FOR AUDIOPHILES ONLY
My mother was the greatest musical influence in my life. My grandfather built and repaired radios in the 1920s while my mother was the secretary to Edgar Berliner, president of RCA Victor Canada. Edgar was the son of the inventor of the electroacoustic microphone and the phonograph record, Emile Berliner. I "went audio" while listening to music from the womb. A few years later my mother enrolled me at the Conservatory of Music.
My name is Ken Presner. I am an audiophile. I also design high end audio power conditioners and high end audio accessories. For me, building a high end audio system is much more than a hobby. Music is a passion in my life. I went audio at a very tender age. Have you gone audio?
MY SYSTEM
COMPONENTS:
Raidho C1.1 monitor speakers
REL T3 subwoofer
PS Audio transport
NAD M51 DAC (soon to be replaced by a PS Audio DirectStream DAC)
Audio Horizons TP3.1 pre-amplifier with full mods
Atma-Sphere S-30 power amplifier with full mods
FRONT END (in series):
Dedicated power line for the system
Medical grade isolation transformer
My own DIY proprietary power condtioner
Monarchy power regenerator (for transport and source)
CABLES:
David Elrod Statement Gold and Statement Silver
power cords, interconnects and speaker cables
My own DIY cables using high-end Furutech products
ROOM TREATMENTS:
19 Schumann resonance devices
3 QRT Symphony Pro tweaks
4 Steinmusic Harmonizers with my own mods
2 Shakti Hallographs
Synergistic Reasearch ART with my own mods
Kemp QA and SR plugs
OTHER ELEMENTS:
A variety of my own DIY tweaks
AUDIO REVIEWS
THELONIOUS MONK
I trained for 12 years as a classical pianist, trying my very best to turn myself into a concert pianist without enough of a gift to make it a reality. While studying at the Conservatory of Music one fine day, Mrs. Kenton wanted to know why I kept hitting a wrong note, as she tapped my finger in reproach. I replied "it's my favorite note". Mrs. Kenton said I should have been taking voice lessons. I still have an abiding love for singing -- and for the piano, above all other instruments.
I have had the good fortune to see some great jazz pianists perform live, including Eubie Blake, Oscar Peterson and Dave Brubeck. I recently read Oscar Peterson's autobiography as well as a biography of Thelonious Monk by Robin Kelley. Something struck me about Peterson's book. I did not remember him even mentioning Thelonious Monk. So I went back and checked the index. I found no entries for Monk. But I remembered numerous references to Peterson in the Kelley biography of Monk with allusions to Monk's rising status in the 1960s and his overtaking Peterson in the DownBeat polls. I checked the DownBeat Readers Poll and found Oscar Peterson dominating it from 1948 well into the 1960s. Thelonious Monk never rated #1 with readers. Then I checked the DownBeat Critics poll. Oscar Peterson was #1 in 1953 and 1954. Thelonious Monk was #1 in 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961. Was Oscar Peterson jealous of Thelonious Monk? I decided to look further. How did Oscar Peterson really feel about Thelonious Monk?
I may have found the answer in a YouTube interview with Oscar Peterson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7yazIH4rAI
What first struck me about this video was that Peterson wasn't talking about Monk with feeling.He wasn't smiling and there was no warmth in his comments. It was all very clinical -- presented in the context of piano history. Peterson begins: "No piano history would be complete without mentioning Thelonious Monk". Mentioning? Does Peterson mean that Monk deserves only a mention?
Peterson continues, "He was a man who heard unusual harmonic clusters from the piano and he wrote these for various groups to play." Did Monk really hear "clusters" from the piano? Does Peterson mean that Thelonious Monk was not inspired to create compositions, that he merely transcribed "clusters ... for various groups to play" -- that he heard from the piano? And did Monk not compose for his own groups but only for "various groups"? I have an odd feeling about the way Peterson describes Monk. Was he trying to somehow diminish Monk's accomplishments?
Monk made dissonance musical -- and beautiful. This was an amazing accomplishment. But you get no inkling of this genius in Peterson's discussion of Monk. Peterson continues, "I don't count him [Monk] amongst the great players of the piano insofar as digital dexterity because he was much more pensive in that regard and he thought more of compositions and harmonic sequences. He came to us during the be-bop era and made it -- and helped to make it -- an important era of modern music ... his great donation to the jazz world ... this is Thelonious Monk's Round Midnight."
Peterson talks about "digital dexterity" being displaced by pensiveness. I find this an odd observation. If one is pensive, does that quality ipso facto put aside one's dexterity? I think what Perterson is politely avoiding saying is that Monk didn't have what it took to produce the lightning speed that he, Peterson, was famous for producing. Actually, a number of people who heard Monk play say that he could inded be lightning fast but that he consciously avoided pyrotechnics.
Let's look at at the hands of various jazz pianists, Oscar Peterson had huge hands with a very long baby finger and a reach of 11. Eubie Blake also had a huge reach. So did Dave Brubeck. Not so Erroll Garner -- who was self-taught and could not read music -- or Thelonious Monk. Monk's fingers were short and chunky and his baby finger was about half the length of his middle finger. Nellie Monk: "He has smaller hands than most pianists, so he had to develop a different style of playing to fully express himself." Monk's hands are similar to Erroll Garner's but Monk's hands were even more chunky. Garner also has a short baby finger. But the size of their hands and their short reach did not diminish the genius of Monk or Garner. These physical attributes actually made what they accomplished, creatively as well as technically, all the more amazing.
Toward the end of the video Peterson made a slip. He first stated that Monk "made be-bop" an important era. Then he "corrected" himself by rephrasing -- stating that Monk "helped" to make it [be-bop] an important era." Finally, Peterson introduces himself playing Monk's Round Midnight -- "Here is Thelonious Monk's Round Midnight". But Peterson's Round Midnight does not sound anything like Monk's Round Midnight (see the links below). It sounds like vintage Oscar Peterson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMmeNsmQaFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojtuDUbRoxI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yg7aZpIXRI&list=RDxC68NtEmAcc
I also found the Dick Cavett video interview with Oscar Peterson (available on YouTube). Peterson is amazing. He imitates the styles of many jazz pianists in conversation with Cavett. But there is no mention at all of Monk in the interview. Was Peterson avoiding the subject of Thelonious Monk or was he not able to imitate his playing style -- or was it neither -- or both? I have no idea.
Oscar Peterson did little composing. He was a superb pianist, arranger, stylist and interpreter. His idol and mentor was Art Tatum. In my opinion, he was the best of his era among those who followed in the footsteps of Art Tatum. He was a Tatum-inspired virtuoso. Monk was influenced by many of his contemporaries. But he was an original and many of his compositions are classics. While Monk never played the same tune the same way twice Peterson was very much in the opposite camp. Peterson and Monk were both great. But they were great in different ways. They were different facets of the same instrument.
Leonard Feather wrote about Thelonious Monk in Encyclopedia of Jazz: "Some musicians, notably pianists such as Oscar Peterson, have criticized Monk's technique and touch while acknowledging his value as a composer. On the other hand, pianist Bill Evans wrote of Monk: 'Make no mistake. This man knows exactly what he is doing in a theoretical way - organized, more than likely in a personal terminology, but strongly organized nevertheless. We can be further grateful to him for combining aptitude, insight, drive, compassion, fantasy, and whatever makes the total artist, and we should also be grateful for such direct speech in an age of insurmountable conformist pressures.' "
My theory about Monk's tragic decline is that it may have been related to his dental work. Monk may have been poisoned by his silver amalgam fillings. These fillings contain 50% mercury. Besides physical symptoms, there are many serious psychological symptoms of mercury poisoning, as Dickens well knew when he created the character The Mad Hatter. I have confirmed with Robin Kelley that Monk did in fact have mercury fillings.
THE DECLINE OF AUDIOGON
Audiogon offers a forum to the audio "community". In fact the forum caters to special interests. It allows "members of the community" to comment, but only if they do not step on any VIP toes -- i.e. the toes of manufacturers and advertisers. Audiogon is "moderated" with a heavy hand. Read censored. Many of my posts have been declined. I am not alone. Whenever I comment on Synergistic Research or Grover Huffman the censor is not far behind. Nor am I alone in making this observation about the Audiogon forum.
I do not believe Audiogon's reputation is enhanced by censoring forum posts. In fact, forum censorship and general incompetence at Audiogon, shown by the debacle of their site "make-over", have discouraged many people from participating on Audiogon. The effect has been to dumb down their readership. The results show this has done them no good. Over the years they have seen a steady decline in the number of visitors to their site. It does not look like this trend will reverse itself in the near future.
In my opinion, poor decision making is destroying the respect audiophiles used to have for Audiogon. This is undermining their long-term viability as the #1 high end audio site. It seems that incompetence, a who-cares attitude and just plain stupidity have become the order of the day at Audiogon. As a result, audiophiles are gravitating to other sites. The consensus now seems to be that if people could find a better place to sell their gear they would avoid Audiogon completely. Unless Audiogon can reverse this trend I believe they are destined to become a has-been audio site.
Here is a link to an interesting thread entitled Fraud and Censorship on Audiogon.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/fraud-and-censorship-audiogon-12326/
It includes this comment:
"I would never do business through that site [Audiogon], the owners of it don't seem to be real interested in keeping it safe [from hacking and fraud]".
"Finally, to rub salt into the wound, when I tried to share my experience [about fraud on Audiogon] with other Audiogoners, their moderators refused to post my comment on their forums."
Here is a link to an interesting forum on Audiogon.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1385244/audiogons-new-format/390
It includes these comments:
"In short, not only is the new Audiogon technically deficient, fraud is now rife on Audiogon, and they censor and whitewash their forums in an attempt to prevent their users from finding out. I would warn everyone buying anything from Audiogon to be wary of these fraudsters and Audiogon's completely useless "security" and general negligence."
Here is a link to interesting observations about Audiogon corruption and censorship.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/69405/audiogons-ethics-are-up-for-sale-to-any-bidder
It includes these comments:
"If you want to shill products on Audiogon, even in their forums, just pay them some money and they'll let you do / say / get away with anything you want. If someone questions the ethics of those shilling their products or the ethics of Audiogon for allowing them to shill with their full approval, they'll ban / censor that person from posting. By keeping those that want to expose corruption and promote honest business practices quiet, they maintain their leverage and income from those doing the shilling."
AUDIOGON AND EBAY -- DISHONEST SELLERS
I have bought and sold a lot of audio equipment on Audiogon and Ebay over the years.
My experience is that the vast majority of buyers and sellers are honest. But there
are always a few bad apples in the barrel. This is a short review of the bad apples
I have had the misfortune to come across. It includes two surprises -- Rick Schultz of High Fidelity Cables and Peter, the UK distributor
for Einstein Audio.
DISHONEST EBAY SELLERS
I purchased a quad of Siemens Cca tubes from this seller. One tube arrived DOA. The seller said I must have caused the problem. I must have inserted the tube incorrectly. I have been inserting tubes correctly for years, thank you. Or my equipment must have been faulty. My equipment is fine, thank you. He took no responsibility and offered no compensation. He happens to be Peter, the UK distributor for Einstein Audio.
cdsherman
This seller promised a refund for his B&K model 707 tube tester that arrived damaged -- and DOA. But he never made good on his promise after I returned the tester to him at my expense. To top things off, his messages were liberally spiced with abusive language.
DISHONEST AUDIOGON SELLERS
This seller's QRT Symphony Pro arrived DOA but the seller took no responsibility. It had clearly been tampered with. The back plate had been removed and replaced backwards, with the screws improperly screwed back on. The seller denied any tampering. He offered no compensation -- and no apology. And Audiogon refused to post my negative feedback.
Draudio
This seller shipped me a damaged Steinmusic Harmonizer -- one of 2 units that I purchased from him. The package itself was in perfect condition. But the unit itself was seriously cracked on one corner. Which means the unit was not damaged in transit. In fact, the seller admitted that he did had not even inspected the 2 Harmonizers items before shipping. He was reselling them. He took no responsibility and offered no compensation. And no apology. But he did offer a healthy dose of disrespect in his messages. He happens to be Rick Schultz of High Fidelity Cables.
Texasnissan123 (now banned by Audiogon)
The seller received my payment for his Jena cables -- but did not ship the goods.
HIGH END AUDIO
SYNERGISTIC RESEARCH REVIEW
It is hard to get opinions critical of Synergistic Research past the vigilant censors on Audiogon. Critical comments about paying advertisers and manufacturers are not welcome on Audiogon. But they are welcome here, where unfettered comments are omnipresent, where there is no one to kowtow to, and where there are no worries about stepping on eggshells or on anyone's toes.
Synergistic Research and Ted Denney, lead designer, have made quite a splash these past few years. Ted has been called everything from a pioneer to a hypster. Let's have a look. But where to start? His company brings products to market in such rapid succession that it is hard to keep up. And if you do, it is clear that you are going to need very deep pockets to participate in this fast-paced activity -- including the Synergistic bait and switch game with a trade-up program rigged in favor of the house.
What do I mean by "rigged in favor of the house"? If you want to trade up you need to purchase a product or products twice the value of the product you are trading in. You receive 70% credit on the item you are trading in. For example, if you want to trade up your PowerCell worth $5000 to the PowerCell MK I you will receive $3500 for yours but you have to purchase $10,000 worth of new Synergistic products to seal the deal. Well, you can see where this leads. If you then want to trade up to the PowerCell MKII and then the MKIII you will need to purchase a total of $35,000 worth of Synergistic products. And this is for trading up on only a single Synergistic product. Not surprisingly, Ted did not like it when I pointed this out on Audiogon. There are many high-end audio companies that treat their customers well with respect to upgrading and up-trading. Synergistic Research is not among them.
I find it interesting that Ted Denney takes time out from his busy schedule to monitor Audiogon forum threads -- and jumps all over anyone who criticizes his products or his company policies. Always vigilant, he is eager to spar with anyone on Audiogon. This hypersensitivity betrays a marketer intent on protecting his image in the high end audio marketplace, where what is said on Audiogon can make or break a product, or a company.
I hit a nerve a while back when I pointed out the stunning speed with which one version of Synergistic PowerCell power conditioners followed the next version to the marketplace. Ted came out with 6-shooters blazing saying the pace was not as fast as all that. Fact is, the-market is flooded with nearly-new Synergistic products -- PowerCells, Teslas, Tesla LEs, Galileos and Elements.
Synergistic destroys the resale value of earlier models and versions on a regular basis. Most trade-in/trade-up customers have to take a significant loss, or their yesterday's must-haves that have become today's has-beens go unsold and end up in the audio closet. For instance, if you had done a full loom of Teslas and then were faced with the news that your superlative-laden cables were no longer so superlative anymore with the appearance of the LEs -- and then the Elements -- it would have cost you a small fortune to trade in or trade up to stay in the groove. And we're not even mentioning all the other Synergistic offerings.
But, in my opinion, Synergistic has never produced a cable that even comes close to David Elrod cables. If I had the opportunity to hear some other high end cables that I have not yet heard (from Nordost, Shunyata, etc.) I might come to the same conclusion. In any case, having owned many Synergistic cables in the past I find them highly overpriced for the sound quality they deliver. I found that they are colored, they veil the sound and they are current limiting.
To improve the sound of their cables Synergistic adds tuning bullets, MPCs and Galileo MPCs. These enhancements massage the sound but do little to improve SQ in a fundamental way. Many users opt out or get on the trade-up treadmill. David Elrod cables need no enhancements to deliver a far superior sound. I have a feeling that some other cable brands rank as highly as Elrod cables. By the way, I am not affiliated with any audio maker.
But you may note that new Synergistic cables are always introduced with superlatives heaped upon superlatives. In fact, if you look at the copy that came with the Master Coupler it sounds like 90% of the same copy was recycled for the Tesla series and the Element series. Making small sonic improvements sound spectacular is how business is done at Synergistic. They are not unique in this respect in high end audio.
What about Synergistic accessories? Let's look at their Galileo interconnect and speaker cells? A couple of years ago these expensive audio investments were the cat's meow. You hardly hear about them anymore. They simply faded away. How about all the fanfare around Synergistic MIG couplers? MIGs can make a subtle difference, but nothing earth-shattering. How about the ART room treatment system? Reports indicate that it improves most systems. But we are talking about a $3000 increment that, despite the hype, is not a "game changer" by any stretch.
Despite Ted's claim of being inspired by Tibetan bowls discovered while he spent 3 years sailing solo across the south Pacific, I feel there is more to his story about his discovery and his epic voyage, given that Franck Tchang of ASI International was already marketing resonator bowls that are far more effective than Synergistic ART, according to compartive reports. Ted does not mention Franck Tchang or the name of the island where he made his discovery and he does not mention the monsoon season that lasts for 6 months with torrential rains and fearful winds -- not to mention typhoon season. Solo.
Let's look at Synergistic's latest offerings. Their XOXs resemble similar products from Enacom, Steinmusic and Bybee. So far, XOXs have received mixed reviews. How about the latest craze, Synergistic HFTs? Ted Denney announced them with a touch of grandiosity as "the culmination of my life's work". It looks like most people are happy with the sound HFTs produce. I certainly hope they are -- at $60 for each of these pimple-sized tweaks. Synergistic says you need to spend $1200 to $2400 to make the HFT system work. Plus a $1000 FEQ.
Synergistic wants people to believe you can turn an audio sow's ear into an audio silk purse at the drop of a Synergistic HFT hat, or several Synergistic hats, hopefully. Unfortunately, this does not reflect audio reality. It reflects Synergistic marketing. By the way, the HFT appears to be a combination of recycled ideas -- the PMR from HighEnd Novum grafted onto Franck Tchang's sugar cubes. It looks like Ted follows Franck Tchang's ideas very closely.
Did anyone notice that HFTs look identical to Synergistic ECTs except for the color? The price is also identical -- 5 pimples for $300. In their YouTube video Synergistic folks are seen merrily attaching ECTs on everything that does not move inside components without any A/B testing whatsoever. They say the more the merrier. I'm sure this is true for the Synergistic marketing department. I call this the ECT party.
And did anyone notice that the T in both cases (HFTs and ECTs) stands for transducer? And did anyone look up the definition of transducer? A transducer is a device that converts a signal in one form of energy to another form of energy. Like a microphone or a speaker. Does anyone know what form of energy is being converted to what other form of energy with Synergistic HFTs and ECTs? Just asking. Synergistic does not say. Since one form of energy is not being converted to another here, HFTs are not transducers. They are resonators. Advertising can be misleading.
To keep people on the hook Synergistic touts their "game-changers". These are Synergistic offerings only foolish audiophiles would dare do without. Recent Synergistic "game changers" include their PowerCell 10SE MKIII -- whatever happened to poor old MKI and MKII ?? -- Galileo PowerCell LE, Tranquility Base, Quantum Fuses, HFTs, FEQs and ECTs. I'm sure there are more "game-changers" in the pipeline. Just have your check book ready.
To encourage everyone to join the party, Synergistic offers a "Basik" line, covering as many marketing bases as possible. To keep people hooked, they talk about lowering the noise floor and opening up the sound stage. Have you noticed the talk about black backgrounds, blacker backgrounds, ink black backgrounds and jet black backgrounds? Have you followed their talk about the walls tumbling down and the sound stage getting wider and yet wider, and then even wider -- and taller and deeper? With even more "air" around instruments and voices -- and yet more to come?
There is never an end to it. Synergistic encourages audiophiles to never be satisfied with the sound of their system because there is always a lower noise floor, more detail and a bigger sound stage coming soon -- thanks to Synergistic. They feed a limitless audio addiction. Their products used to have long names. Now they have 3 letters -- an alphabet soup including XOTs, ECTs, HFTs, FEQs, MPCs, Galileo MPCs, UEF tuning circuits and, last but not least, special $60 fuses -- now updated to RED fuses at $90 each.
"In mid 2012 Synergistic Research entered the fuse market with SR20 Quantum Fuses and we quickly became the fuse to beat worldwide.
Never a company to rest on past success we began seeking new ways to elevate fuse performance concentrating on both conductor materials and new treatment processes."
For sure -- never a company to let even a blade of grass grow under their feet. One fuse after the next, one everything after the next. This is just the first bowl of Synergistic Alphabet Soup (SAS). There is lots more to come. Got your checkbook handy?
No one can deny you need deep pockets to afford a Tranquility Base under every component. The two serious models go for $2000 and $3000 each. In case that's beyond your budget you can join the party with the Basik unit for only $1000 each. Spelling Basik with a c would have been a no-no. How could you charge $1000 for something basic? That letter K is very clever marketing.
OK, now let's do some accounting:
4 levels of HFTs ($300 per set of 5): $1200
FEQ: $1000
XOTs (1 pair) $400
Tranquility Base $2000 (one under each of 4 components only): $8000
ECTs ($300 per set of 5): $1200
This is for only 4 sets of ECTs. But the Synergistic YouTube shows at least 2 sets being installed in a single component. So you may need 8 sets or more to populate your system if you put them inside each component.
UEFs are not included.
Galileo MPCs are not included.
MIGs are not included.
Fuses are not included.
Total: $11,800
If you add sets of ECTs and UEFs and Galileo MPCs and MIGs and RED fuses you will be looking at well over $15,000. And this is just for a very basic set-up of Synergistic accessories. It does not include any cables or components.
Can you afford to play the game? For example, talking about cables and components, it would have cost you $35,000 to trade up from the $5000 Synergistic PowerCell power conditioner to the MKI and then the MKII and then the MKIII -- for an incremental improvement -- and no more -- at each stage. In my opinion, the vast majority of Synergistic Research products offer no more than incremental improvements -- and at a very hefty price. So, of course, you need to keep searching. If you look hard you can find much better value for the SQ buck with other high end audio companies, IMO.
Assuming that Synergistic could get you "there" -- eventually -- and that you cannot afford to play the game -- let's be frank. How big a sound stage do you need? How low a noise floor do you need to connect with your music collection? Do you really need a new improved 3D sound stage every 3 months with the music wrapping around you even more than before -- with a new-improved wrap-around coming round the corner within a few short months? Do instruments float in mid-air at a symphony concert? Are you prepared to shell out -- once again -- when new improved versions of everything suddenly appear with a big splash on the Synergistic site a few months after you dug into you pocket for the latest and greatest that have now been relegated to the high end audio museum?
Once you have spent a lot of money on improvements and your system arrives at a satisfying level -- with a jet black background so dark that you think you may have gone blind -- with a sound stage so deep and so wide that you need a car to get from one end to the other -- with so much air around voices and instruments that you can hear all the jaws hitting the floor in unison when you power up for your audiophile friends -- do you really need to stay on the improvement treadmill to enjoy the music? Are you prepared to pay dearly for incremental improvements?
The math is clear. Let's say there are 100 Synergistic increments between your system and audio nirvana -- a conservative estimate for the endless Synergistic improvement pipeline, IMO. Let's say the average increment costs only $1000. Are you willing to pay for 10 incremental improvements for your system? Are you willing to pay for 20 or 30 increments? Are you willing to pay for 60 or 70 increments?
How much more do you need -- and how much will it cost you to get there, assuming you can get "there" with Synergistic products? And what does this eternal stream of new products have to do with music appreciation? Chopin and Beethoven did not go to bed worrying how black the background was and how wide the sound stage sounded. Should you? And how much better ... if only. Is the true audiophile in a constant state of dissatisfaction and agitation over his system? When is enough, enough?
Ted Denney's forte is marketing. Let's face it. You will not wake up one morning with him saying "That's all she wrote. We're done." There will always be a MKI and a MKII and a MKIII. Month in and month out, year after year, Synergistic has one of the longest lists of items on offer of any company on Audiogon. Many people are deciding enough is enough -- it's time to get off the treadmill and enjoy the music.
Do you think this review would have made it past the Audiogon censors?
GROVER HUFFMAN CABLES REVIEW
This is a testimonial about my encounter with Grover Huffman -- a well-known boutique maker of audio cables that offer good value for the money. Are Grover Huffman cables really as good as some people say -- and as good as the maker claims? Or are they just good value for the money? After being initially impressed with his cables I concluded they are good value for the money, but they are not great cables -- even with the addition of a special element, inspired by my suggestion when he and I were partners in 2013. More below. Grover's cables fall short because they produce weak harmonics. This creates inaccurate tonality and a thin sound. They also produce unimpressive sound stage and imaging.
In March, 2014, I started an Audiogon thread entitled "Grover Huffman or David Elrod". I stuck strictly to the topic of comparing the patented ribbon cables from these two boutique cable makers. All my posts were deleted by Audiogon. The gist of my remarks was that the patenting process and the ribbon design do not necessarily mean the result will be superior cables.
Both Grover Huffman cables and David Elrod cables are patented and both have ribbon designs. But Elrod cables are light years ahead of Grover Huffman cables in terms of sound quality. Huffman cables are simply good value for the money. Anyone who auditions these cables will easily hear the difference. It is not a subtle difference. While David Elrod cables are far more expensive than Grover Huffman cables, Grover would have people believe his cables can compete with the best. The truth is that they cannot.
Let's get to the main menu."Grover Huffman -- More Than Meets the Eye" was the title of a thread I started on Audiogon in Feb. 2014. It was about the "other side" of Grover Huffman -- the side most people do not get to see. Although there was nothing offensive in my posts the thread quickly disappeared from Audiogon's forum. It contained a post by an Audiogon member who commented that Grover Huffman was guilty of "plagiarism, at the very least". I will explain the reason for his observation.
In 2013 Grover Huffman and I were partners on a special audio project that involved the creation of a new kind of power conditioner that I designed. It used 2 elements that have been out there for a while in varous forms but that have never, as far as I am aware of, been incorporated into a power conditioner. It took a reluctant Grover months to sign a non-disclosure agreement. But when he finally did he was astounded by the results after he transformed my design into a working prototype. And then he started smelling opportunity. This story reminds me of the opportunity he smelled years ago when he partnered with Michael Wolff. After they parted ways, Grover was forced to state the following on an Internet forum:
"I have NOT co-opted Michael Wolff's coating, and will not be using his innovations."
I was not so fortunate in my partnership with Grover. Knowing I live overseas and that I have no recourse, Grover immediately co-opted my ideas. Although they have been out there for a while, Grover was clearly inspired by the work I had done and by the months it took for me to convince him to try out my ideas. Once he signed the agreement and was in the know, without consulting with me, he added a special coating to his cables based on my idea. He did not give me any credit and he did not offer me any compensation for the improvements he made to his cables. Since he was using my idea in a modified form, he said he was entitled to use my idea as he wished. He has recently stated that he has plans to incorporate into his cables the second element that I presented to him.
Grover was willing to share the profits with me that might accrue from the sale of power conditioners. But he stated clearly that he had no intention of sharing any cable profits with me, although he publicly announced I was the designer of the power conditioner that inspired him to take my idea for his cables. Not surprisingly, early on my trust in Grover Huffman came face to face with the reality of an opportunistic and unethical partner -- and a bully. I proceeded to extract myself from the project.
Although I was initially impressed with Grover's cables, my perceptions changed after the project was over and I had more time to audition a full loom of his cables in my system. The tonality, sound stage and imaging were suffering from a case of anemia. After I bought my first David Elrod power cord there was no going back. I sold off all my Huffman cables on Audiogon. One of the cables I sold was signed Magic Cable by Grover.
The "magic" was the addition of my innovation. Nevertheless, respecting my non-disclosure agreement with Grover, I refused to tell the buyer anything about the content of the cable when he pressed me for details about Grover Huffman Magic Cables. Grover emailed me that the buyer had contacted him for an explanation of the difference between his regular cables and his Magic Cables. On the basis of the name being disclosed to this Audiogon buyer, Grover decided to go public and breach our non-disclosure agreement by producing Magic Cables without attribute or credit to me.
Grover says he is now intending to take the name Magic Cables for his own -- with the intention of profiting from my work and my considerable investment. What I discovered with Grover was an eager opportunist and an unrepentant bully prepared to take advantage of a partner who was acting in good faith. He acted with a sense of entitlement, knowing he could get away with it because I live overseas and am too far removed to do anything about it.
Grover could not get away with "co-opting" (read stealing) anything from Michael Wolff because his partnership with Michael attracted attention. Michael was a known US cable maker, and he had a following. This was not my case. My remote location and the fact that I am unknown in high end audio gave Grover an opportunity he could not resist. He saw the open door and dashed through it without hesitation.
But there's more. Grover is a devout Christian. He cultivates the image of a moral businessman. He lets friends know that only good Christians make it to the here-after, and hell and damnation await those not of his persuasion. It just occurred to me. How can he take cable orders from non-Christians?Musically, Grover reminds me of the Louvin Brothers, forever singing about God and sinners. Lamentably, religion and hypocrisy often go hand in hand. Some Buddhists run to the temple on the weekend to "make merit" after indulging in mischief all week. And some Christians run to Church on Sunday after the week's shenanigans. By the way, some of my best friends are Christian.
I confronted Grover over his un-Christian actions, aware that hypocrisy was nigh. He stated he was not worried. He did no wrong and, after all, he and I are not going to the same place after this life since we are not of the same religion. So, he will not have to face me. He is presumably going to a better place because he has the "right" affiliation. Maybe. But I believe God judges our motives and actions on an equal basis -- no matter what our religious affiliation and no matter how fervent our beliefs. We are all God's children. I believe He is concerned with the truth, irrespective of religion. Otherwise, there would be only mockery. I don't believe God allows wrong actions for those in the "right" religion no matter how fervent and self-righteous the believer. I do not believe God is fooled by merit-makers or Sunday pietists.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked
for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Galatians 6:7
Ken Presner
April 12, 2014.
