Audioquest is a fraud?

[monkumonku]

I know the subject of audible cable differences has been beaten to death here there and everywhere but I wanted to share a couple of Mark Waldrep's (AIX Records) recent blog posts in which he conducted tests to prove that Audioquest engages in fraudulent marketing practices.

I've read posts in which people said they didn't believe in cable differences yet became believers when attending Audioquest (or other brand) demonstrations and hearing a definite difference with their own ears. Well given what Mr. Waldrep writes, that may well be true because Audioquest cooked the samples to achieve the results they wanted.

Here is his first blog post:

www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5540

Here is the follow up post, after the fraudulent video by Audioquest was taken down by them:

www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5547

In this second post he has a link to a video he did that visually documents the difference in sound samples but the link isn't done properly. Here is the correct link to that very short video (only watch it after you read the blog posts, otherwise the video won't make any sense): www.realhd-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160124_AQ-Spectra.mp4

If you've ever participated in a debate about audible cable differences or just wondered if there are such differences, I highly recommend you read the posts I linked above.

[DYohn]

Audioquest is just like any other company who makes their living selling high-priced cables. They need to protect their business...

[brutiarti]

I don't doubt that audioquest uses better materials and stuff but is it audible? idk. Will be interesting to see their profit margins, with that you will have a better idea of their business practices

[geebo]

10dB difference is just ridiculous claims for a cable. It takes ten times the amplifier power for a 10dB increase which is an apparent doubling of SPL. No way your going to get that on a IC or speaker cable let alone a digital HDMI cable.

[KeithL]

I would also note that HDMI is DIGITAL.

This means that, even if there was some measurable difference between cables, and a poor quality cable was able to degrade the signal, the result would be dropouts when the badly corrupted signal "lost lock", or perhaps even very subtle distortion sidebands caused by excessive jitter. The difference would NOT be a significant alteration in frequency response of the audio itself, which can really only be caused by changing the bits themselves (which means deliberate processing).

Somehow I'm reminded of those TV commercials - the ones where some manufacturer shows two screens side by side - purporting to show me how much better their TV looks than their competitor's - even though we're seeing the "sample pictures" from both on my (presumably) crappy and outdated TV. In many cases, they seem to feel that, since you obviously can't see what a better TV would look like on the screen of your current TV,  it's perfectly reasonable to "show you what the difference would look like if you could see it" - which, since they can pretty well make up anything they please, doesn't seem at all reasonable to me.

[Lsc]

Yes. Like Monster cables back in the day.

I talked to a coworker who put in a home theater in a beautiful house with a 120" screen. He decided sound wasn't that important so he bought a $500 HTIB for his audio. Then he bought a $1500 projector and finally his dealer recommended since he was drywalling his ceiling he buy an audioquest HDMI cable for $350 I believe.

I think I spent $12 on mine from Amazon. Good thing he has money to burn

[hemster]

Hmm... maybe their 1s are louder and 0s are quieter!

[bluemeanies]

The main point about whether people find differences in cable is how good is their hearing. How good are their ears and if there is any wax buildup 8-).
I myself cannot tell the difference but that's me. I do not want to get into a debate about cables and this graph and measurement. I trust my ears and how music sounds to me and not anyone else.
Now...years ago I purchased a $600.00 pair of MIT terminator2 cables nice thick looking cables with ferrite attached. Left right and middle channel speakers. I had these cables in my system for years but before had Monster which were big in the day and also BJC. At first I thought I heard a different sound maybe clearer sound in the treble end but after I settled in with these cables there really was no significant difference in sound quality.
The MIT's I purchase used from a friend for $250.00 and they were only a year old. I felt relieved to know I did not pay full price.
Since then my system has change twice and today I do have a combination of cables and interconnects that I am very pleased with in my system. The best part is they were not expensive. I still have Monster cables running thru my walls for the surrounds and center surround speakers. I have Nakamichi cables for my main left and right speaker and I still use an MIT cable for the center channel. All interconnects are from audio8 power cords consist of Tributaries, and Emotiva.
I cannot tell the difference with any of these cables.
For instance, originally I purchased the Tributaries power cord for over a $100.00 maybe $150.00 it's been awhile, I used this cord for my Outlaw 7700 amplifier which I still use for HT. There was no audible difference when I used Emotiva's power cord as a test.

Everyone's hearing quality is different so I am not going to say higher end cable are snake oil but I will say that for me I will stay away from those esoteric prices.

[Kent]

There is a lot of bs when it comes to audio cables. Many are ridiculously over priced and make voodoo science claims trying to justify extreme sticker shock. But some cables do sound different and it becomes a matter of diminishing returns IMHO. I've been down the cool aid path when I was a new audiophile in the early 90's. Like all of us we learn with age and experience.

I have an example. I bought and still have Audioquest's flagship speaker cable product (at the time, late '90s I think) which was called AudioTruth Dragon+. It is a good cable and this was before they put batteries on them. These cables use multiple solid silver conductors. I'm not sure what the AWG actually is but I'm pretty sure it's well under 10? My pair are 3ft and they cost me the better part of 1000.00 CDN at the time.

I bought Emotiva XSS speaker cables (4, 3ft cables using 2 per speaker) and compared them to my Dragon+. Well the Dragon+ is slightly better but not leaps and bounds better. Would I spend the money on the Dragon+ again?......NO! Quite simply because the slight improvement isn't worth the huge price difference, to me anyways.

Bottom line I think conductor gauge is the big important factor for speaker cable. Less resistance seems to be the big one. Of course good terminations and appropriate shielding matter too IMHO.

[vcautokid]

I have to chime in here as my store in the day sold Audioquest. I sold allot of other stuff in the store because it was the right cable for job. Never sold an expensive HDMI cable. Never had too. It is always science that prevailed. Also fact not opinion, or slighted science. I personally know some folks at Audioquest, and I say power to them if someone buys that $1100.00 USB cable. I am just not buying into science that contrary to what is, and what is good common sense, and common must haves in a cable, not hyperbole, or Unicorn Tears, with Mood Rocks to prop my cables facing Northeast.

[Axis]

Eleven hundred dollars ? Boy he seen you coming a mile away. What the heck you guys smoking.

[ÈlTwo]

Dr. Waldrep is a great guy to talk to; if you're ever at an Audio Show, and he's set up there (AIX), don't be shy about talking to him.

[knucklehead]

Deception is part and parcel of the audio industry. I'm not saying that all audio companies are deceptive - just that many will engage in deceptive practices whenever they feel they can fool the majority of consumers. Part of the problem is the naivete of most of those consumers who will read specs for an AVR or amp - usually they are looking for the biggest wattage number they can find.

With every new piece of audio gear another 'veil' drops - and the 'hook' is set a little deeper into the consumer. Audio cables are IMO much like the quest for higher resolution DAC's - never mind that most of us have Red Book CD's (16bit) that represent the highest bitrate music we own - rendering that new 32bit DAC you just had to have useless. Then there is the question of can a difference be heard between 16/44 and 24/96? Objective testing reveals no clear answer - subjective results differ from the objective results - no surprise there since we all 'expect' to hear a difference - and our expectations are usually rewarded. After all just look at the price tag! And the power! There HAS to be a difference.

[trevordj]

If what is written in the first article is true (I haven't read the second yet), then this is clearly a fraudulent promotion of their product. They manipulated the signal content to mislead the consumer into believing the observed difference in the demonstration was due to the cable alone. It doesn't surprise me, but it is very blatant. This goes far beyond using flowery subjective descriptors to promote their product. It is purposefully misleading.

[wilburthegoose]

I've been working in IT for decades. You think any company spends more than a few bucks on ethernet cable? And remember - we're sending very, very critical data across those cables.

Or how about hospital cables used to monitor patients. Uh - no. As long as they're properly shielded, they will work great.

[monkumonku]

Jan 28, 2016 15:34:56 GMT -5 trevordj said:

If what is written in the first article is true (I haven't read the second yet), then this is clearly a fraudulent promotion of their product. They manipulated the signal content to mislead the consumer into believing the observed difference in the demonstration was due to the cable alone. It doesn't surprise me, but it is very blatant. This goes far beyond using flowery subjective descriptors to promote their product. It is purposefully misleading.

I trust what Mark Waldrep has to say. And in his first article he wrote, As one of their representative told me in an email exchange, “the truth is bad for commerce”.

[trevordj]

Jan 28, 2016 15:50:00 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I trust what Mark Waldrep has to say. And in his first article he wrote, As one of their representative told me in an email exchange, “the truth is bad for commerce”.

I definitely do too. There is not a doubt in my mind that this is true, deliberate, and misleading advertising. I'm glad this guy has the technical knowledge to have discovered it.

[monkumonku]

Jan 28, 2016 15:56:02 GMT -5 trevordj said:

Jan 28, 2016 15:50:00 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I trust what Mark Waldrep has to say. And in his first article he wrote, As one of their representative told me in an email exchange, “the truth is bad for commerce”.

I definitely do too. There is not a doubt in my mind that this is true, deliberate, and misleading advertising. I'm glad this guy has the technical knowledge to have discovered it.

Yup. I am not saying that people can't hear differences between cables but how many instances are due to it not being an apples to apples comparison? Even worse this one was deliberately misleading at the expense of the unknowing listeners. They didn't reckon someone with technical expertise would analyze what was going on.

If you can do an apples to apples objective comparison in your own home under your control and hear differences, that's one thing. How can I deny you don't hear a difference (other than the usual challenge of let me blindfold you and if you can do better than random chance I'll believe you, which invariably winds up in thread locking ). But the ones that are done by the audio companies themselves - how can you put credence in those? It's just another way of doing magic and magic is just sleight of hand.

[ludi]

As was already mentioned by Keith it makes a big difference if the cable is to transport the information encoded or as plain information. The results of a less optimal transport are of a complete different order. With encoded information transport like digital music new artifacts might be introduced, e.g. jitter, or drop outs might occur. With plain information transport (slight) degradation might occur or external interference like 60Hz buzz might be introduced. Discussing cables while lacking this basic understanding is kind of useless.

[Boomzilla]

YES, Audioquest uses misleading advertising. But I'd say that 95% of all audio companies do the same. This isn't to excuse Audioquest - only to point out that they are by no means alone. Examples:

Definitive Technology quoted their subwoofers specs to 14 Hz. without specifying amplitude.
AV Receiver makers (most if not all) quote their power specs with no more than two channels driven, and often at 1KHz. rather than 20 to 20KHz.
Amplifier makers frequently quote distortion specs without specifying the power output at which the measurements are made

Now that said, the simpler your product the greater the pressure by the marketing department to exaggerate some aspect of the performance to create sales. A wire is about the simplest product on the market, so to get lots of gold for a simple piece of copper, some exaggeration is necessary. Sell the customer on the quality of the metal, the material of the insulator, the fact that we threw some liquid nitrogen on it somewhere in the manufacturing process, anything (ANYTHING) to make the customer pay as much as possible.

Marketing works. That's why they do it. Edumocate youseff & keep your money, for a fool and his money...