cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 28, 2016 16:51:48 GMT -5
The high end cable companies need to differentiate themselves by using expensive materials and then using some real and not so real science to justify what they are charging. What I have found out in the many years I've been
in this hobby is that you need good quality materials and especially good quality connectors that are "connected" well. Companies such as Emotiva, Monoprice, Bluejeans, etc. make excellent good quality cables at reasonable prices. They are not the cheap crap normally thrown in when you buy the equipment.
Now, the high end cable makers make excellent cables also that are well made, but they charge ridiculous prices for the same result.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 28, 2016 17:05:22 GMT -5
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... The examples you cited above are not of the same character as what Dr. Waldrep is saying Audioquest did, though. What Audioquest did is downright fraud by altering what were supposed to be identical samples used for testing so that they were not in fact identical. In your examples, what the manufacturers do is leave out information that would enable an apples to apples comparison but they aren't necessarily lying. Of course all of these are wrong, but Audioquest went the extra mile. |
|
|
|
Post by paintedklown on Jan 28, 2016 17:23:46 GMT -5
I was using Monoprice HDMI cables exclusively, until they all were either lost, broken, or whatever. I them picked up a 5 pack of HDMI cables at Sam's Club that was a really good deal for them (I can't remember the exact price, but around $10 each for 8' cables. When I put the new HDMI cables into my system I immediately noticed...nothing...awesome! These work just fine.  You guys are gonna laugh, but the USB cable I am using to run to my DC-1 is a generic printer cable I have had so long I don't even remember how I got it. I did have a printer when I was in my teens, so it must have came in the box. I am 38 now. LOL! Admittedly, I do have some audio dropouts from time to time, that I never had when I used an Emotiva USB cable with my first DC-1, but I'm not convinced that it's not a Windows 10 issue or the fault of the external HDD that I have my music stored on. More testing needs to be done by me. Regarding hi-res music. I was perusing HD tracks, when I noticed they have a free sampler disc to download. I did it, and I am not convinced that they sound any better than well mastered CD's ripped to ALAC. Of course the real test would be to have the CD and hi-res versions of the same album to compare, but I never know what mastering job was used for each version. If they are different mastering jobs, then one will definitely sound better than the other, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. Maybe it's my ears. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 28, 2016 17:36:25 GMT -5
There actually IS a difference with USB cables.... The old USB 1 standard only supported pretty low data rates, so some really old printer cables might not work well with our current DACs. And there are a few of them still floating around that haven't been lost yet. (They aren't marked either, which is pretty annoying...) Therefore, if you're unsure, it is justified to spend a little extra for a really good USB cable - perhaps even as much as $30.  I was using Monoprice HDMI cables exclusively, until they all were either lost, broken, or whatever. I them picked up a 5 pack of HDMI cables at Sam's Club that was a really good deal for them (I can't remember the exact price, but around $10 each for 8' cables. When I put the new HDMI cables into my system I immediately noticed...nothing...awesome! These work just fine. You guys are gonna laugh, but the USB cable I am using to run to my DC-1 is a generic printer cable I have had so long I don't even remember how I got it. I did have a printer when I was in my teens, so it must have came in the box. I am 38 now. LOL! Admittedly, I do have some audio dropouts from time to time, that I never had when I used an Emotiva USB cable with my first DC-1, but I'm not convinced that it's not a Windows 10 issue or the fault of the external HDD that I have my music stored on. More testing needs to be done by me. Regarding hi-res music. I was perusing HD tracks, when I noticed they have a free sampler disc to download. I did it, and I am not convinced that they sound any better than well mastered CD's ripped to ALAC. Of course the real test would be to have the CD and hi-res versions of the same album to compare, but I never know what mastering job was used for each version. If they are different mastering jobs, then one will definitely sound better than the other, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. Maybe it's my ears. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Jan 28, 2016 17:41:40 GMT -5
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. The difference between ethernet and analog is that the protocol on top of ethernet handles the errors. You're definitely gettting ethernet errors, but the tcp/ip protocol is built to detect the errors, and ask the sender to try again when the errors occur. Therefore it's guaranteed that what you send down the wire is what you get. The only way you might notice errors is a slight reduction in throughput. If you're just sending a voltage signal down the wire and not testing for errors or correcting them, then proper shielding (and other properties) are much more crucial. I've often asked engineers why nobody has designed a DAC that works this way. We have USB harddrives that don't lose data, we don't have jitter problems with usb disks, why can't someone design a DAC that does this? I would imagine the driver / software side of things would change signifantly, but still. |
|
|
|
Post by sidvicious on Jan 28, 2016 18:05:57 GMT -5
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... Boom is right it is up to you to educate yourself, remember some companies have marketing departments set up to sell you pipe dreams. It is truly up to you as the consumer to do your homework, look at Volkswagen, the whole goal is to separate you from your money. Are there differences in cable in some cases yes and some cases no, but never pay an arm and a leg for it. Always make sure you are not trying to solve large system problems with cables, fix what you hear first with good components and solid research. As Mike Brady from the Brady Bunch would say "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer beware) |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 28, 2016 18:32:28 GMT -5
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... Boom is right it is up to you to educate yourself, remember some companies have marketing departments set up to sell you pipe dreams. It is truly up to you as the consumer to do your homework, look at Volkswagen, the whole goal is to separate you from your money. Are there differences in cable in some cases yes and some cases no, but never pay an arm and a leg for it. Always make sure you are not trying to solve large system problems with cables, fix what you hear first with good components and solid research. As Mike Brady from the Brady Bunch would say "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer beware) But VW is paying dearly for the fraud and may end up buying the cars back and possibly sell Audi to finance it. Will Audioquest be forced to buy these cables back? No. There is no deterrent to them continuing the practice. |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 28, 2016 18:58:26 GMT -5
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 Honest answer |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 28, 2016 19:07:49 GMT -5
Hmm... maybe their 1s are louder and 0s are quieter!  Well, I don't know about you, but mine certainly are! Mark |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Jan 28, 2016 19:24:11 GMT -5
Eleven hundred dollars ? Boy he seen you coming a mile away. What the heck you guys smoking. 20,000 dollar Cigars lit with platinum matches. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 28, 2016 20:10:42 GMT -5
20,000 dollar Cigars lit with platinum matches. Now you're talking! Wait...I don't smoke...never mind... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 28, 2016 20:22:09 GMT -5
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. The difference between ethernet and analog is that the protocol on top of ethernet handles the errors. You're definitely gettting ethernet errors, but the tcp/ip protocol is built to detect the errors, and ask the sender to try again when the errors occur. Therefore it's guaranteed that what you send down the wire is what you get. The only way you might notice errors is a slight reduction in throughput. If you're just sending a voltage signal down the wire and not testing for errors or correcting them, then proper shielding (and other properties) are much more crucial. I've often asked engineers why nobody has designed a DAC that works this way. We have USB harddrives that don't lose data, we don't have jitter problems with usb disks, why can't someone design a DAC that does this? I would imagine the driver / software side of things would change signifantly, but still. What makes you think nobody has designed a DAC that works this way? With asynchronous USB input, the received data is buffered, or temporarily stored in data memory inside the DAC unit itself so there is still time for USB frames (data packets) to be re-transmitted before the data contained therein will be passed on to the DAC chip. The error detection mechanism uses CRC data so in the event of a CRC mismatch the USB interface in the DAC unit sends a negative-acknowledgment (NAK) control message to issue a request for data re-transmission. In a properly working USB data connection, CRC errors happen only very infrequently so the vast majority of time the audio data is being acknowledged (ACK) or temporarily put on hold when the buffer memory is full. With High Speed USB (USB 2.0) the data transfer speed is fairly huge compared to that required for playback of 24-bit 192 KHz audio. As a result a buffer memory capable of holding something like maybe a quarter of a second worth of digital audio is way more than enough to get the job done. If it still flakes out it means the hardware and or the cable are shot. Either that or the software is giving you a hard time. www.xmos.com/fundamentals-usb-audioThat said, bits really just are bits. But electric noise riding the metal conductors in a digital cable can affect the more sensitive intestins of a DAC so, prior to spending your hard earned cash on exotic digital cabling, jitterbugs, wyrds and or regens, I would look at other, perhaps more important factors such as the isolation transformers and the power supply / implementation used inside the DAC unit. So much so, you might find that these other factors are the actual root cause of the problem. There's an old saying, don't try to fix it if it ain't broke. That's why I usually prefer to buy a DAC that isn't affected audibly by these kinds of added expenses and burdens like, for example, computers with linear power supplies in them, or SOtM SATA filters, Fidelizer, JPlay, etc. etc.... Because IMO, and this is only IMO, all of those things are just fixes for problems that can be avoided by choosing a well engineered DAC instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 28, 2016 20:34:39 GMT -5
The difference between ethernet and analog is that the protocol on top of ethernet handles the errors. You're definitely gettting ethernet errors, but the tcp/ip protocol is built to detect the errors, and ask the sender to try again when the errors occur. Therefore it's guaranteed that what you send down the wire is what you get. The only way you might notice errors is a slight reduction in throughput. If you're just sending a voltage signal down the wire and not testing for errors or correcting them, then proper shielding (and other properties) are much more crucial. I've often asked engineers why nobody has designed a DAC that works this way. We have USB harddrives that don't lose data, we don't have jitter problems with usb disks, why can't someone design a DAC that does this? I would imagine the driver / software side of things would change signifantly, but still. What makes you think nobody has designed a DAC that works this way? With asynchronous USB input, the received data is buffered, or temporarily stored in data memory inside the DAC unit itself so there is still time for USB frames (data packets) to be re-transmitted before the data contained therein will be passed on to the DAC chip. The error detection mechanism uses CRC data so in the event of a CRC mismatch the USB interface in the DAC unit sends a negative-acknowledgment (NAK) control message to issue a request for data re-transmission. In a properly working USB data connection, CRC errors happen only very infrequently so the vast majority of time the audio data is being acknowledged (ACK) or temporarily put on hold when the buffer memory is full. With High Speed USB (USB 2.0) the data trasfer speed is fairly huge compared to that required for playback of 24-bit 192 KHz audio. As a result a buffer memory capable of holding something like maybe a quarter of a second worth of digital audio is way more than enough to get the job done. If it still flakes out it means the hardware and or the cable are shot. Either that or the software is giving you a hard time. www.xmos.com/fundamentals-usb-audioThat said, bits really just are bits. But electric noise riding the metal conductors in a digital cable can affect the more sensitive intestins of a DAC so, prior to spending your hard earned cash on exotic digital cabling, jitterbugs, wyrds and or regens, I would look at other, perhaps more important factors such as the isolation transformers and the power supply / implementation used inside the DAC unit. So much so, you might find that these other factors are the actual root cause of the problem. There's an old saying, don't try to fix it if it ain't broke. That's why I usually prefer to buy a DAC that isn't affected audibly by these kinds of added expenses and burdens like, for example, computers with linear power supplies in them, or SOtM SATA filters, Fidelizer, JPlay, etc. etc.... Because IMO, and this is only IMO, all of those things are just fixes for problems that can be avoided by choosing a well engineered DAC instead. I just buy a DAC and stick my cable in it and listen to it. If the cable don't work I throw it away and get another one. If the DAC makes any noise other than what it suppose to I get another one of those. The only thing that has ever happen to me is a optical cable did not work. Why is everyone spending to much for a cable or worried about what is happening inside the DAC. Get a Emotiva cable and a Emotiva DAC like I did and forget about all this. |
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Jan 28, 2016 21:00:40 GMT -5
There is no fraud in AUDIO...
Only Gullible humans.
Exhibit A...
"It's my money. What do you care?"
"My ear, my room, my equipment"
"I can hear a difference, period!"
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 28, 2016 21:14:57 GMT -5
What makes you think nobody has designed a DAC that works this way? With asynchronous USB input, the received data is buffered, or temporarily stored in data memory inside the DAC unit itself so there is still time for USB frames (data packets) to be re-transmitted before the data contained therein will be passed on to the DAC chip. The error detection mechanism uses CRC data so in the event of a CRC mismatch the USB interface in the DAC unit sends a negative-acknowledgment (NAK) control message to issue a request for data re-transmission. In a properly working USB data connection, CRC errors happen only very infrequently so the vast majority of time the audio data is being acknowledged (ACK) or temporarily put on hold when the buffer memory is full. With High Speed USB (USB 2.0) the data trasfer speed is fairly huge compared to that required for playback of 24-bit 192 KHz audio. As a result a buffer memory capable of holding something like maybe a quarter of a second worth of digital audio is way more than enough to get the job done. If it still flakes out it means the hardware and or the cable are shot. Either that or the software is giving you a hard time. www.xmos.com/fundamentals-usb-audioThat said, bits really just are bits. But electric noise riding the metal conductors in a digital cable can affect the more sensitive intestins of a DAC so, prior to spending your hard earned cash on exotic digital cabling, jitterbugs, wyrds and or regens, I would look at other, perhaps more important factors such as the isolation transformers and the power supply / implementation used inside the DAC unit. So much so, you might find that these other factors are the actual root cause of the problem. There's an old saying, don't try to fix it if it ain't broke. That's why I usually prefer to buy a DAC that isn't affected audibly by these kinds of added expenses and burdens like, for example, computers with linear power supplies in them, or SOtM SATA filters, Fidelizer, JPlay, etc. etc.... Because IMO, and this is only IMO, all of those things are just fixes for problems that can be avoided by choosing a well engineered DAC instead. I just buy a DAC and stick my cable in it and listen to it. If the cable don't work I throw it away and get another one. If the DAC makes any noise other than what it suppose to I get another one of those. The only thing that has ever happen to me is a optical cable did not work. Why is everyone spending to much for a cable or worried about what is happening inside the DAC. Get a Emotiva cable and a Emotiva DAC like I did and forget about all this. Why everyone (OK, maybe not EVERYONE) should worry about what's happening in the DAC is because DAC technology is in constant evolution. So much is obvious. www.esstech.com/files/7414/5193/1716/ES9038PRO_Product_brief_121715.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 28, 2016 21:24:08 GMT -5
I just buy a DAC and stick my cable in it and listen to it. If the cable don't work I throw it away and get another one. If the DAC makes any noise other than what it suppose to I get another one of those. The only thing that has ever happen to me is a optical cable did not work. Why is everyone spending to much for a cable or worried about what is happening inside the DAC. Get a Emotiva cable and a Emotiva DAC like I did and forget about all this. Why everyone (OK, maybe not EVERYONE) should worry about what's happening in the DAC is because DAC technology is in constant evolution. So much is obvious. www.esstech.com/files/7414/5193/1716/ES9038PRO_Product_brief_121715.pdfGood answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by ncred02 on Jan 28, 2016 21:31:05 GMT -5
Eleven hundred dollars ? Boy he seen you coming a mile away. What the heck you guys smoking. for $1100 you could be smoking the good stuff, the real good stuff |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 28, 2016 22:09:31 GMT -5
Eleven hundred dollars ? Boy he seen you coming a mile away. What the heck you guys smoking. for $1100 you could be smoking the good stuff, the real good stuff I think I already smoked all of the good stuff so it's gone now. :cough: |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Jan 28, 2016 22:49:01 GMT -5
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. The difference between ethernet and analog is that the protocol on top of ethernet handles the errors. You're definitely gettting ethernet errors, but the tcp/ip protocol is built to detect the errors, and ask the sender to try again when the errors occur. Therefore it's guaranteed that what you send down the wire is what you get. The only way you might notice errors is a slight reduction in throughput. If you're just sending a voltage signal down the wire and not testing for errors or correcting them, then proper shielding (and other properties) are much more crucial. I've often asked engineers why nobody has designed a DAC that works this way. We have USB harddrives that don't lose data, we don't have jitter problems with usb disks, why can't someone design a DAC that does this? I would imagine the driver / software side of things would change signifantly, but still. Here's why: If your computer wants a Microsoft Word file from the hard disk, and it gets an error, it will ask the hard disk to send the data again. There's no problem to the hard disk doing extra work, and for you to wait a little longer for the file to open. The same thing will happen if your computer called for a web page. The actual file has very little data, when compared to a music or video file. With music and video, the computer has to work differently because it needs to keep everything flowing. It's up to the receiver to figure out what to do with the errors. The Red Book standard plays the previous "word" again so what started out as "ABCD" will get into the DAC as "ABBD" if there was an error with "C". More modern systems, with greater computing power, will guess the value. For example, if the previous word was "White" and the next word after the error is "Black", then it's reasonable for a modern TV to guess that the error value is "50% grey". (The HDMI cable can maintain lock, and still give you an error in the data.) This is the only way to deal with this because very robust math shows that the error can NEVER be zero. Re-sending data can be impractical: the broadcast control booth at the Super Bowl will get overwhelmed by requests to resend data because the game is going out to many users. The servers on YouTube, Netflix, iTunes, etc. will also have to see a minimal load from each user - and the best way to do that is to not have any requests to resend data. But when you re-read the data, the uncertainty can only be reduced, not eliminated. If you read some data four times, and got four A's, then it's a good bet that the value is A. If you got three A's and one B, then it's reasonable to conclude that it's an A and not a B. If you got two A's and two B's, then what do you do? You have to make a choice between A and B, or play the previous value again. Since there's doubt about the value, the safest strategy can be to play the previous value again. So we're back to square one. It is only when the number of errors exceeds a threshold that the error is considered fatal. The CD player will skip to the next track. Or the image will get pixelated for a few moments. Or the TV will play the video at lower resolution and then switch back to high resolution when it can. |
|
|
|
Post by linvincible on Jan 29, 2016 4:10:42 GMT -5
There was a very interesting test comparing HDMI cables of several brands in all lengths and price ranges
The guys sent the same video through 2 different cables into video acquisition cards (or dual input card can't remember that point), then used a real time video filter to perform a difference between the two streams.
Any strictly identical pixel would be white, any different pixel (of any shade of difference) would be bright red.
Guess what : whatever they compared, all result images were completely white.
In all the test in real conditions they saw only ONE red pixel, in ONE image... that can be attributed to normal error.
They only started seeing errors when they chained the cables to add to over 7m of length, that is outside of HDMI specs (or was at the time, this was pre-HD).
Since then my HDMI cable budget was never a problem for me again!
Can't find that link right now, maybe somebody else will remember? I think I posted it here in the past already
|
|
