Bill's Cables - Further Action and Recourse Procedure

[El Tel]

"Western Electric" Speaker Cable 1 deconstructed:

 

 

Cable 2 after deconstruction:

 

The whole dog's breakfast:

 

Wow.

 

Offered for further evidence. I already shared pics of one "WE" RCA interconnect I deconstructed with @parrasaw directly. I intend to do an autopsy on the last 2 sets of cables (one other "WE" RCA pair and a pair of "WE" XLRs) in the next few days but can only assume the same platter of deceptive delicacies await.

 

I also paid for and never received a second pair of "WE" XLRs.

 

I'm out to the tune of about $1,450. My sanity and mental health preclude me from joining the QCAT train. I apologise for not seeing this through, but I just can't.

 

I feel pretty ****ing stupid.

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by El Tel

[AN AUSSIE AUDIOPHILE]

2 hours ago, El Tel said:

"Western Electric" Speaker Cable 1 deconstructed:

 

 

Cable 2 after deconstruction:

 

The whole dog's breakfast:

 

Wow.

 

Offered for further evidence. I already shared pics of one "WE" RCA interconnect I deconstructed with @parrasaw directly. I intend to do an autopsy on the last 2 sets of cables (one other "WE" RCA pair and a pair of "WE" XLRs) in the next few days but can only assume the same platter of deceptive delicacies await.

 

I also paid for and never received a second pair of "WE" XLRs.

 

I'm out to the tune of about $1,450. My sanity and mental health preclude me from joining the QCAT train. I apologise for not seeing this through, but I just can't.

 

I feel pretty ****ing stupid.

 

 

 

I think we all feel a little silly in the way we've all been caught up in this. But we can only take Mr Cochranes word and assurance that what he was providing was genuine when clearly now it looks like it was not. Nobody is obligated to do anything in regards to this matter. I for one appreciate your pictures and feedback. This only strengthens the case against Mr Cochrane for the members that are moving forward with the QCAT case.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Shane Stephenson

[parrasaw]

51 minutes ago, El Tel said:

"Western Electric" Speaker Cable 1 deconstructed:

 

 

Cable 2 after deconstruction:

 

The whole dog's breakfast:

 

Wow.

 

Offered for further evidence. I already shared pics of one "WE" RCA interconnect I deconstructed with @parrasaw directly. I intend to do an autopsy on the last 2 sets of cables (one other "WE" RCA pair and a pair of "WE" XLRs) in the next few days but can only assume the same platter of deceptive delicacies await.

 

I also paid for and never received a second pair of "WE" XLRs.

 

I'm out to the tune of about $1,450. My sanity and mental health preclude me from joining the QCAT train. I apologise for not seeing this through, but I just can't.

 

I feel pretty ****ing stupid.

 

 

 

Hello Tel.

1. Thank you for the material which you posted which only strengthens the case which will be brought to the attention of the Referee at QCAT.

2. I (and I'm sure other members) will think that not only you have made the right decision for the circumstances which you outlined, but also that it takes a strong person to let others know the reasons for your decision making.

3. The deceitful person who has been the cause of all of this has caused financial, mental and emotional strain for every person who has been affected, and that is a prime reason why so many people are committed to taking action with QCAT.

4.  Nobody, I repeat NOBODY who has been scammed by Mr Cochrane should feel "silly", "stupid" or any other similar emotion. Honest, decent people with integrity are all in the same boat in this matter, and NONE of them should feel any negative emotion about themselves simply because of the actions of a dishonest person.

5. Tel, your time, trouble and the information which you have posted, has made a really important contribution to the sum of information which is being put together for the Tribunal please accept a sincere and heartfelt thank you. And the same thanks also to others who have posted information purely out of a desire to assist those who are lodging QCAT applications.

6. We will ensure that QCAT is left in no doubt that the applications which they have actually received represent only a portion of those which may have been lodged, and we will certainly be asking if anything can be done for several people who are in a similar position to you - all of whom have legitimate claims but who for one reason or another have been unable to lodge a claim.

7. I have just read Shane's posting - as I thought, your efforts and your decisions are appreciated, supported and respected by your fellow members on SNA, as are the decisions which are taken by all others who are affected in this matter.

 

My respect and  best wishes, Paul. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by parrasaw
Clarification

[pplater]

Just a thought here, lads (and lasses?): anyone joining the QCAT train may want to read back on their posts, their communications with Mr Cochrane or their communications with other members to see whether they spoke in glowing terms about the sonic benefits they derived from installing Bill’s Cables into their systems. Such details are certain to be offered defensively. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

[PMAAMP]

23 minutes ago, pplater said:

Just a thought here, lads (and lasses?): anyone joining the QCAT train may want to read back on their posts, their communications with Mr Cochrane or their communications with other members to see whether they spoke in glowing terms about the sonic benefits they derived from installing Bill’s Cables into their systems. Such details are certain to be offered defensively. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

 

Yes, I have definitely scored that "own goal". And, it has given me a great deal of pause all weekend about proceeding with a QCAT application. As well, adding to my own sense of feeling like a real plonker ($900 deep, and having heard what I wanted to hear when putting the cables into my system?). It has been, and continues to be, a chastening experience indeed.

[El Tel]

21 minutes ago, pplater said:

Just a thought here, lads (and lasses?): anyone joining the QCAT train may want to read back on their posts, their communications with Mr Cochrane or their communications with other members to see whether they spoke in glowing terms about the sonic benefits they derived from installing Bill’s Cables into their systems. Such details are certain to be offered defensively. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

 

A good point. Forewarned/forearmed etc. However, I honestly think any such glowing comments could well be treated obiter dictum. The product performance is divorced from the product specifications promised. I am sure this is an area where @parrasaw will be already "all over it like a cheap suit".

 

When viewed in the light of how people may have compared their new cables versus old and tired cables, perhaps with oxidation issues and so forth (see: https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/553090-speaker-cable-resurrection/?do=getNewComment), I feel that any "references" could be easily put into their appropriate perspective. I thought my "WE" speaker cables were great compared to what I had before, but only until I went through the actions in the link supplied.

 

I wish you all the very best of luck in pursuing this to a just and satisfactory end. I will take my own compensation from seeing exactly that happen.

 

[vinilink]

In my earlier post with the photos of so called "WE" cable, which clearly isn't from my personal observation and from one another member (much appreciated for sharing his in depth knowledge) via PM.  I will just bite my tongue and swallow $150 which I paid for. At least, I can use the RCA connectors for my future IC cables.

Hope to hear you guys get happy outcome from QCAT for the losses. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by vinilink

[parrasaw]

2 hours ago, pplater said:

Just a thought here, lads (and lasses?): anyone joining the QCAT train may want to read back on their posts, their communications with Mr Cochrane or their communications with other members to see whether they spoke in glowing terms about the sonic benefits they derived from installing Bill’s Cables into their systems. Such details are certain to be offered defensively. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

Thanks @pplater

The "issue" raised in this comment has been discussed amongst some of those who are affected by this matter. Quite a lot of people sent Mr Cochrane positive comments about his cables.

I sent Mr Cochrane a positive message, when I received a pair of Canare 411S speaker cables, with banana plugs, which replaced older cables (which probably had a bit of oxidation at the end of the cables, and around the speaker terminals etc.)

My wife and I heard discernible improvements in the system, and I messaged Mr Cochrane to that effect.

But.....I received (as far as I am aware) exactly what I paid a reasonable price for, and exactly what Mr Cochrane said that he was sending to me.

The people who bought Mr Cochrane's WE and Pinnacle cables did NOT receive what they paid a premium price to obtain, and that is the crux of the matter. Whatever opinions any of those people sent to Mr Cochrane, or posted more publicly does not reduce their claims under Australian Consumer Law, (ACL) or justify the deceitful and fraudulent behaviour which was perpetrated by Mr Cochrane.

Other people received faulty cables , while others paid premium prices for products, but received nothing - neither cable or a refund. All "major problems" as defined by the ACCC.

 

Nevertheless, it is a point which may well come up at the Tribunal, so thank you for making sure that we are aware of that possibility. If it is raised by Mr Cochrane, he cannot honestly make any sort of a claim which disputes the simple and indisputable fact that his actions breached ACL in numerous ways.      

2 hours ago, PMAAMP said:

 

Yes, I have definitely scored that "own goal". And, it has given me a great deal of pause all weekend about proceeding with a QCAT application. As well, adding to my own sense of feeling like a real plonker ($900 deep, and having heard what I wanted to hear when putting the cables into my system?). It has been, and continues to be, a chastening experience indeed.

It is only natural to have a deep think about the matter, and wonder how one could have been scammed, but definitely NOT and "own goal".

Decent , honest people get scammed around Australia on a daily basis, and the fact that they are decent, honest people who could not do to other people what they find out later has been done to them , is something which scammers rely upon.

The  science  and art of sound reproduction (particularly music) is such a complex matter, with such individual variations which occur between what person "hears" compared to what another person "hears" when listening to the same bit of music being reproduced on the same equipment, that there are few hard and fast "facts" about which there will not be differences of opinion.

That seems to apply to debates about cables as much, or possibly more, as in any other area of music reproduction

 

Hmmm. 

As I wrote elsewhere earlier today - if a person has been scammed by Mr Cochrane, whether an individual wishes to join the action which is being taken at QCAT is a matter for that person to decide for themselves, but one thing is certain.

NOBODY who was scammed by Mr Cochrane should feel in any way foolish, gullible (or any other similar word).

As an honest person, that person has been deceived. That's it, and there is no reason for anyone to feel like a "plonker" (or similar) because that has happened to them, because that could have happened to any one of us 

Edited August 15, 2022 by parrasaw

[Bengineer]

On 14/08/2022 at 1:19 PM, Marc said:

Snip

Sorry to see Marc. I don't recognise any of those conductors as those from typical speaker / interconnect cabling. I believe they would be from bulk electrical cable, and I would imagine he used that to bulk out the feel and weight for his "expensive" line, and obviously cost, its fairly cheap.

 

If you want to salvage the sleeving / connectors I can fashion it into something using speaker cable for you. Mogami 12awg quad, trusty ol' Canare 4S11 or even Furutech.

[Marc]

57 minutes ago, Bengineer said:

Sorry to see Marc. I don't recognise any of those conductors as those from typical speaker / interconnect cabling. I believe they would be from bulk electrical cable, and I would imagine he used that to bulk out the feel and weight for his "expensive" line, and obviously cost, its fairly cheap.

 

If you want to salvage the sleeving / connectors I can fashion it into something using speaker cable for you. Mogami 12awg quad, trusty ol' Canare 4S11 or even Furutech.

 

Thanks for the information and your generous offer which I appreciate. I've assembled more than a fair share of cables over the past 20+ years and other than knowledge and experience in the cable itself, the labour itself just ain't that hard. My entire home cinema was cabled and terminated by myself with custom looms etc.

 

I only purchased these because 1. they were getting great feedback on here and wanted to support a "sponsor". 2. I wanted to hear WE cable for myself given its rarity these days. I should have known better. I've salvaged what I can from them already to use when I go through a cable making phase again one day.

[Bengineer]

Did some digging from last year.

 

Here is Bills WE. It is unclear if he just reposted a image from Carousell.sg seller "Al Sim" to try and show he had some WE. Or if he did in fact purchase that lot (for next to nothing) and was just sharing the image to say that.

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Bengineer

[parrasaw]

*****     TWO IMPORTANT MATTERS. *****

 

1. Could all of those members who are considering taking action about their purchases of "Bill's cables" please attempt to commence their action (by sending the appropriate Forms to QCAT) as soon as possible ie this week if at all possible.

The chances of success for each person who is affected in this matter is improved by each person being a party to a collective action, and this is what we are trying to achieve.

Some people have received their Forms back from QCAT, and they have served Mr Cochrane with notice of the action which has been commenced, so we want all others, who are planning to join the action, to get step 1 (sending their Forms to QCAT) to do so asap (this week if at all possible). 

 

Please note: if you purchased any of Bill's more expensive cables, unfortunately you probably did not receive a cable which matched his description. This is certainly the case for his WE and Pinnacle cables, of all types.

 

2. On behalf of all of those members who have been affected by this matter, may I express my thanks to all of the other members who are not affected, but who are offering their support in many ways, including very tangible support.

Only a short while ago this afternoon, I received a PM from a long term member, who  had taken the time to do his research, and was thus able to provide information which is likely to be shown to be invaluable when it comes to the Tribunal hearing. The details will be made known in the near future, to those who have lodged, or who are lodging, applications with QCAT.

 

To that member, and to all of the other members who are giving their moral and other support to affected members..... Thank you!

Your support is valued and appreciated!

[Unsound]

Hi All,

 

I posted earlier about my "WE REL High Line Cable", which is simply Canare 4S11.

 

We all feel a bit silly by being scammed, but it was a deliberate and calculated act by someone who sought to deceive and probably make a financial gain by the deception.

 

In my humble opinion, I don't think it really matters if you heard, perceived you heard, or did not hear any "improvement" and whether you passed this opinion onto Mr Chochrane, shared this opinion with others or not, the simple fact is that he engaged in False and Misleading Conduct under the Trade Practices Act - he did not supply what you believed you were purchasing.

 

He may attempt to mitigate any damages by claiming that people actually achieved "improvements", despite receiving a different/inferior product, but it does not erase the fact that he deliberately supplied a different product to which the purchaser believed that they were receiving and which was different to the product defined in the "contract" which was jointly entered into (offer, acceptance and consideration).

 

Depending on the size of the claim(s), I suspect he may seek Bankruptcy protection?

 

Anyway, some grist to the mill....

 

Good luck to the QCAT applicants!

 

Cheers,

 

M

[AN AUSSIE AUDIOPHILE]

2 hours ago, Unsound said:

Hi All,

 

I posted earlier about my "WE REL High Line Cable", which is simply Canare 4S11.

 

We all feel a bit silly by being scammed, but it was a deliberate and calculated act by someone who sought to deceive and probably make a financial gain by the deception.

 

In my humble opinion, I don't think it really matters if you heard, perceived you heard, or did not hear any "improvement" and whether you passed this opinion onto Mr Chochrane, shared this opinion with others or not, the simple fact is that he engaged in False and Misleading Conduct under the Trade Practices Act - he did not supply what you believed you were purchasing.

 

He may attempt to mitigate any damages by claiming that people actually achieved "improvements", despite receiving a different/inferior product, but it does not erase the fact that he deliberately supplied a different product to which the purchaser believed that they were receiving and which was different to the product defined in the "contract" which was jointly entered into (offer, acceptance and consideration).

 

Depending on the size of the claim(s), I suspect he may seek Bankruptcy protection?

 

Anyway, some grist to the mill....

 

Good luck to the QCAT applicants!

 

Cheers,

 

M

And that is the only reason we need to get our money back.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Shane Stephenson

[pplater]

1 hour ago, Unsound said:

In my humble opinion, I don't think it really matters if you heard, perceived you heard, or did not hear any "improvement" and whether you passed this opinion onto Mr Chochrane, shared this opinion with others or not, the simple fact is that he engaged in False and Misleading Conduct under the Trade Practices Act - he did not supply what you believed you were purchasing.

 

He may attempt to mitigate any damages by claiming that people actually achieved "improvements", despite receiving a different/inferior product, but it does not erase the fact that he deliberately supplied a different product to which the purchaser believed that they were receiving and which was different to the product defined in the "contract" which was jointly entered into (offer, acceptance and consideration).

 

Without meaning to be in the least disrespectful or controversial - just being Devil’s Advocate, really - the only opinion that will really matter is the opinion of High Court judges. Their opinions are ultimately binding on QCAT (and other Australian courts/tribunals, for that matter). Those opinions have been expressed at length and in exquisite language in cases such as Wardley Australia Ltd -v- Western Australia, Marks -v- GIO and others. They talk of the ‘measure of damage’; what should be awarded to a claimant seeking damages for misleading and deceptive conduct.  It  is not entirely straightforward. 

Imagine one scenario:

Judge: “I find that you were misled and deceived. You are entitled to damages. I will now assess your loss. What did you intend to purchase?”

Claimant: “I thought I was paying for cables that would produce an appreciable improvement to my (already high end) listening experience “

Judge: “What would you expect to pay for that?”

Claimant: “Some cables delivering that kind of uplift might cost $X”

Judge: “And how much did you pay Bill’s Cables?”

Claimant: “30% of that”

Judge: “And did you get an appreciable uplift?”

Claimant: “I got Frankencables with loose connections, no solder and dodgy shielding!”

Judge: “That’s not what I asked. I asked if you got an appreciable uplift”

Claimant: “Of course not! I got rubbish!”

Judge: “But didn’t you post on SNA to say that you had never heard such an improvement in soundstage, noisefloor, dynamics and clarity, and that Bill’s Cables would be a bargain at twice the price?”

Claimant: “Yes, but…”

Judge: “To be frank, then, I struggle to see what loss you have suffered”.

 

NOW: recall that this was an imaginary scenario, offered by a Devil’s Advocate. Nor does it account for express, and false, statements about certain of the cables sold. It doesn’t offer any clues to the defence as the QCAT, or any other tribunal, is already well-versed in the filters to be applied. Moreover, an award of damages, or compensation, is but one remedy available to a tribunal dealing with an ACL claim. Perhaps it highlights, though, the benefits of understanding what you seek from those who know what you may get. 
 

On a related point: QCAT may not be (probably isn’t) the only court or tribunal empowered to offer a remedy here. Without wishing to detract from the commendable collective effort, claimants may wish to consider also, for example, the Local Court/Magistrates Court in their own jurisdiction or a complaint to the ACCC. 
 

Just a couple of ideas from another Bill’s Cables owner! Good luck to the forummers who don’t take this lying down. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

 

 

[parrasaw]

11 hours ago, pplater said:

Without meaning to be in the least disrespectful or controversial - just being Devil’s Advocate, really - the only opinion that will really matter is the opinion of High Court judges. Their opinions are ultimately binding on QCAT (and other Australian courts/tribunals, for that matter). Those opinions have been expressed at length and in exquisite language in cases such as Wardley Australia Ltd -v- Western Australia, Marks -v- GIO and others. They talk of the ‘measure of damage’; what should be awarded to a claimant seeking damages for misleading and deceptive conduct.  It  is not entirely straightforward. 

Imagine one scenario:

Judge: “I find that you were misled and deceived. You are entitled to damages. I will now assess your loss. What did you intend to purchase?”

Claimant: “I thought I was paying for cables that would produce an appreciable improvement to my (already high end) listening experience “

Judge: “What would you expect to pay for that?”

Claimant: “Some cables delivering that kind of uplift might cost $X”

Judge: “And how much did you pay Bill’s Cables?”

Claimant: “30% of that”

Judge: “And did you get an appreciable uplift?”

Claimant: “I got Frankencables with loose connections, no solder and dodgy shielding!”

Judge: “That’s not what I asked. I asked if you got an appreciable uplift”

Claimant: “Of course not! I got rubbish!”

Judge: “But didn’t you post on SNA to say that you had never heard such an improvement in soundstage, noisefloor, dynamics and clarity, and that Bill’s Cables would be a bargain at twice the price?”

Claimant: “Yes, but…”

Judge: “To be frank, then, I struggle to see what loss you have suffered”.

 

NOW: recall that this was an imaginary scenario, offered by a Devil’s Advocate. Nor does it account for express, and false, statements about certain of the cables sold. It doesn’t offer any clues to the defence as the QCAT, or any other tribunal, is already well-versed in the filters to be applied. Moreover, an award of damages, or compensation, is but one remedy available to a tribunal dealing with an ACL claim. Perhaps it highlights, though, the benefits of understanding what you seek from those who know what you may get. 
 

On a related point: QCAT may not be (probably isn’t) the only court or tribunal empowered to offer a remedy here. Without wishing to detract from the commendable collective effort, claimants may wish to consider also, for example, the Local Court/Magistrates Court in their own jurisdiction or a complaint to the ACCC. 
 

Just a couple of ideas from another Bill’s Cables owner! Good luck to the forummers who don’t take this lying down. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

 

 

Thank you @pplater for your thoughts and contributions.

I see that you are a "Bill's cables" owner. I hope that you received what you actually paid for, because many/most purchasers of his  more expensive cables, in the last couple of years, were not so lucky.

 

Members such as yourself, who are playing "devil's advocate" and who are raising potential "defences" which may be attempted by the respondent, are providing a useful service in helping to ensure that the matters which will be presented at QCAT by the affected members are well organised and considered.

1. Various avenues  to address the matter were investigated. Not only is QCAT (or its equivalent in other states, had the respondent lived in another state) designed to be cost effective and "user friendly", for Consumer/Trader matters such as these, had the matter been commenced elsewhere (eg Magistrates Court) it would likely have been referred to QCAT for resolution.

2. Your interesting hypothetical:

(i)  The applicants matter is being brought, not because they were not happy with the sound which the cables produced compared to any claims which may have been made about the product by the maker, or because the cables did not meet their expectations as to the sound qualities, or because they changed their mind about wanting to own the product(simply because they changed their mind). Some of these types of scenarios (or similar) have been described in your post, and such matters involve sound and our perception of it, there is a considerable "subjective" component to the subject. Otherwise we could all happily listen to the same equipment, because all of us could "agree" that such and such is the best sounding equipment (assuming that we could all afford the same gear).

There is nothing subjective about the matters which are being taken to QCAT.

(ii) The basis of the claims is that the products demonstrably fail to meet Australian Consumer Law Guarantees, and that the issues/problems are major (as defined by the ACCC) and, as such, the purchasers (the affected members) are entitled to apply to QCAT for an order that their money be refunded to them.

(iii) The key major problems with the products (the cables) are well known - they have been detailed elsewhere.

Briefly:

* Paid for a product. Received nothing. Money not refunded.

* Paid for a product. Received something which was"significantly different from the sample or description" of the product which was ordered. Major problem under ACL. Entitled to return product (at supplier's expense) and receive refund.

* As per second point above, with additional issue(s) - product is also "substantially unfit for its common purpose etc" and/or in some cases "is unsafe". Major problems under ACL. Entitled to same remedy as above.

* In some cases, damage caused to associated audio equipment. Major problem ACL.

  

The ACCC lists 6 instances which show that a product has a major problem (as distinct from a minor problem). The cables which were supplied by Mr Cochrane, about which action is being taken, all have at least one major problem, and some cables involve multiple major problems.  As such, purchasers are entitled to a refund of their money under Australian Consumer law guarantees.

(iv) Some applicants paid money to Mr Cochrane , but receive neither product or a refund of their money. They want their money back

(v) Applicants will be asking QCAT to make orders for a refund of their money on the above matters.

(vi) "What did you intend to purchase?" That is the crux of the matter really, and  the products of  Mr Cochrane, about which applications have been (and are being) lodged, breached ACL in major ways

 

If subjective matters, such as those hypothesised above, are raised by the applicant, there is within the group of applicants, people who have professional audio experience and expertise which can more than adequately reply to any such attempts by the respondent. 

 

Postings such as @pplater are really appreciated, because they help to focus the mind on the job ahead. Anything which assists in doing that, in order to get the desired result for affected members is appreciated, as has been the assistance which has been offered previously by people who are well versed (professionally) in matters such as these.

 

Mention of "bankruptcy" by the respondent in another post ( @Unsound)? Always a possibility, but that can be a two edged sword if it is considered. Enough said for now.

 

    

Edited August 16, 2022 by parrasaw
Clarification

[Unsound]

7 hours ago, pplater said:

Without meaning to be in the least disrespectful or controversial - just being Devil’s Advocate, really - the only opinion that will really matter is the opinion of High Court judges. Their opinions are ultimately binding on QCAT (and other Australian courts/tribunals, for that matter). Those opinions have been expressed at length and in exquisite language in cases such as Wardley Australia Ltd -v- Western Australia, Marks -v- GIO and others. They talk of the ‘measure of damage’; what should be awarded to a claimant seeking damages for misleading and deceptive conduct.  It  is not entirely straightforward. 

Imagine one scenario:

Judge: “I find that you were misled and deceived. You are entitled to damages. I will now assess your loss. What did you intend to purchase?”

Claimant: “I thought I was paying for cables that would produce an appreciable improvement to my (already high end) listening experience “

Judge: “What would you expect to pay for that?”

Claimant: “Some cables delivering that kind of uplift might cost $X”

Judge: “And how much did you pay Bill’s Cables?”

Claimant: “30% of that”

Judge: “And did you get an appreciable uplift?”

Claimant: “I got Frankencables with loose connections, no solder and dodgy shielding!”

Judge: “That’s not what I asked. I asked if you got an appreciable uplift”

Claimant: “Of course not! I got rubbish!”

Judge: “But didn’t you post on SNA to say that you had never heard such an improvement in soundstage, noisefloor, dynamics and clarity, and that Bill’s Cables would be a bargain at twice the price?”

Claimant: “Yes, but…”

Judge: “To be frank, then, I struggle to see what loss you have suffered”.

 

NOW: recall that this was an imaginary scenario, offered by a Devil’s Advocate. Nor does it account for express, and false, statements about certain of the cables sold. It doesn’t offer any clues to the defence as the QCAT, or any other tribunal, is already well-versed in the filters to be applied. Moreover, an award of damages, or compensation, is but one remedy available to a tribunal dealing with an ACL claim. Perhaps it highlights, though, the benefits of understanding what you seek from those who know what you may get. 
 

On a related point: QCAT may not be (probably isn’t) the only court or tribunal empowered to offer a remedy here. Without wishing to detract from the commendable collective effort, claimants may wish to consider also, for example, the Local Court/Magistrates Court in their own jurisdiction or a complaint to the ACCC. 
 

Just a couple of ideas from another Bill’s Cables owner! Good luck to the forummers who don’t take this lying down. 
 

Cheers,

pplater. 

 

 

Excellent points - I agree that there may be other remedies in other Courts and in particular the ACCC.

 

And despite our opinions and prevarications, the Court will make the final decision.

 

However, if the answer to the question posed by the Judge:

 

Judge: “I find that you were misled and deceived. You are entitled to damages. I will now assess your loss. What did you intend to purchase?”

 

Was:

 

Claimant: “I thought I was purchasing some rare WE cables that are reputed to have audio qualities that may improve my system"

 

Is a more accurate answer - we didn't think we were purchasing a "no-name cable" that would add to our system, we were expecting to receive WE cables that were rare and had a reputation for improving sound.

 

It's like purchasing a vintage sports car and being given a modern Toyota - the Toyota may be faster and more comfortable and safe, but it's not what you contracted to purchase?

 

Cheers,

 

M

 

 

 

 

[Monkeyboi]

For those following this thread and wanting to know what Western Electric 16 gauge speaker wire actually looks like with close up photos, markings on the cotton covered insulation, number and appearance of the conductors etc. should take a look at this page -

The Vintage Beat: Western Electric WE16GA Speaker Cable - Jeff's Place (positive-feedback.com)

 

[parrasaw]

31 minutes ago, Monkeyboi said:

For those following this thread and wanting to know what Western Electric 16 gauge speaker wire actually looks like with close up photos, markings on the cotton covered insulation, number and appearance of the conductors etc. should take a look at this page -

The Vintage Beat: Western Electric WE16GA Speaker Cable - Jeff's Place (positive-feedback.com)

 

Thanks Alan ( @Monkeyboi).

 

Reading about Jeff's Place (and how he was alerted to WE speaker cable) a couple of weeks ago, assisted me to understand exactly why genuine vintage WE cable is prized , and therefore why Mr Cochrane was able to make the sales of (what was unfortunately bogus) WE cables.

 

"Modern" versions, such as those brought to our attention by @Bengineer are still widely available (particularly in Singapore).

People who have heard both types, generally do not rate the more modern versions anywhere near as highly. as the "vintage" cable.

As for the fake versions sold by some others .........no further comment needed. 

[stereonut]

1 hour ago, Monkeyboi said:

For those following this thread and wanting to know what Western Electric 16 gauge speaker wire actually looks like with close up photos, markings on the cotton covered insulation, number and appearance of the conductors etc. should take a look at this page -

The Vintage Beat: Western Electric WE16GA Speaker Cable - Jeff's Place (positive-feedback.com)

 

And being Tinned Copper the actual wire looks like this - and note where I've scraped off the tinned coating. Hope this helps. 

BTW; this isn't from a Bill's Cable.

 

[Sean Perth]

Hi All

I too have posted how much i was pleased with the sonic differences that was heard by going from one set of Bills cables up to his pinnacle speaker cables and publicly wrote this and which bill shared in a review section of his cables. I feel bloody stupid now knowing that essentially i have cheap household wiring made into cables, in the process of changing for shop purchased cables, but also im trying to not give myself a hard time for being duped by said cheap cables and Bill.

I am grateful to all the help i have received especially from parrasaw.

 

Sean  

[AN AUSSIE AUDIOPHILE]

4 hours ago, Sean Perth said:

Hi All

I too have posted how much i was pleased with the sonic differences that was heard by going from one set of Bills cables up to his pinnacle speaker cables and publicly wrote this and which bill shared in a review section of his cables. I feel bloody stupid now knowing that essentially i have cheap household wiring made into cables, in the process of changing for shop purchased cables, but also im trying to not give myself a hard time for being duped by said cheap cables and Bill.

I am grateful to all the help i have received especially from parrasaw.

 

Sean  

Unfortunately my friend many of us are in the same boat. We can only believe what we where told by this unscrupulous man and that has had some influence on what we have heard possibly.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Shane Stephenson

[rocky500]

Not sure if this might be of some relevance to this thread.

 

I picked up some of Bill's XLR AG cables from the classifieds. I had seen where Bill had advertised on SNA that his AG ones where pure silver wires.

I had some already quite good Pure Silver XLR's and wanted to try Bills out in comparison. When they arrived I did a good comparison and I preferred my existing ones at the time by a good margin.
I packed them away with the idea to sell them at some stage.

After seeing the threads where the cable supplied was not built with the cable specified in his adds (mainly I think WE cables), I then recently sent them to another forum member who is great with electronics to have a look.

He just send me the pics of the cables taken apart and they only have the standard Canare copper cable inside. No silver cable or strands of silver at all.

So it may not just be the WE cable ones but possibly if anyone purchased what they thought was pure silver cables from Bill, there is a chance that it only has Canare cable inside.

 

Some pics

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by rocky500

[Unsound]

22 hours ago, Sean Perth said:

Hi All

I too have posted how much i was pleased with the sonic differences that was heard by going from one set of Bills cables up to his pinnacle speaker cables and publicly wrote this and which bill shared in a review section of his cables. I feel bloody stupid now knowing that essentially i have cheap household wiring made into cables, in the process of changing for shop purchased cables, but also im trying to not give myself a hard time for being duped by said cheap cables and Bill.

I am grateful to all the help i have received especially from parrasaw.

 

Sean  

Sean,

 

You should not feel stupid at all - in my opinion, there are 2 things at work here - 1. I have found that the act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables (even using the same cable) has a positive effect on my system - I do this on a regular basis (2-3 times a year) and always find a positive result. I don't really understand the engineering (I believe it has to do with oxidation and reseating of the connectors?). 2. The psychoacoustic effect of new cables - we want to hear a positive difference and thereby, we do. We all do this - the only cure that I have found is making A-B comparisons over weeks, rather than hours or days, living with A, or B for a few days at a time, then determining which you prefer.

 

Also, I think my "audio memory" is not good enough to listen to a set of cables, stop, get up, change them, sit down and listen again to determine a difference - if I remain seated and someone else does the work, I'm a bit better, but I still think extended listening over several days is the only way?

 

Let's just hope that Mr Cochrane suffers the consequences of his false and misleading conduct that has not only had a financial effect on us but also, sadly a psychological effect.

 

Cheers

 

M

 

 

[Bengineer]

58 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Not sure if this might be of some relevance to this thread.

 

I picked up some of Bill's XLR AG cables from the classifieds. I had seen where Bill had advertised on SNA that his AG ones where pure silver wires.

I had some already quite good Pure Silver XLR's and wanted to try Bills out in comparison. When they arrived I did a good comparison and I preferred my existing ones at the time by a good margin.
I packed them away with the idea to sell them at some stage.

After seeing the threads where the cable supplied was not built with the cable specified in his adds (mainly I think WE cables), I then recently sent them to another forum member who is great with electronics to have a look.

He just send me the pics of the cables taken apart and they only have the standard Canare copper cable inside. No silver cable or strands of silver at all.

So it may not just be the WE cable ones but possibly if anyone purchased what they thought was pure silver cables from Bill, there is a chance that it only has Canare cable inside.

 

Some pics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seen this a few times now too. I would advise anyone with his interconnects to stop using them, even if they to do contain what they should, the way he set them up is poor. They should have the conductors jacket/insulation in tact right up until the bucket, ensuring that if they ever copped a bend or a twist then wires couldn't short on each other.

 

I had a XLR set that shorted of his and so did a friend.