There is always minimum spec, like a manufacturer's minimum spec they have determined is required to run a PC Game (just for example), what happens at "maximum" spec that is not defined, does the game play better ?
Ooo Juicy zombie reply. (Threads not locked so far as I can tell and I apologize if flagged for necro and will delete, hello from the future).
You undercut your own position.
Using this logic the core idea is not that a GPU or CPU or SSD monitor DPI/refresh rate or optical/SPDIF out will be minimally adequate.
The question is not "what about the maximum, undefined, good" it's related directly to the concept of transmission between high end components which perform beyond "adequately good". A digital cable will not, as subjective-ist "try for yourself" types, add more refresh rate, color depth or intensity... they will not change the physics or performance of active components as we know them to be as bit streams are interpreted in light or data wavelengths of PWM data... your base proposition is not truly "what if we could play at maximum settings with better gear"; everyone in the discussion has more than adequate gear and source files. Your proposition around DIGITAL cables is that they make the original content better, that the color pallet is richer or that the soundtrack and game noises are more holographic or mid forward etc... (while taking the actual I/O devices for granted). This is scientifically impossible. You have not propositioned we are upgrading a monitor from CRT to 8K curved 240hz refresh... your argument is that the minimum spec HDMI 8K compliant cable delivers richer, more vivid everything because you were sold a lie the 72V DC biased, unobtainium coated dodecahedron geometry, continuous cast, unicorn tear plated version of a minimum spec cable will be better than a basically adequate certified HDMI at X times the cost.
What you pay for up to a certain dollar amount is workmanship, R&D, and materials. Beyond a certain dollar amount you're paying for prestige (luxury item) because the basic science has been settled and man hours are only billable to a point (those salaries or per hour artisans aren't getting bonuses or CEO pay). Furthermore, your bogus Ferrari example comparing an 'F12 Berlinetta' to a 'Honda Civic' as a point A to point B overengineering "gotcha" demonstrates your disingenuous approach to fact based reality.
Debate analog cables all day long with regards to RLC figures and twisted pair vs quad star vs solid core vs litz vs AWG size vs bi-amping/single ended, but do not bring the idea that metallurgy or (demonstrably WORSE) proprietary DC dielectric biasing of a $2500/6' digital cable are a "decide for yourself if baby Jesus' birth, DaVinci's pencil stroke's, Michael Angelo's chisel, and the big bang can be heard while rejecting cosmic background microwave radiation" cables are an audible improvement or tone control when they physically can not be. This debate is still even ridiculously silly given all audiophile buzzwords and marketing towards these cables are concerned with things that only present themselves in the 100khz and microwave range (which your system is not producing) not the AC audio signal frequency spectrum (i.e. zero impact on audible perception or performance unless you're running hundreds of meters of impedance mismatched garbage and a kilowatt system that would over current a small wire diameter into an incandescent fire hazard).
Also, the CEO clearly knew about this for a year so idk if it was you or others drawing unknowable conclusions about that but it seems more likely than not AQ knew about it and finally was compelled to respond. Snake oil audiophile companies live and breathe off subjectivist quasi-gurus [those with lots of clout, years(fallacious defference to authority), and a social media presence more relevant in 2021] to sell their products. Of course they let this stuff slide as long as possible, it's how cults work. At the end of the day they supply a demand (they are capitalists first, audiophiles second) and legally their cables function as intended (minimum spec required for an HDMI or USB certification) but the subjective "improvements" can not be litigated by definition. crap, I would love to sell $1500 "audiophile" SSD cards with "audiophile grade" capacitors as music file storage at a 400% profit with its own meaningless clock and DC powersupply (memory is slave clocked by the master CPU clock and the data transfer is powered by the main PSU over the bus... there is literally no reason to have a 44.1khz-48khz tune-able crystal and an external 12vdc power supply on an SSD card... that's not how that works).
It's pointless offering science. I gave one example and it was treated with disdain, and called rubbish. If you think I am going to continue working at my PC writing and sharing my knowlege you can forget it. There are other scientific reasons which I would discuss but not now with this reception.
If you think I have have infracted thread rules then report me. However remember to add that you have said analogue cables don't work to improve audio, but offered no science. Or at least it looks that way. Totally hypocritical. (Also I believe acting as a moderator and telling people where to post is against forum rules.)
What stands out about this though, is the people who dismiss claims that analogue cables don't improve audio. Always followed by unsubstantiated hypothesising. You only do an analogue-audio-cable upgrade once, to know it does work.
Digital cables I can understand the scepticism. Plus as I said ages back I bought an audio-quality USB cable and saw no upgrade with my previous DAC. I noticed nothing that I could clearly say was better. I still have a mostly open mind to this subject though. If I bought a QED Reference USB cable for my new Chord DAC and it did nothing, I would say. I would probaly make a thread about it. In fact I did just that with my last DAC and the cable I bought for it.
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/accessories/usb-cable-to-dac-confusion-over-sound-quality
What's the point of even being subscribed to this thread anymore? It's just a pointless exercise.
You offered subjective certitude as proof in a scientific forum. Subjective-ists will always fallback on "incivility" when being willingly obstinate to avoid cognitive dissonance when presented with physics. An attack on one's ideas are usually perceived as an attack on one's person when those beliefs are deeply held. Admittedly there is obvious snark sprinkled around, but people can only be so patient in the face of "I don't care what YOU THINK!" *proceeds to spread subjective content in an objective forum*
Okay so I watched the video - a very nice and completely reasonable discussion of audio interconnects, free from audiophile magic, but I don't quite understand why you disagree with me that the original question about silver ciem cables should be posted to the (science free) Cables section. Sure posting in this will mean that the question might get a more science and engineering based answer but that answer almost surely would not be what poster might have expected.
With that in mind let me respond with a "typical" Sound Science answer:
What properties or advantages does using silver wire instead of copper wire offer when used for transmitting an analog audio signal from an amp to the drivers in the custom in-ear monitor? I say this because the answer that science and engineering principles give is that the only difference between silver and copper when used in ciem cables is cost.
Audio jewelry. That's the only answer. The answer subjectivists want reinforced is "such immediacy, speed, sparkling crispy highs and a Soundstage expansion the width of the Mississippi Delta! Not as warm as pure copper! Really tames the low end on my V shaped IEM's!"
Well that was an entertaining read. Happy 2022 ya'll. I'm not sure what the necro rules are in this sub-forum but just want yall to know if someone's interested in seeing "snake oil" refuted, Google search pulls this relatively high up the top.
