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

[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.

[Teresa]

I know that most people won't agree with me on this, but I believe a product, cables or otherwise, is best judged by using it in its intended application. So, if you want to buy a pair of cables, try them first and make up your own mind as to their value. Its better than getting your listening experience from reading reviews and comments.

 

I agree and that is how I purchase everything, not just audio equipment. If I like it, I keep it. If I don't, it goes back for refund.

 

I don't do a ton of research, I just make sure an audio product has the features I want, looks attractive and from what I can tell at the dealers showroom sounds good.

 

Reviews I take with a grain of salt, as their equipment, their listening room, their audio priorities and even their hearing is not necessarily the same as mine. Using an audio product in my system is the only way I can discover if I like it, and that includes cables.

 

I am careful with the use of the word "snake oil", when returning something that didn't improve my sound, I just say it didn't improve my sound.

[Teresa]

FYI I use specialty brand cable for both HDMI and USB connecting my server to my TV & 2 channel integrated simply cuz they look so much better than generic.

 

I don't care about the look of my cables, I try to hide them the best I can. However, I do very much care about how my equipment looks.

 

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.

 

To connect my computer to my Teac DAC I use an inexpensive Dynex USB cable.

 

I like cables to be well built and prefer gold-plated connectors. I do find entry level audiophile interconnects to sound better than the ones that come with equipment. I also find the bass gets fuller and has more impact with thicker gauge speaker cable.

 

I keep an open mind about differences in HDMI and USB cables. I have read that it's not 1's or 0's that are sent through a digital cable since they are electrical but two frequencies representing those two states along with noise, when the DAC receives those two frequencies, it recognizes them as 1's and 0's, it may be what happens to the noise that accounts for sound quality differences. I have no clue.

[Teresa]

...When I bought my Benchmark HDR DAC about 5 years ago (still sounds great) I sent Benchmark a series of questions to ensure I was optimizing its use as it was expensive ($US2K in Australia), one of which was:

 

Do you recommend a particular type of USB cable to connect the DAC to my computer. Their reply was we something along the lines "we don't believe there is any benefit changing the cable we have included with the device." That is not an exact quote but that was the inference...

 

Just curious, who makes the USB cable Benchmark includes with their DAC?

 

I'm a great believer in "if it makes you happy.... "

 

Ajax

 

1+

Me too!

[Teresa]

Hi Teresa,

 

I don't know the USB cable supplied but here is a link to their website where they offer various cables for sale, which I note are very modestly priced.

 

All the best, Ajax

 

Thanks Ajax.

 

However the link was not provided in your post. Being a poor audiophile I like to see well-made very modestly priced cables. I use an inexpensive Dynex USB cable with my Teac DAC.

[Teresa]

Apologies

 

Cables - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

 

Thanks again.

 

From the link you provided.

 

"Our cables are handmade from the finest cable and connectors available. We feature Neutrik connectors and Canare cable. Our cables are designed to provide optimum performance and extreme durability. Many of our cables feature additional reinforcement near the connectors to eliminate failures in these high-stress areas. We use these same cables on a daily basis in all of our product testing where they are plugged and unplugged many times a day. Under this extreme use, our cables provide years of service, while delivering the performance required for precise product performance measurements."

 

It looks like Benchmark make well constructed cables. USB is not listed on their cables page. However, if a similarly designed USB cable is included with their DACs I can understand why they feel there would be not benefit in changing the USB cable they included with their DAC. Perhaps, they are not an afterthought but designed to bring out the best in their DAC.

[Teresa]

It may be to you because you can't hear a difference. Please accept my sincere sympathies for what is lacking in either your hearing or your equipment.

 

Love it! (;-) I'm saving your post in my "Forums > Computer Audiophile comments" TextEdit document, which is a tool I use to find out what I discussed in the past as I can't rely on what little memory I have left.

[Teresa]

…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.

 

It’s music that is special and magical. Audio equipment and cables are used to reproduce music. We just want that magic in our listening rooms, we let others worry about physics, music is the important thing.

 

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 signal in the jet or Mars rover doesn’t need to image well, doesn’t need warm, full and powerful bass, doesn’t need an accurate midrange, doesn’t need smooth beautiful high frequencies, doesn’t need convincing ambiance, etc.

 

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?

 

Simple, those types of signals don’t reproduce music. If the signals that operate complex machinery sound terrible it would not effect their operation at all.

 

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.

 

I’m happy to read this! (;-)

 

I can, and I do.

 

That could be why I disagree with almost all of your posts.

 

By the way, you still haven't told me why your portrait in your avatar is colored blue.

 

"A closed mind is a dying mind."

-Edna Ferber

 

I agree.

[Teresa]

You evidently know nothing whatsoever about electronics, music related or not.

 

Correct observation as I am and have always been more interested in the music. That is why I said:

 

It’s music that is special and magical. Audio equipment and cables are used to reproduce music. We just want that magic in our listening rooms, we let others worry about physics, music is the important thing.

 

I will try to more clearly state my music concerns. What is different about digital music files versus digital text files is that digital music files must be converted to analog to be heard as music. My concern is for the sound quality of the music after digital to analog conversion. That is why I said the signal in a non-audio file doesn’t need to image well, doesn’t need warm, full and powerful bass, doesn’t need an accurate midrange, doesn’t need smooth beautiful high frequencies, doesn’t need convincing ambiance, etc. as those types of signals don’t reproduce music, so any noise and/or distortions in the file would never be heard.

 

By the way, you still haven't told me why your portrait in your avatar is colored blue.

 

The lighting was blue.

You misunderstood, I didn't ask you how you made your avatar blue, I asked why you made it blue.

[Teresa]

…define exactly what "fancy and expensive" cables are…

 

I think the answer would depend on what economic class the person is in. Personally, I consider speaker cable over $5 a foot, and analog and/or digital interconnects over $50 expensive.

 

…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…

 

I agree with this.

 

...for a difference to be audible (aside from either measurement error or placebo effect) it must be measurable..

 

For this to be true we would have to be able to measure everything, and I don’t believe that to be so as famous audio designer John Curl has told me that we can only measure a very small percentage of what we can hear.

 

The distortions added by the brain itself are hard or impossible to measure.

 

This I agree with. The most obvious is cognitive bias, see: Problem of cognitive bias in AB Testing

 

Even with perfectly identical inputs, the brain doesn't always see or hear the same thing. We cannot presently measure what someone actually heard.

 

I also agree with this.

[Teresa]

...I'm not asking you to trust my ears. Trust your own ears. Jeez!

 

I agree! Trust your own ears, not other people's ears.

 

Each individual uses their ear/brain/body system to listen to music, so how anything audio related sounds only applies to the person doing the listening. In short one can't listen for other people or trust in other people to listen for them.

 

A good reviewer will say to audition for yourself.

 

Trust no one!

 

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.

 

I agree completely with this.

[Teresa]

…If listening is for differences is such a chore, you may be in the wrong hobby.

 

I also find listening evaluations a strenuous, tedious activity. I hate comparing stuff with a purple passion, however I'm not willing to give up enjoying the music I love because of it.

 

When I find it necessary to add something new to my audio/video system, I listen long-term, at least several weeks, using lots of different kinds of music. Once I decide I like or dislike whatever the change is I can go back to listening for enjoyment. This is one reason I generally don’t replace anything audio related until it dies or becomes too expensive to repair. I almost never replace something I like, thus I will likely keep all my cables until I die.

[Teresa]

Since we are now moving to power cables, wouldn't these have to work as filters to make any difference in performance?

 

And can this filtering ability be achieved solely through the use of wires?

 

R

 

I’m curious too, as I used a different solution.

 

I use the Monster High Definition PowerCenter 1800 Line Conditioner to filter my AC power. It claims to have circuitry that virtually stops the electromagnetic pollution that goes right through typical surge protectors.

 

I purchased it because I was hearing bad radio frequency interference (RFI) that actually sounded like a low level slightly mistuned radio station playing when I had no music playing or in between songs. I don’t own a tuner so I had no idea where this was coming from. I routed all my system power cords through the PowerCenter 1800 and the interference disappeared completely.

 

All of my power cords are stock that came with my equipment. I guess my question would be, is there any improvement using aftermarket power cords between my components and the Monster line conditioner?

[Teresa]

Actually i don't see that any real technical advancements in microphones have been made since the 1990s.

 

Did they have microphones back then like Barry D. uses, which are only -1dB down at 40kHz ?

I believe that there are now also Laser based microphones available with even better specifications.

 

Among the newer microphones made for high resolution digital is the Sanken CO-100K whose frequency response extends to 100kHz. Here is a user report from Michael Bishop, recording engineer & producer of Five Four Productions Ltd.

[Teresa]

...I even make minimalist recordings, and I can assure you that the best classical recordings, these days are made using minimalist techniques. Also all of the most highly regarded stereo recordings from the so-called "golden age" of classical recording in the 1950's and early 60's from labels such as DGG, British Decca, RCA Victor, Mercury Living Presence, Everest, Vanguard, etc. were recorded using minimalist techniques. And guess what? These recordings, whether in their original LP pressings, or in LP or digital reissues, are still big sellers and in high demand by audiophiles who appreciate the sound and the stereo perspective afforded by the minimalist techniques used by recording engineers such as C. Robert Fine (Mercury), Lewis Leyton (RCA Victor), Bert Whyte (Everest), etc.

 

I strongly agree with this and those are some of my favorite golden age labels. I feel for "major label" classical and jazz the 50's to the 60's are the best and for "major label" rock the 60's to the early 70's are also the best. After those years all the major labels went downhill fast, instead of being basically natural photographic styles of recording, they became a highly processed gimmicky production-styles of recording.

 

People invented all these tools to process audio and I believe that is the download fall of the major labels and what gave birth to the rise of original audiophile recordings, audiophile from the microphones to the finished product as they went back to the microphoning techniques of the golden age. Sheffield Lab used a single stereo microphone, the Robert Woods / Jack Renner team at Telarc used three microphones inspired by the Mercury Living Presence recordings of which they were fans, just to name two audiophile companies. Basically the major labels departed away from accurately representing music to making productions instead, and audiophile labels continue to fill this gap.

 

Did you know Bert Whyte also engineered a lot of Crystal Clear Direct to Disc LPs?

 

P.S. I knew you meant acoustic versus electronic music not reproduced music. When music is reproduced with electricity in our homes, acoustic music still sounds acoustic and electronic music still sounds electronic.

[Teresa]

Perhaps not...but

 

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if we can't hear above 18-19kHz.

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if most tweeters roll-off long before.

Why do we need -1dB at 40kHz if this will trigger the >10dB resonance of most rigid-domed tweeters.

 

R

 

I am curious about this >10dB resonance of most rigid-domed tweeters, can you explain why that happens and if these tweeters have limited response?

 

I have EMIT tweeters that are -3dB at 45kHz, so I guess I am safe playing high resolution digital recordings.

 

No one says humans can "hear" above 20kHz. There are many theories on why ultrasonics are important to the reproduction of natural acoustic instruments which have overtones as high as 102kHz. One I think is plausible is that ultrasonic overtones effect the timbre of audible frequencies down as low as 1kHz.

 

I gathered together many of the theories in Are Ultrasonics Important? Current Theory and High Resolution Digital

 

Also see A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

[Teresa]

Why stop there? Let's have microphones that are flat to 1 MHz, or 10 MHz. After all, Audiophilia Nervosa has no boundaries, so why should practical things like frequency response or the size of audio files?

 

Well, the highest overtone of an acoustic instrument is 102.4 KHz so I don't see a reason for going beyond 100kHz. My favorite currently working engineer Michael Bishop of Five/Four Productions (previously Telarc) uses the Sanken CO-100K microphone and records at 11.2MHz DSD. Some have been released on SACD, however the vast majority are only available on stereo CD despite the fact that he records in pure DSD in multichannel and stereo. Perhaps someday these will be available at least as DSD downloads.

 

Has nothing to do with Audiophilia Nervosa but more accurate reproduction of not only the fundamentals but also all the overtone series. Anything that makes recorded music sound more like live music is important to me. Doesn't mean I have to replace any of my lower resolution recordings, just the ability to get new audiophile recordings at even higher resolution.

[Teresa]

Yep, it is definitely a learned skill...There are people with no physical defects that simply cannot learn to hear the stereo image...

 

I never heard “imaging”, “soundstage” or “spatial information” from my stereo until I listened to Beethoven’s Wellington’s Victory on a Westminster Gold LP when I was a teenager. I heard the British coming from one side of the room and the French from the other, and I sit there amazed. One of the biggest wow moments of my life. After that I could hear “imaging”, “soundstage” and “spatial information” from my other recordings.

 

In my case it was a learned ability due to exposure to an extreme example of such. After that my mind had the ability to build an illusion of a soundstage while listening to music.

 

Sometimes I wonder how long it would have taken me if I had never heard the drastic imaging effects of something like Wellington’s Victory. Perhaps never, and that would be a shame.