Audioquest HDMI cables

[WELquest]

Hello WELquest, or should I say Bill...? Nice to hear from you sir. Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Tom and I have through the years used many, many of your products. One of them is still in my rig and has been for quite some time. I would just like to take the time out of my day to thank you for joining in on the conversations of this forum. You have offered some information that isn't readily available to most folks with the click of a button. For that, I thank you. It is much appreciated.

I do have some questions for you, if you would not mind answering them. However, they are not about HDMI cables (which is the topic of this thread obviously).

I would just like to point out that I admire your responses given the atmosphere that you have been presented and that I personally look forward to speaking with you about other topics concerning your products.

Tom

Thank you very much Tom!

"Bill" is most appropriate. At AudioQuest I'm often WEL because once there was another Bill, which was confusing. WELquest goes back to my first email address in 1994.

Please send me a private message with whatever question you want to ask. Or, if it's a subject which is more appropriate on a different forum, post it and send me a private message alerting me. I admit that a larger audience is motivating. There are some excellent people at AQ who can answer some practical or design questions better than I can, depending on the category, in which case I'll pass on your question.

Best wishes, Bill

 

[Ethan Winer]

I read number 8 in their TOS. They don't seem to accept objective measurements either! It says that waveform comparison are not acceptable proof. Its all ABX testing for them.

They do accept objective measurements. The problem with wave forms is there are things that can change the appearance of a wave that are not audible even to the best ears. Phase shift is a perfect example. This is from my Audio Expert book, in the section that describes maximizing broadcast volume levels while avoiding distortion which is actually illegal for radio and TV:

Finally, phase shift can also be used to alter the ratio of peak to average volume levels without affecting the sound or tone quality. The top waveform in Figure 1.16 shows one sentence from a narration Wave file I recorded for a tutorial video. The bottom waveform shows the same file after applying phase shift using an all-pass filter. The Orban company sells audio processors to the broadcast market, and its Optimod products contain a phase rotator feature that's tailored to reduce the peak level of typical male voices without lowering the overall volume. Just as the maximum level you can pass through a tape recorder or preamp is limited by the waveform peaks, broadcast transmitters also clip based on the peak level. By reducing the peak heights with phase shift, broadcasters can increase the overall volume of an announcer without using a limiter, which might negatively affect the sound quality. Or they can use both phase shift and limiting to get even more volume without distortion.


Figure 1.16: Phase shift can alter the peak level of a source (top) without changing its average level.

The point here is that even though these two waves look very different, they sound identical and so can't fairly be used to prove a change in sound.

--Ethan

 

[jeromelang]

I find this audioquest data transmitting cable highly directional - very big audible difference connected either way.

The printed arrow indicating the direction that should be be used - is correct based on my own listening.

Kudos to audioquest for checking and making the indication.





What is annoying is that the clock cable - carrying timing information - is just as audibly different when connected one way or the other.

No directionality indication from Pro-Ject whom supplies this clock cable.

I had to put some tape around the beginning of the clock cable so that other users would know which way to connect it back in case the system gets shifted around.

They need a big spanking for not indicating the direction.
The difference in soundstaging is simply too "visible" to ignore

 

[Gregadd]

I guess it's easier to lie and say you did a proper ABX test and got a statistically significant result than it is to post a graph and some pictures.

Surely you are not advocating that someone lie. There are enough lawyer jokes on that already. (Smile)

 

[Jinjuku]

I find this audioquest data transmitting cable highly directional - very big audible difference connected either way.

The printed arrow indicating the direction that should be be used - is correct based on my own listening.

Kudos to audioquest for checking and making the indication.





What is annoying is that the clock cable - carrying timing information - is just as audibly different when connected one way or the other.

No directionality indication from Pro-Ject ?????? whom supplies this clock cable.

I had to put some tape around the beginning of the clock cable so that other users would know which way to connect it back in case the system gets shifted around.

They need a big spanking for not indicating the direction.
The difference in soundstaging is simply too "visible" to ignore

You do understand this is because the Shield is terminated at one end. Right?

That means I should be able to take some shielded CAT5e and terminate the shield at one end and generate the same result.

 

[Gregadd]

We continue to make the eroneous assumption that empirical data is not proof. We can gather any number of measurements t o show your car brakes are functioning properly. A simple test is did the car stop before colliding with the object in front of them.
Brake fade is almost always determined on the track.
It cannot be ignored that choice of test methodology can dictate outcome.

 

[Jinjuku]

We continue to make the eroneous assumption that empirical data is not proof. We can gather any number of measurements t o show your car brakes are functioning properly. A simple test is did the car stop before colliding with the object in front of them.
Brake fade is almost always determined on the track.
It cannot be ignored that choice of test methodology can dictate outcome.

Testing depends on the claims being made.... We can certainly stipulate what exactly we are evaluating for. This is done all the time.

 

[jeromelang]

Around about 4 years ago, I set on a series of experimentation to find out which way sounds better - Grounding or floating the earth of audio components in my system.

When a floated unit is plugged into the powergrid, and not powered up and not connected via interconnect to any other components, one can usually feel some amount of ac current leakage on the metallic surfaces of its chassis. While the dosage of leaked current is not fatal, they can be measurable with a multimeter. I wanted to find out if grounding the chassis of each particular component will reduce or eliminate this leaking ac current, and, more importantly, by doing so will allow the audio component to perform sonically better or not.

I started first by opening up the top panel of one of my CD players. It can clearly be seen that inside the chassis of this euro/asian version unit that the ground pin of the iec plug wasn't connected to anything, anywhere. I then look for the different possible places whereby I can screw a ground wire onto. As much as possible, i would like to implement the grounding the same way as it was done on the usa version i have seen on photos. Because, if the ac return path takes a different route, it might add unwanted noise unintentionally elsewhere onto parts crucial to sound reproduction. (this later did proved to be especially important)

Besides, I also wanted to make sure that while implementing the grounding, it does not in anyway leak fatalistic doses of ac current onto the chassis. So following the photos that i have seen I figured is the best and safest way. It is also neater. I would hate to see the ulgy sight of another wire dangling from the component. Besides, who is to say, the dangling wire wouldn't be an antenna for omnipresent RF noise hovering around everywhere?

But it seems that, compared to the usa version, my unit didn't come with the extra screw at the back panel of the chassis that allow the user to attach the ground wire to. Although I could solder the ground cable to the back panel if I wanted to, but I wanted to test it before i make it permanent. So it makes sense to use a short single conductor cable with a pair of crocodile clips at either end. They will allow me to add and remove the cable easily at any time during the test period. Also it allows me to swap the direction to and fro, to check for the directionality of this ground cable.

So I clipped 1 of the croc onto the IEC pin, and then the other croc was clipped onto the back panel. This part of the panel was painted black, so I scrapped the teeth of the croc clip on the surface to make sure it made real contact. After plugging in the ac power, I used the back of one finger to brush against the front panel of the player. I could feel that now the chassis of the player has no more current leakage. (it used to have some leakage earlier, which could be perceived as a sort of vibrating buzz on the back of the finger)

So far so good. It wasn't fatalistic. I'm still alive today.



I plugged the interconnects on, and sat down and listened.

The first impression was positive - height of the vocal image was more extended, above the height of the speaker tweeters. Second thing I noticed was that the silence between the musical notes were blacker, rendering clearer, the soundscape in which all the instruments are suspended. This of course has the effect of giving more space around each voices and instruments. I listened to a couple more tracks and the conclusion is the same.

I then swapped the direction on the grounding cable.

No good, the soundstage lost most of its spaciousness and the sound become muddy and dull. It became worst than not grounding the chassis.

I then swapped the direction back again. and all that sonic goodness I got previously were restored again. this proves that this particular single conductor cable is indeed directional, and it didn't need be actual audio signals for the effect to be audible. My guess is that the wrong directionality to the ac current had added some impedance to the current going back the return path into the power grid, thereby muddying the sound.

In this condition, I continued to listen to more tracks over the period of a week. Every 2 days or so, I continued to test the directionality. And each time, the result is the same.

One direction always sound better than the other.

Since the top panel has been removed, it was easy to do the swap anytime.

After 1 week, I decided to change to another set of grounding cable.

It is of the same make. What I wanted was to find out if the cable could benefit from any "run-in". Yes, it does. However, the first cable sounded better.

It sounded smoother at the top end, and less ragged.

The quieter parts are more quieter. And imaging outlines are more vividly carved, and fleshened out from the soundscape.

It is worthwhile to take note both these single conductor cables came from the same supplier, they have the same gauge, but their insulator were of different colours.



I continued to run in this original grounding cable. Over the next 3 weeks I tried attaching the croc clip to other metallic parts inside the chassis - like for instance - the parallel aluminium beams that reinforce the rigidity of the chassis, the aluminium tray that supports the power supply pcb board. Both these metallic portions are electrically linked to the whole chassis, as a simple test on a multimeter will show. But somehow the sound just isn't the same when grounding the chassis on both these portions. The sound became muddied and forward. Grounding the chassis from the back panel of the chassis proved to be the best sonically sounding. so it seems that if the return path for the leaked current is shorter, there is a chance that the resultant sound quality will be better.

After about another 1 month, I trimmed the cable down to 5 cm length. Soldered 1 end to the IEC plug's ground pin, and the other end to the chassis' back panel - making sure that the pre-determined directionality is maintained. There was a period of settling down for the soldering (about 3 days). After that the player perform as beautifully as I've ever heard it.

I did the same for the second unit of the exact same model CD player that I have. And the result is the same.

 

[Gregadd]

Testing depends on the claims being made.... We can certainly stipulate what exactly we are evaluating for. This is done all the time.

Yes but audiophiles are held to a different standard by their detractors. Thiey express a desire to disallow empirical data. I don't want a thread to be derailed by such claims as, " I trust my ears." I contend it is impossible to divorce what we hear sighted or otherwise from a proof of how things sound.

 

[Jinjuku]

Yes but audiophiles are held to a different standard by their detractors. Thiey express a desire to disallow empirical data. I don't want a thread to be derailed by such claims as " I trust my ears." I contend it is impossible to divorce what we hear sighted or otherwis from a proof of how things sound.

That's an very large brush to paint with.

I think audiophiles should be tested on the claims they make. I see nothing wrong with that or any inherent flaw. To find a flaw with any evaluation would be be finding a flaw inherent in the claimant.

 

[timc166293]

Yes but audiophiles are held to a different standard by their detractors. Thiey express a desire to disallow empirical data. I don't want a thread to be derailed by such claims as " I trust my ears." I contend it is impossible to divorce what we hear sighted or otherwis from a proof of how things sound.

Gregadd,

I think you are missing the issue at hand. We all agree trust your ears on what you like - cool?

What this and some other forums want is data. If you say it sounds better - then what changed the original signal? How can we repeat and measure?

It is that simple.

 

[amirm]

I contend it is impossible to divorce what we hear sighted or otherwis from a proof of how things sound.

That contention is fine. The problem is when you attempt to draw a conclusion regarding the "thing."

You can say when you made this change, it sounded different to you. No one can dispute that statement. What we can dispute and have proven time and time again is that a conclusion cannot be drawn that the change definitely caused that perception of different sound. Unfortunately that is the conclusion that people want to make.

 

[Gregadd]

Anything can be challenged. Everybody makes mistakes. Even a well thought out hypothesis can be disproved. It's not a character flaw.
They should be allowed to speak and be judged on an equal basis.



e

 

[Gregadd]

That contention is fine. The problem is when you attempt to draw a conclusion regarding the "thing."

You can say when you made this change, it sounded different to you. No one can dispute that statement. What we can dispute and have proven time and time again is that a conclusion cannot be drawn that the change definitely caused that perception of different sound. Unfortunately that is the conclusion that people want to make.

Amir why would I not draw the conclusion that others hear what I hear. Would I automatically assume I am some "auditory freak?" For example your opinion of the ML Neolith. You operate as though your opinion is correct in general and not just specific to your ears. It's my perogative, without being told ,that it is specific to you and wrong in general.
That certainly is no grounds for exclusion.

 

[amirm]

Amir why would I not draw the conclusion that others hear what I hear.

You can draw any conclusion you want Greg. You just can't tell me that it represents proper conclusion . As I have mentioned elsewhere, on AVS Forum a blind test of audio was performed. Well, as it turns out there was an error in the experiment and two files that were identical instead of being different. Countless people voted them different based on what they thought they heard including the experimenter himself. Yet, that was shown to be conclusively wrong based on the files being the same.

So the plurality of wrong data doesn't make it correct. It just shows that as humans we make lousy audio evaluation objects. We have learned what leads to those errors and how to reduce the chances of them happening. Unless you follow those protocols, then the results are untrustworthy.

Would I automatically assume I am some "auditory freak?"

Only if you go to work looking like this:

 

[Blizzard]

So the plurality of wrong data doesn't make it correct. ]

No way, you mean my whole life I've been doing things the wrong way? I thought if several people think it's right, it makes it right, even if it's wrong. This has been an enlightening revelation for me Amir. Thanks for this.

I guess this is kind of like "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around, does it make a sound?"

 

[Gregadd]

Gregadd,

I think you are missing the issue at hand. We all agree trust your ears on what you like - cool?

What this and some other forums want is data. If you say it sounds better - then what changed the original signal? How can we repeat and measure?

It is that simple.

I think you missed the point.
My empirical evidence is data and should not be censored. Your are free to attach whatever weight to it you desire.

 

[Purite Audio]

I think you missed the point
My empirical evidence is data and should not be censored. Your are free to attach whatever weight to it you desire.

Absolutely spot on you can state whatever you like ,but no one has to attach any value to it whatsoever .
Keith.

 

[Gregadd]

You can draw any conclusion you want Greg. You just can't tell me that it represents proper conclusion . As I have mentioned elsewhere, on AVS Forum a blind test of audio was performed. Well, as it turns out there was an error in the experiment and two files that were identical instead of being different. Countless people voted them different based on what they thought they heard including the experimenter himself. Yet, that was shown to be conclusively wrong based on the files being the same.

So the plurality of wrong data doesn't make it correct. It just shows that as humans we make lousy audio evaluation objects. We have learned what leads to those errors and how to reduce the chances of them happening. Unless you follow those protocols, then the results are untrustworthy.


Only if you go to work looking like this:

I don't recall mentioning anything about plurality opinions. Since you did allow me to assure you that my mom ,as do most mom's, gave me this advice.
"If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it?"
In a hobby designed to make people hear things. To me at least it is germane whether someone heard or did not hear something. I never said it was conclusive proof. If they are they are ultimately proven right or wrong is exactly the way it is designed to work.
Let me give you another example
If you sue Ford for defective brakes they may present this evidence. We have x number of vehicles in the field. We collected data on 95% with less than 1% having brake related accidents. Not conclusive but highly relavant.
Amir I know I can reach any conclusion I want.
The question is will I be allowed to present it here.

 

[NorthStar]

Thank you very much Bob!

I don't want to dishonor the dedicated nature of this forum, though despite what a few think, I fully share the desire to be able to measure everything.

Depending on what you are curious about, please send me a private message -- or post a question which you think I should answer on this forum, and use a private message to alert me to your post.

Best wishes, Bill

Alright Bill, I will catch up on my readings from this forum section:
"The Importance of Measurements of HDMI Cables in the Era of Ultra High Definition Picture and 3D Immersive Audio".

THX is also certifying HDMI cables for HDR, more colors, more sounds above, and just more better...THX certified HDMI 2.0a cables.

When I have a direct question I will PM you to let you know, meanwhile we enjoy the gorgeous weather today outside on our beautiful blue planet.

Cheers,