News

as a hobbyist Audiophile, we come across various mfg of audio equipment that is priced anywhere from the affordable to the average person to the obscenely priced products that only people with unlimited funds can afford. We all want better sound quality and whatever we purchase, we want to be assured that the mfg has done proper testing to ensure that it does what is claimed and that it is worth looking into and possibly purchasing providing our budget allows such an expense.

The problem is that people argue back and forth about claims and what tests can be done to refute such claims, etc.

We all probably are aware that there isn't any standard tests, test equipment that is an industry standard on how to measure cables. After watching various interviews with cable mfg engineers, reading interviews, etc., there is some consensus that some test equipment can't be used, and that some test equipment can be used due to inherent noise floor, precision, etc.

I think the cable mfg should band together to conjure up a list of test equipment and test procedures that can be used to test and compare cables so we can see something that would make us think that there is a difference. While some of us are in the "trust your ears", the problem is that if there is a difference in a quality of sound, there should be some basic tests to prove this. Whether it's a MLSSA harmonic structure waterfall test of a variety of musical notes to see if there are in fact differences in harmonic structure when changing just a cable in the signal path, or noise level tests, etc. I think it would be in the best interest of the LEGITIMATE cable mfg or those that want to be viewed as legitimate to come up with proper test procedures, equipment list, etc. to show that there are valid measurements to prove that there is a difference. People don't hear things the same, nor do we all have the same rooms, the same equipment listening to the same source material at the same SPL and have the same level of experience in actually knowing what to listen for and how to tell the difference in two different cables.

From my reading, some of the research in cable design/testing has been done without any college university involvement and there are no books we can read on what some of the cable mfg are actually doing to measure their products before conducting listening tests. I find it hard to believe that Audioquest or any other legitimate company doesn't have test equipment in their benches and performing a battery of measurements before performing a listening test and putting a new product on the shelves. I already know that plenty of companies have invested in expensive network analyzers, high res impedance testers, latest generation scopes, FFT analyzers, etc. etc. So I know measurement tests are being conducted, but why is it so difficult for the average consumer to simply get copies of various measurements of different products to see for ourselves the difference? What's everyone afraid of? When I bought a pair of B&W 802 Matrix speakers back in the early 90's, each box had an actual frequency response print out of each speaker as they test the finished product right before it gets boxed up and shipped. Why can't we get some measurement tests on cables? Is it that difficult? We have the internet and it's pretty simple to take a measurement print out, create a pdf document and post it, and then discuss the equipment used and the test procedure.

I think that any consumer wanting to see such test results should be as easy as asking the mfg for sample test results on any product they sell and there shouldn't be any resistance to provide such test results, or better yet, just post the various results, discuss the test equipment used, and procedure so that the consumer can have some level of confidence that they aren't doctored and they can be repeated using the exact same equipment and procedures.

Why is it so difficult to provide real test results and procedures? I would think that cable mfg would be falling all over themselves with test data to prove their products to help validate the price tag.

Yes, I'm already aware that any product that's produced in limited quantity that are custom designed, etc. is going to have a tremendous amount of markup because the products aren't rattled off an assembly line at high rates. But the cable mfg should think about this from the consumer perspective. You want us to buy or consider your products? Well, provide us with some measurements that help us identify what the possible difference is between the various cables you make and other more generic cables on the market.

What are the possible justifications for a $1000 HDMI cable vs a $10 HDMI cable other than the materials, construction, etc. what are the legitimate differences? Jitter? Show us measurements. Lower noise? Show us measurements. Higher Bandwidth at various lengths, show us measurements. lower latency? Show us measurements. What type of scenario would justify buying a $1,000 HDMI cable vs a $10 one other than the amount of money someone has in their bank? Is it because very expensive equipment only works with certain cables for some reason? If so, explain and maybe show a video to show us that there are reasons why one should spend $1,000 on a cable. And are these really going to show us better video or are we going to hear better audio just because an ad says so? Come on, be realistic. I know you have to dumb everything down for the consumer, but there are people out there that have engineering degrees, experienced audio engineers, etc. and if there are no valid tests that can be replicated to prove there is a difference between a $10 product and a $1,000 or whatever differences between any product you offer. I am not saying to post those fake drawings that some graphics designer in marketing came up with, I'm talking about actual test measurements from test equipment that others can repeat.

All I can say is, consumers don't want to feel ripped off and the audio/video cable mfg have done a pretty darn good job at marketing and selling product because more high end cable companies seem to crawl out of the woodwork and obviously companies like Audioquest, MIT, Cardas, Wireworld, etc. have been able to stay in business for longer than a couple of years, but a lousy job in proving it from a measurement standpoint.

I know it would probably be impossible to have a standard that all cable mfg have to use when testing their cables, but there has to be SOME form of proof that one cable is better. I don't care what anyone says, there are measurements that can prove there are some differences between two different products, now whether or not you like the product in the system you use, that's another story, but at least give us something to go from in the form of tests that can be validated and repeated by individuals and other test labs.

So, bottom line, if Audioquest, or any other cable mfg wants to help themselves and the industry, start to release test procedures, test equipment and test results that we can see for ourselves that there is SOMETHING different that we might want to spend the extra $ for a better product.

[flame deleted by John Atkinson - please make your points without personal abuse]

A cable is a passive device, it cannot 'improve' anything. All it can do is reduce losses to a minimum for the frequency range and other parameters specified. AND THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE ATTACHED EQUIPMENT WILL DESIGN TO THOSE SPECIFICATIONS. Thus ANY cable that meets the published specification for what it is, be it an HDMI, USB, 'analog' or whatever cable it is will perform perfectly. Even one for 5 dollars from Wal Mart. Your over-priced products are simply a rip-off aimed at those with zero relevant knowledge.

[flame deleted]

I get improved performance with this cable by keeping it in my freezer before use.

all of us could go to Radio Shack and buy the el cheapo wire and call it good, but we can't. There's definitely an improvement in sound to be had buying high end cables. High end cable manufacturers have definitely discovered something because their cables sound better than regular wire. I have used and enjoyed MIT cables for years now. I don't get caught up in the hype or advertising mumbo jumbo. I just know that my system sounds better with the expensive wire in it.

AudioQuest and Bill Low were aware of the video when it first came out and knew then that the claims were not true. They could have investigated the video at the time but they decided to let it continue because the claims were exactly the message cable companies want the public to believe. I suspect many audio magazine writers also saw the video and were also glad to see the claims which supported their own claims.

A driver gets nailed when they really weren't speeding and feels the urge to complain loudly to anyone that will listen. At this point the licensed world of drivers bifurcates into two types: those that feel rage at the injustice and those that feel calm. The latter are able to rationalize that they weren't ticketed the other hundreds and thousands of times they were speeding and go about their day.

I have a hard science and math background. I listen to manufactures of audio equipment make all kinds of claims about their products that are easily verifiable, or make claims that are utterly $h!t, but using the word "Fourier" makes it sound grounded in more than tinkering, copying others, and nice packaging. I am not talking about the murky intersection of psychoacoustics and measurable metrics that Mr Atkinson wrestles with. If I were the manufactures I'd have white papers demonstrating these claims on my website. These should be "off the shelf" since I presumably did the work prior to putting the packaging around the product.

So Mr. Low and team got hoodwinked. I certainly sympathize with what this could imply for their profitability and the unethical nature of the situation. Conversely, he's the boss. I run a large organization that deals with just about the most complex stuff on earth. If I screw up I will lose my job. Mr Low should take responsibility for all aspects of his company and recognize that this industry has a bunch of used car salespeople in it will few ethical qualms lying and misrepresenting. My response to this would be to play my game harder and better and ensure that the guys with the bad suits and worn shoes have a totally biased impact to my bottom line: they can only drive it up or keep it flat, but never drive it down via reputational risk.

The psychology of this is that now Mr. Low is in need of "dyadic completion" so as not to feel victimized; in other words the hurtee needs to hurt the hurter. This may only be possible through civil proceedings. Great. The other bit of psychology at play here is what's called Narrative Psychology: this is the well studied human tendency to agree with a compelling *false* story over a dry, albeit accurate, quantitative explanation. So I would challenge Mr Low who deals in an industry rife and dependent on good narratives to blaze a trail in the other direction. The benefit will be that one blatant lie in a sea of narrative BS will not sink your ship.

Edit: I have fairly expensive cables in my system. They sound audibly better.

I've always told people to buy the most inexpensive cable that provides the sound/video quality you like.

If you hear no difference between Radio Shack cables, don't buy anything more expensive, it would be a waste of your time and money.

I myself have a number of Monoprice HDMI cables that perform very well indeed.

If you hear or see a difference between AudioQuest's cables, choose accordingly.

What I find fascinating is the innate need of so many on the Internet to stomp their feet and insist there is no way that anyone could actually be hearing/seeing a difference, that it's all psychological bias and/or if it can't be measured, it can''t be heard.

I can see maintaining those things, but their demands that differences can't be detected are almost always accompanied by insults made against cable companies, listeners and the like. Yes, those of us who detect differences are obviously moronic rubes who just read ads and don't use our ears/eyes and are "too stupid" to know there can't be a difference.

Perhaps it's just the divisive nature of the Internet, or a need for those who feel we're idiots to be "proven right."

Regardless, as I said, fascinating.

I appreciate what Low and Stereophile did in addressing this video's specious results head on, but I wrote to say that I've simply grown weary if the seemingly endless supply of badgering cranks who deign to speak for objectivity by deciding on behalf of mankind that audio cables don't matter. I hear a difference. I don't need a set of test results to tell me. Hear's something else I don't need objectively measured to tell me it's true: that all of the people denying the audible value of cables here and elsewhere on the Internet are sanctimonious, condescending, self-important, often bitter, always insufferable, and frequently ill-informed. So far as I know, you can't objectively confirm sanctimony or bitterness from a writing sample. But I hear it. If you guys were cables, I'd unplug you and send you back.

Nope, not accepting that apology. You just admitted AQ knew about the video for a year and did nothing. I am an audio engineer and if needed, i can organize a panel of experts that can demonstratively show that the effect in the video are not possible. So your acceptance of the video can be exmplained by either:

Your company does no tests what so ever, have no idea what you are doing.

You know that your product does not work as you advertize and figured that this is a gamble you can take. Someone will be fooled and since it is not your video per se, you have only allowed it to exist without endorsing it directly and that is enough to cover your tracks.

No, it isn't. You knew perfectly well that those effects are fake in the video. Unless of course we are talking about simple ineptitude, lack of knowledge. Either you can say you are stupid or evil. We know we can't sue you on ground of this and you know customer protection does not want to poke this issue with 6 foot pole.

Synergistic research and the rest: we are coming for you next. The video will resurface.. Internet does not forget ;)

Mr. Low is to be commended for directly addressing this, what in the end is an all too common marketing/advertising scam.

hmm, I think you're comments - though strong - aren't entirely wrong.

Yet, I want to emphasize AQ cables (or similar) are NOT something like a financial investment that appears safe & sound at the beginning but once you want your money back it turns out a scam.

When compared to el cheapo cables, AQ cables (and similar) are unusually expensive products. Therefore and especially within the realms of enthusiasts HIFI (throughout of ridiculous prices and extra-normal price/return ratios), it seems (?) safe to assume that everybody (here) would LISTEN FIRST and THEN JUDGE on personally perceived price-worthiness before pulling the credit card.

Well, at least that is what I do.

So, admittedly, somebody crossed a line here with that video, but our hobby has one fundamental principle: you must judge component quality for YOURSELF in YOUR system or a very similar one, or you might be disappointed with your purchase - and eventually return the component and get your money back.

So, where is the big damage here?

Cable "quality" doesn't exist for digital information. The cable either works or it doesn't; it either transmits the information or it doesn't.

Cables are defined by their speed and amount of information they can handle, purely technical specs which are irrelevant for the vast majority of home audio/video applications. Cables with equivalent specs are all the same. Durability and manufacturing quality, of course, matter, but do not affect audio/video quality.

No special or boutique cables are used in digital medical devices such MRI, CT, US, PACS or digital imaging, where detail and quality are critical. Manufacturers of this equipment are heavy-weight major corporations, like GE, Seimens and Phillips. There is no discussion of cables in radiology physics, which you can believe is quite rigorous, much more rigorous and complicated than the physics of consumer entertainment audio/video.

When I needed a HDMI cable, I bought the cheapest I could find on eBay. It's working fine. Anyone who pays extra is being ripped off.

One would be better occupied if one would concern oneself with the abysmal quality of digital audio, which has gone from bad to worse with the MP3 family.

PS. Have been using Audioquest interconnects in less-than-critical, analog connections in my audio chain for years. They are a moderately-priced, sensible alternative for signal from FM tuners, cassette decks, etc. Their quality is noticeably better than Monster.

Whether you hear a difference or not between cables has little relevance for me in this article.

Someone representing Audioquest lied and cheated, deliberately misrepresenting the performance of cables, and did so for financial gain. Audioquest knew about it, and chose to ignore it until someone challenged the video and proved the lie.

In my book, that makes Audioquest as culpable as the original cheat. Trust has gone.

I also question the probity of Stereophile. Will they give equal space to Mark Waldrep to counter this open letter? Do they condemn the lies and cheating that have been proven? Can they comment whether the lies and sharp practices revealed in this matter are the tip of an iceberg? Or are they beholden to a major advertiser? Where is the outrage, Stereophile?

Never mind Audioquest, the credibility of an industry has been rocked. Those that throw their hat in, in support of the dreadful misdeeds done by these cheats, are indeed Audiofools.

There is no such thing which could be guaranteed. This is utterly basic.

There is no denial that "David Ellington" is or was an AudioQuest employee and no denial that he appeared in the video.

If a company knew of fake claims being made, particularly if a company employee were involved, you'd think the company would have done the damage control well before others started making claims of fakery.

The ruminations on legal action don't scan - the purported video does not impugn AudioQuest or its products, it extolls those products. Any legal action would be a class action suit on behalf of consumers against AudioQuest or any perpetrators of the video.

I smell disingenuousness.

Hi end cables do make a difference in sound, but you need to ask yourself if the sound is superior or better. The high end cable industry has a marketing machine that wants you to believe their products and the sound they produce are better than generic stuff. They will go to great lengths to get you excited to buy their expensive products. Most of the products are just eye candy or audio jewelry.

In this case it does seem like Audioquest got caught with their pants down and they are doing damage control on an outlet where the audience believes in high end cables. Got to soothe the base market!

Now, if you like the sound and build quality of the high end cable and you choose to buy it, more power to you. The biggest problem I believe most cable skeptics have is the price asked for the products and I can see their point. Is a $5,000 2.5 meter pair of speaker cables going to transform your listening experience from being enjoyable to holy crap this is the holy grail of sound reproduction? No, but cable manufacturers want you to believe that it will. But what the heck, slap a new name, color, and connector on essentially the same cable every few years to drive those sales!

YouTube is the Wild West, one of the last vestiges of what the internet used to be. Anyone, anywhere can post anything, almost, as long as it's not openly obscene.

All these mental midgets getting huffy, puffy and self-righteous about some lies on YouTube about SBC cables are jerks. There's much worse on YouTube, vile racist, politically correct, malicious lies.

Man, "audiophiles" are old maids.

Us audiophiles do not care if some members of our group think cables enhance the enjoyment of their music collection. I would never criticize an art lover over their tastes either. Heck - I even think these high priced cables look rugged and cool too!! I would easily take them if given to me. That being said.....

The issue is a major manufacturer along with their employee has "endorsed" this video. Where was the outrage a year ago? In most companies you need approval from the PR department to speak in public. How did this slip through is the question. I bet the video did great for their sales team though.

People already buy these cables already, why stretch the truth?

For those who say that imaging devices and digital cables make no difference waste our time by posting. Having tested and calibrated many, many devices (I'm not going to try to count, but since 1996) I can categorically tell you that cables matter.
Audioquest's approach that cables only do harm to the signal is the best representation of what occurs.
Anyone that says that a cheap HDMI cable works fine hasn't enjoyed 4k HDR with HDCP and/or any of the many devices that send high-end audio.
Digital cables are all the same/make no difference? You have lost credibility before typing another word.

What is the truth? It doesn't much matter whether with is in audio; amps, speakers, DACs, cable ( and I do believe that some are better than others), or whether it is a car company who knowing does nothing knowing of a defect or knowingly does something dishonest to deceive to gain a marketing advantage...it all is exposed one way or another and the fallout can be very bad to nothing at all happening. Where this falls I don't know, but it does our hobby little good. Of course, what is just "my hobby" is someone else's big business. When people I trust with excellent engineering backgrounds hear improvements, but can't put their finger on the what the "measurement" is that made it, I don't get that upset, as I know the motives are pure. That is all any customer can ask.

I may have fallen off the turnip truck but it wasn't just last night. All this finger pointing is ridiculous, AQ got caught with their hands in the snake-oil cookie jar and can't think fast enough of a good direction out.

It's been a rough go for Audioquest public relations of late. First Stephen's laughable defense of Robert Bairds Eagles article and now this.

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. The dealer was contacted, and AudioQuest was assured that the video was honest and included no alteration. Maybe I was an optimistic sucker, hoping too hard that the seemingly impossible was possible

This cracks me up! Even the CEO of the company can't believe his own stuff sounds that good. Then someone tells him it does and he goes OK. There is irony to be found in there somewhere I'm sure.

"Do my cables sound better that yours" is and will aways be debatable. I gave up that headache long time ago and started spending my time attempting to make my own cables. Granted I don't have the tooling required to produce digital cables. Let me be specific, I buy what I believe is high quality bulk wire and attach the connections myself, why? Because I enjoy doing it! In some weird fashion, it's enjoyable for me to spend an hour with a soldering iron and various hand tools building a cable. But I also pride my work in not only what it sounds like but appearance. That is a topic I fail to hear in these discussions. In my humble opinion, if a cable or connection looks horrible, it probably is going to sound the same, or at least subconsciously we can agree that could be a determining factor. My point is, spending more money on cables has as much to do with how it sounds as the quality of the appearance. So do high priced cables really sound better? Maybe or maybe not. A dirty car drives no different than a clean one, but it sure feels better when I take to the highway in a clean car.

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5558

I remember two:

1) A thing called the "Electronic Zeep" claimed to improve mileage and top speed. It was a metal plate with a hole in it you put between the carburettor and inlet manifold. Across the hole was a Y-shape of coiled wire. No power went to it.

2) A small plexiglass 'wing' shaped like the bow of a speedboat. You attached it to the front of the bonnet just above the grille with a couple of rubber suckers. It was claimed to 'smooth the aerodynamics' and thus improve both the mileage and the speed (again).

The young people who bought those are now old and buy expensive audio cables.

Look, they goofed up. They owned up to it. Which of us hasn't goofed up? Politicians, for example, do much worse and never admit a thing. This is a tempest in a teapot.

David Ellington, the AudioQuest employee in the video, has a LinkedIn profile that shows he is a Regional Sales Manager with AQ. More interesting, from 1992 - 2000 he was the Store Manager of Home Entertainment Inc. in Houston, which is the shop that produced the video.

"Your mind makes it real"

This is not a cable flame/Golden Ears thread! Your opinions on high and low priced cables are irrelevant, off-topic and tiresome.
This thread is about a fraudulent video that was posted about AQ cables by an AQ dealer, using increasing volume levels to fool/trick ALL listeners into thinking the "better quality" cables obviously sounded better. Stick to the subject!!

Imagine my surprise when I received a 'DO NOT REPLY' email from STEREOPHILE telling me that someone had responded to my comment!

I have not posted anything...so...someone is using my user name to post comments I never made.

Perhaps STEREOPHILE can look into this for me.

Thanks,

Alan

Mr Low,

The cables that Audioquest sell are subject to design and development. Whilst that may involve listening tests, much as a car manufacturer will road test its cars, the design of your cables will first and foremost be based on established mechanical and electrical design principles. If cable X is better than cable Y, it is because you have designed it to be. That means Audioquest has considered: material selection; form of construction; manufacturing methods; material quality; sources for supply (the supply chain); testing, inspection, and of course, listening. There will be other things too (e.g. customer feedback). It has to involve all of the above; how else can you justify a $1,000 cable against a $100 cable?

The narrative that is constantly being replayed, that objective considerations do not matter, is not acceptable. If one cable is better than another, then it is so because of its design. Ipso facto, the design criteria should be verifiable. To expect people to buy on trust, as the subjectivists require, when trust is in such short supply, is simply not tenable.

I challenge Audioquest to have its design, engineering, manufacturing and testing processes subjected to independent review and verification by an accredited, competent body. There are plenty such organisations, and verification by such an organisation would be worth so much more than a glowing review from a fawning reviewer. There is no need to fear about loss of IP or proprietary information; every one of these organisations is professional, and carry out such reviews for the largest enterprises in the world. Doing so for Audioquest should be straightforward.

I can think of no better way to restore the reputation od Audioquest. It would do wonders to establish your company as a trustworthy and dependable enterprise. It could also establish a new benchmark from which people like myself who are consumers, can buy with confidence. I see this as a clear win-win, and of course, the greater the rigour of the independent review, the greater the win. The subjectivists should be happy too, because if your better designed, better made cable sounds better, as it should do, then they can wax lyrical until their hearts are content. Heck, call it a win-win-win.

The real challenge though, is that you don't simply get some sort of attestation that you follow a generic model of a management system (e.g. ISO 9001). You should aim to have some independent body verify that better is indeed better, i.e. that you operate a rigorous, consistently good and verifiable design process.

Regards,

Bob

When these bankers, accountants, CEOs, surgeons etc, the common buyers of expensive HiFi systems (which of course may include fancy cables) tell ME how to do MY job when I say this 'high-priced cable' stuff is pure BS. (My background is in 'applied' physics with 35 years plus of working on VERY advanced computers.)

I wonder what they would say if I told them how to do THEIR jobs?

Do you schmucks get as upset when your baby pukes or has a fever? I smell the nauseous smell of anally constricted phonies.

I'm sure many who have followed this "conversation" have been frustrated by those who insisted on changing the subject -- take out all the same-as-always cable-bashing and the thread becomes readable and relevant.

However, I will take a moment to reiterate what I have said personally and in advertising, starting long before founding AudioQuest in 1980: If any particular product, cable or otherwise, doesn't make the most difference for the least money, don't buy it. And, if you can't hear the difference yourself, don't buy it.

Of course sometimes the opportunity to listen isn't available, and one must act on some basket of others' comments and reviews. I'm simply suggesting that there is no "should" in audio, no valid "should sound better" or "shouldn't make a difference" that should ever override one's personal experience.

Music is arguably the world's most popular recreational drug (music absolutely alters brain chemistry). If the whole process isn't fun, do something else -- climb a mountain, read a book, ride a bike, watch sports. The wonder of immersing oneself in music doesn't require a good hi-fi any more than following a football game and having intense opinions as to the competency of the players requires a big-screen.

If you're one of the possibly majority who got a wet face watching "The Notebook," you would do so whether watching on a smartphone or in a movie theater. One could in this regard "prove" that all TVs are the same -- I don't think this useful perspective is any threat to the TV manufacturers.

Mark Twain is credited with a statement to the effect that at age 14 or 18 or whatever, his father seemed to know so little, but some years later, he was amazed to discover how much his father knew. The term "sophomoric" has been around for a very long time because the phenomenon of thinking one knows a higher percentage of what there is to know than is true is a common human foible.

The trope that runs rife through anti-good-hi-fi threads is that someone knows so much within a certain area, that anything they don't know can't exist. As with sickle-cell anemia and other complex phenomena, this attitude is a strength when the enemy is malaria, or when designing a bridge that must be a sure-thing -- and this attitude is a disease when it causes anemia or prevents acknowledging the 99% of how-things-work that is either unknown by the individual, or even by all of civilization.

As humans, we all think we know more than we do, we all think we're better-than-average drivers (actually, it's 'only' 90% that think this) -- I believe that we should all be careful about when it's appropriate to tell others what their reality should be, and if we really think that they need our help, be sensitive to the recipient's world and worldview. Railing against the pastimes or products that give pleasure to others isn't a service to anyone, just noise to have to wade through.

May the music move you -- on free earbuds, or a state-of-the-art rig, either with lamp cord or with good cables!

Sincerely, Bill Low/AudioQuest

With all this 'cable' stuff is:

I am now retired but was in the 'big' computer industry for 35 years. Like it or not they run the world and unless we want to revert to the 1940s or whenever we are stuck with them. The ONLY record of the money you have OR HAVE EVER HAD is little swirls on a computer disk. Taken further, without them there would be no banks, no credit cards, no spare 'findable' parts for the farmers combine harvester, no gasoline, no gas, no electricity, no telephones, no ANYTHING.

Sure, we could 'revert' to the pre computer age eventually, but we would be all dead long before it happened.

And the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computers appeared in 1943 (in the UK, as it happens). AND ALL THE 'problems' with 'computer audio' (though these amateur HiFi lunatics think computer audio is something 'special') were KNOWN then and were fixed before the first computer was powered on. Or they would NEVER have worked and still wouldn't be working now.

And it ALL depends on scientists, engineers, technicians, maintenance men, and your local electrician. NOT the CEOs, accountants, etc. who are basically just 'clerks'. And it's not just computers, it is ALL aspects of HiFi. We developed the WHOLE THING.

Yet these audio enthusiasts, often CEOs, accountants, real estate people, bankers, whatever, who buy crazy expensive pieces of wire, DARE to tell us we don't know what we are talking about.

It's total arrant nonsense. Like getting out of your seat on a 747 and going to tell the pilot he doesn't know how to fly his airplane.

If there is any world shattering discovery in basic physics it's going to come from US. Certainly not from some real estate guy, HiFi reviewer, or postman listening to his HiFi with his entirely imaginary 'Golden Ears', and not from the likes of AudoQuest or Nordost either.

My mouth, it is agape. Not for the unsurprise of the cable untruth, but of the Stereophile in response. It is the beggar of the query, of what solidity does the foundation rest that it is in need of obfuscation and the scent of arrogance? There is a clarity, for the foundation it possesses the deep crack of incredibility.