Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[esldude]

AudioQuest HDMI Cables | Real HD-Audio

 

Seems dishonest to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhII95b6N84

 

Listen to the video. The processing is so blatant they should be ashamed for incompetence if nothing else.

 

If you didn't go read the article, Mark Waldrep analyzed sound from the video. He found the loudness and EQ of the AQ cables were very different than the generic. The difference growing larger as you go up to the more expensive cable from AQ. And the differences are pretty large as you can easily hear. The loudness changes alone are too large to be explained by cable differences. Loudness grows and bandwidth of the audio expand in favor of the AQ versus generic cables of course.

[blownsi]

Perhaps it's just me but I don't really expect ads to be real. Big Macs in commercials are probably made from plastic. The use of EQ and such is probably the only way to ensure that everyone can hear a difference. Otherwise a large portion of their customer base would realize that their system isn't capable of revealing the difference in higher end cables.

[esldude]

Yes, I think that is a reasonable way to look at it. I think they went too far here, but wouldn't argue much against your view of it. Like the whiter teeth in those toothpaste commercials. Or the brighter clothes in detergent commercials. Or the instant sex appeal from Ax body spray products.

 

I do want to see what some others think which is why I started the thread.

[kennyb123]

The video appears to have been produced by D-Tronics and yet there is no mention of this in Waldrep's post. Instead he suggests Audioquest is the villain here. Yes an Audioquest representatives appears in the video, but he doesn't even speak as the music plays or reference this part of the video. He may not have even had any hand in the production of this video. As the music is playing Audioquest's logo isn't even displayed. Instead we see "Home Entertainment by D-Tronics". The video even starts and ends with advertising for D-Tronics and yet Audioquest is at fault?

 

My guess is that someone on D-Tronic's video production team got carried away here. Shame on them.

 

That Waldrep fails to even mention D-Tronics in his post speaks volumes about what kind of guy he is. Obviously he has an axe to grind as evidenced by his last paragraph.

[Teresa]

Watched the video and read Mark Waldrep's article, I would agree this appears fraudulent.

 

I use a 2 meter AmazonBasics High-Speed HDMI Cable to connect my Blu-ray/SACD player to my HDTV. I use it only for video, I use the analog outs for audio. I paid $5.99 for it and my Blu-ray movies look fantastic. Just saying.

[wwaldmanfan]

Perhaps it's just me but I don't really expect ads to be real. Big Macs in commercials are probably made from plastic. The use of EQ and such is probably the only way to ensure that everyone can hear a difference. Otherwise a large portion of their customer base would realize that their system isn't capable of revealing the difference in higher end cables.

 

Although that burger is styled to perfection by professional food stylists, advertisers have been required by law since 1970 to show the actual product being advertised. So the Big Mac you see on the commercial which does not resemble the flattened mess that you receive at your local McDonald's is, in fact, composed of the same food. They may go through 100 sesame-seed buns until they choose the perfect one, and assemble the burger with a surgeon's precision, but it is, essentially, the same sandwich, not plastic.

 

I am retired professional photographer, so I know a lot of the tricks. For example, ice cubes in beverage commercials are hand-carved Lucite, but the drink is real.

 

Now to put the comment back on topic, I think AudioQuest may be one of the more flagrant offenders when it comes to over-stating the efficacy of their designs.

[Audio_ELF]

WD-40 and microwaved tampons: secrets of food photography revealed | Life and style | The Guardian tells of some of the photographer's tricks.

Although that burger is styled to perfection by professional food stylists, advertisers have been required by law since 1970 to show the actual product being advertised. So the Big Mac you see on the commercial which does not resemble the flattened mess that you receive at your local McDonald's is, in fact, composed of the same food. They may go through 100 sesame-seed buns until they choose the perfect one, and assemble the burger with a surgeon's precision, but it is, essentially, the same sandwich, not plastic.

 

I am retired professional photographer, so I know a lot of the tricks. For example, ice cubes in beverage commercials are hand-carved Lucite, but the drink is real.

 

Now to put the comment back on topic, I think AudioQuest may be one of the more flagrant offenders when it comes to over-stating the efficacy of their designs.

[4est]

IMO you are simply trolling again. You have been a long time cable skeptic, and this is by far the first time you have started a thread to create an audience for the soapbox you to stand upon. FWIW, I do not, and do not care to own any Audioquest cables. I also firmly believe that progress is made more by finding commonality and working on those concepts as opposed to concentrating on the differences and or flaws we see in other approaches. Put another way, offer up a clear path to pursue and others will follow if the ideas have merit. As it stands, this is destined to be another gripe fest, and who really needs yet another cable debate?

 

Rant over, I'll go play in some other sand box now...

I do want to see what some others think which is why I started the thread.

[mav52]

I've been to a few of AQ demos at shows and you just couldn't stop the rep from upping the volume. All I saw was marketing wiz bang tactics and expensive eye candy..

[wgscott]

IMO you are simply trolling again. You have been a long time cable skeptic, and this is by far the first time you have started a thread to create an audience for the soapbox you to stand upon. FWIW, I do not, and do not care to own any Audioquest cables. I also firmly believe that progress is made more by finding commonality and working on those concepts as opposed to concentrating on the differences and or flaws we see in other approaches. Put another way, offer up a clear path to pursue and others will follow if the ideas have merit. As it stands, this is destined to be another gripe fest, and who really needs yet another cable debate?

 

Rant over, I'll go play in some other sand box now...

 

Wouldn't eliminating the fraudulent claims and the erroneous claims make it easier to see and pursue the legitimate improvements?

 

In this case, all the Audioquest cable malarky makes me suspicious about the Dragonfly, which appears to be a well-made inexpensive USB DAC.

[jabbr]

What is needed are companies that understand, measure and meet specifications. An issue with HDMI is that there are so many versions and, for example, a cable that is 1.1 may not meet the standards of 1.4a,b or 2.0a

 

This comes into play with 4K and up video. In my experience when a cable doesn't meet spec, it is rather visible, or the card and monitor won't sync at all.

 

Molex has always been a reliable standard.

 

Blue jeans cable likewise and has lots of information on their site about compliance testing.

 

I don't respond to Audioquest marketing

 

 

Room treatments for headphone users

[4est]

If this were the first time Dennis trolled in this fashion I'd have kept quiet. Even still, I find it distasteful and counter productive allow evangelism in any regard. FWIW, he has made it clear that this is a mission of sorts for him and it shows. As another example closer to home, I find it butt stupid to spend 5k+ on a bicycle if you are not a competitive cyclist, but you do not see me starting threads about it or mocking others for doing so. And really I mean no offense by that Bill, I used to compete when I was a younger, but wanted to use it as a point since you are an avid cyclist as I recall. Fraudulent in this context is not proven, but assumed by some brief (biased?) measurements. What is not debatable in Dennis' mission. He has stated it outright and in the same vein as outing the malarky, I felt the need to out his intent.

 

Wouldn't eliminating the fraudulent claims and the erroneous claims make it easier to see and pursue the legitimate improvements?

 

In this case, all the Audioquest cable malarky makes me suspicious about the Dragonfly, which appears to be a well-made inexpensive USB DAC.

[CR250]

Yes, I think that is a reasonable way to look at it. I think they went too far here, but wouldn't argue much against your view of it. Like the whiter teeth in those toothpaste commercials. Or the brighter clothes in detergent commercials. Or the instant sex appeal from Ax body spray products.

 

I do want to see what some others think which is why I started the thread.

 

I think you have a bias with this issue. It seems like you are willing to believe the test so long as its negative. If the same people did the same exact test and got positive results, I think you would hold them to a much higher standard.

[wwaldmanfan]

I find it butt stupid to spend 5k+ on a bicycle if you are not a competitive cyclist, but you do not see me starting threads about it or mocking others for doing so. And really I mean no offense by that Bill, I used to compete when I was a younger, but wanted to use it as a point since you are an avid cyclist as I recall.

 

You obviously have been out of the loop for some years. A top-end road bike is $10-$13K, or even more. $5K is "entry level" these days, LOL.

[wgscott]

I find it butt stupid to spend 5k+ on a bicycle

 

You are dead to me.

 

Or my wife hijacked your account.

[new_media]

Wouldn't eliminating the fraudulent claims and the erroneous claims make it easier to see and pursue the legitimate improvements?

 

In this case, all the Audioquest cable malarky makes me suspicious about the Dragonfly, which appears to be a well-made inexpensive USB DAC.

 

I'm with Bill on this one. I bought a pair of AudioQuest NightHawks a couple of weeks ago and they sound absolutely fantastic. The company is obviously capable of turning out quality audio products at reasonable prices, so it is disappointing that they would resort to such dubious practices for marketing their cables.

 

The only AudioQuest cable I own is for connecting my Pono to a preamp. It sounds good, but I have also used an Auvio cable from Radio Shack for the same purpose and the difference is not night-and-day as suggested by that video. To me, the audio from the "standard cable" sounds like it has been purposefully distorted in that video.

[CR250]

You are dead to me.

 

Or my wife hijacked your account.

 

That's a bit harsh. Maybe the poor guy just doesn't know how to ride a bike.

[wgscott]

That's a bit harsh. Maybe the poor guy just doesn't know how to ride a bike.

 

He's my friend, and he rides (or at least did ride) competitively. I know he wouldn't seriously think I was suggesting we were married.

[4est]

Lol!!!!

 

No offense taken at all. I knew he could handle my point and see it for what it was.

you are dead to me.

 

Or my wife hijacked your account.

[4est]

Hey, now that is offensive!!!!!

 

 

Maybe the poor guy just doesn't know how to ride a bike.

[wgscott]

Lol!!!!

 

No offense taken at all. I knew he could handle my point and see it for what it was.

 

I have to admit, I always seem to balk at spending the kind of money I spend on bikes when it comes to audio.

 

This last bike I bought will probably be the last bike I buy (unless it gets destroyed or stolen). It was the most expensive by almost a factor of 3 (it was well more than $5K, but it was a custom build), but frankly worth every penny.

[esldude]

I think you have a bias with this issue. It seems like you are willing to believe the test so long as its negative. If the same people did the same exact test and got positive results, I think you would hold them to a much higher standard.

 

Well I have owned, listened to, measured and blind tested a number of AQ products. So my experience and the reality of what they accomplished may have biased me.

 

In this case it wasn't really about any test. It was about a demo and how it is approached. Yes, I think much of the cable business is snake oil. When you demo using cheap carny trickery that doesn't exactly improve the rep of the industry.

 

So the point of the thread isn't if AQ cable has any real benefit over generic. It is how customers of the company think about this approach.

 

We have a video in which comparison sounds of various cable were offered up. The sound was monkeyed with and gimmicked to make AQ gear come off better. This was done by D-tronic or AQ or both. There have been complaints about AQ upping the volume in live demo of their gear.

 

Should we simply think they are a profit seeking company and trying to dishonestly demo their products is to be expected? That is a low standard.

 

There are even levels of this. You can honestly do a comparison between your product and one you know to be inferior. Hand picked competition, but true enough on the face of it. You could pick what you know to be a superior product and offer yours honestly to show it can compete or even better the other product.

 

Instead a long established company in this business used some very low class trickery in demoing what their product can do. It wasn't an honest offering. I would feel better if the comparisons were honest. But I wondered what others thought.

 

Like Bill, when I am interested in products like their Dragonfly or might suggest to others that is worth considering I do wonder. Should I just direct them to a company I don't have to watch like a hawk to make sure they were not dishonest with me. It leaves a bad impression to their whole business. Especially as they aren't a start up needing to make some waves to get noticed.

[new_media]

It was the most expensive by almost a factor of 3 (it was well more than $5K, but it was a custom build), but frankly worth every penny.

 

I would suggest that we should subject Bill to double blind testing to see if he can really tell the difference between his custom bike and a similarly equipped off-the-rack one, but I guess that would be too dangerous.

[semente]

Nordost telesales

 

Lars says:

 

"And I could say oo oo oo

As if everybody knows what I'm talking about

As if everybody would know exactly what I was talking about"

 

 

 

 

and this time it's Bjorn..."you with me?"

 

[video=youtube;NdND5c-VNl8]

 

R

[gmgraves]

AudioQuest HDMI Cables | Real HD-Audio

 

Seems dishonest to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhII95b6N84

 

Listen to the video. The processing is so blatant they should be ashamed for incompetence if nothing else.

 

If you didn't go read the article, Mark Waldrep analyzed sound from the video. He found the loudness and EQ of the AQ cables were very different than the generic. The difference growing larger as you go up to the more expensive cable from AQ. And the differences are pretty large as you can easily hear. The loudness changes alone are too large to be explained by cable differences. Loudness grows and bandwidth of the audio expand in favor of the AQ versus generic cables of course.

 

 

I have AudioQuest cables from several different generations. They seem well-enough made to me. The only current model I have is the "Big Sur" 3.5mm mini-stereo phone plug to a pair of RCA phono males. My only complaint is that the cable, while well made, seems awfully stiff and somewhat unwieldy to me. The question then becomes, how much does one have to pay to insure getting good quality, well made and reliable cables? I also have several other 1 meter mini-phone to RCA cables from MyCableMart.com that seem just as well made, use real RG59 cable and instead of costing US$125 each, are US$4.44 each! These are more flexible and certainly more wieldy than the AudioQuest. I'm glad that I didn't spend over $100 the AudioQuest cable (it was a marketing "sample") as I don't see the value for money spent. I can buy an awful lot of music for the difference between the price of the two cables in question.

 

Now as to the You-tube demo: I say this is bogus. They are doing something else other than just passing the signal through different price points of AudioQuest cables. Either they are using some kind of signal processing outside of the cables themselves, or the cables are acting as filters withX_L and X_C values chosen to accentuate certain portions of the audio spectrum by suppressing other regions (cables can't boost anything, they can only attenuate as they have no gain). I doubt the latter explanation because as elsdude and Mark Waldrop point out, cables alone can't do what this video shows them doing. Also, I think most of us can agree that even if we are fervent believers in the concept of "cable sound", that all cable differences tend to be very subtle; almost subliminal in many cases. The difference in the sound of these cables is greater than difference between, say, a cheap DAC like a DragonFly and one like a dCS or an MSB Diamond 4 with all the bells and whistles! AudioQuest oversold the snake-oil in this case, for sure.