Audioquest HDMI cables

[WELquest]

Thank you, Bill. Polite and professional as always.
Do I understand you correctly?

- Audioquest cables are made and tested to the same standards as "certified" cables.

- You refuse to pay for the actual certification / labelling, though by all appearances you could well afford to do so with your pricing structure. This is because you are philosophically opposed to the "money grab" by the HDMI consortium.

I can see how this could be interpreted as a "money grab" on your part instead. I do see a counter-argument, that not having the certification could be costing you more in sales than the cost of the certification, especially as you say that most of your sales are at the "reasonably" priced end of the market where you face competition from certified products.

(If anyone who knows me thinks I'm becoming a high-end apologist, rest easy, I'm not. In the case of Audioquest, I still remain sceptical about many of Bill's claims.)

HDMI LLC sets standards, and HDMI LLC has an authorized lab that can be used if desired (which AQ does), but for the most part, claims as to Standard Speed and High Speed (or the previous language for HDMI 1.3 and earlier versions) was self-policed. Of course this meant that as with most product categories, there would be some companies whose products didn't meet spec, or which lied about their products' capability.

If HDMI LLC was minimally raising their adopter charges in order to now better fund policing the marketplace, I would be all for it !!! Unfortunately, HDMI, UL, DPL, and I believe THX though I have not been approached by them, have designed for-profit schemes to charge significant fees to those who do make in-spec cables, while doing next to nothing to stop suppliers of out of spec cables. This is backwards, charging blackmail/protection to the good guys.

AudioQuest has always played the game to the letter of HDMI LLC's requirements. We don't call our field-terminatable HDMI cable by the HDMI name, because HDMI LLC has the right (and I wish obligation) to stop any abuse of their name. Only a fully assembled HDMI cable can be tested, and therefor only a fully terminated HDMI cable can ever be called an HDMI cable. HDMI LLC has the legal means to stop all not-to-spec cables from using their name. So, AQ uses the name HDFT (the name actually suggested by HDMI LLC) for our High-Definition Field-Terminatable system.

It is important to be aware that there are four companies looking for revenue from HDMI cable suppliers, when there should be only one company policing the market -- and as with law enforcement, raising only the funds necessary from those it is protecting.

 

[Whatmore]

Excellent point -- how did we know we were looking for gravitational waves before we ever measured them?

Audio is simpler and more observable -- well, depending on whether one's philosophy does or does not facilitate observation.

Given the clearly understood textbook phenomenon of increased inductance at distances away from the surface of a conductor, phase smearing really doesn't count as a reach at all. As with science in general, the theory that the perception of the treble being rolled-off (reduced aural acuity) is due to a loss of signal integrity, because amplitude is constant, is just a theory that hasn't been proved wrong, yet -- and likely never will be proved wrong. Much more likely, the means for externally testing will be developed, and the phenomenon will transition from science to engineering.

This gravitational analogy has been used a couple of times and I think it is misleading.
We knew to look for them because a hundred years ago a very clever man told us our senses were *wrong*. There wasn't any human with "golden space time" sense that could detect the inaccuracies in Newtons theory. Quite the opposite.

 

[WELquest]

Bill - just to be clear, does skin effect in signal wires generate "such obviously information obscuring distortion" according to her words or yours?

Let's leave amp output transformers aside, because that is something generally only tube amp guys need to worry about. But, in signal wires, it is not obvious to me. Sounds to me like a hypothesis with no objective proof, one which has been stretched from known physics at ultra high, way, way beyond audible frequencies into the realm of audiophile paranoia with no objective basis. But, hey, as you well know, there is no end to audio phenomena which we "obviously" can hear that are far beyond anyone's ability to measure.

Nice question -- I used the distortion mechanism as caused by skin-effect, the one I'm familiar with, as part of asking about the frontier of aural acuity both for machines and for humans. She acknowledged, seemingly with great familiarity, the particular challenge of measuring this form of phase corruption, and that it can't currently be measured.

Now you've got me wondering what application or distortion mechanism had her so familiar with this problem, because it probably is something other than skin-effect ...

Please read my recent previous posts about skin-effect caused inductance.

 

[WELquest]

This gravitational analogy has been used a couple of times and I think it is misleading.
We knew to look for them because a hundred years ago a very clever man told us our senses were *wrong*. There wasn't any human with "golden space time" sense that could detect the inaccuracies in Newtons theory. Quite the opposite.

I appreciate your calling me on the sloppiness of my quip -- but the point in both cases is that either exceptionally clever, or just normally clever people figured out something, and then, the bending of light around both sides of an object, or more recently gravitational waves, were eventually observed. In the case of skin-effect induced audio distortion, the mechanism is already in the arena of engineering, not science, while the pertinence of the mechanism to audio is still science because only human aural abilities can be used to witness it -- though I'm going to have to ask whether the subject of phase smearing was so visible to the neuroscientist I referred to because of difficulty with machine aural acuity, or with human aural acuity in the more recent hearing aid project.

 

[Jinjuku]

HDMI LLC sets standards, and HDMI LLC has an authorized lab that can be used if desired (which AQ does), but for the most part, claims as to Standard Speed and High Speed (or the previous language for HDMI 1.3 and earlier versions) was self-policed. Of course this meant that as with most product categories, there would be some companies whose products didn't meet spec, or which lied about their products' capability.

You mean something akin to advertising CAT6 cables as CAT7?

 

[Jinjuku]

though I'm going to have to ask whether the subject of phase smearing was so visible to the neuroscientist I referred to because of difficulty with machine aural acuity, or with human aural acuity in the more recent hearing aid project.

Also ask if they can provide their testing protocol. I'm sure they want to weed out false positives.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Excellent point -- how did we know we were looking for gravitational waves before we ever measured them?

Audio is simpler and more observable -- well, depending on whether one's philosophy does or does not facilitate observation.

Given the clearly understood textbook phenomenon of increased inductance at distances away from the surface of a conductor, phase smearing really doesn't count as a reach at all. As with science in general, the theory that the perception of the treble being rolled-off (reduced aural acuity) is due to a loss of signal integrity, because amplitude is constant, is just a theory that hasn't been proved wrong, yet -- and likely never will be proved wrong. Much more likely, the means for externally testing will be developed, and the phenomenon will transition from science to engineering.

I do not think there is a formal list kept anywhere of all scientific theories and hypotheses that were ultimately disproven, rejected and discarded. If there were, I suspect that list would be huge compared to those that became validated and widely accepted. And, of course, there are many other unproven theories in limbo just waiting for their day, if ever, to be proven right or wrong. So, in the mean time, this particular theory becomes just another as yet unproven belief for audiophiles to either embrace or not.

Of course, having a nice-sounding theory like this might, rightly or wrongly, help prepare expectations in the minds of audiophiles for the task of deciding what their ears might be hearing.

I remember years ago Noel Lee of Monster discussing skin effect theory in the construction of his analog cables, which contained a bundle of some big, medium and small sized wires within the cable. That construction technique featured prominently in his ads. But, when someone asked him how the high frequencies "knew" to use the small wires, the low frequencies the big wires, etc., he dismissively had no answer.

 

[WELquest]

I remember years ago Noel Lee of Monster discussing skin effect theory in the construction of his analog cables, which contained a bundle of some big, medium and small sized wires within the cable. That construction technique featured prominently in his ads. But, when someone asked him how the high frequencies "knew" to use the small wires, the low frequencies the big wires, etc., he dismissively had no answer.

Noel was not the designer of those cables. The most competitive audio cables Monster ever made were the initial interconnect and speaker cable models that Bruce Brisson designed while working for Monster, before Bruce went on to create MIT cables.

Monster continued to make designs based on Bruce's ideas for years afterwards, though none ever had the sonic integrity of Bruce's designs. If you read my post yesterday, you know that I'm not a fan of these cables or these designs, but the world isn't just good and bad -- Bruce's first cables for Monster were justifiably one of the 3 cable brands that were the high-end references at the time, along with Randall Research and AudioQuest.

A few year's later, after MIT was successfully off the ground, Noel told me how none of Bruce's explanations of his cables made any sense, not because the designs didn't make sense, but because Bruce didn't want others to understand his designs.

I think I hear howls of laughter -- but the story does have it's own valid logic.

 

[Gregadd]

A few year's later, after MIT was successfully off the ground, Noel told me how none of Bruce's explanations of his cables made any sense, not because the designs didn't make sense, but because Bruce didn't want others to understand his designs.

I think I hear howls of laughter -- but the story does have it's own valid logic.

Not an uncommon tactic.

 

[Jinjuku]

none of Bruce's explanations of his cables made any sense / Bruce didn't want others to understand his designs.

I think I hear howls of laughter -- but the story does have it's own valid logic.

Not an uncommon tactic.

Which tactic?

But what do analog cables from the 80's have to do with today's digital standards and interconnects?

 

[rbbert]

Which tactic?

But what do analog cables from the 80's have to do with today's digital standards and interconnects?

Really? It's an anecdote describing timeless attitudes as much as anything. When someone clever is working for somebody else but plans to be independent, he wants to keep his best ideas concealed as much as possible. I also think cable design is cable design, but I could be wrong. Are you saying the engineering expertise and inventiveness needed to design a good video cable is substantially different from that needed to design an audio cable?

 

[Gregadd]

Which tactic?

Offering an illusory explanation intentionaly.

 

[timc166293]

What is there to Understand?

All high-end cable makers say you can not mearsure their cables.

I ask my employees to file patents as I have done (file patents) for other companies I have worked at. Monster did not?

So we are left with any type of theory. I am surprised Mr. Noel could not come up with one.

 

[Jinjuku]

Really? It's an anecdote describing timeless attitudes as much as anything.

It's to get back on track with the title of the thread and the charter of the sub-forum.

When someone clever is working for somebody else but plans to be independent, he wants to keep his best ideas concealed as much as possible.

He could be considered a snake depending on what his job description was and what he was paid to do at Monster.

I also think cable design is cable design, but I could be wrong. Are you saying the engineering expertise and inventiveness needed to design a good video cable is substantially different from that needed to design an audio cable?

I believe the engineering teams, the testing/measurement equipment, etc... will all speak to the complexity of a cable design (or lack of it).

 

[Jinjuku]

Here is an irony of ironies:

Why does the DBS system need a battery indicator? Their cables make such an audible difference that you should be able to hear when the batteries die.

 

[WELquest]

Here is an irony of ironies:

Why does the DBS system need a battery indicator? Their cables make such an audible difference that you should be able to hear when the batteries die.
View attachment 28916

It's about human perception over time ... not that you care, you're just grandstanding. If you wanted to understand why a battery test button, you clearly know more than enough to have figured this out.

So, for any others dragged back into this long dead forum:

You know that dielectrics don't "form" quickly, and don't un-form or become amorphous again quickly either. If the effect of dielectrically-biasing a cable (cap, etc.) accounted for a perceived 10% reduction in the distortion caused by a cable (moving energy from where it should be to someplace else), and because forming a dielectric takes approximately 2 weeks for a 0% reduction to become 10%, and because when all biasing voltage is removed, it also takes approximately 2 weeks for that 10% to return to 0% -- even humans (as compared to the proverbial frog in water that's heating up) have a difficult time noticing the change.

What if a cable has been in a drawer for 5 years -- before putting the cable in a new bedroom system or selling it or whatever, one would want to know if the batteries were still good. Is that simple enough?

 

[NorthStar]

In case you forgot? :b

 

[WELquest]

 

[Jinjuku]

It's about human perception over time ... not that you care, you're just grandstanding. If you wanted to understand why a battery test button, you clearly know more than enough to have figured this out.

So, for any others dragged back into this long dead forum:

You know that dielectrics don't "form" quickly, and don't un-form or become amorphous again quickly either. If the effect of dielectrically-biasing a cable (cap, etc.) accounted for a perceived 10% reduction in the distortion caused by a cable (moving energy from where it should be to someplace else), and because forming a dielectric takes approximately 2 weeks for a 0% reduction to become 10%, and because when all biasing voltage is removed, it also takes approximately 2 weeks for that 10% to return to 0% -- even humans (as compared to the proverbial frog in water that's heating up) have a difficult time noticing the change.

What if a cable has been in a drawer for 5 years -- before putting the cable in a new bedroom system or selling it or whatever, one would want to know if the batteries were still good. Is that simple enough?

So an audiophile that spent $1000 plus on a cable is going to shirk $1.49 on fresh batteries? Thin argument.

I don't think you meant to post this "It's about human perception over time"

If it's about perception 'over time' when do you figure out on that time line when they "improved" and inversely "un-improved?". I already figured out why there is a battery test button because there's no audible difference to be had with cables using the DBS.

 

[Jinjuku]

How about this Mr. Lowe:

You think you could hear the difference between counterfeit King Cobra XLRs and the real item if you didn't have a chance to inspect before hand?

You think you could hear the difference in your Diamond RJE's? One with 4 week old batteries in the DBS and other with dead batteries?

I don't think you could afford to sit for such a sighted test

At least I know what DBS actually stands for "Dat's bullshit"