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

[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

[jabbr]

One could always just decide to not care that USB cables sound slightly different from one another(if you are the type who finds that they do).

 

That might have some validity if it were true that RF electronics were 100% transparent. but no active circuits have ever been as transparent as a passive circuit.

 

If we depend on a cable to have a measurable role beyond being a simple cable with a defined impedance, capacitance etc, then there is likely a problem in the circuit design.

 

Its more that if there is a place where cables make a big difference in a digital circuit (assuming that the cables are within spec which many aren't) then this is a signal that there is more going on than simple transmission of digital bits, and usually means that there is an opportunity to improve the active digital electronics.

 

For example: if ethernet cables actually make a difference: just go optical. If USB cables make a difference, improve the USB output and DAC USB input circuits.

 

There often is a role for active electronics, e.g. an active preamp vs passive, but that's usually because the source has a high output impedance and the amp expects a lower input impedance. Since we are by definition dealing with active circuits, the issue about improving 'transparency' is that the best active circuits, and passive components, need to be selected.

[jabbr]

Or maybe George simply forgot to mention he re-wired his lamps with AQ speaker cable?/

 

As close to actual sunlight coming from a lightbulb as they've ever seen :)

[jabbr]

I'm glad you appreciated my attempt at levity. That is a true story, BTW. The irony is that while REAL birth control pills were being developed at that time, there were none actually on the market yet, but the sweet young thing across the street didn't know that!

 

I understand where you are coming from. I too get a lot of entertainment value from reading and posting to this forum, and I have learned a lot over the years as well. And yes, Chris is very knowledgeable and does a great job here!

 

You missed your true calling as an AudioQuest salesman!

 

(I hope the sarcasm is not lost here).

 

I don't share the surprise at this story that others exhibit, the bit that flipped in my mind is the sale of $1K so-called Ethernet cables, and in all honesty, this has led to my promotion of optical ethernet (for which I get $0 financial benefit), because you can literally replace your entire network with state of the art 10gbs fiber for the cost of a few so-called audiophile AQ ethernet cables.

 

On the other hand there are bright spots among companies which supply our hobby: Nelson Pass of Pass Labs and First Watt comes to mind. He publishes the circuits, particularly ones that are previous generation. Designer of $60,000 amps answers questions from DIY hobbyists. Sheds both light and heat on the subject (amps are class A after all So like everything, we take the good with the bad and caveat emptor:)

 

Expensive cables: unless these folks start explaining the science behind the claims, and not a bunch of smoke and mirrors, I remain: out:)

[jabbr]

Temp-Flex[emoji768] Air-Dielectric Ultra-Low-Loss Flexible Microwave Coaxial Cables - Molex

 

Odin 2 Supreme Reference | Speaker Cable

 

Don't waste your time reviewing the scientific explanations on the "expensive cables". Not only do they not understand these properties, they can't even copy them accurately from the vendors they purchase them from e.g. 98% VOP.

 

Sure, at least they are telling us what it's made from and provide specs!

 

The area that I'm most concerned about are so-called audiophile Ethernet & USB cables. What I'd like to see are some standard measurements. Ethernet cables are measured with "eye patterns" for example. When I buy a $5 Corning optical fiber cable, for example, I have access to eye pattern data. For copper, Belkin media twist, for example.

 

Fancy AC cords? Not so much (but I do use balanced power:)

[jabbr]

You buy anything else that way? Houses, cars, computers, life insurance?

 

[jabbr]

I found out by shear oddity years ago I can have music playing and type all at the same time. I'm telling you it was a fluke and the obviousness of it hit me like a bolt of thunder ;-) (yes I understood what I just typed, it's a joke and relax).

 

Listening, watching super bowl and typing ....

[jabbr]

Yes, there is that. A lot of audiophiles do tend to treat audio as if it were somehow "special" or "magic"; not subject to the laws of physics like every other branch of electronics. The argument seems to be that just because a cable can successfully carry the signals needed to fly a jet airplane from one continent to another, or get a rover to Mars, doesn't mean that it can carry an audio signal from one's DAC to one's pre-amp successfully. The reality is that audio is about the easiest of all AC signals (the only thing "easier" is our mains) to conduct.

 

So the question remains: What could subtly alter the sound of an audio signal yet not alter more complex signals like RF and microwaves, and not alter the operation of complex machinery that relies, day in and day out on complex, often life critical signals getting from point to point unchanged from their source?

 

Yet, I cannot, in good faith, just write-off those here who are 100% sure that interconnects can alter the sound of their stereo systems. There are too many of them, and too many of them are good, intelligent, and knowledgeable people to just chalk up their empirical results to hysteria or mass delusion.

 

There are clearly measurable differences between different cables. These differences do not, however, necessarily correlate to price, nor do they correlate with magical properties ascribed to certain cables by certain people.

[jabbr]

Yes, there are definitely measurable differences between cable. Often the differences are in the very areas that we wonder about: capacitance/meter, inductance/meter, and resistance/meter. What is important to note, however, is the fact that that the differences between these cable characteristics can be orders of magnitude from one cable type to the next and still be too minuscule to have any measurable or audible affect on the audio passband. The effects of capacitive and inductive reactance on an AC signal is frequency dependent. At less than VHF frequencies, short, 1-2 meter runs of coax simply have too little capacitance, and too little inductance to have any attenuating affect on the audio passband. Whatever audiophiles are hearing, it is not a C-L-R phenomenon.

 

There are two issues:

 

a) Maxwell's equations along with Lorenz force law describe electromagnetic phenomena and for practical purposes describe any electromagnetic circuit including cables, that we are discussing, including any quantum effects.

 

b) The so-called placebo effect, which is very real and significant, describes the power of expectation bias.

 

I suspect both are involved.

 

Placebo's are fine as long as they are not prohibitively expensive. Because healthcare is such a universal problem, and has great cost, at least in the USA the FDA aims to protect the public against overpriced placebos. Audiophilia has not gained national attention.

[jabbr]

I agree placebo effect must be involved. We're human, and that's part of us. However, what keeps me from comfortably accepting it as a full explanation is that I've experienced violations of my expectations.

 

It's like taking a pill in a blinded experiment and feeling worse rather than better. Better, fine, down to placebo effect. But worse?

 

So how to account for the times the more expensive, fancier-looking cable sounds worse?

 

I'm not saying its all placebo effect!

 

Its either a real electrical and hence measurable behavior *and/or* placebo effect/expectation bias.

 

Actually also:

 

c) measurement error

[jabbr]

...and yes placebo effect/expectation bias can go either way: better or worse.

 

In fact essentially all double blinded placebo controlled studies have undesirable "side effects" in the control groups.

[jabbr]

And is occasionally blamed for the results, because treating human hearing as a purely mechanical function does not provide definitive answers. But psycho-acoustics is still one of the fuzzy sciences, because it is fantastically difficult to measure exactly what one is actually hearing once processed in the brain.

 

So the arguments continue, with, apparently, right and wrong on both sides.

 

 

What I am saying is that cables should be treated as purely mechanical entities whos function and behavior are actually incredibly well known and measurable.

 

Human hearing is not anywhere near this level.

 

If two cables behave identically in every measurement known to mankind, then will sound identically except for expectation bias and measurement error. That is for certain.

 

I am not claiming that there is any minimal audible difference, just that for a difference to be audible (aside from either measurement error or placebo effect) it must be measurable.

 

But the placebo effect is dramatically audible and so may swamp other effects. Basically those new shiny, big thick heavy and expensive cables that you need to be brought into a dark private room to feel and listen to, might sound different, and make you want those cables at home -- just throw out your everyday boring cables that have been with you for 20 years

[jabbr]

You 'beg the question' by assuming that 'every measurement known to mankind' is exhaustive and that nothing new can possibly be identified and measured in the future. By that token, the only thing that is 'certain' is your opinion.

 

I see. So are you picking:

 

A) a new branch of as yet undiscovered physics

 

or

 

B) magic

 

as what distinguishes cables?, because I'm fairly sure I excluded most other explanations. What question is being begged? Again, I am not saying that cables don't sound different, just that differences can be explained by the physics and scientific principles we already know.

[jabbr]

Not necessarily so, if one is not testing for the right things, where "the right things" can be quite prosaic; and if neither sounds very real, what good does identical performance do?

 

If the signals are the same the sound is the same.

 

 

For an example of a very prosaic "right thing:" What if perceived realism depends on fidelity to variation in *both* the time and frequency domains simultaneously?

 

 

If you have fidelity in time you necessarily have fidelity in frequency. Two sides of the same coin:

 

The Fourier transform describes the necessary relationship between time and frequency domains.

Do current commonly run tests on audio equipment (e.g., filters commonly used with DACs) measure for this? Is current commonly used test apparatus sufficiently capable to explore the limits of what humans can perceive with regard to such simultaneous variation? (Consider Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 044301 (2013) - Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle.)

 

Just because someone didn't happen to make the correct measurement hardly means it can't be done by the right person with the right equipment. You would be amazed at what measurements of signals can be done!

 

Jussi often publishes measurement plots, for example.

[jabbr]

For both those reasons, particularly the latter one, it is difficult to be sure we are measuring the right things, or measuring them with adequate accuracy.

 

Sure. "Sense of realism" might have a specific set of requirements. Entirely hypothetically it might need exactly 27bits of amplitude resolution or a noise background of -188Db at 64 kHz but no one has demonstrated one shred of evidence supporting the need for new physics.

[jabbr]

FYI, "begging the question" is a philosophy concept, i.e. a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

The logical fallacy in your argument is the a priori assumption that every possible measurable characteristic is currently known, to the exclusion of any potential discoveries in the future. You are saying, unequivocally, that cables that measure the same must sound the same, and that any differences heard between such cables cannot be real.

 

Yes I'm surprised you'd take my statement as a priori. It's not.

 

Electrodynamics is exceedingly well tested empirically. I am not overstating this point. for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

 

What I said was:

...cables should be treated as purely mechanical entities whos function and behavior are actually incredibly well known and measurable.

 

Human hearing is not anywhere near this level.

 

If two cables behave identically in every measurement known to mankind, then will sound identically except for expectation bias and measurement error. That is for certain.

 

I am not claiming that there is any minimal audible difference, just that for a difference to be audible (aside from either measurement error or placebo effect) it must be measurable.

 

But the placebo effect is dramatically audible and so may swamp other effects. Basically those new shiny, big thick heavy and expensive cables that you need to be brought into a dark private room to feel and listen to, might sound different, and make you want those cables at home -- just throw out your everyday boring cables that have been with you for 20 years

 

Are you taking offense to "That is for certain"? I mean scientific certainty (of a very high level). I also leave (necessary) room for measurement error. In any case as far as we here are concerned:

 

Cables which measure the same, sound the same (aside from measurement error and expectation bias/placebo effect)

[jabbr]

The logical fallacy in your argument is the a priori assumption that every possible measurable characteristic is currently known, to the exclusion of any potential discoveries in the future. As I see it, your position can otherwise be stated as: Unless a difference heard between cables can be demonstrably measured, the difference heard cannot be real.

 

a) you are saying that the differences in sound between cables is or might be due to an as yet undiscovered physics that will alter quantum electrodynamics and change the very understanding of the world as we know it? are you suggesting this is possible?

 

b) the placebo effect is real, very very real.

[jabbr]

I basically agree with you in the main, but in the details - ah - there is the devil. For example, you assume anything that cannot be measured must be the result of a placebo like effect. But what the brain does with music is very complex, and is not well measured. And very real, not a placebo like effect at all. Listening to music causes real, physical changes in the brain's activity. To me, that leaves room for a bit of doubt.

 

But however, as you point out, we can clearly say, that the audible change we might hear is not caused by LCR differences.

 

-Paul

 

We might be in complete agreement:)

 

What the brain does with music is indeed not well understood, and my statement about measurements applies specifically to cables and not to brains!!

 

First of all it would be extremely unlikely to find two brains/people who measure the same.

 

Listening to music does cause real physical changes in the brain (which are measurable:)

Similarly does the placebo effect cause real physical changes in the brain (which are similarly measurable)

 

The placebo effect is used to describe changes essentially caused by the null hypothesis. The flip side of that is that the brains sensory abilities are vast and able to react to inputs that you might not imagine.

 

For example: which causes a bigger change in SQ?

a) audiophile Ethernet cable

b) very comfortable listening chair

[jabbr]

At the end of the day: I don't think you can dismiss the possibility that very small (close to unmeasurable) changes may be able to make a change which some people may be able to notice during listening. This is mathematically demonstrable in the form of chaos theory.

 

However: you also cannot dismiss nor fully take into account and adjust for so called "placebo" affects.

 

Very small signals are easily measurable using proper equipment-- understandably this equipment may not be available to the hobbyist. Nonetheless our ability to measure goes down to single electrons-- we aren't talking about gravity waves here. Well maybe some of these cables are really really heavy so ...

 

Chaos theory is relevant as the organizing principle of this forum:) but certainly strong nonlinearities exist;)

 

For an everyday example consider MRI imaging which employs signals emanating from hydrogen atoms whose nuclear spin decays from up to down. Maybe the images would be sharper, more focused or more realistic if they use Audioquest cables internally:)

[jabbr]

Eloise, jabbr - I don't think we need to go to chaos theory or anything near as exotic, nor to changes at the edge of measurement capability. I think we can find in solid, prosaic science reasons not to be quite satisfied that we know completely what it takes to provide high fidelity reproduction of music.

 

+1

[jabbr]

Yes, but I think you miss that the Placebo effect is by definition, caused by a non active agent being introduced into the situation. Music is a very active agent, and given the human brain's massive capability for pattern matching and prediction, even very minute changes might make a change.

 

Placebos are quite active -- they come in all shapes and colors and flavors!

 

But yes even minute changes might make a difference.

I don't think active brain scans have been done with cable comparisons yet, so I tend to leave the question undecided. I know I can hear cable differences in my systems, but I also know the cables I am comparing are not identical. If they were, I would not be comparing them...

 

Exactly. I am assuming that if you heard a difference between two cables that were identical that you would draw a conclusion?

 

size, color, brand, packaging are all measurable quantities;)

[jabbr]

 

I don't think active brain scans have been done with cable comparisons yet, so I tend to leave the question undecided. I know I can hear cable differences in my systems, but I also know the cables I am comparing are not identical. If they were, I would not be comparing them...

 

Part II:

 

Suppose you hear a difference between two cables which are by all measures identical except for two features:

 

A) jacket color yellow, price tag in upper right corner: $100

B) jacket color gray, price tag in upper right corner: $1000

 

What do you conclude? Cables are different or your brain has connections between occipital and frontal lobes and auditory cortex? Or cables are different by an as yet undiscovered third feature which is not measurable?

[jabbr]

I really didn't want to disclose this. I don't want to be considered a shill.

 

I just wanted to qualify my experience with the placebo effect. I believe it to be real, but I also believe as with many other things in life that the more you do something the better control you have over it.

 

I've asked the administrator to remove the links that have been posted to the website.

 

No need to, I don't think you've been shamelessly promoting

 

Are the differences between your cables measurable?

[jabbr]

Ha, but I don't trust your ears. You discuss measurable differences between your cables on your website -- have you actually measured them or is thus marketing?

[jabbr]

Don't take this personal. I'm not asking you to trust my ears. Trust your own ears. Jeez!

 

From your website:

1- Cryogenic Treatment. (72hr)

Cryogenic treated cables provide an extended dynamic range. In particular, high frequency range notes are much clearer and display less distortion. Measurements of cryo treated wires show that electrical and signal resistance is reduced after cryogenic treatment.

 

and

 

3- Helical Twisted.

I have pre-twisted the cable for you, which does a few things. 1- It gives a much wider bandwidth, lower inductance, and lower impedance . 2- It resists magnetic fields that are abundant in and around stereo equipment. 3- It makes cable management much easier.

 

Have you actually measured reduced resistance, higher bandwidth, lower inductance and impedance? I suspect not.

 

These are qualities that are described by measurements, but your resistance to providing them indicates to me that you are spitting out hogwash.