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

[gmgraves]

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.

 

 

Well, AudioQuest is the client here, so they must have OK'd the results. That makes them just as culpable as D-Tronics in my estimation.

[gmgraves]

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.

 

As someone who uses a DragonFly DAC in my computer office system every day (right now, in fact!), I can attest that it is a fine product that does what it advertises to do as well, if not better, than other similar products.

[kennyb123]

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.

[gmgraves]

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.

 

 

The problem here is that there is no way that there could be a "positive result" with this type of test. 1) Cable differences are never this blatant. 2) Even if they were, given the audio quality of You Tube post audio, I doubt seriously if any real differences would show up in a You-Tube comparison. Bias or no, both Waldrep's and esldude's skepticism is well founded.

[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.

[kennyb123]

Well, AudioQuest is the client here, so they must have OK'd the results. That makes them just as culpable as D-Tronics in my estimation.

 

Really, that's all the burden of proof you need?

 

Audioquest is the supplier not the client. D-Tronics actually has to buy product from AQ. Sheesh.

 

That AQ paid D-Tronics to produce a video for D-Tronics is quite a stretch. AQ produces some pretty high quality marketing materials on their own. I can't see them funding such a poor video. And if they did this for D-Tronics they'd have to do it for all their sellers.

 

Seems that some won't allow logic and fairness get in the way of their chance to smear.

[kennyb123]

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.

 

Just because someone from AQ sat down to be video taped doesn't mean he was involved in post production. Most likely he wasn't.

 

Had there been a voice-over by the AQ rep that was participating in the manipulation, I would be siding with you. But it seems to me that part with the music was separately added.

 

Does this kind of dishonesty disturb you, create distrust in the company involved, or what?

 

I might hesitate to buy from D-Tronics if they had a track record of producing stuff like this. I don't see this as a very big deal because I don't take ads seriously. I wouldn't have watched it had I not suspected that AQ was being falsely smeared.

[kennyb123]

 

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.

 

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.

[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.

[gmgraves]

Really, that's all the burden of proof you need?

 

Audioquest is the supplier not the client. D-Tronics actually has to buy product from AQ. Sheesh.

 

That AQ paid D-Tronics to produce a video for D-Tronics is quite a stretch. AQ produces some pretty high quality marketing materials on their own. I can't see them funding such a poor video. And if they did this for D-Tronics they'd have to do it for all their sellers.

 

Seems that some won't allow logic and fairness get in the way of their chance to smear.

 

Don't so naive, my friend. If you don't know that AQ saw that You-tube ad and put their seal of approval on it, then you must not understand how business is done. If AQ didn't OK that ad, crease and desist orders would be flying around like WWII warbirds at the Reno air races, and lawyers would be buzzing about like flies on fresh excrement!

[kennyb123]

Don't so naive, my friend. If you don't know that AQ saw that You-tube ad and put their seal of approval on it, then you must not understand how business is done. If AQ didn't OK that ad, crease and desist orders would be flying around like WWII warbirds at the Reno air races, and lawyers would be buzzing about like flies on fresh excrement!

 

Home Electronics by D-Tronics appears to be an authorized AQ dealer. As such they are permitted to advertise AQ, just as they've done here: http://hedtronics.com/accessories/.

 

I find it hard to believe that AQ would have to review and put their seal of approval on every ad put out there by all of their dealers.

 

Certainly the dealer arrangement would specify what dealers are permitted to do as far as advertising. If a particular dealer strayed from this and AQ found out about it, then AQ could take action. It sounds naive and ridiculous to think they review and approve everything in advance.

 

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.

[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.

[kennyb123]

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

 

Under whose account doesn't it appear on YouTube?

[esldude]

Under whose account doesn't it appear on YouTube?

 

Home Entertainment by D-tronics.

[livelistenlearn]

as owner of a ‘red’ Audioquest interconnect (circa 2000s), think am somewhat… appalled.

not going to rip it out of the system, though, having paid for it.

 

also using Belden cable for HT surround speaker connections. not sure if AQ cable will virtually make the Avengers’ Quinjet or the U.S.S. Enterprise sound more ‘real’ when they ‘fly’ overhead.

 

appears that with Dragonfly & Nighthawk, AQ is diversifying into less ‘controversial’ products. and, if you bought/paid for it, might as well use it.

 

‘Does one need to buy anything else from AQ as a result of that misleading ad?’

now, that is a Q that requires individual As.

 

fwiw, this thread makes one think. always a good thing.

[livelistenlearn]

 

meanwhile, what do you think?

[livelistenlearn]

[Paul R]

I really really want to believe in company like AQ. But I find it hard to believe. I do have several of their cables, and honestly? I don't hear much difference between them. If, unfortunately, I didn't also have Nordost cables, I would commend the whole cable sound thing to the devil and be done with it.

 

Instead, I have doubt whether I can even hear what other people in those cables, and thus have to reserve judgement.

 

In the meantime, I have enough Nordost and Kimber cables around, i don't need to buy any more cable. Hopefully everything will go wireless soon and eliminate cables for good.

 

-Paul

[gmgraves]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23726[/ATTACH]

 

 

Yes, and your point is...? Are you reinforcing my comment or do you have a problem with it?

[gmgraves]

I really really want to believe in company like AQ. But I find it hard to believe. I do have several of their cables, and honestly? I don't hear much difference between them. If, unfortunately, I didn't also have Nordost cables, I would commend the whole cable sound thing to the devil and be done with it.

 

Instead, I have doubt whether I can even hear what other people in those cables, and thus have to reserve judgement.

 

In the meantime, I have enough Nordost and Kimber cables around, i don't need to buy any more cable. Hopefully everything will go wireless soon and eliminate cables for good.

 

-Paul

 

 

At which point, everybody can then argue about the "sound" of various wireless schemes and protocols as in which Blu-Tooth equipment sounds best. This is just my opinion, you understand, but I believe that physics will back my opinion up: Wireless will never be as good as a straight piece of wire!

 

As to AudioQuest, I think that they are a decent company, and like Ray Kimber, I suspect that Bill Lowe honestly believes that his cables can make a difference. At any rate, one cannot blame him for going where the money is. I guess it doesn't matter what *I*, as an individual, think about the possibility of "cable sound" being real, enough people obviously do to make selling "boutique" cables a viable and legitimate business (yes, I've stepped back from my former stance that boutique cable makers are crooks. I still think their tactics for selling these cables are questionable, and that the whole business smacks of voodoo and snake oil, but then so did Geritol and Carter's Little Liver Pills. But both products were sold for generations and many people felt better for taking them, so what harm do they do?) AudioQuest's cables are very well made, I certainly can't argue with that, and the DragonFly is a very good bit of kit as, apparently, are the NightHawk headphones (I haven't heard them, but the reviews are certainly very good).

[Paul R]

At which point, everybody can then argue about the "sound" of various wireless schemes and protocols as in which Blu-Tooth equipment sounds best. This is just my opinion, you understand, but I believe that physics will back my opinion up: Wireless will never be as good as a straight piece of wire!

 

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

[Snowmonkey]

Wireless will never be as good as a straight piece of wire!

I always knew that Marconi dude was a shyster.

[krk4201]

Yes, and your point is...? Are you reinforcing my comment or do you have a problem with it?

 

 

I think he was just pointing out the humor of the coincidence of your post and the advertisement at the top of his image.

[gmgraves]

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

 

That's kind of apples and oranges, don't you think? I mean telephones sounded horrible for decades due to a myriad of characteristics having little or nothing to do with "wires". First of all, was the carbon button microphone. This 19th century device produced as much distortion as signal, the mechanical phone switching apparatus was incredibly lossy and the need for amplification of the signal along the route made the phones noisy. I remember as a kid in the 1950's when on long-distance calls, the background noise was almost as loud as the signal! The biggest changes in wired phone technology came in the '60's and '70's when digital switching replaced mechanical switching and electret microphones replaced the carbon button mikes in the subscriber units. Today, cheap cell phones still sound lousy because they use three-bit voice quantization which is so bad that people using such a phone don't even sound like themselves!

 

The bottom line is that the more active electronics that an audio signal has to pass through, the worse it sounds. This has been known for decades. IOW, the simpler the audio path the better the sound. I don't see how wireless technology, irrespective of how good it might get could possibly be better than a length of cable.