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

[JW Audio]

This are some very good points in this thread.

As a cable manufacturer, I have to agree that placebo effect is real. BUT... through thousands of hours testing, I have been able to minimize the placebo effect and expectant (good or bad) in my mind through many hours of A-B testing and confirmation with other highly regarded audiophiles.

 

I try to keep my finds to myself when introducing the cable (or other equipment) to my beta testing friends.

 

It seems that I have been able to reduce the effect (but not 100%) to a minimum with repetitive testing through this journey of high end audio.

[JW Audio]

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.

[JW Audio]

Just checking to see if the signature I added works.

[JW Audio]

Yes, in some ways the more you do something the better you become at it and maybe the better control you have. I don't extend that all that far with sighted listening or placebo effects. You are simply repeated a common argument that in essence all that bias stuff applies to regular people, but not to someone like me.

 

If the effects are real then why not compare in a manner that eliminates the chance of sighted info effecting what you hear?

 

I'm just trying to share something with others here on this forum in my journey. No more or no less.

 

Not trying to imply I am better than anyone in anything at all. Quite the contrary, I have seen an improvement over the years of being able to distinguish real changes from not real changes.

 

It's really not that big a deal.

[JW Audio]

I myself have noticed the difference between cheap RCA cables and good quality one's but there is certainly a point of diminishing returns which depends on your equipment. Now as for the 1 meter USB cable debate I'll buy into the USB decrappifier stuff a bit but spending hundreds of dollars on a 1m USB cable and claiming you can hear amazing differences is just absurd. The same with audiophile quality Ethernet cables. It's just silly. Transmitting a digital signal over copper cable at low bit rates (aka music) is just not that challenging of a job for the cable.

 

I'll share what I've experienced in my short time with computer audio.

I started out with the Belkin Gold usb and went to a Belkin Pro and didn't really hear a difference.

 

I then bought the less expensive Pangea USB cable and heard a good improvement in body and clarity. A friend bought the more expencive Pangea USB cable and brought over to A-B the two. Our expectations were that the more expensive Pangea was going to sound better. It was to the contrary. The more expensive Pangea was somewhat confusing in the sonic signature. It wasn't balanced at all in my system.

 

It was a positive expectation that went in the opposite. I lived with the less expensive Pangea for a few weeks and the same friend called me up and wanted to bring a USB he had borrowed from his brother in-law, a Shunyata Venom USB cable.

 

The sound of the Shunyata was a great improvement over the Pangea. More energy, clarity and balance was clearly audible. I ended up buying one and still have it in my system.

 

I've recently purchase a Curious Cable and am waiting on it to arrive. I'm really not expecting it to be head and shoulders above the Shunyata, but I'm willing to see if the timber will be better to my liking.

 

I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns, and I may have reached that point with the Shunyata USB.

 

I will be surprised to hear a night and day difference in a USB over the Shunyata. But the difference in the Shunyata over the Belkin and Pangea in my system was a night and day difference.

[JW Audio]

I would think something night and day would be easy to measure using external recording devices. A $300 Sony PCM 50 audio recorder it's far superior to the human ear in recording sound so I would think that utilizing a device like this in an A/B comparison and then running the results through Audacity or Audition slideshow quantifiable visible differences.

 

Seems sort of strange that cable manufacturers don't perform these types of tests.

 

I trust my ears no matter what a measurement says.

[JW Audio]

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?

 

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

[JW Audio]

Don't you understand? What we have hear might be called the "reverse placebo effect" that these objectivists continually suffer from. Even if they hear actual differences, they reject them as being real unless they can be confirmed by measurements or double blind tests. It is an article of faith that their ears cannot be trusted.

 

That would make them "Measurebaiters"

[JW Audio]

Not in this case. A plethora of microphones INSIDE the piano's lid is responsible for Waldrep's wall-to-wall pianos.

 

I agree with George on this subject. (As off topic as it is) I don't want to feel like I'm playing the piano. I know a grand piano should take up most of the front stage, it should be recorded to show up in scale of size facing left or right with the pianist at one end. I also dislike drums that do the same thing. Close mic'd drums fill the stage from left to right (or visa versa) is not to scale with a stage setting. I don't want to feel like I'm playing them. Pull the mic back 8 or 9 ft and let the kit sound to scale with the rest of the instruments.

[JW Audio]

Sometimes, its the system that's responsible for the large images, and not necessarily the recording. Probably the best example would be high quality SET amps. I remember the first time I tried a pair in my system. Images of vocals and instruments became huge. The center vocal image took up most of the wall behind the speakers.

 

I personally don't like the vocal to take up the wall behind the speakers. They should be to scale of the size of the vocalists mouth or head at the largest. That is to scale. Some of the late 50"s and early 60's had the rawest, best sounding (get lost in the realism of the stage) recordings in my vast music collection. In a well treated room the recording (on a system that is done well) should put you in a trans like state that blurs the line between recorded playback and actual musicians playing instruments in a smoky night club environment. (I'm a near field listener)

 

I know all of this is subjective, and we all like what we like, but some of those Wes Montgomery recordings, after stereo recording came on the scene, are down right spooky.

[JW Audio]

What about Audioquest cables?