William Lowe of Audioquest places both feet in his mouth

[r_w]

Don't think I've ever let bias interfere TBH. I have never really expected anything. I just experiment and listen.

 

Then it's 100% repeatable with bias controls in place

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So you prefer a business model based on barely surviving? Look when it comes to any decent cable manufacturer they offer a 30 day return period. How is it profitable to sell low value products that generate a lot of returns?

As for measured proof I don't understand your point. Do you believe that all speakers that measure the best sound the best? Look there are only two types of cables in the world. those that sound good to you and those that sound bad. My advice is send the bad ones back for a refund and keep the good ones. The only measurement that counts in the business world is customer satisfaction, period!

 

You misunderstand and you are putting words into my mouth. I do not have a problem with free trails or return privileges. I do not have a problem with charging consumers whatever the market will bear. I do not have a problem with consumers making their own choice.

 

The problem is the technical claims that are made by the manufacturers without substantiation, when the wherewithal to provide substantiation is available. Example in a quote by Bill Low in a previous post:

"Now, thanks to the brilliant Garth Powell having joined AudioQuest from Furman, we believe we have a very clear understanding of the mechanism which explains directionality -- which is that at radio frequencies, the directional eccentricities at the surface of drawn metal causes a tiny difference in impedance in one direction vs. the other. In as much as the laws of physics dictate that energy must follow the past of least resistance, by controlling directionality, one can make noise provoked distortion mechanisms better or worse depending on in which direction the picked-up noise is directed."

 

If you want to believe Low based on this, go ahead. But, the measured proof of his directional theory ought to be straightforwardly obtainable. That it is provided absolutely nowhere, not by AQ or by any other scientific measurement by anyone else, to me speaks volumes. So, I believe he has no proof, and that this is an example of hand-waving, quasi science, marketing bull that we can do without. Basically, he is lying to us. If that is OK with you, fine. It is not OK with me.

 

 

 

[esldude]

Don't think I've ever let bias interfere TBH. I have never really expected anything. I just experiment and listen.

Of course that is the point. It doesn't matter what you think. Nor is it a matter of you letting bias interfere. Nor that you are honest. All of those are true and none of it will prevent your perception from being influenced when you just experiment and listen.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[esldude]

Speaker cables can vary a little bit depending on various factors. Interconnects that aren't part of phono playback don't. Digital connections that work and send the same data don't.

 

We know humans can be influenced to hear things different when the signals in fact are not different.

 

This is where we differ and also agree. Interconnects and digital connections can sound extremely different in my experience so that is where we disagree.

 

The fact that you as a human have been influenced to hear things the same when they actually are different is where we agree. Let's face it, your equipment and hearing sensitivity make a BIG difference right?

 

Actually your equipment and hearing sensitivity don't make any difference with interconnect and digital connections. There being nothing different to hear means you will not hear it regardless of those except when a perception has been influenced by factors other than the signal itself. Factors like believing your hearing is extremely acute or your gear exceptionally resolving.

[徐中銳]

Of directionality, their explanation is

:

In Part II of our AudioQuest video tour, you'll meet AQ's SVP of Marketing and Product Development, Joe Harley, who discusses several of the key ingredients that go into every AudioQuest cable. You'll hear about AQ's Four Elements, see a spec sheet for our Oak loudspeaker cable, and learn why it's so important to control for proper conductor directionality.

I do not have a problem with consumers making their own choice.

 

The problem is the technical claims that are made by the manufacturers without substantiation, when the wherewithal to provide substantiation is available. Example in a quote by Bill Low in a previous post:

 

 

"Now, thanks to the brilliant Garth Powell having joined AudioQuest from Furman, we believe we have a very clear understanding of the mechanism which explains directionality -- which is that at radio frequencies, the directional eccentricities at the surface of drawn metal causes a tiny difference in impedance in one direction vs. the other. In as much as the laws of physics dictate that energy must follow the pa[th] of least resistance, by controlling directionality, one can make noise provoked distortion mechanisms better or worse depending on in which direction the picked-up noise is directed."

 

If you want to believe Low based on this, go ahead. But, the measured proof of his directional theory ought to be straightforwardly obtainable. That it is provided absolutely nowhere, not by AQ or by any other scientific measurement by anyone else, to me speaks volumes. So, I believe he has no proof, and that this is an example of hand-waving, quasi science, marketing bull that we can do without. Basically, he is lying to us. If that is OK with you, fine. It is not OK with me.

 

His showing of spec sheet [though unrelated to directionality] is

 

Shrug' date=' I've no [b']AudioQuest[/b] products. Public forum ; information or commentary may be of help to whether...

Incidentally, songs, recalling :

 

And live :

[esldude]

Of directionality' date=' [u']their explanation[/u] is

:

In Part II of our AudioQuest video tour, you'll meet AQ's SVP of Marketing and Product Development, Joe Harley, who discusses several of the key ingredients that go into every AudioQuest cable. You'll hear about AQ's Four Elements, see a spec sheet for our Oak loudspeaker cable, and learn why it's so important to control for proper conductor directionality.

 

 

His showing of spec sheet [though unrelated to directionality] is

 

 

So his spec sheet was simply parameters for the physical construction of their cable. Sent to whomever makes it for them. Not any electrical parameters that I could see on it.

 

Then all you need is three notes on a harmonica to hear directionality. I have some AQ cables with arrows. I could record a harmonica in both directions and let people see if they hear the difference.

[徐中銳]

Let's, firstly, remember plissken :

I wouldn't confuse the message with the messenger.

 

Secondly, another to amuse... :

 

[plissken]

Of directionality' date=' [u']their explanation[/u] is

:

In Part II of our AudioQuest video tour, you'll meet AQ's SVP of Marketing and Product Development, Joe Harley, who discusses several of the key ingredients that go into every AudioQuest cable. You'll hear about AQ's Four Elements, see a spec sheet for our Oak loudspeaker cable, and learn why it's so important to control for proper conductor directionality.

 

 

His showing of spec sheet [though unrelated to directionality] is

 

 

 

So at 3:18 they start talking about the 'directionality' of the cable and how in three notes of a harmonica playing you can tell.

 

Ok AQ, for educational purposes (so it's within the boundary of fair use) just give us 8 bars of that playing.

 

That way I can get an Ethernet cable of theirs and test.

[plissken]

Let's' date=' firstly, remember [b']plissken[/b] :

 

 

Secondly, another to amuse... :

 

 

They should throw some $7 monoprice HDMI cables on the analyzer for BER testing.

[17629v2]

Speaker cables can vary a little bit depending on various factors. Interconnects that aren't part of phono playback don't. Digital connections that work and send the same data don't.

 

We know humans can be influenced to hear things different when the signals in fact are not different.

 

This is where we differ and also agree. Interconnects and digital connections can sound extremely different in my experience so that is where we disagree.

 

The fact that you as a human have been influenced to hear things the same when they actually are different is where we agree. Let's face it, your equipment and hearing sensitivity make a BIG difference right?

 

Unfortunately, comments like this won't account for much here. I'll explain why, and you'll also see why quite a few people here don't like me. I figured out their game and it drives them crazy. Here's what they do. Over the years, the standard, or best info, on judging a piece of audio equipment is to listen to it. For most people with any experience whatsoever, the reasons for this are self apparent. Specs don't come close to telling the whole story, tastes differ, the environment is a factor, etc... You know the list. This poses a problem for some people. They want to be equals in these conversations but that means they need to have knowledge and experience beyond what they currently possess. Instead of doing for themselves, they do everything they can to try and change the rules. And to be honest, they've had an impact; at least on this web site. You'll notice, its the same people attacking the same issues over and over.

 

If you say you listened to something, you get attacked with the standard list of excuses. First, they all somehow become psychologists and you get diagnosed with any number of disorders. I won't go through the trouble of listing them all because they've all been mentioned in this discussion many times over.

 

Then, its man against machine. Now everyone becomes EE's that specialize in audio design. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it. We know all we need to know about sound works. Again, the list goes on and on, and if you've been following this thread, you've heard them all.

 

The end result is, if you can convince people that its not necessary to have first hand experience with audio equipment, and in many cases, count it as a liability, then you can be an expert too. Your opinion will count just as much as a real expert. Some people let them get away with this, but I call them on it and drives them crazy.

 

If you go back and read some of the comments, especially the ones that were directed at me, most of them sound convincing, but if you read carefully, its clear that they're just guessing. You can confront them all you want, but its in one ear and out the other. They just keep talking, and talking, and talking..... It doesn't matter what they say as long as they say something. Simply put, you're pissing in the wind any time you try and reason with them.

[esldude]

Unfortunately, comments like this won't account for much here. I'll explain why, and you'll also see why quite a few people here don't like me. I figured out their game and it drives them crazy. Here's what they do. Over the years, the standard, or best info, on judging a piece of audio equipment is to listen to it. For most people with any experience whatsoever, the reasons for this are self apparent. Specs don't come close to telling the whole story, tastes differ, the environment is a factor, etc... You know the list. This poses a problem for some people. They want to be equals in these conversations but that means they need to have knowledge and experience beyond what they currently possess. Instead of doing for themselves, they do everything they can to try and change the rules. And to be honest, they've had an impact; at least on this web site. You'll notice, its the same people attacking the same issues over and over.

 

If you say you listened to something, you get attacked with the standard list of excuses. First, they all somehow become psychologists and you get diagnosed with any number of disorders. I won't go through the trouble of listing them all because they've all been mentioned in this discussion many times over.

 

Then, its man against machine. Now everyone becomes EE's that specialize in audio design. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it. We know all we need to know about sound works. Again, the list goes on and on, and if you've been following this thread, you've heard them all.

 

The end result is, if you can convince people that its not necessary to have first hand experience with audio equipment, and in many cases, count it as a liability, then you can be an expert too. Your opinion will count just as much as a real expert. Some people let them get away with this, but I call them on it and drives them crazy.

 

If you go back and read some of the comments, especially the ones that were directed at me, most of them sound convincing, but if you read carefully, its clear that they're just guessing. You can confront them all you want, but its in one ear and out the other. They just keep talking, and talking, and talking..... It doesn't matter what they say as long as they say something. Simply put, you're pissing in the wind any time you try and reason with them.

 

 

Your fallacy is you are assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you has no experience of listening to this stuff, and that you are somehow novel in your approach. So you assume the tired old cliche about they don't have good gear, haven't experienced it or if they have don't hear well. Hooray and you aren't contributing anything new. To call what you do reasoning with people is certainly a misnomer.

 

Instead people trying to share knowledge with you are labled pseudo-experts and dismissed. What was it you wrote earlier, "Don't even think of telling my that I can't know how much experience you have." You went on to say you could spot an amateur. It appears an amateur is anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[semente]

IMHO if any cable is poorly made, it would likely be the cheap one made with low quality materials rather than one made with high quality materials.

 

I believe that you could be mistaking poorly made (physically) with poorly designed from a technical perspective, meaning that the goal of an audio cable is to affect the audio signal as little as possible and that some of those boutique (expensive) audiophile cables deliberately EQ.

 

R

[semente]

Measurements go right out the window the minute you put the speakers in a room.

Some speakers were designed with that in mind.

After all, speakers are supposed to be used in rooms.

 

The problem is that many people don't recognise or even wish for accuracy or accurate speakers.

And even they can use measurements to their advantage; all they need is to find how their preferred sound measures, at least tonal wise and in regards to harmonic distortion.

 

R

[17629v2]

"Your fallacy is you are assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you has no experience of listening to this stuff, and that you are somehow novel in your approach."

 

As usual, your fallacy is that you fabricate statements. It should read something like, "If you don't have listening experience with a component, you shouldn't be making statements on how it sounds. Without that, you can't agree or disagree with me." See the difference?

 

"So you assume the tired old cliche about they don't have good gear, haven't experienced it or if they have don't hear well."

 

Another fabrication. You do realize that anyone can read the threads that came before this one? I'd love to see where I said that, or even implied it. But when I'm talking about you, I can't even make that assumption. How could I? You never listen to anything. (Don't waste my time with any example of how you listened to something somewhere. I'm talking about components in current, relevant discussions.)

 

"Hooray and you aren't contributing anything new. To call what you do reasoning with people is certainly a misnomer. "

 

Its hard to contribute when you're being sidetracked every time you make a post. That said, I think your main problem is making contributions based on your inexperience and guesses. Just because you can contribute any random thing, doesn't mean you should. And who said I was reasoning with you? I said I can't reason with you.

 

"Instead people trying to share knowledge with you are labled pseudo-experts and dismissed."

 

In your case yes. You're not a psychologist, and you don't design audio equipment. But you do make a lot of "educated" guesses that you like to push off as facts. Take the DBS argument in this very thread. All your talk about what they can and can't do, and you never even laid a hand on one. You call that sharing knowledge? My ass it is. Its passing judgement bases on guesses.

 

"What was it you wrote earlier, "Don't even think of telling my that I can't know how much experience you have." You went on to say you could spot an amateur. It appears an amateur is anyone who doesn't agree with you."

 

Wrong again. Its a simple fact. After reading all of your posts, how could someone not call you an amateur? If I said anything else, I'd be lying.

[17629v2]

Some speakers were designed with that in mind.

After all, speakers are supposed to be used in rooms.

 

The problem is that many people don't recognise or even wish for accuracy or accurate speakers.

And even they can use measurements to their advantage; all they need is to find how their preferred sound measures, at least tonal wise and in regards to harmonic distortion.

 

R

 

Don't read too much into that one. When I said throw the measurements out the window, I didn't mean for it to sound that harsh. I only meant to say that you need to deal with whatever ends up in your listening room. The same exact speaker will yield different results in different rooms.

[sandyk]

The fact that you as a human have been influenced to hear things the same when they actually are different is where we agree.

 

So that's what happened to Dennis ? (grin)

[esldude]

"Your fallacy is you are assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you has no experience of listening to this stuff, and that you are somehow novel in your approach."

 

As usual, your fallacy is that you fabricate statements. It should read something like, "If you don't have listening experience with a component, you shouldn't be making statements on how it sounds. Without that, you can't agree or disagree with me." See the difference?

 

Firstly, you are simply incorrect that one can/should only make statements on how something sounds if you have listening experience with it. There are many things one can know without having listened to something. Secondly, I have indeed heard AQ DBS interconnects. And it is of course absurd to say I don't listen. Thirdly having listened or not listened to something won't change the physics of what is possible.

 

"So you assume the tired old cliche about they don't have good gear, haven't experienced it or if they have don't hear well."

 

Another fabrication. You do realize that anyone can read the threads that came before this one? I'd love to see where I said that, or even implied it. But when I'm talking about you, I can't even make that assumption. How could I? You never listen to anything. (Don't waste my time with any example of how you listened to something somewhere. I'm talking about components in current, relevant discussions.)

 

Yes I am sure no one noticed how you complain I haven't listened in the same paragraph you ask me not to tell you if I have. This is foolishly funny on your part.

 

"Hooray and you aren't contributing anything new. To call what you do reasoning with people is certainly a misnomer. "

 

Its hard to contribute when you're being sidetracked every time you make a post. That said, I think your main problem is making contributions based on your inexperience and guesses. Just because you can contribute any random thing, doesn't mean you should. And who said I was reasoning with you? I said I can't reason with you.

 

I noticed you can't reason.

"Instead people trying to share knowledge with you are labled pseudo-experts and dismissed."

 

In your case yes. You're not a psychologist, and you don't design audio equipment. But you do make a lot of "educated" guesses that you like to push off as facts. Take the DBS argument in this very thread. All your talk about what they can and can't do, and you never even laid a hand on one. You call that sharing knowledge? My ass it is. Its passing judgement bases on guesses.

 

See note above where I have had hands on them. You did make some poor assumptions

[Jud]

After reading all of your posts, how could someone not call you an amateur? If I said anything else, I'd be lying.

 

Then you'd be quite wrong. I've been reading his posts for a lot longer than you have, and even though I tend more toward the "subjective" than "objective" side of the spectrum (if identifying which of two often incorrect extremes I'm closer to is at all useful), one thing I know he's not is an amateur. He's been where you are and gone beyond it. Whether that's progress or not can be debated, but there isn't anything along the journey he hasn't considered long and hard.

 

Oh, by the way, he's got a damn good system now, and has had other damn good systems previously. He didn't get there by accident.

 

If you can pause long enough in your self-congratulation ("I figured out their game and it drives them crazy"), you might actually learn something from "them." That's something all the smartest people I've known have in common - they always figure other people have something to teach them, and it enables them to learn continuously.

[witchdoctor]

[

QUOTE=Fitzcaraldo215;583442]You misunderstand and you are putting words into my mouth. I do not have a problem with free trails or return privileges. I do not have a problem with charging consumers whatever the market will bear. I do not have a problem with consumers making their own choice.

 

The problem is the technical claims that are made by the manufacturers without substantiation, when the wherewithal to provide substantiation is available. Example in a quote by Bill Low in a previous post:

"Now, thanks to the brilliant Garth Powell having joined AudioQuest from Furman, we believe we have a very clear understanding of the mechanism which explains directionality -- which is that at radio frequencies, the directional eccentricities at the surface of drawn metal causes a tiny difference in impedance in one direction vs. the other. In as much as the laws of physics dictate that energy must follow the past of least resistance, by controlling directionality, one can make noise provoked distortion mechanisms better or worse depending on in which direction the picked-up noise is directed."

If you want to believe Low based on this, go ahead. But, the measured proof of his directional theory ought to be straightforwardly obtainable. That it is provided absolutely nowhere, not by AQ or by any other scientific measurement by anyone else, to me speaks volumes. So, I believe he has no proof, and that this is an example of hand-waving, quasi science, marketing bull that we can do without. Basically, he is lying to us. If that is OK with you, fine. It is not OK with me.

 

You must get very frustrated because the types of claims you are talking about apply to about 99% of advertising in general.

I know what you mean but take this stuff with a grain of salt. It's a nice surprise though when you discover that a piece of gear delivers great SQ because you took a shot, One of the most confusing manufacturers for me but maybe not for others is Bybee products. I don't understand quantum physics and have no idea if what they claim is true, All i know is I plug it in and it works. I have also had the reverse happen but it doesn't stop me from trying new things.

 

http://bybeetech.com/?page_id=11

 

 

 

[witchdoctor]

Actually your equipment and hearing sensitivity don't make any difference with interconnect and digital connections. There being nothing different to hear means you will not hear it regardless of those except when a perception has been influenced by factors other than the signal itself. Factors like believing your hearing is extremely acute or your gear exceptionally resolving.

 

Your hearing can impact your experience. If you can't hear very well you won't appreciate improvements in SQ as much. The same goes for equipment, if you have poor speakers what difference does changing speaker cables make unless your cables were completely defective.

[mansr]

Your hearing can impact your experience. If you can't hear very well you won't appreciate improvements in SQ as much. The same goes for equipment, if you have poor speakers what difference does changing speaker cables make unless your cables were completely defective.

And here we go again.

[esldude]

Your hearing can impact your experience. If you can't hear very well you won't appreciate improvements in SQ as much. The same goes for equipment, if you have poor speakers what difference does changing speaker cables make unless your cables were completely defective.

 

The reason I say hearing makes no differences with ICs is because over anything close to the audible band they will provide the same exact signal. As the signal is the same there is nothing to hear. Good hearing, bad hearing or even deaf the signal is the same into the thermal noise floor. Yeah I can think of exceptions. Yes you can make a cable for which it isn't true. Then you have altered the fidelity of the signal simply to make a sound difference. There are better places to make bigger real differences than interconnects.

[witchdoctor]

Unfortunately, comments like this won't account for much here. I'll explain why, and you'll also see why quite a few people here don't like me. I figured out their game and it drives them crazy. Here's what they do. Over the years, the standard, or best info, on judging a piece of audio equipment is to listen to it. For most people with any experience whatsoever, the reasons for this are self apparent. Specs don't come close to telling the whole story, tastes differ, the environment is a factor, etc... You know the list. This poses a problem for some people. They want to be equals in these conversations but that means they need to have knowledge and experience beyond what they currently possess. Instead of doing for themselves, they do everything they can to try and change the rules. And to be honest, they've had an impact; at least on this web site. You'll notice, its the same people attacking the same issues over and over.

 

If you say you listened to something, you get attacked with the standard list of excuses. First, they all somehow become psychologists and you get diagnosed with any number of disorders. I won't go through the trouble of listing them all because they've all been mentioned in this discussion many times over.

 

Then, its man against machine. Now everyone becomes EE's that specialize in audio design. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it. We know all we need to know about sound works. Again, the list goes on and on, and if you've been following this thread, you've heard them all.

 

The end result is, if you can convince people that its not necessary to have first hand experience with audio equipment, and in many cases, count it as a liability, then you can be an expert too. Your opinion will count just as much as a real expert. Some people let them get away with this, but I call them on it and drives them crazy.

 

If you go back and read some of the comments, especially the ones that were directed at me, most of them sound convincing, but if you read carefully, its clear that they're just guessing. You can confront them all you want, but its in one ear and out the other. They just keep talking, and talking, and talking..... It doesn't matter what they say as long as they say something. Simply put, you're pissing in the wind any time you try and reason with them.

 

I actually like your post. The rocket scientist posters that drive me nuts are the ones that insist you can't hear a difference at all unless you double blind test everything and compare within 30 seconds because audio memory is short. no matter what you prefer you are just wrong. Although this may be the best way to test nobody puts a system together using that method. But they will hammer how wrong your hearing is regardless. The next type os insanity are the guys that want to prove how dumb everyone is that isn't IEEE certified. So if you aren't an engineer your hearing is automatically defective right?

Very nice post, thanks

[witchdoctor]

I believe that you could be mistaking poorly made (physically) with poorly designed from a technical perspective, meaning that the goal of an audio cable is to affect the audio signal as little as possible and that some of those boutique (expensive) audiophile cables deliberately EQ.

 

R

 

If you want to see a really poorly made cable check out this video on Monoprice

 

[witchdoctor]

The reason I say hearing makes no differences with ICs is because over anything close to the audible band they will provide the same exact signal. As the signal is the same there is nothing to hear. Good hearing, bad hearing or even deaf the signal is the same into the thermal noise floor. Yeah I can think of exceptions. Yes you can make a cable for which it isn't true. Then you have altered the fidelity of the signal simply to make a sound difference. There are better places to make bigger real differences than interconnects.

 

You claim that all IC's provide the same signal, is that correct? I don't believe they do at all. I can switch out a cable and hear more of the signal with certain cables than others.

As for better places to make differences I will agree. IMO I would start with the room first, then the speaker, then the source, the pre-amp, the amp. next would be the wall socket, the power conditioner, the power cables, THEN the interconnects, and the speaker wires, finally it would be the rack, speaker stands, and isolation devices. You have to start with the room because the speakers have to fit the room first.