William Lowe of Audioquest places both feet in his mouth

[Don Hills]

No clamp needed, although the back of my couch needs to be 3 inches from the back wall. As I stated in a post from 2004 at the Audio Asylum "The listening position is not as critical as the firing position."

...

 

The couch spacing from the back wall is based on sound physical principles. As well as the comb filtering from the reflection, the gap forms a rather ill-defined cavity resonator. Regarding your observation about the relative precision of ears vs speaker position, there is an explanation for this apparent breaking of the law of reciprocity but it has little to do with acoustics so I won't go into it here.

[plissken]

From the LME49710 (NS) Data Sheet for example :

"The Audio Operational Amplifier achieves outstanding AC performance while driving complex loads with values as high as 100pF"

 

A Belden RG59 cable, for example.is quoted at 67.2605 pF/M

 

From T.I. Data Sheet:

See Application Hints

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lme49710.pdf

 

The Belden LC-1 (BJC exclusive) is 12.2pF/ foot. So even a 3 foot line level is well within spec. So is their 1505f at 17pF/foot.

 

1694a (RG6) Co-axial is 16pF/Foot. But both 59 and 6 are meant for 75 Ohm applications.

 

Mogami Puroflex is 19.8pF/ft

 

Canare L-2T2S is 70pF/meter

 

So there are just gobs of cables out there that fit the bill. Much of Kimber Kable exhibits the same spec's but with a much higher price tag.

 

I use mic cable that is ~18pF/Foot and keep the line level interconnects as short as possible I have nothing longer than 14 inches from DAC to amp.

 

What I also like to see is the noise rejection. Canare/Belden do a really good job mapping that out. Nothing to worry about in remotely the same neighborhood at 20Khz and certainly no attenuation under

[Teresa]

I truly regret posting in this thread. I just wanted to say there are reasons why one would want a battery indicator in a DBS system. Such as when your stereo doesn't sound right and you don’t automatically know what is causing the problem. If the DBS battery shows charged you've eliminated one possible culprit, then on to the next.

 

But why can't it simply be there was not ever a change to begin with? Why can't it be that until there is empiric data that the cables do nothing more or less that another properly engineered cable does? Why can't the DBS system make something sound worse?

 

All of those are possibilities, however since I have never heard AQ cables with the DBS system I am not qualified to comment. And if I had heard them it would only apply to my system, in my room with my ears, so I couldn’t speak for anyone else.

 

I think if something is that imperceptible then I have reservations about it. I can only have as much faith as AQ does. I don't think it's a waste of time to demonstrate the superiority of your product.

 

Then don’t buy them, I’m not buying them as I am a member of the lower economic class and don’t have that kind of money for audio. I like music through my stereo with my inexpensive interconnects and cables. But if I were rich I might try them, I’m not rich so why should I worry about what I cannot afford?

 

In post 301 Mr. Low explains how he demonstrates AQ cables in which a single variable is changed at a time. However, that was unsatisfactory to you and you offered your setup suggestions in post 303 for a blind AB test with a switcher and a bet. The problem I see with Mr. Low’s demo is there is time between the switching of the cables which is longer than short-term audio memory of human beings. And the problem with your AB is mostly cognitive bias in which our brains work against us by adjusting similar sounds to sound identical.

 

From the Dielectric-Bias System pdf

“Evaluating the effectiveness of the DBS system requires a cable with its DBS system disconnected for two weeks to be compared with a cable that has had its DBS system attached for two weeks.”

 

I submit there is nothing short of long-term listening, in one’s own system using long-term sonic impressions, which is impossible to do at a trade show.

 

Totally agree on using the return policy. Unfortunately for me I have zero local shops so I'm limited by what is carried online and what I reasonably can put up with in terms of potentially having to ship something back. I do have an Emotiva Stealth DC-1 DAC coming as I want to add HP capabilities to my system. See how that goes vs the Bel Canto 1.7.

 

That’s a bummer, decades ago we used to have over a dozen stereo stores in my city, now we only have three. To return something in town costs almost nothing as I can do it while running errands or other shopping, but I’m usually on the hook for return shipping when I have to return by mail.

 

…If something/anything doesn't make a difference to you then don't waste your time/money/energy.

Move along and be happy.

 

I agree!

 

..If you really want to see first hand if the dbs makes a difference, buy the cables from your local Best Buy, and return them if they don't live up to the claims. What more could you possibly want?

 

I agree!

 

…First if you're not level matching very carefully you can't make accurate cable comparisons.

 

I can think of no reason digital cables would differ in signal levels. However, I can think of three reasons why analog cables would differ in signal levels: one transmitting greater dynamic range, more bass energy or more overall level.

 

If one cable is louder than the other (especially in the bass) doesn’t that make it a better cable as it is transmitting more of the audio signal? So if you lower the level when listening to the louder cable aren’t you eliminating perhaps its biggest advantage over the weaker cable?

 

So if one matches the average level:

 

• The one with the smaller dynamic range will initially sound the best because it is louder most of the time since music is dynamic. However, it is the one with wider dynamic range that will sound best when listened to alone for pleasure.
  
• The one with more bass may still have more bass but it might be less evident.
  
• The one with more overall level may sound the same as they are both now the same level.

 

Second is the you get what you pay for. Almost never true in audio cables. There are good reasons why different specifications change the sound in cables but there don't seem to any reasons to spend a lot of money to do it.

 

This is good reasoning for me as I am a very poor audiophile, and the cheaper the better. However I have no way to know if it is true and I don’t care one way or another, as I bought a stereo system within my budget with which my music sounds very enjoyable to me. Is there better? Of course! But I don’t care, I’m happy with what I have.

 

My last test of Ethernet cables included expensive AudioQuest cables. You can easily locate my findings punch up AudioQuest, Wikipedia, References #15, first comment. Should tell you why have doubts about exotic cables. As is the testing I did in the eighties and nineties on speaker cables and interconnects. You can't change the laws of physics.

 

Thanks I read your well written article, here is the link for others to read. Review: Audioquest Ethernet Cables, Diamond, Vodka

[plissken]

People, nothing here makes sense. First if you're not level matching very carefully you can't make accurate cable comparisons. Second is the you get what you pay for. Almost never true in audio cables. There are good reasons why different specifications change the sound in cables but there don't seem to any reasons to spend a lot of money to do it.

 

My last test of Ethernet cables included expensive AudioQuest cables. You can easily locate my findings punch up AudioQuest, Wikipedia, References #15, first comment. Should tell you why have doubts about exotic cables. As is the testing I did in the eighties and nineties on speaker cables and interconnects. You can't change the laws of physics.

 

Scott Hulls' entire write up has so many issues that I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

He talks about drop outs and an AQ cable fixing them. Did he try any other cable? That's just poor implementation.

 

In regards to your VOIP. I've slung countless NBX, ShoreTel, Polycom, etc VOIP phones. I find it hard to believe with all the processing (QOS, VLAN's, Jitter Buffer settings) that there was any difference in tonal quality. Especially since these are highly compressed formats with a lot of EQ and low and high pass filtering applied.

[plissken]

I truly regret posting in this thread. I just wanted to say there are reasons why one would want a battery indicator in a DBS system. Such as when your stereo doesn't sound right and you don’t automatically know what is causing the problem. If the DBS battery shows charged you've eliminated one possible culprit, then on to the next.

 

I would like a vote of how many people put in DBS based cables their system for a 8-16 days and sometime during that period thought "gee sounds really good now" and goes and hits the test button on the cable?

 

Because they aren't doing that and by the inverse they shouldn't need to do it when the system suddenly sounds worse.

 

Do people listening to their system that sounds better than it did yesterday with no apparent change start trying to figure out the mystery improvement?

 

 

In post 301 Mr. Low explains how he demonstrates AQ cables in which a single variable is changed at a time. However, that was unsatisfactory to you and you offered your setup suggestions in post 303 for a blind AB test with a switcher and a bet. The problem I see with Mr. Low’s demo is there is time between the switching of the cables which is longer than short-term audio memory of human beings. And the problem with your AB is mostly cognitive bias in which our brains work against us by adjusting similar sounds to sound identical.

 

From the Dielectric-Bias System pdf

“Evaluating the effectiveness of the DBS system requires a cable with its DBS system disconnected for two weeks to be compared with a cable that has had its DBS system attached for two weeks.”

 

I submit there is nothing short of long-term listening, in one’s own system using long-term sonic impressions, which is impossible to do at a trade show.

 

Great then you are on the record claiming the way AQ demo's their cables to showcase differences is snake oil.

 

On the 301 post: I don't think it was unsatisfactory. I believe it was pointed out that is how AQ RJE with DBS and a $13 RJE cable would/could be tested out.

 

That is Mr. Lowe defined how they test and that it was ok with the addition of a curtain? Correct me if I'm not reading it right.

 

 

 

 

Thanks I read your well written article, here is the link for others to read. Review: Audioquest Ethernet Cables, Diamond, Vodka

 

Scott Hull wrote the article, Steve (Rt66indierock) was the first to respond in thread.

[mansr]

In regards to your VOIP. I've slung countless NBX, ShoreTel, Polycom, etc VOIP phones. I find it hard to believe with all the processing (QOS, VLAN's, Jitter Buffer settings) that there was any difference in tonal quality. Especially since these are highly compressed formats with a lot of EQ and low and high pass filtering applied.

 

Voice codecs are nothing like your typical lossless compression (mp3, etc). They make heavy use of speech models and predictive filters allowing data rates down to a few kilobits per second. Being optimised for intelligibility of human speech rather absolute accuracy. Music is rendered almost unrecognisable. Even if they did sound different depending on the cable, the results wouldn't be readily transferable to music playback.

[plissken]

Voice codecs are nothing like your typical lossless compression (mp3, etc). They make heavy use of speech models and predictive filters allowing data rates down to a few kilobits per second. Being optimised for intelligibility of human speech rather absolute accuracy. Music is rendered almost unrecognisable. Even if they did sound different depending on the cable, the results wouldn't be readily transferable to music playback.

 

Pretty much. Just incredible what they are able to do to get the bit rate that low.

 

The other thing to consider is that the patch cable (all 3-5 feet of it) in a typical office or even home office is just one small section of a larger on premise run.

 

Sometimes I didn't know what was in the wall (riser/horizontal aspect) of the network. Could be from any of a dozen cable manufacturers. Heck one site could have a few different brands of 5e or 6.

 

Then you have the keystones, then the patch panel, the patch cables on that side also to consider.

[mansr]

Do people listening to their system that sounds better than it did yesterday with no apparent change start trying to figure out the mystery improvement?

 

My system suddenly started sounding much better, having been quite dull the previous day. Probably had something to do with me getting rid of some earwax.

[NOMBEDES]

@17629v2

 

In re snake oil: From the Nordost Web site:

 

Odin 2 transcends the sonic boundaries set by its predecessor to realize a result that was never before thought possible. Nordost’s ultimate achievement and the apex of cable design allows sound systems to disappear, leaving listeners with every aspect of a live performance to appear in their place. Both families in our Supreme Reference Cable Range will bolster high end sound systems to new levels and allow listeners to finally enjoy the unattainable sound that they have been searching for.

 

 

I have nothing against Nordost, I would buy them if I had the need. Will the Odin2 "transcend" my sonic boundaries? Will I be able to "finally enjoy the unattainable sound I have been searching for"? No idea.

 

Kinda kicks your rant about "Audio Salvation" to the curb tho.....

[christopher3393]

My system suddenly started sounding much better, having been quite dull the previous day. Probably had something to do with me getting rid of some earwax.

 

Did you do a blind comparison with earwax in? You have to reinstall and remove the earwax several times for anything close to reliable results. Or you can say it's all in your head and leave it at that.

[mansr]

Did you do a blind comparison with earwax in?

Well, I didn't know it was there until everything started sounding like crap.

[17629v2]

"If a company makes no claims of audio salvation, then, there cannot be snake oil.

Thank you for your interest in audio truth."

 

If we're looking for the truth, can you point out 1 audio company, cable or otherwise that claims audio salvation? I've never seen any company make such a claim.

 

"With respect, you are the only person on the face of the earth who thinks that Blue Jeans Cable products have snake oil attributes. Please understand that on this forum the term "snake oil" pertains to outragous claims which some companies make concerning their products."

 

I say snake oil products are ones that don't live up to the claims that the manufacturer makes about they're products performance.

 

Here's a link to BJ's web site. Its a bit much to cut and paste.

 

https://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/exoticmaterials.htm

 

According to BJ's claims, cables with all of this special engineering and materials won't sound any better than the cables they sell. I swapped out my "exotic" cables with some BJ's, and the only thing I can tell you is that a deaf person can hear the difference. It was clearly audible. No going back and forth to maybe hear something. My system took an immediate and definite hit in SQ.

 

BJ's Cable clearly didn't work as advertised, so I label it snake oil. Just because the cables are cheap doesn't get them off the hook. They didn't deliver on their promises, and that's what matters. To say a $20 or $30 cable is the equal to one for several hundred, or even thousand, is an outrageous claim. Its common sense. You get what you pay for. The sad part here, is that new audiophiles that get sucked into the BJ's philosophy, may never get to hear what a higher quality product sounds like.[/quote

 

 

 

Oh dear. I guess I have to be the first to tell you - in audio you do NOT always get what you pay for. Many of us have heard systems well into the $100,000 price range which were unsatisfactory (to our taste)*. This observation is especially true with exotic cables.

 

Now let us consider, from your expience stated above, what you DO hear. Each exotic cable designer knows that his cable must have some element which will cause an audible change to the system. What you hear is this design factor. The designer has to justify the prices his enterprise will charge. Now here is the genius part, out of 100 customers a certain number will love these cables, they will spend thousands of dollars for the green cable as opposed to the less expensive red cable, because, ...well they are green and they cost more - so they must be better, in short, the green cable customer will fund the entire enterprise. There is nothing wrong with this, it is marketing and the careful audiophile knows he should proceeded with caution and discount hyperbolic ad copy. (Audio salvation!)

 

So back to BJC, you state that BJC claims exotic cables won't sound any better. That is true and the reason it is true is because exotic cables only sound different and if you like the difference, then they ARE better....to you!

 

So in closing, enjoy your cable selection, enjoy your system and enjoy your music, but beware the tricksters, as the entire Audioquest saga becomes a C.21 morality play.

 

* some folks will like the sound of the expensive system some will not. It is a matter of personal preference.

 

Everything you just said is a complete guess. Also, your logic behind some of your statements isn't consistent. You appear to be biased on this issue and I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

 

"So back to BJC, you state that BJC claims exotic cables won't sound any better. That is true and the reason it is true is because exotic cables only sound different and if you like the difference, then they ARE better....to you!"

 

I don't state BJ's claims. They do. I included a link to their website so anyone can see where I'm getting my info from. They say the differences between certain standard materials and their exotic counterparts are 0, or so small that they can't be heard. Not different. But since you brought the issue up:

 

"Each exotic cable designer knows that his cable must have some element which will cause an audible change to the system. What you hear is this design factor."

 

No kidding. I would hope so. Without the design factor and the better materials, you end up with BJ's cables. Also, I don't know if you realize this, but you're above quote puts you in direct conflict with BJ's. You clearly state an audible difference, where they argue there is none.

 

One last thing. I can't imagine you not calling me out for my comment stating you're biased. So to answer your question, if I said after trying the BJ's cables that I heard no difference between them and my current "exotic" references, would you still have challenged my results? You should, because we're both in agreement that the cables should sound different. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't have said anything.

[christopher3393]

Well, I didn't know it was there until everything started sounding like crap.

 

sounding like "crap"?..actual, not simulated crap?.. much to consider...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwKRJNtANL8

[plissken]

 

No kidding. I would hope so. Without the design factor and the better materials, you end up with BJ's cables

 

What would that lack of design factor be w.r.t BJC?

[徐中銳]

AudioQuest DSB, re-reading their Upgrade Kit page :

High-frequency engineers often believe that “low-frequency” audio is just so simple … but in fact, it is very difficult to handle a multi-octave audio signal without damaging the time relationships that define individual sounds.

 

Even when multi-channel audio is packaged as a single-channel digital stream, as in HDMI, USB, FireWire, Coax, AES/EBU, Toslink, etc., time-based data corruption, known as “jitter,” causes unfixable damage to the information package.

 

In addition to insulating, “insulation” is also a “dielectric.” This means that it interacts with any nearby electrical signal, slowing down the signal. Absolute speed is not itself relevant, but when insulation is un-biased, it slows down different frequencies and different amplitudes by varying degrees, a significant distortion mechanism.

 

AudioQuest’s DBS creates a strong and stable electrostatic field, which saturates and polarizes (organizes) the molecules of the insulation. This minimizes both energy storage in the dielectric, and the multiple nonlinear time-delays. Sound appears from a surprisingly blacker background with unexpected detail and dynamic contrast. Because DBS creates a field, but does no “work,” the DBS pack’s batteries will last for years. A test button and LED allow for the occasional battery check.

Further Reading: DBS

[plissken]

AudioQuest DSB' date=' re-reading their Upgrade Kit page :

 

Even when multi-channel audio is packaged as a single-channel digital stream, as in HDMI, USB, FireWire, Coax, AES/EBU, Toslink, etc., time-based data corruption, known as “jitter,” causes unfixable damage to the information package.

 

That's hip deep feces right there.

[徐中銳]

Shrug, I've no AudioQuest products. Public forum ; information or commentary may be of help to whether...

Even when multi-channel audio is packaged as a single-channel digital stream, as in HDMI, USB, FireWire, Coax, AES/EBU, Toslink, etc., time-based data corruption, known as “jitter,” causes unfixable damage to the information package.

 

That's hip deep feces right there.

 

AudioQuest DSB' date=' re-reading their Upgrade Kit page

 

Incidentally, songs, recalling :

 

And live :

[NOMBEDES]

 

Everything you just said is a complete guess. Also, your logic behind some of your statements isn't consistent. You appear to be biased on this issue and I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

 

"So back to BJC, you state that BJC claims exotic cables won't sound any better. That is true and the reason it is true is because exotic cables only sound different and if you like the difference, then they ARE better....to you!"

 

I don't state BJ's claims. They do. I included a link to their website so anyone can see where I'm getting my info from. They say the differences between certain standard materials and their exotic counterparts are 0, or so small that they can't be heard. Not different. But since you brought the issue up:

 

"Each exotic cable designer knows that his cable must have some element which will cause an audible change to the system. What you hear is this design factor."

 

No kidding. I would hope so. Without the design factor and the better materials, you end up with BJ's cables. Also, I don't know if you realize this, but you're above quote puts you in direct conflict with BJ's. You clearly state an audible difference, where they argue there is none.

 

One last thing. I can't imagine you not calling me out for my comment stating you're biased. So to answer your question, if I said after trying the BJ's cables that I heard no difference between them and my current "exotic" references, would you still have challenged my results? You should, because we're both in agreement that the cables should sound different. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't have said anything.

 

 

I only have two concerns regarding your post(s). To wit: (your post #32)

 

1. If we're looking for the truth, can you point out 1 audio company, cable or otherwise that claims audio salvation? I've never seen any company make such a claim.

 

See my post #59 supra.

 

2. And your claim that: "you get what you pay for"

 

Mr. Jagger said it best. You can't always get.... You know the rest....

 

Other than that I don't feel very emotional or biased. I am just another dog on the internet.

[plissken]

For starters they've lumped all digital interconnects together and they all behave differently both signalling and protocol wise.

 

Let's take an obvious example: TOS Link. It's fiber optic so there is no dielectric. The cladding around cables is to protect them from damage.

[徐中銳]

Haha, whoever was responsible for writing or copyediting that should...

Let's take an obvious example: TOS Link. It's fiber optic so there is no dielectric. The cladding around cables is to protect them from damage.

[plissken]

Let's look at Ethernet:

 

The clock for Ethernet is fixed frequency starting at (for modern purposes) 125Mhz for 100/1000 applications (which is why you only need 5e for GBe)

 

"Absolute speed is not itself relevant, but when insulation is un-biased, it slows down different frequencies and different amplitudes by varying degrees, a significant distortion mechanism"

 

We are talking fixed, single, frequency cabling. AQ is stating there are parallel frequencies (muxing) on the wire.

 

This is why I simply don't think they know what they are talking about.

[17629v2]

What would that lack of design factor be w.r.t BJC?

 

The question doesn't apply. BJ's doesn't design or make any cables.

[kumakuma]

The question doesn't apply. BJ's doesn't design or make any cables.

 

From their website:

 

Blue Jeans Cable is a manufacturer of cable assemblies in Seattle, Washington. We are located in the Interbay neighborhood (between Queen Anne and Magnolia), and (at this writing, in 2016) employ eight full-time workers manufacturing a variety of cables for home theater, data networking, and broadcast.

[plissken]

The question doesn't apply. BJ's doesn't design or make any cables.

 

I know you've been to their site and they list what cabling they use in their assemblies.

 

So what lack of design, or operation factors, properties, materials, etc does BJC cable not exhibit vs what ever cable you are thinking of?

 

I never said they engineered or designed anything. Yet they do ship a physical product and I believe you can forward some idea on the matter.

[17629v2]

From their website:

 

Blue Jeans Cable is a manufacturer of cable assemblies in Seattle, Washington. We are located in the Interbay neighborhood (between Queen Anne and Magnolia), and (at this writing, in 2016) employ eight full-time workers manufacturing a variety of cables for home theater, data networking, and broadcast.

 

There's another example of how they can be misleading. That statement is just a glorified way of saying they terminate they're own cables. Notice how they say assemblies and not cables. If you go to their web site, all of their cables and connectors are made by other companies.