Does anyone who have cable audioquest whit a dbs field battery pack can tell me what it can improve. I read about it on the official site but i would like to have a consumer impression.
If I understand it correctly cables not used for a while sound worse and require break-in period. DBS field prevents it by keeping molecules organized all the time. Also, polarization of molecules is probably stronger with higher voltage (lower dielectric absorption).
Audioquest explains:
"AudioQuests DBS creates a strong stable electrostatic field which saturates and polarizes (organizes) the molecules of the insulation. This minimizes both energy storage in the insulation and the multiple nonlinear time-delays. Sound appears from a surprisingly black background with unexpected detail and dynamic contrast. The DBS packs batteries will last for years. A test button and LED allow for the occasional battery check."
Our psychological well being, and profits of the company. I use Audioquest for all my interconnect and speaker cables by the way, and they have given me quite a listening pleasure..:-)
Paulsax - That's mechanics of dielectric absorption. You'll find it here: http://www.sencore.com/uploads/files/UnderstandDielectricAbsorption.pdf
Is it significant? I have no idea since I don't use Audioquest but some their cables like "Sky" are very, very good. Reviewers mentioned some difference with DBS ON vs OFF but it could be placebo effect as well. I don't know enough to question Audioquest. Acoustic Zen Absolute (foam Teflon in oversized tubes), that I use, is as good as SKY but without DBS.
Kijanki I'm making no claims what so ever about Audioquest cables and their relative worth. Merely that the jargon gets good sometimes. I read the monograph you referenced and yes that is a pretty good one on caps not conductors. Go to another outfit like Synergistic and they will go on and on about how megavoltages from a vandergraph generator make the cable better. As these two approaches are completely opposite one must be incorrect. Yet both seem to be decent cables ergo it is likely that the sciency bits are more marketing. I'm not sure about cables but telling me that cable X will align the quantum flux is not helping. In this case extrapolating capacitor behavior on to conducting cables seems dangerous.
I need to keep my mouth shut I guess. either way I do hope everyone finds success with these however they work.
Paulsax - Cable is capacitor. Its capacitance and inductance might play role. Purity of metal might play role as well. The rest of it is a big question mark.
I had two speaker cables with about similar highs, lows and midrange but one of them was lean sounding while the other was full sounding (male voices chestiness). Difference was very pronounced (lower midrange) with the same amp and speakers. I don't know how to explain it just with resistance, capacitance and inductance model.
I'm always very skeptical but at my first encounter with better than lamp cord speaker cable - Audioquest Indigo (sold by foot) I experienced very muffled sound for first 30 min then very bright sound that eventually settled. People claim that there is no break-in with cables and nothing is better than lamp cord.
OK I see what you mean Kijanki. Have to have a think on this one. One reason I'm leary is the EMF vectors completely different and much of the dipole aspect makes less or no sense.
to me the inductance is more relevant but..........
I've had the AQ Panthers and Cheetahs ic's in my system. Whilst I never did a direct A/B comparison with the DBS system on or off (not exactly a well controlled study), I can say that these cables never needed any burn-in time. They sonic signtature remained fairly constant with time, which I like.
I wish I could comment on the sonic improvements of the DBS. They are nice cables, generally well priced given and engineered.
Some have suggested that a test of the DBS can be conducted by listening with the battery connected and then disconnected. Stereophile tried that approach and heard no difference. Audioquest countered that such a test would not reveal anything since the purpose of the battery's electric field is to keep the dialectic formed, and once formed it takes days or weeks to unform.
The way I understand it is that the battery helps keep the dialectric in the same state as if you played the cable regularly or daily. So, the only meaningful test would be to have identical cables, one with the battery pack attached, and one without the battery pack attached and which had not been used for some relatively long period. Even then, if you played the cable without the battery pack long enough during the testing, its performance would approach that of the other cable.
So this is a difficult situation to evaluate. My experience with the AQ DBS is that I do not seem to notice any significant change in sound (breakin) after periods of several days of not playing the system. Whether that is due to the DBS or not I can not prove, however, at the least it keeps me from fretting about it.
Audioquest countered that such a test would not reveal anything since the purpose of the battery's electric field is to keep the dialectic formed, and once formed it takes days or weeks to unform.
"Dielectric forming" is nonsense. At least in this context.
I think it got started when someone heard about dielectric forming with regard to aluminum electrolytic caps and didn't quite understand what that was about and so came to believe that all dielectrics somehow need "forming."
With aluminum electrolytic capacitors, the dielectric is the layer of aluminum oxide on the aluminum foil used for the plates of the capacitor.
When these caps are new, the manufacturer applies a voltage to them which causes a current to flow through the cap (not the same thing as current flow during the charging of a cap). Basically they're anodizing the foil. As the aluminum oxide layer builds up, the current diminishes.
So you're literally "forming" the dielectric of the capacitor.
However none of this applies to other dielectrics such as plastics.
Interesting thing though about polarizing a dielectric that's situated between two conductors...
It's the same principle used to make condenser microphones.
*picking up cable* Check one two... Check one two... Can you hear me back there? *THUMP!* *THUMP!* *THUMP!*
These DBS are interesting. I am not a cable fanatic, I use Cheetah, Sky and Leopard for Tonearm. I made some comparisons with 36V, then 72V and 144V DBS. The difference is in the silence of the Background. Difficult to explain, not the usual "I hear more Bass, better Highs"....and so on. Simply super clean from Details. I guess, these DBS also work as a kind of shielding. Yes, and I agree with the other ones, forget the "Burn-In-time", they are always on top from Performance. But they are also good without the DBS.
you can read a much more detailed analysis on the US Patent website---Bill Low patented this technology.
First, a patent doesn't mean anything. You can patent anything you want. It doesn't have to work or even do what you claim it does.
Second, there's no analysis at all in the DBS patent (7,126,055 for those interested). Low simply makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. You might as well read their marketing literature.
I did find one thing of note in the patent however that relates to something I'd said previously:
"In other words, and as indicated above, cables of this type may be thought of as long capacitors being gradually charged (i.e., "formed") by the electrical signal as the signal is communicated along a conductor surrounded by an insulating dielectric material."
This makes it pretty clear that Low has a rather basic misunderstanding with regard to dielectric "forming" and doesn't realize that this is something that only relates to aluminum electrolytic capacitors.
been thinking about this and dug up some reference materials. I am thinking that Simply_q is kind of correct in that the physical changes to the dielectric, while they are real effects, I think even in plastics, are not likely to occur in the regime we use. Maybe with a few hundred kHz and more watts but unless I am completely misunderstanding the equations (always possible!) this sort of thing should not be happening on a speaker cable. Mind I'm not commenting on the product in question, just the "why it works" end of things. I'm not sure. Much of the discussion that I've seen is utilizing the equations for relaxation on systems subject to external E&M fields. Seems like a misuse of concept but.....
Much of the discussion that I've seen is utilizing the equations for relaxation on systems subject to external E&M fields. Seems like a misuse of concept but.....
That's pretty common. Taking a grain of truth and extrapolating it beyond all reason.
btw, Simply Q---would you care to disclose why you only respond to cable oriented threads on Audiogon?
I don't. I've also responded to threads having nothing to do with cables.
It is true however that most of my responses have been to cable threads, but that's simply because there tend to be far more dubious claims made with regard to cables.
Paulsax - Maybe not physical changes in dielectric but forming and orienting dipoles in presence of electric field.
The dipoles would already be present. The electric field doesn't create them, it simply polarizes them.
And why would you want to polarize them? What exactly is the "problem" that their not being polarized brings about? Why would you want to turn a cable into the equivalent of a condenser microphone?
so in this case the right question (or maybe next question) to ask is what is the dipole creation and dissolution time in this sort of material and how does that compare to speaker signal timings? I suspect that we are talking 10-12 ish seconds or something silly fast like that but I've no idea.
I suspect that none of us are willing to spend too much more time on this anyway. I'm still curious but gotta make the donuts eh?
so in this case the right question (or maybe next question) to ask is what is the dipole creation and dissolution time in this sort of material...
It's not about creation and dissolution. It's about polarization. The dipoles already exist in the material itself. Under normal conditions their orientations will be random. However under the influence of an electric field, they will tend to align with the polarity of the field.
What no one has come up with so far is a good explanation of just what the underlying problem is. What is it about these randomly oriented dipoles that causes a "problem" that it needs to be "cured" by polarizing them.
Paulsax - depolarization into random state is called relaxation. Dependent on material it can take from relatively short time to a year. Some materials might be permanently polarized. They are called electrets. Electrets can be natural, like quartz or artificially made my melting material and cooling it in electrostatic field.
Science behind it is very complicated and many things can be affected. I will leave it to Cable companies.
As for people who don't believe that cables make a difference and post on cable forum it reminds me story about deaf many who answered add for music teacher just to tell them they shouldn't count on him.
Paulsax - depolarization into random state is called relaxation. Dependent on material it can take from relatively short time to a year. Some materials might be permanently polarized. They are called electrets. Electrets can be natural, like quartz or artificially made my melting material and cooling it in electrostatic field.
Great. Now explain just what its significance is with regard to an audio cable.
Science behind it is very complicated and many things can be affected. I will leave it to Cable companies.
The cable companies are good at coming up with new Bogey Men to make people afraid of and to offer talisman to keep those Bogey Men at bay.
But where they fall pathetically short is demonstrating that there's actually a problem to be dealt with in the first place.
And if they can't do that, then really all they're offering is marketing.
As for people who don't believe that cables make a difference and post on cable forum it reminds me story about deaf many who answered add for music teacher just to tell them they shouldn't count on him.
And much of the cable industry today reminds me of the peddlers of patent medicines back in the 18th century.
I have them but cannot attribute any sonic differences to them. I have never done any a/b testing with dbs on and off so hard to say. The cables do work just fine with dbs normally on however.
btw, Simply Q---would you care to disclose why you only respond to cable oriented threads on Audiogon? --Keithr
I don't. I've also responded to threads having nothing to do with cables.
Gee yeah. Here's the sum total of Simply_q's participation on A-gon. If you comb through it closely enough, you may find one or two posts about grounding or power distribution. The rest are devoted to setting the rest of us straight in a cable discussion forum.
Take it to the bank that he's never compared AQ with DBS on or off, which is what the OP asked for.
Gee yeah. Here's the sum total of Simply_q's participation on A-gon. If you comb through it closely enough, you may find one or two posts about grounding or power distribution. The rest are devoted to setting the rest of us straight in a cable discussion forum.
So what? What has any of that to do with anything I've said beside nothing at all?
Take it to the bank that he's never compared AQ with DBS on or off, which is what the OP asked for.
I wasn't responding directly to the OP. I was responding to claims posted about DBS. If you have any problems with anything I've said, then address what I've said instead of playing ad hominem games.
Simply_q is a manufacturer of interconnects and speaker cables called Q Cables. ... This should be disclosed considering Simply_q spends a great deal of time participating in threads about cables.
Sure. Though I believe if I disclose it, it would constitute advertising which is prohibited in the forums.
I think the mods and A-goners can tell the difference between disclaimers and self-promotion.
Other dealers and manufacturers self-disclose and post regularly without issue.
Kijanki what I was getting at (maybe incorrectly) is that the dissolution or relaxation of the temporary dipole for dielectric materials should be fairly fast given the equations I've seen. Now to be clear as this is not my field of expertise I am not completely sure I am using the correct equation for our physical layout and use regime. I'm with you on leaving it to others. I'll trust my ears. So far I've not heard much difference with most things but that is far from exhaustive and I've very, perhaps too aware, of the placebo effect.
Paulsax - exactly. I'm leaving it to others as well.
It would be a great arrogance on my part to say that it cannot work because I cannot understand it.
It wouldn't be right for me to say that AQ doesn't know what they doing (or cheat people) because I cannot hear the difference.
It would be out of this world arrogance to say that it cannot work and doesn't make sense without even listening.
Most of people use computer's everyday or take drugs with no comprehension how they work. I tend to trust renown manufacturers and not seek conspiracy.
Thanks Steve/Simply Q, now it makes a lot more sense---it's funny, I was actually interesting in ordering your speaker cables last week. Hit me up offline.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
