Audioquest $340 Ethernet cable teardown.

I still wish I could find an on-line version of Audioquest's magazine ad for these cables, which shows an Apple Airport Extreme equipped with both those cables and an aftermarket c7 power cable. I don't believe they could run that ad in Europe, where courts smack down audio companies over false advertising over claims like that.

 

If that masking tape were cryogenically treated the cable would totally be worth it.

 

I'm not aware of an integrated headphone DAC/amp that has an ethernet input. There are separates that will do that. For example, the Auralic Aries streaming bridge connected to a Auralic Vega DAC and then an Auralic Taurus II headphone amp. PS Audio DACs have an option to add the PerfectWave Bridge which has an ethernet port. So a PS Audio DAC connected to a headphone amp of your choice could also do it.

 

With regards to to other comments re the test.

1. I'm sure Grado would say their headphones were perfectly up to allowing people to hear if there was a DIFFERENCE between the cables. That's the point...DIFFERENCE.

2. I'm sure Audioquest would have to say their cables DO make a DIFFERENCE no matter what the setup. If they state it would only work in a setup costing $50000+ then...walking on even thinner eggshells. If its a $500 laptop or a $50000 system these cables should make an audible difference.

At the end of the day, it 'sounds' like they don't.

 

Remember when a few companies like Denon used ethernet with a proprietary system to connect their high end SACD player to their receiver? I think this was the only way for one-cable SACD before HDMI. Just an example of a CAT5/6 cable being used in a non-network scenario. I've even seen analog applications for it, using it as speaker wire and interconnect. Just sort of throwing a bone to the notion there could be a >0 benefit to using a fancy CAT5 cable outside of networking.

 

I agree. I heard the RS1 and RS2 last year and disliked them intensely. I remember the salesman asking me for an appraisal and it was along the lines of incredibly slow sounding, felt like it had a cold, no top end (air) whatsoever, rough midrange, diffuse bass and little detail. And of course they were extremely uncomfortable to boot. If I'd been doing the test then I would have been looking at headphones such as Fostex TH900 and AKG K812 (but more likely the TH900 as it does provide a bit more isolation than open / semi open designs). At least those two are subjectively up to the standards of a high quality standmount monitor which to me is a minimum standard in any blind test.

If I tried to do a blind test on my workstation which has a Sennheiser pXC300, I would completely fail - it is great for editing (which is the whole point) and reducing the noise of fans and hard drives but it tells me little about the actual quality of what I am hearing. But my other system with the Musical Fidelity M1 and Fostex TH600 makes tiny, tiny changes stand out that I would never have the slightest hope of hearing on something lesser.

 

I realize I've brought up the Aqua brand a few times now since I'm auditioning their DAC but they have a proprietary link between their Vida transport and either the La Voce or La Scala DACs that runs off an RJ-45/Cat5/6 connection. I would honestly just make that cable myself though. However, if you're into a transport and DAC that combined run about 12k, what's $340 on a silly cable?

 

It's not a matter of liking or disliking the Grados for listening. It's a matter of whether they're a good choice for a listening test like this. You don't have to have the headphones be your favorite headphones, or even headphones that you like listening to, for them to be suitable headphones for a listening test like this. For example, I don't necessarily like the HD800 for pleasure listening. But I certainly consider them some of the best for critical listening as you'd do for a listening test like this.

The Grados have too many sonic issues. I've mentioned the ringing. They also have a forward sound presentation that doesn't do soundstage depth or image layering well. If you're comparing two components and the advantage of one of them is that it has better layering and separation of layers the Grados are not going to make that sort of a difference easy to hear or possibly even noticeable. While a headphone like the HD800 can make that sort of a difference in layering noticeable and possibly even obvious. The HD800 also doesn't have ringing problems and is able to do soundstage depth and layering extremely well. The HD800 driven by a good amp would be a much better choice for this sort of a listening test.

 

Well no, actually it is at least in my case. Because if you had read the reasons I disliked them, they are precisely the same reasons they are poor for ABX testing except for the lack of comfort. They are just a bad headphone brand for any purpose (imo).

I don't like coloured, inaccurate headphones with very poor frequency response and lack of detail for listening and such headphones are useless for ABXing. On the other had, I like detail, frequency extension, speed and detail. And this is good for ABXing to.

But I agree that not everyone's favourite headphone is good for ABXing. Afterall, people love Grados.

 

I read this rebuttal and I have to say if it accurately describes the test protocols then the test is a joke. Why on earth would they make such a gross error in protocols? Why bother doing a test if you are going to do it so badly?

 

Yup, one of the worst designed tests I have ever read about. Amazing. Why did they bother?

 

What really bugs me is that there apparently was someone who was able to identify the $340 cable but I can't find any stats about that person's A/B session. Who was that person? How many times did they choose correctly out of how many attempts?

 

So many missing the point entirely here. But that's to be expected.

I do love the quote from the AudioQuest guy -

"I can't help but admire the level of enthusiasm and pure joy with which they go about their work. Several of us here at AQ have been following along, happily. The image gallery depicting our Vodka being torn apart turned out to be a rather nice compliment to our work. (Although I do think it was a shame to destroy such a great cable. It could have been donated to someone who cares more about music. Hmm...)"

No one challenged him on the craftsmanship of the masking tape.

 

I think if we're saying the differences this cable offers aren't clear enough that you need a certain type of headphone and not any old pair then this puts some of the claims AQ are making (and some supporters of this kind of cable) even more into stark relief.

 

This thread sure has been interesting & rather funny.
I work in the industrial wiring field & I've made all sorts of sample/small runs of overbuilt cables not far from what I've seen in the teardown.

First off, I do not buy into AQ's hype of any type of musical difference, but I must admit it's a pretty well made cable using higher end materials. Would any of that be needed in 99% of the typical users system? I doubt it. Would this be needed in an extreme or multiple environmental hazards setting? Possibly & many companies will pay the premium for similar parts quality/workmanship.

I am curious who many people work at AQ in the manufacturing dept. & how much automation do they have involved. If these are truly handmade in small quantities, then the cost can be substantial even for assemblers familiar with this product. If all the parts showed up & I had to make 10 sets by hand. It would take the better part of a day if I had not made them before. The time would drop with familiarity in the process ect., but it would never be a speedy procedure nor resulting in a cheap price.

I'm giving the company some benefit assuming they are in the US or any decent paying location & these are handmade in smaller quantities. I think their marketing is taking advantage of people & that's the saddest part. (not counting the great speaker cables I've made using the best stuff & workmanship that rival anyone's. My prototypes are not for sale, but I've thought about it.)

I forgot about the masking tape. Yeah, it's easy to make fun of & I would to if I didn't know better. The truth is it can make assembly easier & simply holds everything in place during the process. It's not to be construed as "held together with masking (or even duct) tape". I use it often, but usually remove it when finished if practical. In this case, I can see why it would not be.

 

I'm sure only a complete cynic would think Ars Technica had much more to risk from a well designed and set up test than from the procedure they actually used. What if they accidentally revealed something that didn't match their expectations?

 

Please do tell us what is the point of doing a bogus test? Enlighten us who are not so wise as you. What point am I missing?

 

I would think Ars would have nothing to risk at all when it came to the results. But they had their reputation to risk when it came to setting up a well designed and well executed test. And there they failed. Having a stake in the results is often one of the biggest problems with these half @$$ tests done in the world of audiophilia. If you are more concerned about getting a positive or a null then you are much more likely to set up a crap test like this one. If your main focus is getting reliable results you will be more likely do a better job of making a good test.

The JREF should also be embarrassed by overseeing such piss poorly designed test. I can only ask were they being stupid or dishonest? It's one or the other or both. This kind of a screw up does not happen by accident to competent scientists when designing test protocols.

 

There are sound quality differences in various components that can be more obvious and easier to hear when using quality and complementary gear rather than something like the equivalent of a Grado plugged into a laptop. Listen to the HD800 connected to a really nice amp and really nice DAC. Compare that to the sound you hear with Grados plugged in a laptop. The HD800 system will have so much more detail and let you hear so much more separation and layering and more. It's just so much better. You'll be able to hear things with the HD800 setup that make some things night and day obvious while the Grado setup will completely obscure those same things to the point you can't even notice. Gear quality makes a difference even when considering night and day differences.

 

I think if we are worrying about what reviewers say, audiophiles say or ad copy hyperbole we are worrying about the wrong things. Audioquest makes these cables and charges a premium for them and promotes them as something that makes an audible difference. A fair test is a well designed test that would very likely reveal any audible differences if they exist. Then consumers can look at such a test and make up their own minds as consumers. Everything else is soap box grand standing.

 

Unfortunately, these things aren't often tested appropriately and people make buying choices based on claims made often at great expense. A look around this forum alone shows enough examples of people buying gear based on claims made in here only to find out differently.

Such a test is available in only a few places, is relatively uncommon and unfortunately outweighed by the marketing resources the cable companies enjoy. NWAVGuy was one example. Others might exist and they should be encouraged.

 

I get what you are saying but one nice thing about audio is that in most cases if someone is not satisfied with their purchase they can return it. Also I have been able to do home auditions for every piece of new equipment I have ever bought. objectivist/subjectivist debate aside, I really don't have a problem with audiophiles buying products they auditioned and liked. Doesn't matter if *I* think they make an audible difference or not. If people are enjoying their hobby I say more power to them. Now I draw the line when manufacturers engage in deliberate fraud. That needs to be flushed out. But I have no problem with true believers making something them believe in and selling it to fellow true believers.

All the more reason they should have done a good job on this test don't you think? Opportunity missed, waters muddied even more.

 

Would I have had this or none at all and just go with what the mags say? Yeah. I'll take this one.

 

I would take no test over a completely rigged test any day. This one **was rigged.** Why? I do not know. But the good ole JREF strikes again I guess. Not that they hadn't already killed their credibility anyway. But interesting to see that they finally get involved in an actual test and they chose to rig it.

 

The point is that even doing the test at all in any form is basically humoring Audioquest. I think most of the people in this thread saying "...But that's not the scientific way to test a magic crystal" as approaching it from a general best practices stance and not one of "Oh, if you want to hear the differences ethernet cables add to the sounds of music, you do it like this:".