William Lowe of Audioquest places both feet in his mouth

[plissken]

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.

 

BJC does have one custom sku with Belden that I don't know if you can get anywhere else and it's already mentioned in thread.

[徐中銳]

Incidentally, somewhat apt (if you follow the leads), 31 minutes video, What's the Difference between a $17 and $150 HDMI cable? :

Watch Kurt Denke from Blue Jeans Cable take you through the A-Z of HDMI cables!

 

3 and a half minutes :

[17629v2]

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.

 

I was just kidding. Don't get excited.

 

I compared the BJ's with 2 brands of cables I had on hand. Tara and AQ. All you need to do is look at the materials those companies use that BJ does not.

 

My AQ's use either single crystal solid core copper or silver (as far as I know, you can only get these conductors from Furutech. They have the only machine that does this process). As you know, the DBS system is used. BJ's makes a specific reference to Teflon vs PE used for the dielectric material, and how a difference can't be heard between the 2. I beg to differ on that. I have a pair of AQ Jaguar (36v) and AQ Panther (36v) IC's. The only difference between the 2 cables is that the Jaguar uses PE and the Panther used Teflon. Otherwise, the cables are absolutely identical. The differences between the 2 are not huge, but they are there. Same thing with the Panther and the Cheetah. Those 2 cables are identical, as well, except for one uses silver conductors and the other copper. When you put those 2 cables next to each other, there is a substantial difference. Much bigger than Teflon and PE.

 

The Tara 2's I have had to be made in house by Tara because they're the only company that uses rectangular solid core conductors. They also use Teflon and have isolation system similar to the dbs that AQ uses. To be honest, I've had them for so long that I don't remember exactly how it works. I'm sure the Tara website can explain it way better than I could. As far as SQ goes, they're great but not worth the money. If I put them next to my copper AQ IC's I mention above, the differences are very subtle, if any. Since the AQ are only a fraction of the cost, I can't justify spending more for the Tara.

[plissken]

I was just kidding. Don't get excited.

 

I compared the BJ's with 2 brands of cables I had on hand. Tara and AQ. All you need to do is look at the materials those companies use that BJ does not.

 

My AQ's use either single crystal solid core copper or silver (as far as I know, you can only get these conductors from Furutech. They have the only machine that does this process). As you know, the DBS system is used. BJ's makes a specific reference to Teflon vs PE used for the dielectric material, and how a difference can't be heard between the 2. I beg to differ on that. I have a pair of AQ Jaguar (36v) and AQ Panther (36v) IC's. The only difference between the 2 cables is that the Jaguar uses PE and the Panther used Teflon. Otherwise, the cables are absolutely identical. The differences between the 2 are not huge, but they are there. Same thing with the Panther and the Cheetah. Those 2 cables are identical, as well, except for one uses silver conductors and the other copper. When you put those 2 cables next to each other, there is a substantial difference. Much bigger than Teflon and PE.

 

The Tara 2's I have had to be made in house by Tara because they're the only company that uses rectangular solid core conductors. They also use Teflon and have isolation system similar to the dbs that AQ uses. To be honest, I've had them for so long that I don't remember exactly how it works. I'm sure the Tara website can explain it way better than I could. As far as SQ goes, they're great but not worth the money. If I put them next to my copper AQ IC's I mention above, the differences are very subtle, if any. Since the AQ are only a fraction of the cost, I can't justify spending more for the Tara.

 

But how does that make them better and not worse or the same as Belden? All you have given me is physical characteristics. It could be that all of that does actually nothing or could actually degrade the signal?

 

How does AQ measure and quantify the differences? Why can't that process also be used to make a comparison between AQ and non AQ cables?

 

If you have no measurements then how do you know what you are doing cable wise support any theories AQ may have? If there is some improvement it may not even be in the realm AQ would guess that it is in.

[wgscott]

The idea one needs nothing better than the cables BJC sells strikes me as a wildly inflated claim. I see that more like the pitch a snake oil salesman would make.

 

But you're right, it's not BJC making these claims.

 

This is the kind of "argument" a religious fundamentalist makes against Atheism.

 

There is no such implied symmetry.

[kumakuma]

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.

 

As are the cables and connectors used by almost all of the "exotic cable" vendors mentioned in this thread.

 

The main difference is that AQ's pricing has to be higher to cover all of their advertising and the margins made by their distributors and retailers.

[kennyb123]

This is the kind of "argument" a religious fundamentalist makes against Atheism.

 

There is no such implied symmetry.

 

I don't get your point about the "religious fundamentalist".

 

But as far as implied symmetry, let me further my argument.

 

Google returns the following definition for "snake oil":

 

"a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem"

 

Those who suggest that one needs nothing better than BJC cables seem to me to be doing exactly this.

 

The other definition Google returns "snake oil":

 

"a substance with no real medicinal value sold as a remedy for all diseases."

 

Again I see a great parallel to how BJC cables are promoted by their fans. They're pitched as a perfect solution, with nothing better needed.

 

At least snake oil remedies didn't do harm. The BJC interconnect I tried in my system did much harm. I wouldn't want to listen to my system if I had to use that stuff.

[esldude]

I don't get your point about the "religious fundamentalist".

 

But as far as implied symmetry, let me further my argument.

 

Google returns the following definition for "snake oil":

 

"a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem"

 

Those who suggest that one needs nothing better than BJC cables seem to me to be doing exactly this.

 

The other definition Google returns "snake oil":

 

"a substance with no real medicinal value sold as a remedy for all diseases."

 

Again I see a great parallel to how BJC cables are promoted by their fans. They're pitched as a perfect solution, with nothing better needed.

 

At least snake oil remedies didn't do harm. The BJC interconnect I tried in my system did much harm. I wouldn't want to listen to my system if I had to use that stuff.

 

Kenny, as usual, you rarely fail to reason things out backwards. You've done it again. Kudos on consistency. Maybe you would understand if you contrasted a scientific fundamentalist with a religious fundamentalist. Otherwise you are making the very mistake wgscott points out to you. Fundamentalists are fundamentalist in your mind.

[kennyb123]

Kenny, as usual, you rarely fail to reason things out backwards. You've done it again. Kudos on consistency. Maybe you would understand if you contrasted a scientific fundamentalist with a religious fundamentalist. Otherwise you are making the very mistake wgscott points out to you. Fundamentalists are fundamentalist in your mind.

 

It's interesting that you went ad hominem instead of challenging my arguments. Kudos on consistency.

 

It really does seem to me that those who are so quick to call things "snake oil" are the also the ones so quick to boast of perfect cures to audio problems that many of us consider absolutely worthless. I find that ironic.

 

I was really just half-jesting. Lighten up.

[plissken]

 

Again I see a great parallel to how BJC cables are promoted by their fans. They're pitched as a perfect solution, with nothing better needed.

 

At least snake oil remedies didn't do harm. The BJC interconnect I tried in my system did much harm. I wouldn't want to listen to my system if I had to use that stuff.

 

I haven't seen every post in every thread about what people say about BJC when they say it. But the overall theme that I perceive in posts usually fall into a few categories:

 

1. Good build quality

2. Transparency in what you are getting and the measurements to quantify it

3. A laymens education on the different aspects of differing cabling they carry

 

What I don't see is the 'veil was lifted' the difference 'was night and day' or any of the other tired colloquialisms.

[17629v2]

"But how does that make them better and not worse or the same as Belden? All you have given me is physical characteristics. It could be that all of that does actually nothing or could actually degrade the signal?"

 

That's not my argument. BJ's take on the matter is very clear in that if you pay more for better materials and design, you won't hear a difference. When I put their cables in my system, I heard a lot more than nothing. And to clarify, it doesn't matter if I like the change, or not. Any change that is clearly audible contradicts what they advertise.

"How does AQ measure and quantify the differences? Why can't that process also be used to make a comparison between AQ and non AQ cables?"

 

You would have to ask AQ that one. But to be honest, I really don't care. A cables effect will vary from system to system. The only way to reliably compare 2 different cables is to put them in the system they will be used and do some listening. Why do you think Cable Company is largest seller of audiophile cables in the world? No other company does more to protect their customers from snake oil cables than they do.

 

"If you have no measurements then how do you know what you are doing cable wise support any theories AQ may have? If there is some improvement it may not even be in the realm AQ would guess that it is in."

 

Like I just said, measurements won't do you a bit of good in the real world. (I'm talking about standard items like normal runs of IC's and speaker cables. The measurements mean something with possibly trying to figure out the max length of an hdmi cable, or something similar. I get that.) As for what part of the cable makes the change, maybe you're right, but I'm not going to worry about it. I judge based on performance in use. As long as the job gets done, I'm happy.

[esldude]

 

You would have to ask AQ that one. But to be honest, I really don't care. A cables effect will vary from system to system. The only way to reliably compare 2 different cables is to put them in the system they will be used and do some listening. Why do you think Cable Company is largest seller of audiophile cables in the world? No other company does more to protect their customers from snake oil cables than they do.

 

"

 

Bzzzzt! WRONG! Of course that isn't not only the only way to reliably compare cables, it isn't even reliable. Maybe one of those not even wrong conclusions. If you wish to reliably compare via listening then you need to have them swapped without your knowledge of which you are listening to and describe the differences you hear.

 

You could also look at other aspects of how signal transmission occurs and realize you are wasting your time. If you need the actual experience to convince listening without labels would do it for you.

[17629v2]

"As are the cables and connectors used by almost all of the "exotic cable" vendors mentioned in this thread."

 

The connectors yes, the cables no. I can't think of one example of a major audiophile cable company (or even a small one), that buy cables from someone else, terminate them and brand them as their own. I think you're confusing raw materials vs finished products.

 

"The main difference is that AQ's pricing has to be higher to cover all of their advertising and the margins made by their distributors and retailers."

 

That's not even close to being the main difference, but there is truth to the statement. Every business has to charge enough to cover expenses. AQ is no exception. But since you brought it up, what impresses me most with AQ, is that they were one of the very first high end cable manufactures, an not only are they still around, they're the biggest and most successful in the industry. And they have no shortage of competition. There's hundreds of other brands at all price levels, making all kinds of claims. Yet AQ gets more buyers than all of them and they keep coming back for more. That level of repeat business and customer loyalty, isn't the mark of a snake oil product.

[Sal1950]

"As are the cables and connectors used by almost all of the "exotic cable" vendors mentioned in this thread."

 

The connectors yes, the cables no. I can't think of one example of a major audiophile cable company (or even a small one), that buy cables from someone else, terminate them and brand them as their own. I think you're confusing raw materials vs finished products.

 

"The main difference is that AQ's pricing has to be higher to cover all of their advertising and the margins made by their distributors and retailers."

 

That's not even close to being the main difference, but there is truth to the statement. Every business has to charge enough to cover expenses. AQ is no exception. But since you brought it up, what impresses me most with AQ, is that they were one of the very first high end cable manufactures, an not only are they still around, they're the biggest and most successful in the industry. And they have no shortage of competition. There's hundreds of other brands at all price levels, making all kinds of claims. Yet AQ gets more buyers than all of them and they keep coming back for more. That level of repeat business and customer loyalty, isn't the mark of a snake oil product.

Then you simply look at the price tag and KNOW it must be better.

So without any sort of empirical evidence in the form of measurement or bias controlled blind listening, you hear exactly what you believe you should. The very definition of a snake oil salesman's desired customer base. LOL.

[sandyk]

Then you simply look at the price tag and KNOW it must be better.

So without any sort of empirical evidence in the form of measurement or bias controlled blind listening, you hear exactly what you believe you should. The very definition of a snake oil salesman's desired customer base. LOL.

 

That's pure unadulterated bullshit. The measurements can only apply to the actual devices the interconnects are used with, and it is not possible to generalise on what the sound differences (if any) will be with other equipment.

1.Plissken has already glossed over the fact that there are often quite measurable differences between cables, especially in the area of capacitance. The data sheets show that many (most?) I.C.'s are sensitive to the amount of capacitance that they drive. Just because the Data Sheets show that the I.C. may remain stable into a given capacitive load of say 100pF, doesn't mean that it will not cause minor audible degradation into this higher capacitance load.

Many members will of necessity need to use cables considerably longer than the 1M length (or less) that he quotes.

2. There is no standard for the amount of series resistance at the output of an I.C. (if fitted) whether in Preamps or DACs.,although most designs do use series output resistors for stability reasons. They may even use a ferrite bead on the output lead to the socket.

3. Many DACs also have additional parallel capacitors across their outputs, usually to improve measured results by a small amount and attempt to negate cable variables.

5. Given all the variables in equipment used, some even with Passive Preamps, where the output capacitance of the lead and it's length are critical to avoid HF rolloff, it is not possible for any one interconnect to meet all those design requirements.

A low capacitance interconnect may then outperform a similar length of typically supplied interconnect due to less capacitive loading on the output device. In fact, it may even lead to a little HF exaggeration with some equipment having a small value(or none) parallel capacitor at it's output. I had that experience with my DAC when I used a 2M Blue Jeans LC1 cable between my DAC and Preamp. In that case a more typical good quality dual screened cable with around 66pF per metre sounded better.

 

 

It's the OP who has both feet in his mouth, and there's still enough room left to do a 3 point turn in a pickup truck !

 

 

BYE !

[esldude]

That's pure unadulterated bullshit. The measurements can only apply to the actual devices the interconnects are used with, and it is not possible to generalise on what the sound differences (if any) will be with other equipment.

1.Plissken has already glossed over the fact that there are often quite measurable differences between cables, especially in the area of capacitance. The data sheets show that many (most?) I.C.'s are sensitive to the amount of capacitance that they drive. Just because the Data Sheets show that the I.C. may remain stable into a given capacitive load of say 100pF, doesn't mean that it will not cause minor audible degradation into this higher capacitance load.

Many members will of necessity need to use cables considerably longer than the 1M length (or less) that he quotes.

2. There is no standard for the amount of series resistance at the output of an I.C. (if fitted) whether in Preamps or DACs.,although most designs do use series output resistors for stability reasons. They may even use a ferrite bead on the output lead to the socket.

3. Many DACs also have additional parallel capacitors across their outputs, usually to improve measured results by a small amount and attempt to negate cable variables.

5. Given all the variables in equipment used, some even with Passive Preamps, where the output capacitance of the lead and it's length are critical to avoid HF rolloff, it is not possible for any one interconnect to meet all those design requirements.

A low capacitance interconnect may then outperform a similar length of typically supplied interconnect due to less capacitive loading on the output device. In fact, it may even lead to a little HF exaggeration with some equipment having a small value(or none) parallel capacitor at it's output. I had that experience with my DAC when I used a 2M Blue Jeans LC1 cable between my DAC and Preamp. In that case a more typical good quality dual screened cable with around 66pF per metre sounded better.

 

 

It's the OP who has both feet in his mouth, and there's still enough room left to do a 3 point turn in a pickup truck !

 

 

BYE !

 

None of which requires grotesquely expensive cables to fix. They don't fix it any better than the BJC offerings.

[plissken]

Interesting and quoted from Alasdair Patrick at AudioQuest:

 

"Breaking in" a cable has everything to do with the insulation - not the wire itself. The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric's molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion. The cable is now said to be "broken in" and sound quality is improved. To prove it, simply take 2 pairs of the same cable - one broken in, one new, and compare in the same system.

 

As for causing distortion - absolutely! All cables cause distortion. Stranded cables cause the worst type of distortion, which is why we use solid conductors. "

 

So AQ is saying I could take a cable, one not even theirs, and they could tell me which one was the 'broken in cable'?

 

Does anyone here believe this and would they let me send them two sets of cables. One set burned in and another never used? Randomly labeled?

[17629v2]

Bzzzzt! WRONG! Of course that isn't not only the only way to reliably compare cables, it isn't even reliable. Maybe one of those not even wrong conclusions. If you wish to reliably compare via listening then you need to have them swapped without your knowledge of which you are listening to and describe the differences you hear.

 

You could also look at other aspects of how signal transmission occurs and realize you are wasting your time. If you need the actual experience to convince listening without labels would do it for you.

 

Prove me wrong then. If I give you the specs on a cable will you be able to tell me what it sounds like? No BS. I want to know what the cable sounds like before I put it in the system. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but I put my money where my mouth is. I can sit you down in front of my system and show you the differences between cables. You can claim outside factors like humidity, blood sugar level, mood, lunar phase and whatever else you can come up with, as an excuse for what I'm hearing, but if we're just swapping out cables and nothing else, you need to show me why we just can't look at the obvious. Maybe the difference we hear when we swap out different cables is because the cables are different. Go figure.

[17629v2]

Then you simply look at the price tag and KNOW it must be better.

So without any sort of empirical evidence in the form of measurement or bias controlled blind listening, you hear exactly what you believe you should. The very definition of a snake oil salesman's desired customer base. LOL.

 

Sal, its a miracle that you can get out of bed in the morning without killing yourself. I could easily respond to your ridiculous statement and prove you wrong, but I know from past experience, its just a complete waste of time. You make it up as you go.

[plissken]

1.Plissken has already glossed over the fact that there are often quite measurable differences between cables, especially in the area of capacitance. The data sheets show that many (most?) I.C.'s are sensitive to the amount of capacitance that they drive. Just because the Data Sheets show that the I.C. may remain stable into a given capacitive load of say 100pF, doesn't mean that it will not cause minor audible degradation into this higher capacitance load.

 

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"

 

 

I guess the definition of "Outstanding" in Australia differs from the rest of her English speaking sister countries. Never have two people been more divided by a common language.

 

It also doesn't mean that it will cause minor audible degradation. I take T.I. at their word with outstanding and they seem to have an IC based op amp that is intended for a typical length interconnect.

 

No surprise there since why would they develop an IC that could drive a 25' single ended cable?

 

Many members will of necessity need to use cables considerably longer than the 1M length (or less) that he quotes.

 

That's a poor implementation and you aren't guaranteed by any cable to get it resolved.

 

2. There is no standard for the amount of series resistance at the output of an I.C. (if fitted) whether in Preamps or DACs.,although most designs do use series output resistors for stability reasons. They may even use a ferrite bead on the output lead to the socket.

 

3. Many DACs also have additional parallel capacitors across their outputs, usually to improve measured results by a small amount and attempt to negate cable variables.

 

That is an engineering choice because they don't know exactly the impedance load they are going to be tied into. It's not about the cable, it's about what they are going to be terminated into so as to not overdrive the output.

[Sal1950]

Sal, its a miracle that you can get out of bed in the morning without killing yourself. I could easily respond to your ridiculous statement and prove you wrong, but I know from past experience, its just a complete waste of time. You make it up as you go.

If you put the battery in reverse polarity do you have to (or should you) reverse the cables directional insertion against it's marking arrow? Where are the magnets? LOL

[wgscott]

It's interesting that you went ad hominem instead of challenging my arguments. Kudos on consistency.

 

It really does seem to me that those who are so quick to call things "snake oil" are the also the ones so quick to boast of perfect cures to audio problems that many of us consider absolutely worthless. I find that ironic.

 

I was really just half-jesting. Lighten up.

 

Your "logic" is backward. That is not ad hominem. It is an observation that either is correct or is not. (In this case it is correct.)

 

What BJC and other non-boutique distributors of quality cables claim is simply that a normal high-quality piece of copper wire is what you are getting, in this case made by Belden. The boutique vendors (i.e., the snake-oil salesmen) will never tell you the source of their wire -- they prefer you think that they smelt their own ore. Boutique vendors make bullshit claims about what molecules do in the insulation during break-in. As a chemist, I recognize this as pure fraud. For BJC, there are no such claims about breaking in cables, and there's no cryogenic treatment nor a nonolayer of chinese hamster ovary cells or quantum tunneling treatment involved. Sure, implicitly, they are saying the claims of superiority made by some of the boutique repackagers with the high prices are bogus, but they are hardly alone in that. The fact that no one seems to be able to prove via a double-blind test that they can distinguish between pedestrian and boutique wires underscores the veracity of their implicit dismissal of these meritless claims of superiority. You of course are free to pretend you can hear vastly superior sound through vastly overpriced cables and interconnects. But for you to turn that around and claim that BJC is somehow being underhanded for not acknowledging your delusional hallucinations seems a bit hypocritical. Sure you aren't a religious zealot?

[Sal1950]

Prove me wrong then. If I give you the specs on a cable will you be able to tell me what it sounds like? No BS. I want to know what the cable sounds like before I put it in the system. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but I put my money where my mouth is. I can sit you down in front of my system and show you the differences between cables. You can claim outside factors like humidity, blood sugar level, mood, lunar phase and whatever else you can come up with, as an excuse for what I'm hearing, but if we're just swapping out cables and nothing else, you need to show me why we just can't look at the obvious. Maybe the difference we hear when we swap out different cables is because the cables are different. Go figure.

Maybe you missed Pt 1?

[17629v2]

"So AQ is saying I could take a cable, one not even theirs, and they could tell me which one was the 'broken in cable'?"

 

Yes, but you need 2 pairs of the same exact cable. You break one of them in and insert the other, un-broken in pair just for the test.

 

"Does anyone here believe this and would they let me send them two sets of cables. One set burned in and another never used? Randomly labeled?"

 

It might work, but it wouldn't be the best way to do it. Once you disconnect a cable, it reverts back to its original un-broken in state. You really should break the cables in on the system you will use to do the evaluation. Aside from that, why would you want someone else to do the listening for you? If its your system, the only opinion that matters is yours. If you can't tell the difference, its perfectly OK. That's why its so important we listen. Anything can happen. Regardless of what the measurements say, its foolish to spend money on products that don't yield an improvement.

 

I just saw your post on the Nordost cables. Don't know how I missed it. I asked you for an example, and you really came through. If there was ever a ridiculous claim, that's it. What the hell were they thinking?

[kennyb123]

But for you to turn that around and claim that BJC is somehow being underhanded for not acknowledging your delusional hallucinations seems a bit hypocritical. Sure you aren't a religious zealot?

 

I made no criticism of BJC themselves. In fact I said this:

 

But you're right, it's not BJC making these claims.

 

While I don't care for all their products, I respect BJC.