—after all, playing these cables into a flat-panel TV and listening through the TV’s pathetic built-in speakers does reveal obvious audible differences, but that this magnitude of real-world audible difference should be seemingly even more obvious in a compressed video was astonishing.

This is a single sentence.  

This is a general 'rule of thumb' in analysis: 

lengthy sentences= emotion
short sentences = logic 

Longer sentences often contain emotional components, while shorter sentences are consistently more reliable.  

Here, the owner found it not only not to be believed, but 
"astonishing."

He knew it was fraudulent and did not demand its removal, but opted for various ways of delaying its removal.  It is, therefore, very likely that the video impacted sales. 


In any case, AudioQuest did not object to the video, though AudioQuest also did nothing to publicize the video—

"In any case" allows for a differing of opinion.  That which he knew scientifically was impossible, he allowed because of being "optimistic" yet, optimistic about what?  
He already knew it was not true.  What, therefore, is left to be optimistic about?  This will further affirm the need to learn its impact on sales.  

Note that he, himself saw the video and gave reliable statements about it, yet it is only "Audio Quest" who did not object to the video. 

Personal note on passive compliance in fraud:  

A reader directed me to a documentary online where I was given credit I did not deserve, and another reader here was labeled her "country's leading Statement Analyst" The reader is not an analyst, nor, as far as I know, under any formal training.  As for me,   I did not innovate analysis; I stood and stand upon the shoulders of others.  Letting this go would be complicit in deception via passivity. 

It could also bring disrepute to the science, as the claim was the reader was trained or associated with Hyatt Analysis.  

Passivity lends strength to deception and is a tool of deception. 

There is theft and there is theft; there is crime, and there is crime. One robs the bank while the other drives the getaway car, yet there is still another who benefits from silence.  

Recall the dramatic scene in the "Sopranos" where the mobster's wife, laden down with expensive jewelry stolen from others, is told by a therapist that if she wanted redemption, she needed to leave the mobster, taking her children and running from his crimes, and sell off all the fortune she has from the blood of others.  The woman, in disbelief asks, "Aren't therapists supposed to be affirming?"  

The wife of the Islamic terrorist in Orlando aided him by passivity. She did not shoot anyone; she just chose not to report him.  

The business that allows fraudulent advertising to continue is stealing from their own clients.  

Here, the owner of Audio Quest committed fraud by the same passivity.  

He does not take responsibility for this; instead he shifts blame to the maker of the video: 


it was not done by us or for us, and AudioQuest did not itself consider this video as a promotional opportunity. 

What one tells us 'in the negative' is of elevated importance in Statement Analysis.  This is why the "thou shalt not's" are more easily recalled then those that are in the affirmative.  

He offers to us, without being asked, the answer to "Did you consider this video as a promotional opportunity?"

This question is not something an investigator or even a common reader would ask. 

What is the question that begs to be asked?

"Did you profit from the video?" in any form. 

He skillfully avoids it, yet, leakage tells us:

They profited from it. 

He does not deny saying they profited from it, and he does not tell  us that it wasn't a promotional opportunity. 

Instead, he only tells us that they, plural, did not "consider" it a promotional opportunity. 

This use of wording tells us that the video was a promotional opportunity that they aided by passivity.  

We still do not know, as of yet in this statement, if he, or the company, were involved in it, in any form, prior to or at the time of creation. 

Here, he admits the passivity:  


It was not posted on the AudioQuest Facebook page or otherwise used by AudioQuest in any way.

This is to 'let someone else do the dirty work' and in politics, it is called "plausible denial." 

In statement analysis, it is a clever form of deception.  It allows for "technical truth", while avoiding the internal stress (including lack of plausible denial) in direct deception.  It is "intelligent deception." 

Digressing for a moment: Back in the days when S-Video was king, it was delightfully easy to switch between cables and show profound differences in video quality, but as much as I wanted to be able to place ads showing this difference, it was impossible to take a photo which showed the difference. The problem was that the damage done by a lesser S-Video cable was dynamic, as is the viewing experience, so I accepted reality and gave up. I did not even try to show a representative simulation. Had it already been the internet age, I could have posted an authentic undoctored video which would have shown what so many clearly saw at CEDIA. At the dawn of the internet age, Component video cable differences were as obvious, but no YouTube and only dial-up—nah.
So here I am today, engaging in damage control. 

This, too, is tangent and irrelevant and should be considered as another delay in time, or slowing down the pace.  Note, however, that even here, the wording used:  An "authentic video" would suffice, yet he added "undoctored" to "authentic."

One may want to ask why this unnecessary word is added.  


Until AudioQuest is given the opportunity to examine evidence which contradicts Mark’s findings, my operative assumption is that Mark has truly discovered a lie, and that Mark has to the best of his ability, broadcast the truth about this lie.

This is the same as saying, "until someone shows up with a failed PED test, I will remain innocent" said by so many guilty parties in various way.  Think Lance Armstrong appealing to how many tests he passed.  

He identified the video as fraud, but allows for possibility that it is not, therefore, he awaits "evidence" that would "contradict" not only Mark's findings, but the obviousness of his own eyes, technology and credibility. 

The language, itself, in this one sentence, could take up pages of analysis. In short, however, note that the fraudulent video is now "a lie" in his personal dictionary.  It is no longer consumer fraud, but just "a lie", (singular).  This is minimizing language.  

Note his admission to what it was he saw against the language of "operative assumption."  

Note that there is the possibility, in his language, that Mark did not "discover a lie"; as evidence may change this.  

Note "Mark has, to the best of his ability" puts limits upon Mark's ability.  This also should cause the reader to ask what does he know about Mark's abilities.  

Note the unnecessary word "truly" discovered a lie, making the discovery a sensitive point to him.  

Please note the inclusion of the word "discover" in his statement.  This is not expected.  

Mark did not "discover a lie" but uncovered fraud.  This is, again, softening language which then leads to the conclusion question:

Why the need?

Why the need to minimize and conceal?


Whether AudioQuest will initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for the video in question, against those who have misrepresented AudioQuest, is yet to be determined. 

What might cause the company to not legally go after a fraudulent video about their product?

This, too, may lead to putting those under oath that the deceptive subject may not want deposed. 


Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored. Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count. An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.

He saw a video that he knew was fraud and that his products could not do.  Yet, he allows for the possibility that Mark may be wrong: he qualifies his repeated "operative assumption" (sensitivity) with two issues:

1.  Until "we" learn more
2.  Until proven otherwise

He allows for the video to be truthful. 

What does this mean?

Why would someone even allow for the possibility of proof to emerge to show the video to be true when he knows it is not?

Please consider the scenario of a missing child where the parent praises police for not finding the child. 

In most all cases, guilty parties do not like to indict themselves, linguistically. 

The subject has a need to leave open the possibility that evidence could arise to show the product (video) to be truthful. 

This strongly suggests that the subject is connected to the video in some way. 

By allowing for the possibility of it being authentic, the subject has made a platform for which he will not condemn himself. 

That "Mark is the good guy" is to show an unnecessary defense, which suggests that Mark has been demonized by the subject and the company prior to the statement.  One may ask why this would have to be. To the subject, Mark is the villain, who "discovered" (that is, searched until found) "a" lie, with the singular article "a" and the change of fraudulent advertising into a "lie."  

It's inclusion is unnecessary, making it very important.  This is akin to praising police for failure; the ingratiating that a guilty party does, upon the authorities.  

Lastly, we have in Statement Analysis the "sermon" where we often find projected guilt via sermonizing: 

Credibility is always a most precious phenomenon. That many audio products, that many products in general, deserve skepticism is a given. It is a shame for AudioQuest and for the whole audio industry to witness apparent evidence of such deceit and misinformation. However, an exception, even if there are also other exceptions, doesn’t disprove the honorability of the industry in general.

Note that which he saw to be "unbelievable" and that which he scientifically knows is impossible, is now only "apparent evidence" of deceit.  It is both "apparent" and it is "evidence of" and not deceit.  This is another distancing point separating himself from the truth. 

Here the sermonizing, which should be unnecessary, comes close to what is called a "Statement Analysis Confession" : 

My personality is such that I’m always crying “foul” over unrealistic claims, about representations of video or photographic differences which are obviously false, impossible laundry detergent claims or whatever. 

What he saw was only "apparent" and that only "evidence", but for others, it is "obviously false" 


I have to close with a mea culpa for damping down my own on-record skepticism about the Home Entertainment video. I’m sorry for all of us who care about our separate and collective credibility.

Statistically, the words "I'm sorry" exists in the case files of many guilty parties.  Long term readers of Statement Analysis know this to be the case.  New readers may use the search feature. 

Note also that the "I'm sorry" is discriminatingly given for only "all of us who care", which suggests knowledge of those who do not care.


Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

As goes the leadership, so goes the company.  When leaders are deceptive, rank and file fall into place via the managerial layers.  

Here, the subject is deceptive about his knowledge of the video, and his emphasis upon its creation opens the subject up to questions about both permissible use of the video and of possible connections to its creation.  

He ties himself very closely to the productivity of the video and shows acute sensitivity about the "discovery" of that which was concealed. 

Should an investigation of fraud be commenced into the company, the investigators will look to learn of direct ties between the company, owner, and the makers of the video. 

That the subject shows deception (via his need to explain) regarding both passively allowing the video to continue its advertising of its product and the delay in action, as well as the minimizing language, strongly suggests that the video was a success for the company until that which was planned was "discovered" by another. 

I do not know if high priced HDMI cables impact audio quality or not, but I recognize his need to elicit those that do, as part of his strategy of deception.  

The subject has guilty knowledge of the video's content.  

This is my opinion based upon analysis.  All parties are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Presupposition in Statement Analysis is that one is truthful and to be believed, unless one gives strong linguistical evidence to the contrary.  

36 comments:

tania cadogan said...

It was worth visiting the amazon site just to read through the reviews.
someone should do a book about some of the best and funniest reviews.

Anonymous said...

Yeh let's do a book on scam artists and call it "Shysters in Our World" or "Gypsies Amongst Us' or something. We will have a chapter on each of the following: Florists, Morticians/Funeral Homes, Greeting Cards, Mattresses/beds/pillows, Mental Health Therapists/organizations. Not to mention Used Cars and windows.

Sara said...

OT--For Peter and others following the Tsimhoni case (3 children punished/jailed for refusing to talk to/have lunch with their father):
The parties in the case have settled and custody is reverting back to the mother.
The Judicial Tenure Commission case against Judge Gorcyca concluded June 1st. No decision has yet been released but is expected before the end of the month.

Anonymous said...


so many times reading I realized the language echoed clinton,
and the language echoed bho.

thank you for providing the comparison.

OT:
watching, hearing the presidential visit to Orlando reminds
me of the promise to find the video inciters as caskets
returned from Benghazi.

Nic said...

If we ever are given access, we will no longer be certain that it was the same video as previously posted.

Peter said: He does not say why this would be relevant.


I can guess why. It’s a pre-emptive strike/argument directed towards any consumer who wishes to sue them. This “open letter” is more of a warning to anyone wishing to hold “ them" accountable for false advertising. Like Subway being sued over their “footlong” subs, not being a foot long.

Or the class-action lawsuit against Red Bull because consumers were disappointed the drink didn’t actually give them “wings”.
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13-million-2014-10

He’s basically telling anyone with an inclination to sue the company, that whatever video is produced in court, they have to prove was the one posted.


This is their PR strategy going forward, in other words the delay has been about strategizing damage control:

Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored.


I think the perpetrators in this case would be somebody who would attack his bottom line. (Consumer) For them to be sued over something like this would cause a lot of unwanted publicity, so that fire storm needs to be extinguished (censored) before it even starts.

jmo

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I would like to add, based on what I have read from William E. Low, I believe he thinks the consumers of his products are "suckers". That in my opinion, his proposed strategy to "prove it" if they go to court, isn't based on fraudulent sound quality, but rather on whether they can "prove" that the video in their possession is the original. In other words, he will accuse his accusers of doing to him, what they would be suing him for.

so all we have is our memory of the video.

Is this the same as, “and that’s all I know”?

When I read this, I became highly suspicious that much effort was possibly put forth to "erase" any and all existence of the video.

jmo

Hey Jude said...

I enjoyed your analysis, Peter. I had a go at it myself, but there is so much - it is difficult to sustain concentration for very long. I have only looked at some of it - even this much was exhausting.

'An open letter from myself and AudioQuest' - AudioQuest is the name of a company, which cannot itself write letters. That's similar to trying to spread responsibility through the use of 'we'. More expected would be 'An open letter from the owner of AudioQuest'.

'I was first made aware of Mark’s post this last Friday, January 22' - only at this point, where the fraud is publicly exposed, is action taken to have the video removed. The writer tries to create the impression that he then informed others in the company of the video's existence:

'I was first made aware of Mark’s post this last Friday, January 22. I immediately wrote to everyone at AudioQuest who either is in contact with Home Entertainment by D-Tronics (the store in Texas which created and posted the video in question), or who manages that relationship, or is involved in any way with our communication with the world at large.

Home Entertainment was contacted immediately, and was informed that there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the video.'


Those 'informed' were those who were involved with the dealer, including those who managed Audio Quest's relationship with the dealer, as well as AQ's public communications- it's unlikely that Audio Quest employees weren't already aware of the video - one of them presented it, which speaks to some level of company involvement with its production, or knowledge of it, at least.

Mark Walderp writes: 'The 6 minute video is presented by David Ellington, who is apparently a member of the AudioQuest marketing team.'

Low: 'there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the video'.

Passivity in regard to who was posing the questions - the writer has already considered the video's claims, presented by an AudioQuest marketing employee, to be 'unbelievable' - the legitimate' questions arise a year later, on Mark Walderp's blog, but the letter writer, rather than credit the 'legitimate' questions to the blogger, leaves open the possibility that they are also his own questions, only now made legitimate by the expert opinion of another. It creates the impression that while he may have found the video's claims 'unbelievable', any doubts or questions he may have had himself were not worth raising until a credible other's public questioning made them 'legitimate'.

'Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”.'

He saw and heard the video WHEN it was created - he also found it unbelievable. As the owner of the company, he did not object to an 'unbelievable' marketing video, presented by a marketing employee, and made by one of his dealers - it's difficult to find non-complicity in that.

His priority is that the video's fraudulent claims have been exposed - he addresses this before the fact that he knew a year earlier that the video existed, and that he had seen and heard it at the time it was created.

'The video was taken down—however, unfortunately, despite repeated and insistent communication from AudioQuest, neither the dealer nor the production house they used have provided us with the promised password and/or link to the video.'

Hey Jude said...

Here the intention is to present pressing concern on the part of AudioQuest, and to cast the dealer and the production company as uncooperative - promise breakers, dishonourable. Who took the video down? - passive. He did not say they did not send any password, just not the promised one. I'd be interested to know if someone deleted or removed the video from public viewing and changed the password, making it impossible for the 'promised' (correct) password to be sent. He further suggests dishonourable conduct by the other parties, thus: 'If we ever are given access, we will no longer be certain that it was the same video as previously posted.' Basically, he is saying it is the others who are untrustworthy. It would make no difference to see the video again or not - he already knew its claims were unbelievable,

'In any case, AudioQuest did not object to the video, though AudioQuest also did nothing to publicize the video—it was not done by us or for us, and AudioQuest did not itself consider this video as a promotional opportunity. It was not posted on the AudioQuest Facebook page or otherwise used by AudioQuest in any way.'

It is interesting that the letter writer disappears altogether from this sentence - AudioQuest is just a name, and as he says 'did not itself' consider the video as a promotional opportunity - a company name can't consider anything - only individuals within the company would be able to consider it as a promotional opportunity. It is reasonable to consider that it was not posted on AudioQuest's own Facebook, or used by AudioQuest itself, because to do so would be to openly perpetuate a fraud, while simply not objecting to the 'unbelievable' video was to passively enable it, to the benefit of 'AudioQuest' - the owner of the company would be expected, if honourable, to immediately object to a video made by his suppliers, presented by an employee, and in which false claims are made for his product. One also questions why a supplier and employee might decide to independently undertake such a production and why the video would be brought to Low's attention, if not for his approval. He appears not to have disapproved - 'unbelievable' is simply that.

Also interesting, Mark Walderp offered, a week after the publication of the open letter, to supply AudioQuest with a copy of the video, which he had saved.

---
I found this concerning -I can't explain why. Is there a threat in there? :
Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored. Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count. An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.

I think the owner knew more about the production of the video then he is willing to admit.


Nic said...

The video was taken down—however, unfortunately, despite repeated and insistent communication from AudioQuest, neither the dealer nor the production house they used have provided us with the promised password and/or link to the video.

I read this as, “The video was taken down, unfortunately.”

It doesn’t make sense (to me) to say, "However, unfortunately, “ The word “unfortunately" is extra wording.

In my opinion "unfortunately" is leakage. i.e., He was sorry to see it taken down.

This is my opinion based on my application of statement analysis principals.

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
'Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”.'

He saw and heard the video WHEN it was created - he also found it unbelievable. As the owner of the company, he did not object to an 'unbelievable' marketing video, presented by a marketing employee, and made by one of his dealers - it's difficult to find non-complicity in that.

His priority is that the video's fraudulent claims have been exposed - he addresses this before the fact that he knew a year earlier that the video existed, and that he had seen and heard it at the time it was created.


Excellent catch.

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
I found this concerning -I can't explain why. Is there a threat in there? :
Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored. Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count. An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.



No threat. It's their game plan. (See my comment re PR strategy above.)

Also, to acknowledge the "exaggeration" is good PR. There is no denial, so it takes the wind out of the "bad PR" sail. Similar to a customer service rep acknowledging a customer's anger or frustration. They could care less, it's simply about "managing" the customer.

jmo

mom2many said...

Among all the other great points, this also bothers me: "Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim,"

AudioQuest, in benefiting from increased sales through fraudulent marketing, is *not* the victim. The consumers who were duped and expected far greater audio quality than they received, are the victims. This one line puts the entire statement into perspective. It has nothing to do with addressing the truth, but about pleading victimhood, while ignoring the true victims of false promises.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for your comments, Nic. I agree he was sorry to see the video taken down - in addition to 'unfortunately' - he has only 'the memory' of it - that's what people say about a loved one who has died, or a memorable day - I'd expect him to say 'recollection' or 'what I can recall of it' rather than describe it as a memory.

Hey Jude said...

'Suckers' - The Ratner Effect. Buyer beware. :)

http://www.businessblogshub.com/2012/09/the-man-who-destroyed-his-multi-million-dollar-company-in-10-seconds/

Mom2Many - I agree. The 'victim' attempt is pitiable, (or 'unbelievable').

I enjoyed the Amazon reviews - presumably one can write a review without purchasing the product, or maybe there are quite a lot of well off people who are exceptionally good natured about letting themselves be ripped off. Fun to read, anyway.

Peter Hyatt said...

Hey Jude,

I read the myriad of Amazon reviews, too, and more reading elsewhere.

There is something to consider: "Expectation Bias"

When someone is told what they are going to hear ahead of time, via reviews, AND they spend a great deal of money, they are often "certain" they have heard or seen the improvement.

Some of the reviews show a "need to persuade" and there is, naturally, in all of us, a need to justify a heavy expense.

Then there is blind A/B testing to factor in, and this is not so simple.

Recall the wine testing professionals who were exposed as frauds in Wine Spectator Magazine, where millions of dollars are made on their reviews.

The wines they called "dish water" were switched with wines they praised, via labels.

They praised the "dish water" with terms one generally needs a dictionary on hand to grasp. Interesting, these were professionals. (those paid for what they do)

Having said this, for listening, there is a learning curve. If new amounts of digital data are converted into analog, it takes time for the brain to adjust.

Heather is the best example for me to cite.

She has mild adult autism which shows itself in sensory overload.

Listening to music in fine headphones was pleasurable.

When a new Digital Audio Converter was added, the same song, "Sara" by Fleetwood Mac, caused her to pull off the headphones after 30-45 seconds with feelings of dizziness and even a headache. "It's too much!"

The DAC was the Chord Mojo, who's owner has a daughter with autism. He and I followed the same path: just simple acoustic music, for a few minutes at a time to let the brain adjust slowly.

Today, Heather listens to complex classical music for hours, with the Mojo, and "Sara" is something she is enthralled with due to the wide soundstage and multiple instruments. Her brain adjusted.

In looking at the research, the science backs the digital to audio value of cables, but...the same science says that the digital signal either gets through, or it does not, and the thousand dollar cables are "snake oil" while the $100 cable is "only" better in that it might last more years.

I remain open to learning, but reading reviews is a fabulous way of learning!

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Nic,

your comments are astute.

When I began the analysis, unfortunately, I had known that he had allowed the video to stay up for a year but what I did not "see" coming was his need to tie himself to the production of the video. This strongly suggests he was part of it, although he can say truthfully that he did not aid in the production...that is, hands on.

No matter what reviews of any of his products say, I have studied deception for too long to ever purchase from them.

It flows from the top

Peter

Hey Jude said...

If he knows more about the video than he is letting on, then others within his company also know that he knows. He may not be too interested in having the truth pursued - I very much doubt he will be bringing a case about the video - I can see how he would prefer the video to no longer exist if it can be connected to him - it could be inconvenient that the blogger, Mark Walderp, has saved a copy.

I don't like the bit about 'the perpetrators need to be censored' - why censored/silenced? One wants to hear what the 'perpetrators' have to say in defence of making the video. Why should they be censored/silenced? The video no longer is available - the 'perpertrators' have already been censored in respect of making false claims about his company's product. What is it they should not be allowed to say 'until
we learn more' - we cannot learn more until the video is made available - he claims the video is not available. Could information from the 'perpertrators' not prove helpful?

'Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count.' Yes, they do count, Why wouldn't they? What is he saying here. Is it double-speke? Is he speaking about the contents of the video, or of his own knowledge of it?

'An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.' He is speaking of the video, or denying the extent of his knowledge of it?

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

Nic, I left off opining on why he wanted the video, but I agree with your opinion.

No one should be holding their breath about the upcoming law suit.

Can you imagine?

Peter


Boston Lady:

Big Papi is leading the league, at age 40, in just about everything. :)


Did you read his lack of denial on steroids and HGH?

It is the magical fountain of youth!

Peter Hyatt said...

Lastly,

I am encouraged by the comments in this thread. I have been very discouraged by some recent posts' comments but here, it seems that readers separated analysis from opinion nicely.

The comments are much more sober than in other threads where exaggeration on one hand meets butchering of principle in the other, to fit an agenda.

We let the subject guide us. When he said the video was taken down "unfortunately", I believe him!

Ode said...

OT - uploaded 6 days ago on YT

Title: Swedish woman has a message to all 'refugees'
Facetime Video, 7 mins

Her Truth by perception (hers or what she's been told ? or witnesses said)
or her words of warning are based on The Truth: https://youtu.be/BYBftECDyQ0

Hey Jude said...

I think the perpertrators are not the consumers - that would be like doing a Ratner, to suggest that of the customers? I think the 'perpertrators' are those who made the video, and who need to be silenced/censored in case they implicate the owner.

--

Peter, I am going to have read the Amazon reviews again - I thought mostly they were joking. Really, are they serious - can expectation bias and paying that much do that? Wow. :-/

If you put links at the beginning of the article, and we follow them, and also read your analysis it is 'contamination' and we are already biased before posting comments. I already had read at the links, and further, before I made my posts. I still enjoyed doing it, but I get that if we already have more than just the statement, we do. I would like for some more exercises where we just have the statement and no other information.

I have read about the wine tasters, and how in blind-tasting even connoisseurs prefer the cheap wines over the expensive.

I remember you wrote about the Mojo earlier - it sounds like something I would get for Mr Jude and then also use for myself, IF he used headphones for music, but mostly he does not, so I couldn't really justify the expense. Mostly I use Apple earbuds and listen to music on my iPad these days - it does fine for me. :) I am likely to be on the spectrum too. Sometimes I say (or more likely write) that I am autistic, because I believe I am, though I have not sought an official diagnosis - there is no need at my age, though it would have been helpful, especially for my kids, to have had confirmation in my first couple of decades - I would have made more effort to have communicated with them better, about more things, and more often. Autism wasn't a thing then, and was even less recognised amongst girls. Some people would think I am not on the spectrum because I do empathy, and (can) function well socially - I say they don't know much about autism in females, or high functioning autism. Mr Jude, (and others who know me well) is of the opinion that I am autistic, though I prefer it when he doesn't announce it. :) It is not a thing for me, it just helps explain some things. I think my father and my daughter were also on the spectrum, and that my sibling is, too - some things only seem or become evident in retrospect.

Anonymous said...

ot

She said, they said

Woman ‘Poos In Restaurant’, Leaves Bad Yelp Review, War Of Words Follows
Yes, you read that right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/woman-poos-in-restaurant-leaves-bad-yelp-review_uk_57515f1de4b040e3e8196e0b

Hey Jude said...

^^She doesn't say she didn't do it, just that 'this other girl' did. I dunno though, why should she have to make such a denial if it was not her - it's all so undignified. Plus there's CCTV, and both parties claiming it shows what each says to be true...as someone in some comments suggested, the establishment should have saved a sample and offered the girl to have a DNA test run. She would either agree or decline, which would establish the truth of the matter.

Nic said...

the perpetrators need to be censored

Perpetrators would "perpetuate" the story. One of them being Mark Waldrep.

Per:
"[snip]And there’s a representative of AudioQuest on the CTA Audio Board. I get booted from the board because I tell the truth but AudioQuest gets a pass for falsifying their ad. As one of their representative told me in an email exchange, “the truth is bad for commerce” [Editor’s NOTE: The actual quote was, “It’s bad for enterprise”. I went back and checked the email thread.]. So the solution is to cheat." [end snip]
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5540

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
If he knows more about the video than he is letting on, then others within his company also know that he knows.


His supply chain manager in charge of that seller would have filled in the VP at the very least. Supply chain managers are paid a base salary plus commission based on sales in their region. Their job, in addition to managing product to market (chain) is to create promotions for retail so as to have them increase sales of *their* product. There is more than one company manufacturing cables, they need to pass on incentives to the seller. High sales could mean free advertising dollars, promotions to help the seller bring in customers, etc. Athletic shoe stores are notorious for this sort of thing. "Sales training" teaching them the shoe's attributes and how to handle "objections", is provided by the Brand on site, and incentives are offered directly to sales' persons if they push their shoes instead of another brand. If that video increased sales, the manager would know and not only that, he would be rewarded ($$) because of it.

In my opinion, Low knew. If he is watching his bottom line and regional sales' (peaks and valleys) then at a high level he would know via his VP of sales. Not only that, the manager would have bragging rights, so all the managers would know. It would be shared at their weekly sales meeting.

If there is a law suit, the manager will fall on the sword and be sacrificed as "proof" he dealt with the person at fault for their lack of due diligence. Crap rolls downhill.

Nic said...

Re Amazon reviews, or any reviews for that matter.

It's illegal to post fake reviews.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-illegal-way-to-improve-your-rating-on-yelp-2012-2

Not that it doesn't happen

(You know what they say about two negatives.)

Nic said...

Hey Jude:
I think the perpertrators are not the consumers - that would be like doing a Ratner, to suggest that of the customers? I think the 'perpertrators' are those who made the video, and who need to be silenced/censored in case they implicate the owner.


Yes, but if there was a class action lawsuit (like there was with Red Bull), there would be media storm and the video would be front and centre again and again. I imagine they would threaten with libel as nobody could prove it was the original (in the same breath I don't think he could prove it wasn't, but he seems to think he could, i..e, he refers to it as a memory.)

He seems pretty confident.

Hey Jude said...

Interesting, Nic - I didn't know what the supply manager's role entailed - also, I see what you mean about a lawsuit. Amazon should have it set up so that you can only post a review if you have a customer or invoice number for the product you are reviewing. I'm surprised it doesn't and assumed it did - I'll have to try posting a fake review sometime, see if it will let me. Yes, two negatives make a positive - I know that. :)

Peter Hyatt said...

I did find several articles which debunk any digital cable making a difference, and no scientific data saying they do make a difference.

One magazine ripped Audio Quest's $21,000 cable.

Peter

Habundia said...

To nic and judy.....if a video is taken down, why would they have to need a link or a password in the first place? Video is taken down....so no link and no need for a password either because their would be no video left to go to if taken down...for me it doesnt make sence

foodiefoodnerd said...

Peter, as to interpretation: rather than "...first became aware of the video" indicating a second significant exposure, could he be alibi-building, trying to falsely indicate he hasn't been aware and allowed it to continue, for as long as a year?

Thanks so much for your knowledge and insight in here. I hope you got a lot of valuable and interesting information from your survey -- it was a refreshing change, and an honor to finally give back!

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks, fool.

There were some concerning posts where statement analysis is actually falsified, so I went back and addressed it. It is so wrong that readers may be reacting to an attempt at humor, but in any case, I thought it best to address.

I also thought it helpful for readers who are serious about learning to see the differences between the two groups. Those readers who went on to training are encouraged by reading their own, older, posts, to see how much they have grown. They are all surprised at how much deeper they were to go from anything they did on their own. They also grow from the peer-to-peer work, for many reasons but especially:

no one person sees it all at one time!

It is exciting.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Hey Jude,

Regarding MOJO,

one really needs expensive headphones or ear phones to appreciate it. The amount of data is stunning but with the apple ear buds (we have them too!), it exposes the flaws terribly!

Heather is not a world class Beatles' fan but she said this weekend that "Eleanor Rigby" was "almost too much" using Mojo and good ear phones. She said after all the years of hearing it, she never knew how many more instruments were playing before this hearing.

With stereo listening, I understand the same principle applies: one must have a very good stereo unit to enjoy it. We don't. We have just a small Bose blue tooth and the nuances are lost.

The new in ear headphones are as costly as the full sized, but they are, to my ears, now, just as good!

Peter

Hey Jude said...

Hi, Peter - I found the fancy Bose system we briefly had (inherited), too much - there was a lot of it, and the floor pounded - I should have persevered, but I found it was nauseating, like the audio equivalent of watching a movie in 3D - I find that like seasickness. Mr Jude had his eye on a new guitar, or a camera, so he sold it; he mostly only listens to music while he drives, and as I thought I hated it, it made sense to sell it.

I would be very content with my Bose iPod dock gizmo if ever I sorted out my messed up iPod - it gathers dust while I listen to music on my iPad or on a CD player, of which we have several, all just as cheap and cheerful as each other. I think I missed my chance to become more cognoscente with higher-end sound, has to be said - I just do volume instead, but only if I know and particularly like the music.