[BiggerHead]

  In the end it's going to be at the moderators digression to decide what is outside the regulations for the Cables forum, that is what they're there for.
But yea I believe if you address anything in that forum asking for any proof or science be applied to audible claims you may get into a pinch. They want that place to remain free from any objective discussion and that won't be restricted to just ABX-DBT.
Best just to stay away and keep any requests for a scientic approach to investigation of audible claims here in Sound Science, you really won't be welcome anywhere else anyway.. That's what this place was created for..
 
From Mason Proffits - Two Hangman,
"It didn't take them long to try him in their court of law
He was guilty then of "Thinking", a crime much worse than all
They sentenced him to die, so his seed of thought can't spread
And infect the little children, that's what the law had said
So the hangin' day came 'round, and he walked up to the noose
I pulled the lever, but before he fell I cut him lose
They called it a conspiracy, and that I had to die
So to close our mouths and kill our minds, they hung us side-by-side"

 
That's just too funny.  But really, most causual outside observers would expect any discussions on a site like this to eventually have some input from someone who knows what they are talking about and most casual visitors won't know anything about all those rules.  I think Head-Fi has some social responsibility to not mislead the general public by allowing things to be presented as undisputed truth, without even allowing for the dispute, unless they make it extremely clear that that's what's happening. It should be stated somewhere much more clearly on every page: "Arguing any supportable facts in this forum is strictly forbidden.  Only unsubstantiated opinions are allowed."  Not every average joe wnat sto know all the scientific details.  They just want to head over to the cable forum and hear solid opinions on what cables are best.  They have no idea that facts aren't allowed.  Without these warnings head-fi is complicit in deceiving the general public.

 

[Layman1]

Just want to say that I followed the beginning of this thread, with some claims and counterclaims regarding whether or not AudioQuest have been deliberately misleading customers etc.
 
All I have to say on the issue is that I met some of their guys whilst working at the London CanJam.
Talked for about 20mins about the Dragonfly, and what came across in spades was their absolute commitment to creating the best products possible with the best sound.
Hearing the details about the research and development, commercial factors and talent brought on board, I have nothing but the highest respect for their passion and pursuit of excellence.
 
I for one have no interest in sticking the knife in to a company who diligently make numerous well-received products and show such integrity in their product development.
Even if the rumours were completely true and accurate (doubtful, in my opinion), I'd feel they've earned the benefit of me regarding it as, at worst, a temporary lapse in judgement and would expect them to learn from the experience.
More love, less hate, please

 

[bfreedma]

   
That's just too funny.  But really, most causual outside observers would expect any discussions on a site like this to eventually have some input from someone who knows what they are talking about and most casual visitors won't know anything about all those rules.  I think Head-Fi has some social responsibility to not mislead the general public by allowing things to be presented as undisputed truth, without even allowing for the dispute, unless they make it extremely clear that that's what's happening. It should be stated somewhere much more clearly on every page: "Arguing any supportable facts in this forum is strictly forbidden.  Only unsubstantiated opinions are allowed."  Not every average joe wnat sto know all the scientific details.  They just want to head over to the cable forum and hear solid opinions on what cables are best.  They have no idea that facts aren't allowed.  Without these warnings head-fi is complicit in deceiving the general public.

 
I, and I suspect most of us here completely agree.  Most of us have also probably been warned or banned from various threads in the Cables forum for mentioning the same...

 

[GreenBow]

  It's not doing anything. It needs to be connected to system ground.
 
You say you can hear substantial differences when changing to quality cables on those mid-fi speakers? The conventional wisdom amongst those who believe cables make a substantial difference is that the system must have superior resolving capabilities. Good luck in the cable forum persuading them that those Q-Sound speakers make the grade.

I am not sure that's the case. There are ferrite shielded cables which block RF interference that are not connected to ground. Many of the Chord Mojo users have adopted these cables to cut out noise when connected to their smartphones. Either that or operate in 'airplane mode'. (Maybe they are connected to the -ve pin but that would put noise on the 0v rail.)
 
I was assuming the Clearway shielding was working by blocking, not neutralising or discharging.
 
A current doesn't need to be grounded. It can float. It just means voltage is not measured against another like 0V to be able to put quantity on it.
 
I actually would not class my speakers as mid-fi. I would class them as low-fi.

Thanks for the rant. Can you explain where you've shared knowledge and science, because all I've seen is subjective observation passed off as evidence of your claims.

No measurements. No controlled tests. No theory. Statements that you could discuss them but won't.....

Again, your claims, your burden of proof. No amount of hand waving and whinging about my need to disprove your claims are a substitute for you actually supporting them.

 
What rant? What whinging? You're acting on the assumption that I care what you think. I will leave you to find my posts.
 
You and those other two who tried to have a go. (I think I will block you too like I did them.) You seem to be working on the idea that I should learn how to cope with you. I have no idea why. It's this simple. If you don't believe me, and you insult me, tough. Listen to your systems with cheap analogue cables and suffer the consequences. I don't care. Why should I?
 
 

  Seriously though if someone says something is sooo obvious I might flip that around and wonder what else they really unbroke to make such a big change that apparently they did clearly hear, because it sure wasn't some cable shield that caused it.

 
It's not just cable shield. I think you have only picked up on shielding that has been mentioned recently. (I bought a QED Reference Audio J2P for my systems as well as some shielded speaker cable.)
 
There is no other trick or accidental upgrade involved. The upgrade with analogue cables is night and day. When I added the J2P it pulled my system up by about 25%; instant upgrade. When I added speaker cable which was to only one side, it pulled up the system by about 12%. Maybe then, night and day is not the right expression. Maybe it's more 'dusk and day'. Sometimes I think it's more, but never less.
 
What is really astonishing though about people here, is that you would think they would be ready to try. 

 

[GreenBow]

  Can you find any sanity in this?
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/speaker-nordost-valhalla-2-speaker-cables-10-meter-length-z-plugs-bananas-2016-03-03-cables-60612-chicago-il
$36,000 speaker cables then being sold after a short time for $20,000 at a $16,000 loss to next purchase the Nordose top of the line.  $40K don't get
you top of the line.

How much are the Odin 2s? 
 
"For sale is my mint ten (10) meter pair of Valhalla 2 speaker cables!  I recently purchased these fantastic speaker cables from my local authorized Nordost Reference Dealer and absolutely love the cables but I am going to try to make the leap to an Odin 2 loom! 
I prefer to use a long speaker cable, albeit at great cost $$$, to get the equipment rack to the side of the listening position rather than placing the rack between the speakers and adversely affecting the soundstage and imaging.  This configuration of equipment is a huge upgrade to any HiFi system!"
 
To think you could get 33 feet of Canare 4S11 is a "star quad" from Blue Jean Cable for around $45.  Doubling up on the 14 g conductors will give you a 10g equivalent
and a redundancy if one line should ever fall.
And the exact same sound.
 
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/speaker-cable-gauge
 
I got my first real HIFI around 1964 and been a audiophile ever since but High End Audio has run totally off the tracks!

 
Sorry I nearly forgot to reply to this.
 
No I see no sanity.
 
I think currently, cabling reaches a point where there isn't much more they do technically to improve response. I think that is reached at a much lower price point than the advert you posted. (Good for a laugh advert.)  If there is still improvement to be had at that point, I don't understand how it costs so much to produce. I think customers are being squeezed.
 
I will never forget the time I spent £30 per metre on Audioquest Slate speaker cable, for a hi-fi. (This was for a hi-fi, and not my current dektop system.) I nearly fell out of my chair. I had been listeing to my system using cheap garbage cable for years.
 
I had been wondering why my £500 best of class multi-award winning amplifier wasn't amazing. It was good, but it wasn't what I was reading about. At that time I had no idea about interconnects and speaker cables. Once I added quality speaker cable - I knew, and I was a convert.

 

[bfreedma]

 
I am not sure that's the case. There are ferrite shielded cables which block RF interference that are not connected to ground. Many of the Chord Mojo users have adopted these cables to cut out noise when connected to their smartphones. Either that or operate in 'airplane mode'. (Maybe they are connected to the -ve pin but that would put noise on the 0v rail.)
 
I was assuming the Clearway shielding was working by blocking, not neutralising or discharging.
 
A current doesn't need to be grounded. It can float. It just means voltage is not measured against another like 0V to be able to put quantity on it.
 
I actually would not class my speakers as mid-fi. I would class them as low-fi.
 
What rant? What whinging? You're acting on the assumption that I care what you think. I will leave you to find my posts.
 
You and those other two who tried to have a go. (I think I will block you too like I did them.) You seem to be working on the idea that I should learn how to cope with you. I have no idea why. It's this simple. If you don't believe me, and you insult me, tough. Listen to your systems with cheap analogue cables and suffer the consequences. I don't care. Why should I?
 
 
 
It's not just cable shield. I think you have only picked up on shielding that has been mentioned recently. (I bought a QED Reference Audio J2P for my systems as well as some shielded speaker cable.)
 
There is no other trick or accidental upgrade involved. The upgrade with analogue cables is night and day. When I added the J2P it pulled my system up by about 25%; instant upgrade. When I added speaker cable which was to only one side, it pulled up the system by about 12%. Maybe then, night and day is not the right expression. Maybe it's more 'dusk and day'. Sometimes I think it's more, but never less.
 
What is really astonishing though about people here, is that you would think they would be ready to try. 

 
 
Blocking people because they ask you to support your subjective posts with objective data and controlled observations?  Are you that desperate to be "right" and to not learn a bit about the actual capabilities of cables within the human audio range?
 
BTW, asking you to prove your claims, which fall outside of standard electrical performance parameters, is not attacking you.  It's what happens when someone makes a claim that contradicts known science.
 
Your whole approach of "I heard it so it must be true" simply doesn't fly here.

 

[GreenBow]

I have blocked you because I am sick of it. You've insulted me and acussed me of ranting and whinging when I did nothing wrong. Can you give me one reason why I would interested in anything you have to say?
 
However the real issue is that this thread is about digital cables.
 
The second real issue is that I offered opinion on analogue cables. I was also prepared to offer ideas scientific reasoning for digital cales. Even though I am a complete sceptic. However as trolls do they turn a prefectly innocent comment into a three page argument. No way I am going to entertain that with my hard earned education.
 
The biggest shock of all is how narrow minded naysayers of analogue cables are. You haven't tried it for yourself or you would know. Yet you are self-confessed experts on an audio forum directing others. Then you will come up with a comment about how you are not trolling my helpful comments.
 
 
Say what you like. I won't see it.

 

[bfreedma]

I have blocked you because I am sick of it. You've insulted me and acussed me of ranting and whinging when I did nothing wrong. Can you give me one reason why I would interested in anything you have to say?
 
However the real issue is that this thread is about digital cables.
 
The second real issue is that I offered opinion on analogue cables. I was also prepared to offer ideas scientific reasoning for digital cales. Even though I am a complete sceptic. However as trolls do they turn a prefectly innocent comment into a three page argument. No way I am going to entertain that with my hard earned education.
 
The biggest shock of all is how narrow minded naysayers of analogue cables are. You haven't tried it for yourself or you would know. Yet you are self-confessed experts on an audio forum directing others. Then you will come up with a comment about how you are not trolling my helpful comments.

On reason to pay attention? Understanding the scientific method and burden of proof would be one thing....

And once again, you claim that you could provide substance to support your claims but you refuse to - you won't be changing many minds here like that. If you can produce reasonable objective evidence that analog cables can make an audible improvement in my system, I'll be first in line to purchase some. Until then, I prefer to invest in elements that can actually improve sound reproduction. Or in shiny toys that that I understand I'm purchasing for reasons other than SQ improvement - nothing wrong with that but you won't find me telling people they improve SQ and that those who don't buy them are missing out.

I also understand as a human, I'm as subject to placebo effect and many other biases, so even if I prefer my GSX to my BHA-1, I understand that without objective measurements, my biases are influencing my perception and I won't make universal claims about audible differences.

 

[Sal1950]

  Just want to say that I followed the beginning of this thread, with some claims and counterclaims regarding whether or not AudioQuest have been deliberately misleading customers etc.
 
All I have to say on the issue is that I met some of their guys whilst working at the London CanJam.
Talked for about 20mins about the Dragonfly, and what came across in spades was their absolute commitment to creating the best products possible with the best sound.
Hearing the details about the research and development, commercial factors and talent brought on board, I have nothing but the highest respect for their passion and pursuit of excellence.
 
I for one have no interest in sticking the knife in to a company who diligently make numerous well-received products and show such integrity in their product development.
Even if the rumvours were completely true and accurate (doubtful, in my opinion), I'd feel they've earned the benefit of me regarding it as, at worst, a temporary lapse in judgement and would expect them to learn from the experience.
More love, less hate, please

I don't believe anyone has posted any rumors, there is nothing for you to doubt, you have to accept the facts in the case.
The video for AQ HDMI cable had been falsified, that's a fact with the measurements of Mark Waldrep, Amir and others on the net proving it.
NO ONE including Bill Low, CEO of AQ denied it was faked, all they did was have it immediately taken down, denied responsibility, and pointed fingers at others.
Bill Low has admitted being aware of the video over a year ago when it was posted and the sound in it did make him scratch his head but they left it at that.
This from the people that claim to listen to each and every cable before marking it for directionality.  LOL
 
Those marketing guys at CanJam sure do there job well don't they, some of the best in the business at creating a sales spin.
I was a professional auto and motorcycle salesman and have the highest respect for how well AQ has marketed its products, unfortunately most of the marketing spin from them and the others in the cable industry just doesn't jive with the scientific facts.

 

[Layman1]

  1) I don't believe anyone has posted any rumors, there is nothing for you to doubt, you have to accept the facts in the case.
  2) Those marketing guys at CanJam sure do there job well don't they, some of the best in the business at creating a sales spin.
 
3) unfortunately most of the marketing spin from them and the others in the cable industry just doesn't jive with the scientific facts.

1) To be fair, it was you who started the thread on here. I'd be astonished if you were to agree with my comment
    I would willingly accept the facts, except that from my perspective (and I don't mean this in a hostile or patronising way), there aren't any. I read the first few pages of posts, which included posts contradicting or correcting yours.
    There's always two sides to every story; this one seems to have signs of possible misreporting/misrepresentation.
Personally, I haven't seen the 'evidence' myself nor had a chance to examine it critically.
    Hence I'm happy to ignore reports in such an environment and trust the things I *have* seen and experienced from the company, and thus stand by my opinion.
 
2) This sounds like a comment which manages to simultaneously patronise me, the company and my experience of them. I hope it wasn't intended this way.
     I do have a modicum of scientific knowledge and general discernment. It wasn't a sales pitch, as I'd already stated that I wasn't buying. I asked him about some things, he answered all my questions, and very well too.
 
3) I've studied plenty of science and engineering and believe throroughly in the scientific method. But it merits recognising that if many people of sound mind all report perceiving a difference, then maybe, just maybe, our 'scientific facts' are based on science that is not yet fully developed or understood. Scientific history and progress is built, amongst other things, on this very factor.
Personally, and with that in mind, I feel very reluctant to contradict or challenge anyone's personal experience. Why should I discredit their judgement or intellect when I haven't experienced what they have? And why would I feel the need to, rather than just letting them express their own views and peacefully explaining mine without tearing theirs down?
This factor alone probably goes some way to explaining the 'no science' rule I've seen people on here debating.
 
This whole site is supposed to be a place for people to freely share subjective opinions, such as preference for one IEM over another. I feel that expression of such things shouldn't be subjected to demands for scientific proof.
 
Well, that's all. I don't mean any of this personally, and it's based on reading the few pages at the beginning and end of this thread. I've tried to be as constructive and reasonable as possible in posting my views without denigrating others.
 
Regards and stuff

 

[ralphp@optonline]

3) I've studied plenty of science and engineering and believe throroughly in the scientific method. But it merits recognising that if many people of sound mind all report perceiving a difference, then maybe, just maybe, our 'scientific facts' are based on science that is not yet fully developed or understood. Scientific history and progress is built, amongst other things, on this very factor. Personally, and with that in mind, I feel very reluctant to contradict or challenge anyone's personal experience. Why should I discredit their judgement or intellect when I haven't experienced what they have? And why would I feel the need to, rather than just letting them express their own views and peacefully explaining mine without tearing theirs down?
This factor alone probably goes some way to explaining the 'no science' rule I've seen people on here debating.
 
Regards and stuff

Let me start by stating your posts are indeed very respectful and carefully worded to not debase others. If only everyone else (me included!) would post with same degree of respect.
 
So let me do my best to respectfully point out an area where I feel that your careful reasoning falls just a little short an of course it has to do with the paragraph quoted above.
 
What you have failed to take into account when discussing the merits of high end cables and wires is the one area where high end cables out perform all other types of high end audio products: profit margin, as in the profit margins on cables are, for lack of a better phrase, unheard of in the history of audio. So what does profit margin have do to with way all the "many people of sound mind" report on the the sound? Well just about everything.
 
The genius of the cable industry is that they willingly spread the wealth around, since there is so, so much to spread. Lavish ads in those fancy, glossy high end audio magazines at a time when the publishing industry is in deep, deep decline. And in return the those people of sound mind writing for the magazine perhaps embellish just a bit when reviewing cables.
 
But it doesn't end there, vendors, whether brick and mortar stores or online/mail order retails all get a slice of that profit margin pie. The profit margins on cable are among the highest of any class of audio product. There's more profit in the sale of the cables and wires sold with a nice audio system then in the entire system of CD player, amp and speakers. Now ask yourself why would someone of sound mind want to tell the truth about cables and loss all that profit.
 
Just as it is impossible to discuss electronically reproduced audio without taking into account the science of audio and the engineering aspects, it is equally impossible to discuss electronically reproduced audio without taking into account money and profit.
 
I started buying audio equipment way back in the 1970s and at that time there was no "cable industry" there was just lamp cord and those cheap and free wires that came in the box with the equipment. Once the cable industry was born and everyone in the industry got a little piece of the insane profits, no one of sound mind was going to dare blow the whistle.
 
Finally we have all those audiophiles who have spent their hard earned money on fancy cables and one thing people of sound mind are very reluctant to do is to admit they have been had. Well I like to think of myself as being of sound mind and even I find it hard to admit to myself that over the years I too have been duped many times into buying cables and wires that really do nothing to improve the sound of my audio system. If someone of sound mind is willing to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on what is basically $20 to $50 worth of materials I would hope that the person beliefs very strongly that the cables will be of some benefit and so, surprise, they most definitely hear vast improvements in the sound of their audio system because the other option just means that they got taken in a scam. And a scam is exactly what high end cable business is and all that it ever was and all it is ever going to be.
 
Any discussion of the "merits" of cable and wire is pointless without including the economics of the cable industry. There is nothing known to man with ability to bring out the worse in people than MONEY. Something along the lines of money being the root of all evil.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  3) I've studied plenty of science and engineering and believe throroughly in the scientific method. But it merits recognising that if many people of sound mind all report perceiving a difference, then maybe, just maybe, our 'scientific facts' are based on science that is not yet fully developed or understood. Scientific history and progress is built, amongst other things, on this very factor.

 
Argumentum ad populum is the fallacious argument that contributes to many of the more stubborn discussions in the Sound Science forum.  The few tests I have been able to read about suggest that most people are not actually hearing any differences at all.  

 

[spruce music]

1) To be fair, it was you who started the thread on here. I'd be astonished if you were to agree with my comment
    I would willingly accept the facts, except that from my perspective (and I don't mean this in a hostile or patronising way), there aren't any. I read the first few pages of posts, which included posts contradicting or correcting yours.
    There's always two sides to every story; this one seems to have signs of possible misreporting/misrepresentation.
Personally, I haven't seen the 'evidence' myself nor had a chance to examine it critically.
    Hence I'm happy to ignore reports in such an environment and trust the things I *have* seen and experienced from the company, and thus stand by my opinion.

2) This sounds like a comment which manages to simultaneously patronise me, the company and my experience of them. I hope it wasn't intended this way.
     I do have a modicum of scientific knowledge and general discernment. It wasn't a sales pitch, as I'd already stated that I wasn't buying. I asked him about some things, he answered all my questions, and very well too.

3) I've studied plenty of science and engineering and believe throroughly in the scientific method. But it merits recognising that if many people of sound mind all report perceiving a difference, then maybe, just maybe, our 'scientific facts' are based on science that is not yet fully developed or understood. Scientific history and progress is built, amongst other things, on this very factor.
Personally, and with that in mind, I feel very reluctant to contradict or challenge anyone's personal experience. Why should I discredit their judgement or intellect when I haven't experienced what they have? And why would I feel the need to, rather than just letting them express their own views and peacefully explaining mine without tearing theirs down?
This factor alone probably goes some way to explaining the 'no science' rule I've seen people on here debating.

This whole site is supposed to be a place for people to freely share subjective opinions, such as preference for one IEM over another. I feel that expression of such things shouldn't be subjected to demands for scientific proof.

Well, that's all. I don't mean any of this personally, and it's based on reading the few pages at the beginning and end of this thread. I've tried to be as constructive and reasonable as possible in posting my views without denigrating others.

Regards and stuff

So go to the whatsbestforum, look in the measurements forum and read what Bill Low of AQ said. Or is that a rumor too?

 

[k1n0n3]

What Bill Low said:

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

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

... Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video. I found the audio difference “unbelievable”. I asked for verification that that there had not been any enhancement or manipulation. The dealer was contacted, and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration..."

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/open-letter-bill-low-audioquest#SLtOjQtG7x00eAPf.99

I think we all can agree, AQ were not as vigilant to ensure the video was legit from the get go, but probably forgot it existed as they have better things to do. Or take it any how you see fit, just don't consistently point out that he knew of the video a year ago and did nothing, yet casually ignore that he went after the store and the production house (with possible legal action) after the video was proved to be faked. And I wouln't be surprised if both parties sales have been reduced. I am sure AQ and others in the market space will be even more careful going forward.

I'm pretty sure people at BestBuy (who carry AQ via Magnolia) do more damage to unsuspecting "fools" insisting on an expensive HDMI cable to go along with their $3K TV purchase.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

I'm pretty sure people at BestBuy (who carry AQ via Magnolia) do more damage to unsuspecting "fools" insisting on an expensive HDMI cable to go along with their $3K TV purchase.

The people at BestBuy are just doing their jobs as salespeople and helping BestBuy to make a profit since BestBuy makes as much profit, if not more, from the sale of the expensive HDMI cable (one of the highest margin items in the store) than they do from the sale of the $3K HDTV (one of the lowest margins items in the store).
 
As for Mr. Low I have no pity or even the slightest bit empathy for his current plight. You reap what you sow.