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.

[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.

[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.

[esldude]

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. /QUOTE]

 

Ironic that those who seem so concerned about truthful claims seem to care so little about their own claims being true.

 

It appears to be D-Tronics who made this video. If so, they deserve blame for manipulating the levels. A fair person would be careful to not blame AQ unless there was proof that AQ was party to or signed off on the manipulation.

 

 

The fellow talking in the video works for AQ. So whether it is AQ or D-tronics I was interested in what people thought of this kind of dishonest demo. Does this kind of dishonesty disturb you, create distrust in the company involved, or what?

 

Now Dr. Waldrep's first sentence did say this video was from Home Entertainment not AQ, but had an AQ spokesman in it. The video also tells you it is D-tronics in the first few seconds. So not like it was hidden or ignored by Dr. Waldrep.

[esldude]

I missed the mention of Home Entertainment. My mistake. Waldrep never faults them though. An honest broker would have made it clear that this video doesn't appear to have been produced by AQ.

 

It is in the first sentence. Pretty clear. He then does take AQ to task. We don't know who produced it, and perhaps Mark doesn't either. The fellow speaking is a regional manager for AQ. For all I know, and it wouldn't be unheard of he did this including having it produced for or by AQ to promote one of their big regional retailers. Though it lists and promotes D-tronic we don't actually know they made it.

 

I suppose you could write AQ and point out what was done to see if they would have it taken down then. Of course Mark describes how he was kicked off a CTA forum for bringing this up while AQ has someone on that board. CTA btw was previously the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) and now is the Consumer Technology Association with a part of it being the Audio division.

[esldude]

Interestingly enough, it does appear that a video has been removed from the page I referenced above as I get a "Sorry this video does not exist" message when I click play.

 

I just tried it from two devices and the video is still on youtube. Maybe try it again from your location later.

[esldude]

Interestingly enough, it does appear that a video has been removed from the page I referenced above as I get a "Sorry this video does not exist" message when I click play.

 

I just tried it from two devices and the video is still on youtube. Maybe try it again from your location later.

[esldude]

Under whose account doesn't it appear on YouTube?

 

Home Entertainment by D-tronics.

[esldude]

Oh, I don't know. Cell phone conversations today are clearer and easier to understand that most wired telephone connections in the 20th century. Even better than some of fibre based connections for landlines.

 

Wireless communications are getting to be very reliable, and very fast...

 

-Paul

 

If only cell phone communication was full duplex. The lower fidelity of the old analog network was still in some ways better by the quality of duplex vs simplex conversation.

[esldude]

Am I the only one who thinks the sound from the Audioquest cables in the ad is terrible? It sounds to me like some sort of high pitched ringing has been added to "sharpen" the sound.

 

It's a compliment to Blue Coast Records that they chose Looking for a Home for their demo, but I don't think they did Blue Coast any favours with that effort.

 

Oh I definitely agree. In fact none of the samples sounds very good at all even for the compressed format in use via youtube. Maybe Blue Coast has a stake in this dishonest demo using their music.

[esldude]

The maximum Youtube and VEVO bit rate of 187kilobits/sec .aac audio (1280 Video selected) is virtually useless for comparing tiny differences between cables or anything else.

 

Which only points out just how ridiculous this dishonestly manipulated video was.

[esldude]

6000 Plus Views! AudioQuest Post Goes Viral | Real HD-Audio

 

You might notice the link in my OP is no longer functional. That video has been pulled. Seems all such videos related have been pulled. My, oh my, I do believe AQ got caught with its pants down.

[esldude]

 

On the other hand, the future may hold room temperature super-conducting materials. Now that would be a set of cables worth a few dollars, though I am at a loss how am amplifier would be designed to mate with it.

 

-Paul

 

Maybe inductively, like thru a transformer??

[esldude]

George, I recently quoted in a conversation, something I thought you had said several years ago, to the effect that even the most expensive speaker cables were no better than the wire running to a lamp. Did I misunderstand you or do I have the wrong George or have you gone over to the dark side?

 

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

[esldude]

It's not that simple. I'm afraid. Under most circumstances, my comments about expensive cables vs 14 GA lamp cord holds true as far as I can see. But there are some combinations of components, due to their impedance curves, the loads they place on some amplifiers and the speakers' reactive natures that seem to be very cable sensitive. For instance, when I had a pair of Apogee Duettas in the late 1980s, I couldn't get them to sound "right" with any of the speaker cable I had on hand, and this included Monster M1 and AudioQuest "Tan". Finally, Jason Bloom, the then President of Apogee told me that it was the cable I was trying to use. I was really skeptical so he sent me a pair of Symo cables from Sweden and then the Apogees just sang. I figured is was some kind of anomaly and possibly expectational bias at work here, because I was never able to repeat the experience with any other speakers or cables I used. This was true of my experiences until about 6 months ago, when a friend of mine bought a pair of Martin Logan Summit X speakers and couldn't get them to sound as good in his room as they had in the store. We moved the speakers everywhere in the room and nowhere did they sound right to him. As a last resort, I suggested that we swap-out the Kimber Kable 12TC speaker cables he had on hand for a pair of Sewell "Silverback" cables I had at home. I ran home and got them and we installed them in place of the Kimber, and I could instantly tell the difference. Suddenly the speakers sounded great! The soundstage widened and deepened, and the sound became more open, especially at the top. I had to acknowledge that the cable made a pretty big difference. Now whether it was the combination of those three particular components, the VTL amp, the Kimber Cable with the Martin Logans (obviously the amp, cable and his previous speakers, a pair of late model Tannoys weren't fussy, because that combo sounded fine) or something else at work here, I can't say. But that's twice I've noticed speaker cables changing the entire sound of the system. And there was no doubt about the reality of what we heard. Swapping the Kimber back caused the M-Ls to close back down with a veiled sound and a lackluster sound stage. He asked me if he could borrow the Sewells, until he could order his own, and I told him that he could if he loaned me the Kimber. I went home and installed the Kimber cable in place of the Sewells (which were, of course, at my friend's house) in the Magneplanar MG-.7s/Perla Signature 50 amp that I was listening to at that moment. I fired the system up expecting to hear a similar magnitude of difference that I heard at my friend's house. Near as I could tell, listening for several hours, there was absolutely NO audible difference between the very inexpensive Sewell Silverbacks ($40 for two 10 ft lengths terminated with banana plugs) and the much more expensive Kimber 12TC cables ($150 for 2 10 ft lengths terminated with banana plugs). Now, obviously, one thing that came out of this experiment is that there seems to be little or no correlation between speaker cable price and sound quality. Either a certain setup is speaker cable sensitive or it's not. If it is, good luck stumbling upon the ideal cable for the application as there are so many different manufactures, combinations and price points to check. And unlike DACs or amplifiers, or record decks, price apparently has no bearing on whether or not a cable is right for any particular cable-sensitive application. Yes, the Sewell made my friend's M-L Summit Xs sound much better than did the Kimber, but perhaps something else would make them sound even better? I don't know, and neither does my Summit X-owning friend. If he decides to embark on that quest, he's on his own. I certainly have no interest in going down that road with him. There are no criteria, price means nothing, there is absolutely no way to tell except through listening to each cable installed in his system. I shudder to think about it! Luckily, most of us don't have to (whether we want to, of course, is another matter, but on that I have no comment).

 

If you bothered you likely could measure and track down the reason for the difference.

 

I know older VTL amps I had with my electrostats had a just above 20 khz low Q resonance. The peak of it was a few decibel apparently caused by an interaction with the cable, speaker being an ESL and the output transformer. The peak was wide enough it reached down into the upper octave and half that was audible and slightly changed the sound. That effect was moderately sensitive to cable length and parameters. Still no mystery, no need for silver vs copper. Just needed to get the right LCR values for everything involved. It was also one piece of the reason tubes didn't sound like SS on that speaker.

[esldude]

Yep - the part that speaks the most to me is that they are engaging in Damage Control now, but...

 

 

 

(Emphasis is mine - Paul)

 

Something just truly sucks in the industry supporting our hobby.

 

+1 on these conclusions.

[esldude]

Audioquest HDMI cables - Page 8

 

Posting as Joe Harley, Bill Low from Audioquest has some responses to this video. He then later signed up for his own account and posts as WELquest. His final post is #107. So maybe 4est will be happy to read Bill Low's version of things. No one was preventing him from giving his side anyway.

[esldude]

This whole damn situation is absolutely surreal. Dennis, I believe you are absolutely right on this, but I kinda wish you were not.

 

Like a pot of boiling snake oil...

 

How do you think I feel. I spent real money for AQ products. Including some rather expensive for the time (though not even middle priced in the current environment).

 

I think I could have drawn up some more believable responses versus what he did. Some that would have went over better as well. So partly the boiling pot of snake oil combined with an attitude he need not even bother with anything better. I don't think he did himself any favours. He has lots more money than me though, so maybe that makes me the dummy.

[esldude]

If some of you guys spent as much time listening to stereo equipment, as you do arguing about it, threads like this wouldn't be necessary.

 

Care to explain how your supposition would work?

[esldude]

For the record swimming in the sea is not as much fun as it use to be and has become quite dangerous due to an unusual spate of shark attacks recently .... some very nasty mailings on the East Coast by bull sharks and great whites resulting in several deaths.

 

 

All the best, Ajax

 

It is the nasty mailings that have made me nervous about swimming in the ocean. You go, you swim, and you think you have made it. Then unexpectedly at the mailbox you get these horrible mailings from the sharks. Chilling, very chilling. What a difference one letter can make.

 

 

 

Sorry, Ajax, a little fun at your expense.

 

FWIW, I would have reacted similarly to the python and fin sightings. The ocean is wonderful even so.

[esldude]

Which ones work like filters? Most of the cables I see clearly show the type of conductor they use, and its unbroken from connector to connector. Are you sure that you're not talking about shielding?

 

Transparent, MIT, Monster or cable with network boxes.

[esldude]

How can they be when so many people hear them?

 

(I know, I know. The DBT card will be played next.)

 

Capacitance is energy storage. That energy gets injected back. It's possible (some of) our ears and brains are sensitive enough to assess when one cable reduces the harm of this effect relative to another.

 

There are measures of that which are more sensitive than your ear. It isn't a problem.

[esldude]

Yes, speaker cables can genuinely effect the sound. Still down to nothing more than RLC effects. There is no special magic. You effect the edge of dynamic peaks, and frequency response and it can have surprising subjective results. Yet while real it is a very poor method of doing minor EQ and minimal compression.

[esldude]

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?

 

Taking a pill you expect to make you better and instead feeling worse is still placebo. There was no reason for it yet a perceived change occurred. It has been called nocebo. That term is used both for negative reactions to expected good from a sham treatment, and negative reactions to something containing a warning that it may have negative side effects.

 

So just because fancy and expensive cables are heard as worse or not better doesn't change the basic mechanism. If nothing else experiencing a difference where one doesn't exist whether good or bad whether according to expectations or contrary to them is a similar effect.

[esldude]

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.

 

Waveforms we hear can be fully described by frequency, amplitude and phase. Any gear capable of measurably conforming to accurate reproduction in those terms over our range of hearing and then some can reproduce whatever is in the input signal to illicit reality. We don't need to have full understanding of how the brain does that to say this is so.