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

[Paul R]

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.

 

Possibly, I will have to take your word on that. I am mostly concerned with the data going over those circuits, so a perfect connection to me isn't quite the same as a perfect connection for an analog line.

 

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

[Snowmonkey]

I agree that of all the cable "claims", the claims for speaker cables actually have "some" science behind them. Even so, not all speakers react to different cables, although some clearly do.

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?

[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.

[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?/

[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 :)

[PopPop]

I don't put much faith in the truth of photography, or the pitch from a salesman at AudioQuest.

 

I will say this about the company though: they just agreed to send me a new 5 meter Cinnamon USB cable to replace one that I bought 6 years ago - the end that plugs into my PC has a broken wire.

 

I don't think the video really "blows the lid" off sleazy advertising but it's pretty transparent. I suppose some people could be duped. I once spent $750 for a pair of interconnects.

[realhifi]

I once spent $750 for a pair of interconnects.

 

Hopefully they were Nordost.

[gmgraves]

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?

 

 

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).

[PopPop]

Hopefully they were Nordost.

 

No, Transparent Audio, Music Links. My unofficial opinion is that they produced a better soundstage and a little richer high frequencies. Experts on this forum have told me that it is all in my head. 'Dunno, maybe they are right, maybe not. Anyway, I have quit worrying about the cost of those cables but I have become a much more critical listener. I also rely on other's opinions.

[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.

[gmgraves]

No, Transparent Audio, Music Links. My unofficial opinion is that they produced a better soundstage and a little richer high frequencies. Experts on this forum have told me that it is all in my head. 'Dunno, maybe they are right, maybe not. Anyway, I have quit worrying about the cost of those cables but I have become a much more critical listener. I also rely on other's opinions.

 

Well, it might be all in your head, but that's really not the point, now, is it? If that $750 makes you enjoy your system enough more to justify that not insignificant cost, then imaginary or not, it was probably worth it. After all, in medicine, placebos have made many a patient feel better due to the power of positive thinking (and when I was a teen, I was able to convince the girl across the street that a Tylenol capsule was a birth control pill, and that made me feel much better - and I got away with it). So, there is worth in that, I guess.

[gmgraves]

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.

 

 

I agree. I'm not suggesting that voodoo was involved here, just that speaker/cable/amp interactions are on a case-by-case basis, and when I had a pair of VTL 150 mono blocks they loved my then Magneplanar MG-3Cs and all the cone speakers that I was reviewing in those days. They weren't so happy with my later M-L Vantages. I solved the problem there by changing amps to a Krell KAV-300il integrated.

[Snowmonkey]

So what, if any, are the measurable parameters relating to cable performance that might help to explain this phenomenon?

[gmgraves]

So what, if any, are the measurable parameters relating to cable performance that might help to explain this phenomenon?

 

Of course, things like X_C and X_Lare measurable parameters that all cables have, but I have rarely, if ever, seen them mentioned on a speaker cable's packaging or on their website for that matter. Even if you did know those numbers, they wouldn't help you at all. The interface between the wire, the speaker characteristics and the amp characteristics is a complex one, and to measure it would require the kinds of test equipment (not to mention the complex maths) that simply aren't available to most of us. No, the best most of us can do is listen. We don't have access to the data, or any way to actually utilize it even if we did.

[realhifi]

 

Experts on this forum have told me that it is all in my head.

 

 

Experts? In what?

[PopPop]

Just about anyone who posts here knows a bit more than I. But I take it all with 3,400 milligrams of salt/day. [emoji6]

[LCC0256]

(and when I was a teen, I was able to convince the girl across the street that a Tylenol capsule was a birth control pill, and that made me feel much better - and I got away with it). So, there is worth in that, I guess.

 

ROFLMAO.. George you are a funny man...

 

i could actually care less if in fact this was disingenuous on the part of AQ or not. Nor do i much care if i ever hear the difference in cables (or interconnects or wtf the proper nomenclature is) What i do care about is reading the posts from the learned and witty posters on this site. So help me i gain more from being entertained (and many times educated) than i do from whether or not i improve my listening experience....That is why i visit this site almost every day. Chris looks more and more like a genius everyday....

[PopPop]

How much less could you care? [emoji6]

[sdolezalek]

In case you hadn't seen it: An Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest | Stereophile.com[/url]

[new_media]

Welp, there you go. Now I wish I had saved that video so I could send it to AQ HQ.

[Elberoth]

Here is an Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest published by Stereophile:

 

An Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest | Stereophile.com

 

'For good reason, there is growing internet “buzz” about the recently published findings of Mark Waldrep on his Real HD-AUDiO blog:

 

AudioQuest HDMI Cables | Real HD-Audio

 

Mark’s findings are very relevant, and the implied malfeasance is extremely serious.

 

I was first made aware of Mark’s post this last Friday, January 22. I immediately wrote to everyone at AudioQuest who either is in contact with Home Entertainment (the store in Texas which created and posted the video in question), or who manages that relationship, or is involved in any way with our communication with the world at large.

 

Home Entertainment was contacted immediately, and was informed that there were legitimate questions about the veracity of the video. We asked that the video be taken down, and that we learn everything possible about the production of the video, and that AudioQuest be given the opportunity to analyze the video ourselves.

 

The video was taken down — however, unfortunately, despite repeated and insistent communication from AudioQuest, neither the dealer nor the production house they used have provided us with the promised password and/or link to the video. Adan Garcia, the manager at Pollux Castor, the production house, told AudioQuest that he didn’t have time to look into our situation — so all we have is our memory of the video. If we ever are given access, we will no longer be certain that it was the same video as previously posted.

 

I have already waited too long to make a statement — I cannot wait any longer. I would much prefer to be reporting on AudioQuest’s investigation, reporting that either Mark’s results cannot be duplicated, or thanking Mark for having brought to light a serious misdeed. Unfortunately, without the video to diagnose, I can only openly speculate and describe my and AudioQuest’s operative assumptions.

 

Backing up about a year, to when the video was created — I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”. I asked for verification that that there had not been any enhancement or manipulation. The dealer was contacted, and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration. Maybe I was an optimistic sucker, hoping too hard that the seemingly impossible was possible — after all, playing these cables into a flat-panel TV and listening through the TV’s pathetic built-in speakers does reveal obvious audible differences, but that this magnitude of real-world audible difference should be seemingly even more obvious in a compressed video was astonishing.

 

In any case, AudioQuest did not object to the video, though AudioQuest also did nothing to publicize the video — it was not done by us or for us, and AudioQuest did not itself consider this video as a promotional opportunity. It was not posted on the AudioQuest Facebook page or otherwise used by AudioQuest in any way.

 

Digressing for a moment: Back in the days when S-Video was king, it was delightfully easy to switch between cables and show profound differences in video quality, but as much as I wanted to be able to place ads showing this difference, it was impossible to take a photo which showed the difference. The problem was that the damage done by a lesser S-Video cable was dynamic, as is the viewing experience, so I accepted reality and gave up. I did not even try to show a representative simulation. Had it already been the internet age, I could have posted an authentic undoctored video which would have shown what so many clearly saw at CEDIA. At the dawn of the internet age, Component video cable differences were as obvious, but no YouTube and only dial-up — nah.

 

So here I am today, engaging in damage control. Until AudioQuest is given the opportunity to examine evidence which contradicts Mark’s findings, my operative assumption is that Mark has truly discovered a lie, and that Mark has to the best of his ability, broadcast the truth about this lie.

 

Whether AudioQuest will initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for the video in question, against those who have misrepresented AudioQuest, is yet to be determined. Until we learn more, and until proven otherwise, our operative assumption is that Mark is the good guy, that AudioQuest is the victim, and that the perpetrators need to be censored. Possibly well-meaning intentions to make the truth more evident don’t count. An exaggerated truth is in fact a lie.

 

Credibility is always a most precious phenomenon. That many audio products, that many products in general, deserve skepticism is a given. It is a shame for AudioQuest and for the whole audio industry to witness apparent evidence of such deceit and misinformation. However, an exception, even if there are also other exceptions, doesn’t disprove the honorability of the industry in general.

 

My personality is such that I’m always crying “foul” over unrealistic claims, about representations of video or photographic differences which are obviously false, impossible laundry detergent claims or whatever. I have to close with a mea culpa for damping down my own on-record skepticism about the Home Entertainment video. I’m sorry for all of us who care about our separate and collective credibility.

 

William E. Low

Owner/AudioQuest'

[Paul R]

In case you hadn't seen it: An Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest | Stereophile.com[/url]

 

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

 

Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”. I asked for verification that that there had not been any enhancement or manipulation. The dealer was contacted, and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration. Maybe I was an optimistic sucker, hoping too hard that the seemingly impossible was possible—after all, playing these cables into a flat-panel TV and listening through the TV’s pathetic built-in speakers does reveal obvious audible differences, but that this magnitude of real-world audible difference should be seemingly even more obvious in a compressed video was astonishing.

In any case, AudioQuest did not object to the video, though AudioQuest also did nothing to publicize the video—it was not done by us or for us, and AudioQuest did not itself consider this video as a promotional opportunity. It was not posted on the AudioQuest Facebook page or otherwise used by AudioQuest in any way.

Read more at An Open Letter from Bill Low of AudioQuest | Stereophile.com

 

(Emphasis is mine - Paul)

 

Something just truly sucks in the industry supporting our hobby.

[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.

[gmgraves]

(and when I was a teen, I was able to convince the girl across the street that a Tylenol capsule was a birth control pill, and that made me feel much better - and I got away with it). So, there is worth in that, I guess.

 

ROFLMAO.. George you are a funny man...

 

i could actually care less if in fact this was disingenuous on the part of AQ or not. Nor do i much care if i ever hear the difference in cables (or interconnects or wtf the proper nomenclature is) What i do care about is reading the posts from the learned and witty posters on this site. So help me i gain more from being entertained (and many times educated) than i do from whether or not i improve my listening experience....That is why i visit this site almost every day. Chris looks more and more like a genius everyday....

 

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!