The Audioquest Boombox Demo
An audiophile needs to do several things before he or she dies to be considered a true audiophile. First they have to have owned, lived with, or at least co-habitated with a pair of original Quad ESL-57’s. Second they have to own at least one copy of Dark Side of the Moon, Casino Royale, or Famous Blue Raincoat. And lastly they have to experience the Audioquest “Boombox” demo.
This demo consists of listening to a very moderately-priced Sharp compact three-piece stereo system that has been modified to accept banana-type binding post for rapid switching of the speaker cables. Using one musical track, in my demo we used the song “Dog” (track 5) from Damien Rice 9, different speaker cables of equal lengths are swapped in and out for A-B tests. Each listening test takes around 1 minute, then one of the six other cables is substituted for the previous cable. Cables used for the test are original Monster cable, Audioquest F-40, Audioquest F-14, Audioquest type-2, Audioquest type-4, Audioquest CV-4 without DBS, and finally Audioquest CV-4 with DBS.
I participated in the demo with two other fellows I had never met before, who did not have any affiliation with Audioquest. After the first pass using the Monster cable one quipped, “That sounded just like a Sharp compact stereo.” He was right. The music was uninvolving and not very much fun to listen to. I noticed on this first pass that it sounded like the guitarist might have made a small flub during the introductory passage. The second pass was with the Audioquest F-40. Now I was SURE the guitarist muffed a note during the intro. The overall sonics improved markedly. While I wouldn’t have confused the sound with that of a triode OTL tube system, it did loose its initially glassy and opaque character. By the third pass with Audioquest F-14 cable I was ready for and even more annoyed that any producer would have permitted the guitar part to remain unmended in the final mix. The definition on the vocals also improved to the point where I could begin to separate out the intentional EQ and distortion the track from the noise added by the stereo itself. Sonics improved with sequential changes. After the final pass using Audioquest’s CV-4 cable with DBS I had to admit that I’d heard systems at shows costing four figures that didn’t sound as good. After the last swap we went back to the original Monster cable to see if it was really as bad as we initially thought it was. Yep, back to mid-fi mediocrity. We were listening to a cheap Sharp stereo again.
So what did this demonstration prove? For me it reaffirmed that, yes, speaker cables do make a difference. But they are not merely “tone controls” or system EQ devices, but can profoundly affect the transparency, immediacy, emotional impact, and cumulative quality of a stereo system. And I dare anyone who thinks that cables don’t matter or that speaker cable products are all snake oil to participate in this demo. It will change you in a profound way.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Anonymous (not verified) -- Sat, 01/10/2009 - 15:48 I would believe in this experiment, if normal, scientific statistics would have been involved. If it would, no one would argue, like no one argues Newton's laws. Since there is A LOT of argument, excuse me. I do not believe.
Cables have specific electrical parameters: resistance, capacitance and inductance. The impact of these parameters on analog signals has been understood for many many decades (not Newton's laws, but still basic electrical science). The idea that there is a debate about whether these parameters impact electrical signals is like saying that there is a debate about whether the earth revolves around the sun. These parameters differ between cables and they affect the signal (that's why the laws are called laws, not "suggestions" or "opinions").
Now there could be a debate about whether humans can perceive these known changes in the signal. Maybe you are debating whether these 3 guys actually heard what they say they heard. But that isn't an issue of physics.
Cables by the way, also have have varying amounts and types of shielding. This means that they are affected by electromagnetic radiation in various ways (basically they add noise to the signal in varying degrees).
Given this, to me it seems like the idea that cables don't matter is the idea that is scientifically suspect.
What isn't clear in the Audioquest demo is whether the Sharp boombox was helpful in showing off the differences between cables because it is (perhaps, I don't know) unusually sensitive to changes in L, C, and R? That doesn't mean cables don't matter, but an amp with a better output stage might show these affects to a lesser degree?
Dont believe, its your loss. I, on the other hand, have known and shown people the 'truth' behind the myth. Scientific proof can blow me. The only thing I gave exception to was the cheepest form of Monster Cable being used. And why didnt we list any prices then? Oh, yah cause they run from 'if you have to ask' to 'do I really need my other car'.....but if you want perfection, your gonna have to pay for it.
It's the loss of those who pay unreasonable money for listening music. What is music? Its the way of transferring emotions, when you need that (you may need to do that everyday). Cables input in doing this is much less than the corresponding price. If you are ready to pay - you are welcome to do that. IMHO this is an area, where some (many) companies have found a way to earn unreasonably high value added.
Many professional equipment pieces which create that same music records cost much less than those overpriced Hi-End pieces. All I say, we need scientific approach, with involving statistics, with a large enough amount of people - experts involved - through blind auditioning. I AM SURE, this way we can easily identify factors that can result in very reasonably priced and very high quality equipment that are capable of transferring the emotions correctly. That is an issue with digital media - but let's do that scientifically! There is no magic here...
My two pennies.
Discman: You are preaching to a physicist. Sure I agree with what you say. Cables matter. What I said was: "Cables input in doing this is much less than the corresponding price." Sure, a bad piece of wire is not suitable and a good, well thought cable delivers good sound. And I would repeat: all issue is in finding the related factors and optimizing them scientifically - I do not think that requires $5000/meter, or even $200 per meter. There are many things like that in High-End realm.
In addition to L, R and C and shielding there should be a lot of other parameters too, like e.g. contact materials may create a electrochemical potential, etc. I am sure big companies have done all these investigations, but I have not had any access to related related literature so far, and popular literature and magazines escape these details.
As you very correctly noticed, it is very suspicious that the boombox output is that much affected by the cables. Although with my very inexpensive home theater system I feel the difference between CD-s and SACD-s. But have not done really scientific comparison, when all other parameters are same or in some other statistical ways (e.g. Taguchi's method).
What these three guys (and any other similar report cases) heard is not a statistical result, and with all aforementioned, does not add to already known knowledge.
Unless you participate in an Audioquest "boombox" test you're just discussing theory (and making the same old pro and anti cable statements that have been around for years).
Frankly "Statistical results" don't matter. What you hear matters. Take the test, then talk to me.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
... and pay few thousand dollars for the next test...
Audioquest doesn't charge for the test.
But finding out that speaker cables really do sonically matter could cost you...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
It would not, if statistical methods in LISTENING would be performed. Why should you be against Listening and collecting the results of LISTENING as statistics? Moreover why should you be against finding correlations between the results of listening (statistical) and the characteristics of the cables? Could you explain?
Artak, Mark Twain said it best: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. As both a physicist and a musician, I say leave the science behind and believe your ears. Here's another test, and I believe it passes the "blind test" requirements, at least conecptually. Many years ago, my wife went shopping. I stayed home. In the hour or so she was gone, I opened up by PS Audio Model One power amp, and replaced three inches (per channel) of standard "co-ax" lead wire coming from the input jacks to the circuit board, with three inches (per channel) of what is now known as Kimber PBJ interconnect. I reinserted the amp into my system. I was listening to the dramatic improvement in the sound when my wife came home. She took three steps into the living room, stopped, and said "what did you do to the system, it sounds so much cleaner?"
Like Mr. Stone says, take the demo, then respond.
The famous "my wife heard it too argument".
The most ridiculous argument of all. Doesn't really matter, you probably made the whole thing up anyways.
And YOU are telling someone else they have ridiculous arguments?
If you believe that someone else's opinion doesn't matter then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to change their mind?
Also calling someone else's arguments "made up" or in essence a lie, is not too scientific or civilized is it?
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I'll believe that "cables matter" the day that a manufacturer demonstrates it through a DOUBLE BLIND, independently conducted listening test.
Why is it that NO such test results exist for ANY cable company? Simple, because music fidelity, being highly psychologically influenced, is literally in the ears of the listener - and those who pay for expensive "interconnects" are paying for a placebo effect.
If it works for you, great. But sorry, science is actually real. The same folks that believe this "boombox" test are the same folks that pay for $1200 power cables that connect to $0.69/ft Romex behind their walls. They pay for Audioquest cables, believing that they can bring more out of a system when connected to binding posts that are themselves connected to small-gauge, unshielded wire and circuit traces behind an unshielded plastic panel in the stereo. They're paying for the illusion of higher fidelity - an illusion which can, in fact, make music sound better to those who believe it; just like hypnosis.
Cables can not bring out resolution and fidelity that's not already there; so without putting this cheap Sharp stereo in a faraday cage, how exactly are these wonderful "interconnects" delivering higher fidelity? Oh, that's right, they aren't.
Audiophilia is filled with ridiculous products, such as Auric Illuminator and beanbags to place your CD player (Oh, sorry, "transport") on. Not a single one is proven to work in a double-blind test, the only legitimate way to test such a thing.
And Steven, your assertion is off-base. Calling someone else's arguments "made up" or a lie is perfectly scientific and civilized if that assertion is true.
Nonbelielever,
If you had taken the test, even YOU would be a believer
You haven't, too bad for you...
All you arguments are moot untill you've taken this test.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications