Qed signature 40 vs reference 40 audio interconnects

Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
498
Reaction score
3
Points
126
Age
38
Location
trafford, manchester
Hi

Has anyone heard, demonstrated or compared the Qed signature 40 vs reference 40 audio interconnects

Kind regards Michael
 
I have just tested my 1M reference optical cable where it is the connection between my Cayin IDAP & McIntosh MHT200 which powers Focal Aria 926s (which are also mounted on ISO Acoustics GAIA IIIs) There is a serious difference between this cable and the $20 optical cable that highest rated on Amazon. I have noticed many new sounds previously never heard and detail is astonishing. Sure people will not notice a difference if using mediocre equipment to play mp3 files or stream Spotify but when playing hi res files or streaming Tidal good cables DO make a difference.


I purchased it from QAcoustics where it was significantly less $$ than everywhere else quoted
QED Reference Optical Cable
 
So now we are into the realm of magical optical cables that can decode a digital signal, adjust the appropriate bits to improve the sound - so not bit perfect then - and then re-encode the signal all in real time - wow I am impressed :thumbsup:
 
Or more better materials allow for more bandwidth therefore better definition.

Existing optical cables are more than capable of handling the bandwidth required for 2 channel PCM audio, as defined by TOSLINK, so where does this extra bandwidth requirement come from and why does that equate to better definition? Sounds like more marketing snake oil :facepalm:

TOSLINK (from Toshiba Link[2]) is a standardized optical fiber connector system.[3] Also known generically as an "optical audio cable" or just "optical cable", its most common use is in consumer audio equipment (via a "digital optical" socket), where it carries a digital audio stream from components such as CD and DVD players, DAT recorders, computers, and modern video game consoles, to an AV receiver that can decode two channels of uncompressed lossless PCM audio or compressed 5.1/7.1 surround sound such as Dolby Digital or DTS Surround System. Unlike HDMI, TOSLINK does not have the bandwidth to carry the lossless versions of Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, or more than two channels of PCM audio.
 
Existing optical cables are more than capable of handling the bandwidth required for 2 channel PCM audio, as defined by TOSLINK, so where does this extra bandwidth requirement come from and why does that equate to better definition? Sounds like more marketing snake oil :facepalm:
.

Don't take any notice of these theory guys. They go and look in a book to tell you that you are wrong and they love to say they know more about what you hear than you do. This is a sign of insanity.

They don't have any experience themselves of what they are talking about. They are like teenagers who are telling adults how to do things.

To them, just to make some comparisons with real life, a steak is a steak (if it meets the standards), a road is a road (if you can drive on it), lenses are lenses if you can see through them.

Yes, sometimes stuff is indeed snakeoil but, if your ears think it is better (consistently) then it probably is better - go with that - get advice from people who have the experience themselves, not the know-it-all Googlers, bookworms and theoretical physicists.
 
Don't take any notice of these theory guys. They go and look in a book to tell you that you are wrong and they love to say they know more about what you hear than you do. This is a sign of insanity.

They don't have any experience themselves of what they are talking about. They are like teenagers who are telling adults how to do things.

To them, just to make some comparisons with real life, a steak is a steak (if it meets the standards), a road is a road (if you can drive on it), lenses are lenses if you can see through them.

Yes, sometimes stuff is indeed snakeoil but, if your ears think it is better (consistently) then it probably is better - go with that - get advice from people who have the experience themselves, not the know-it-all Googlers, bookworms and theoretical physicists.
.....and the world needs more snake oil products of course, who else is going to part the stupid from their cash to fund their scientifically researched ideas Machina Dynamica Web Site :smashin:
 
.....and the world needs more snake oil products of course, who else is going to part the stupid from their cash to fund their scientifically researched ideas Machina Dynamica Web Site :smashin:


Just why does it offend you so much if people choose to spend more money on cables than you would? If they say they can hear a difference then why do you have such a problem with it? Frankly I find attitudes such as yours both pathetic and tiresome.

Life is too short for such nonsense.
 
So now we are into the realm of magical optical cables that can decode a digital signal, adjust the appropriate bits to improve the sound - so not bit perfect then - and then re-encode the signal all in real time - wow I am impressed :thumbsup:
What makes you think that cables make any difference to the bits they transmit?

What does that have to do with sound quality?

I think it's time to get rid of this modern disease, guessing that passive components can't affect sound quality.

Nick
 
Existing optical cables are more than capable of handling the bandwidth required for 2 channel PCM audio
Oh no they're not.

The bit rate does not define the bandwidth requirement.

Nick
 
Last edited:
It depends on devices in use - in the case of the receiving device, how it does clock recovery and synchronization. An advanced buffered full re-clocking will get away with random crappy cable to a certain extent (so long as the bit transitions are recoverable) unless the source is also terrible. Most DACs just chase the clock and attempt to move jitter byproducts out of the audible spectrum.

Of course there is also a matter of how they deal with framing (bit) errors which could range from a completely recoverable frame to incorrect bits due to poor cable / length / electronics combination resulting in insufficient bandwidth - for optical cable material and construction impacts bandwidth over distance.

All these can have contributing factors to what your hear. One Source + DAC may always be perfect with whatever crappy cable you use within reason. Another Source + DAC combination could be very finnicky (in this case I would be questioning the electronics/DSP the ends).

Also there are psychoacoustic/physiological issues at play as well - a fancy expensive cable could be perceived to be better just because of the impact on your state of mind (feel good, about having 'fixed' a perceived problem. Going to gym, having a beer/wine or whatever would probably have a similar effect and be cheaper, though maybe not as long term).

Some expensive DAC do have separate custom clock recovery electronics (some manufacturers even have separate expensive boxes to do the job), some others focus their spend on the DAC clocks and analog side and just rely on the DAC chipset to do recovery (which isn't a bad choice). In the end everything has some compromises to match a price point - we rarely get to know what they were.
 
Last edited:
Don't let another cable thread descend into mud slinging or the big golden padlock looms.:smashin:
 
Live and let live.

If I want to pay £100 for a cable from a British company because I think it sounds better, while at the same time keeping people in work and taxes being paid, then what is the problem?
 
Why is it whenever anyone and I mean anyone mentions they have heard a difference for better or worse with a cable the same people come along every time and piss on there parade excuse my french. Why not just let the folk discuss the topic that are interested in hearing different opinions of how cables sound instead of quoting the same crap of how deaf,stupid, and gullible they are its very tiresome .
 
Absolutely. This is about HiFi, and if we can't discuss here then where can we discuss it?

One of the great things about HiFi forums is that after a while you work out who's ears you trust.

Nick
 
I have noticed differences between interconnects, its whether they are worth the cost is what makes me think twice, I only buy second hand now. I have also noticed differences in speaker wire but that was silver plated vs copper.
 
It was speaker cables that I first heard a difference I was using silver cables with M&K speakers and the highs were quite ear piercing at high levels it was fellow forumites on here that directed me to try copper cables worked a treat and I didn't imagine it either. 😊.
 
My last excursion into cables was with a recent upgrade to my speaker cables.

Contrary to expectation, the new ones sounded distinctly worse.

Not sure how expectation bias works there.

Nick
 
Live and let live.

If I want to pay £100 for a cable from a British company because I think it sounds better, while at the same time keeping people in work and taxes being paid, then what is the problem?
Perhaps that is the wrong question. No-one is questioning your right to spend your money on whatever takes your fancy or your preferences. However when you make assertions about performance, you open it up to critique. Khazul, has raised valid engineering points
 
What makes you think that cables make any difference to the bits they transmit?

What does that have to do with sound quality?

I think it's time to get rid of this modern disease, guessing that passive components can't affect sound quality.

Nick
I fully concur, passive components DO definitely affect sound,and the effects need not be guessed, they are simply calculated and simulated using a myriad of programs. It goes under the term circuit modelling and will be introduced to all electrical and electronic students, typically one semester into a third level course
 
Out of curiosity, if anyone can point me in the direction of a peer reviewed paper that correlates electrical properties of wires (resistance, inductance and capacitance) to particular subjective sound qualities (more bass, more treble, increased mids) and these are quantified by a measurable frequency/energy (dB) plot, with all data gathered through a double blind test with a statistically representative sample size, then I’d be really interested to read it.

Until then, based on my fag packet calculations for a typical copper wire of around 2.5sq.mm crosssection and 5m length, the associated properties to act as a low pass or high pass filter (I.e. tame bass or treble, understanding it is physically impossible to boost them i.e. a wire can not be an amplifier) are at leat three and upto five orders of magnitude too low to be audible.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom