Audioquest HDMI cables

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
#61
I know that. :) And my intent was to use a still test image. The problem is that I think HDCP will be asserted by the graphics card regardless. If so, without a cheater card you can't capture it. Do you have confirmation of any graphics card solution which only asserts HDCP on protected content that requires it?

I will get our HDMI analyzer and test my system here and see what it does.
Not that I know of w/o a modified frame buffer card.
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#66
Another report on the same AQ HDMI fiasco.

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/mark-waldrep-audioquest-open-letter-editorial

I am glad to see Bill Low personally and finally 'fessing up after a year of knowing about the rigged results without taking any action or also allowing one of his own employees to participate in the presentation of those flawed results. But, he cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, any more than he can claim to be a unknowing victim of one of his dealers' ploys.

It will likely all blow over in short order for the most part. But, I continue to have serious ethical concerns about AQ, now more than ever. It would take a lot to get me to even consider any of their stuff, but that goes back to way before the current flap. Sure, they provide well-made cables, but that is not hard to do for a fraction of their prices.

For decades, they have had a very successful business with analog cables, relying on claims, hints and suggestions of better sound in the vague, loosey goosey world of subjective audiophile opinion. But, they have been having a much harder time adapting to digital cables, assuming they were dealing with the same type of consumer. They have seemed to rely on the same old analog marketing approach. Business as usual. But, there is a lot more blowback from digital audiophiles, and rightly so. I now sense a great deal more defensiveness in their frequent, glossy ads for digital cables these days. Though, they still make many unsubstantiated claims and leave much to the imaginings of audiophiles.
 
May 28, 2013
417
0
0
www.puriteaudio.co.uk
#67
Another report on the same AQ HDMI fiasco.

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/mark-waldrep-audioquest-open-letter-editorial

I am glad to see Bill Low personally and finally 'fessing up after a year of knowing about the rigged results without taking any action or also allowing one of his own employees to participate in the presentation of those flawed results. But, he cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, any more than he can claim to be a unknowing victim of one of his dealers' ploys.

It will likely all blow over in short order for the most part. But, I continue to have serious ethical concerns about AQ, now more than ever. It would take a lot to get me to even consider any of their stuff, but that goes back to way before the current flap. Sure, they provide well-made cables, but that is not hard to do for a fraction of their prices.

For decades, they have had a very successful business with analog cables, relying on claims, hints and suggestions of better sound in the vague, loosey goosey world of subjective audiophile opinion. But, they have been having a much harder time adapting to digital cables, assuming they were dealing with the same type of consumer. They have seemed to rely on the same old analog marketing approach. Business as usual. But, there is a lot more blowback from digital audiophiles, and rightly so. I now sense a great deal more defensiveness in their frequent, glossy ads for digital cables these days. Though, they still make many unsubstantiated claims and leave much to the imaginings of audiophiles.
But not terribly different from any other cable manufacturer?
Keith
 

DaveC

[Industry Expert]
Nov 16, 2014
2,178
0
36
#68
Until there is more known about the subject claims can only be subjective in nature. Some cable companies have made attempts to measure some things that are fairly obvious, like Shunyata's current-response testing or whatever, and the better conductivity of OCC manufactured wire is easily measurable but we can't correlate listening to measurements, and this is true in many areas of audio. But... and I hate to say it... Kieth is right that AQ isn't alone in giving nebulous descriptions about the performance of their products, it is what it is because our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. You can measure LCR, dielectric dissipation factor and other things but it won't tell you how the cable sounds. Just like looking at frequency response of a speaker gives an incomplete picture of how it'll sound, and even if you include off-axis/polars it doesn't tell the entire story...
 

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
#69
What is driving me nuts is Micheal Lavorgna and John Atkins. I want to take the high road. I want to have the moral high ground but I'm just left with either they both are delusional or outright fraudsters of the worst possible kind with what I've seen them post in that Open Letter thread.

You can't say that you easily hear difference in say Ethernet cabling and then you won't sit down for a blind evaluation.

Some people will damn the morals to make a $ I guess.

Zero respect for either of those guys of Stereophile/AudioStream.
 
#70
Until there is more known about the subject claims can only be subjective in nature. Some cable companies have made attempts to measure some things that are fairly obvious, like Shunyata's current-response testing or whatever, and the better conductivity of OCC manufactured wire is easily measurable but we can't correlate listening to measurements, and this is true in many areas of audio. But... and I hate to say it... Kieth is right that AQ isn't alone in giving nebulous descriptions about the performance of their products, it is what it is because our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. You can measure LCR, dielectric dissipation factor and other things but it won't tell you how the cable sounds. Just like looking at frequency response of a speaker gives an incomplete picture of how it'll sound, and even if you include off-axis/polars it doesn't tell the entire story...
Looking at response measures may give an incomplete picture, but it often broadly matches how it will sound. You also see significant variations in response that match with the idea two different speakers will be audibly very different. Harman goes further and says with the right measurements they can determine relative ranking with reliability.

Looking at the response, and distortion of cables? Pretty close to zero difference in measurements over audio frequencies. Shunyata's current-response testing lines up almost exactly with expected differences in LCR terms when you are sending extremely high currents through a cable like in their test. Nothing magic or mysterious with that.
 

JoeHarley

New Member
Feb 2, 2016
4
0
0
#71
Good, among the AQ faithful that will confirm that both you and Dr. Waldrep conspired to create the same video to mutually confirm each other and make them look bad. :)
Suspicion and skepticism are healthy. Cynicism is a minefield, and unjustified conclusions are — well you get the idea. Thank you that your suspicion being essentially written as such.

One can see in my letter on Stereophile.com, in my “open letter” and in several postings I made on page 3 of the comments, that ever since Mark Waldrep made the subject of this video fraud visible, that I have been operating under the assumption that in fact the video is fraudulent. The complete lack of cooperation from either the production house, or from their client (the dealer) has forced me to assume that Mark Waldrep’s results, and the results posted on this site, are in fact accurate — that they are truthful reporting.

Mark Waldrep has promised me a copy of the video (soon I hope), though I do not expect examination of the video to change my operative assumption, which is that both his and Amir’s investigations were honest, and that the only misbehavior on the part of some press has been to judge and condemn me on speculation. My thanks and congratulations to Mark Waldrep for taking a more professional approach than in some previous comments — it can be difficult not to let the most extreme and bitter of one’s own fans draw one in inappropriately.

Unfortunately, in the Audioholics thread on this subject, Audioholics themselves edited a quote taken from my “open letter” in order to turn it into a bald-faced lie. In my “open letter”, as posted on Stereophile.com, one can see that after first hearing the video, and my finding the audio “unbelievable,” that I asked for assurance as to the video’s honesty and veracity, and that AudioQuest was assured that the video was the truth. Audioholics might not believe me, there is no obligation for them to believe me, but that doesn’t give them the right to misquote me, significantly and libelously misrepresenting my statement. I’m not a politician who has to accept such treatment by other politicians :)

As AudioQuest had never conceived of the video, did not cause it to be created, was not a client and was not involved in any way in the production (except that obviously the video included capturing the presentation made by AudioQuest employee David Ellington), that was the end of the subject — until Mark Waldrep’s discovery.

AudioQuest never posted a link to the video on our website or on our Facebook page, or did anything to encourage any use of the video. It was most certainly neither created for or by AudioQuest, and most definitely never offered to other dealers — what a wild imagination the poster of a comment speculating of such on another site has, I bet there are still monsters under that fellow’s bed — though I truly respect that he said these were his suspicions. He did not make the mistake of presenting personal speculation as a fact.

The video was simply not ours, and was not suitable to be used by AudioQuest, even if it had been honestly produced. Only after Mark Waldrep discovered and publicized the apparent fraud, did I stomp my feet and ask for that which I had no control over, that the video be taken off the web. Trouble is, like Amir and Mark did, AudioQuest should have captured the video while we could — call us naive, expecting to be given the backdoor link we were promised.

With respect, Bill Low/AudioQuest

Posted for me because when I registered for this site, I didn’t receive the promised automatic email, and my filling in the Contact Us form twice has not yet yielded any reply.
 
Apr 3, 2010
16,022
0
0
Seattle, WA
#72
Bill, thank you for joining our forum and the explanation. As I posted initially, I liked your response to Stereophile magazine. And will repeat the same regarding what you post here.

I am looking at the email notification issue. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
 

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
321
0
0
#73
Suspicion and skepticism are healthy. Cynicism is a minefield, and unjustified conclusions are — well you get the idea.
Unjustified conclusions are directional Ethernet cables. That AQ listens to every batch of cable and then determines 'directionality'.

directionality.PNG

The issue is one of technical understanding. The issue is one of real world measurements, either by instrument, or blinded evaluation trials that track with AQ marketing speak.

AQ doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because so much of what is on your website is just plain false. Like the CAT7 verbiage when the Telegartner RJE you terminate with is rated 6a and the cable ARS Technica submitted for measurement test marginal.

Please tell me you can understand such cynicism in such light. I don't believe it to be unwarranted or over the top.

cat7.PNG

AudioQuest never posted a link to the video on our website or on our Facebook page, or did anything to encourage any use of the video. It was most certainly neither created for or by AudioQuest, and most definitely never offered to other dealers — what a wild imagination the poster of a comment speculating of such on another site has, I bet there are still monsters under that fellow’s bed — though I truly respect that he said these were his suspicions. He did not make the mistake of presenting personal speculation as a fact.
Given the nature of your marketing, the lack of any real measurements, or properly controlled listening evaluation, yes I have over all suspicions about how AQ operates. It's why I said what I said. I'm taking you at your word that this was all arms length and will post a retraction.

Trouble is, like Amir and Mark did, AudioQuest should have captured the video while we could — call us naive, expecting to be given the backdoor link we were promised.

With respect, Bill Low/AudioQuest
Amir can furnish you with a copy from my understanding. Maybe he could put it up unlisted on Youtube and provide a link for others who haven't had the chance to hear what everyone is talking about?

With respect you knew about this a year ago 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.

Why would you have to ask for verification? You could have easily hit Monoprice web site, ordered 1.5 meter HDMI cable and compared to the stock you currently had at the time. That would have been about an hour of your time.

You listen to every batch of drawn cable for directionality. Something that no one else I have ever met could do blinded. So again you should have been able to independently verify this. I did so with both your King Cobra XLR and Mogami Gold and your Vodka RJ/E and BlueJeans Cable Cat 6a.

In what manner did you view the video a year ago? Was it on Youtube? Did D-Tronics send you a copy? Was it the AQ employee that appeared in the video that brought you a copy?

So in essence you are stipulating now that you trusted someones word over your own ears?

I would like to openly invite AQ to actually have me or someone of like technical capability to participate with AQ in some well designed single blind testing of both HDMI and Ethernet products. Make it a publicly transparent process that invites creative approach, thoughtful critical feedback, and hopefully over all easy repeat-ability for even the minor technically inclined (which I find most enthusiasts to be).
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#74
Until there is more known about the subject claims can only be subjective in nature. Some cable companies have made attempts to measure some things that are fairly obvious, like Shunyata's current-response testing or whatever, and the better conductivity of OCC manufactured wire is easily measurable but we can't correlate listening to measurements, and this is true in many areas of audio. But... and I hate to say it... Kieth is right that AQ isn't alone in giving nebulous descriptions about the performance of their products, it is what it is because our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. You can measure LCR, dielectric dissipation factor and other things but it won't tell you how the cable sounds. Just like looking at frequency response of a speaker gives an incomplete picture of how it'll sound, and even if you include off-axis/polars it doesn't tell the entire story...
I do not entirely disagree. But, digital cables are a different ballgame vs. analog cables. Digital data transmission, which is all digital cables do, is not at all the same as analog signal transmission. Those data transmission characteristics are much more standardized, and they are measurable, though it does require sophisticated equipment to do so. Of course, tradition-bound audiophiles are free to continue to believe otherwise and to listen for those elusive sonic differences in digital cables, much as they did with analog cables.

But, as I said, many, though far from all, computer audio geeks are much more aware of these issues than were traditional audiophiles. And, many are rebelling against AQ's claims. AQ has started to defensively react to this in their marketing, such as the recent ads on why cable direction makes a difference. Sorry if I have to say that those ads, like their others, offer totally unconvincing arguments. They only make the situation worse. It is an interesting marketing challenge. I do not think AQ has succeeded at it so far.

Elsewhere, AQ has stated there are measurable differences provided by their digital products. Yet, they avoid offering any of this measurable proof for all to see and to try to replicate. That is a huge turn off for me.

To a degree, AQ is just like all the other cable guys, except they have been much more aggressive than just about anyone else in proclaiming the superiority of their digital cables, and with a big marketing budget to do so. They have also been much more aggressive in pricing their digital cables than just about anyone else.

I think they have a higher burden of proof, especially now that they have been caught with their pants down.
 
#75
Good, among the AQ faithful that will confirm that both you and Dr. Waldrep conspired to create the same video to mutually confirm each other and make them look bad. :)
Suspicion and skepticism are healthy. Cynicism is a minefield, and unjustified conclusions are — well you get the idea. Thank you that your suspicion being essentially written as such.

snip.....
You are quite welcome.
 

timc166293

New Member
Feb 3, 2016
11
0
0
#76
Dumb and dumber? – Doubt it

So AQ employees listen to an unbelievable demo of their prodcuts and:

1. They do not save the video to show if off to employees and customers
2. Do not post it on their own web page, etc.
3. Even though their own employee is in the video
4. They do not test or duplicate the results

You have to wonder why………

My company saves all public PR and even our competitors.
 
Last edited:
Feb 3, 2016
2
0
0
#77
My name is Marshall Guthrie and I am the primary author of the Audioholics article detailing the AudioQuest/D-Tronics debacle here:

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/mark-waldrep-audioquest-open-letter-editorial

I know that Stephen Mejias, one of your employees, has been in contact with Gene DellaSalla, president of Audioholics, so forgive me if this has already been addressed personally. However, as you are accusing Audioholics, and by extension, me, of misquoting and libeling you, I feel it appropriate to respond.

1) The misquotes. I've taken screen shots of every source that I quoted you on. After double checking, I cannot find a single instance where the quotes I used were not the exact words that were typed by you or on your behalf. That said, I'm not perfect. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the misquote and the original source, and I will correct it.

2) The libel. Any lawyer will tell you that the perfect defense for libel is the truth. Again, I have gone through the article and cannot find anything written by myself or my editor, Gene DellaSala, that is not the most true representation of the facts at hand. Again, if I am wrong, please point me to the specific instance that you feel is libelous, rather than making generalizations without evidence, and we will address it.

I would request that if you wish to address these issues further that you don't post it in a public forum, but rather, contact Gene DellaSalla at Audioholics directly. You have his number.

Professionally,
Marshall Guthrie



Unfortunately, in the Audioholics thread on this subject, Audioholics themselves edited a quote taken from my “open letter” in order to turn it into a bald-faced lie. In my “open letter”, as posted on Stereophile.com, one can see that after first hearing the video, and my finding the audio “unbelievable,” that I asked for assurance as to the video’s honesty and veracity, and that AudioQuest was assured that the video was the truth. Audioholics might not believe me, there is no obligation for them to believe me, but that doesn’t give them the right to misquote me, significantly and libelously misrepresenting my statement. I’m not a politician who has to accept such treatment by other politicians :)

With respect, Bill Low/AudioQuest
 
Feb 3, 2016
2
0
0
#78
My name is Marshall Guthrie and I am the primary author of the Audioholics article detailing the AudioQuest/D-Tronics debacle.

I know that Stephen Mejias, one of your employees, has been in contact with Gene DellaSalla, President of Audioholics, so forgive me if this has already been addressed personally. However, as you are accusing Audioholics, and by extension, me, of misquoting and libeling you, I feel it appropriate to respond.

1) The misquotes. I've taken screen shots of every source that I quoted you on. After double checking, I cannot find a single instance where the quotes I used were not the exact words that were typed by you or on your behalf. That said, I'm not perfect. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the misquote and the original source, and I will correct it.

2) The libel. Any lawyer will tell you that the perfect defense for libel is the truth. Again, I have gone through the article and cannot find anything written by myself or my editor, Gene DellaSala, that is not the most true representation of the facts at hand. Again, if I am wrong, please point me to the specific instance that you feel is libelous, rather than making generalizations without evidence, and we will address it.

I would request that if you wish to address these issues further that you don't post it in a public forum, but rather, contact Gene DellaSalla at Audioholics directly. You have his number.

Professionally,
Marshall Guthrie

Unfortunately, in the Audioholics thread on this subject, Audioholics themselves edited a quote taken from my “open letter” in order to turn it into a bald-faced lie. In my “open letter”, as posted on Stereophile.com, one can see that after first hearing the video, and my finding the audio “unbelievable,” that I asked for assurance as to the video’s honesty and veracity, and that AudioQuest was assured that the video was the truth. Audioholics might not believe me, there is no obligation for them to believe me, but that doesn’t give them the right to misquote me, significantly and libelously misrepresenting my statement. I’m not a politician who has to accept such treatment by other politicians :)

With respect, Bill Low/AudioQuest
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,469
0
0
#79
What would be the intent? Why would someone else take the time to make this video? What would be the benefit for a person non-associated with AQ to make such a video? Why did it take so long for AQ to distance itself from this video? Many questions , few answers .
 

About us

  • Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing