AudioQuest marketing terms and reality

What is quite stuck in my mind is AudioQuest’s “perfect-surface” copper and silver.
From what I’ve gathered its structure and method of manufacture have not been stated. Does perfect surface really refer to just the surface of the conductor? Or the whole lattice “surface”? I guess not.

Siltech produces monocrystalline silver. It makes some of their products prohibitely expensive. I trust AQ’s PSC and PSS aren’t even close in metallurgical perfection.

This is just one example.
What do you think of their tricks? Charged dielectric? Etc? Is it all viable?

1 Like

I think other cable companies need to learn their tricks with the I2S (HDMI) Dragon cables! Yep I’m going there again! It’s never coming out of my system!

1 Like

And to clarify, I’m not explicitly doubting AQ, I have their interconnects which I love.
They’re just really clever with coming up with marketing terms. (And we can’t see deeper than that, material or structure-wise, we can only listen)

1 Like

This just sounds like “rich corinthian leather” marketing to me. It’s not bad. It’s just marketing. “Perfect surface” is more marketable to the masses than “oxygen-free copper.” Think about it. Who wouldn’t want “farm fresh produce?”

2 Likes

Well IS it a perfect surface? I need a microscope.
It better be. But why haven’t they proved it with a microscopy image or otherwise?

1 Like

I have cables from another manufacturer, with the modified surface. They explained it as a mechanical process that removes surface irregularities. They pull the wire through polishing wheels during construction.

2 Likes

Thanks for the clarification.
But does AQ clarify which of their cables are OFC, which are UPOCC, etc, with the perfect-surface technique? Doesn’t read on the package.

Perhaps it’s best not to spend too much mental energy fretting over the descriptive verbiage in advertisements for cables. Let’s face it, it is difficult to try and differentiate one’s cable products in a market so saturated with choices relative to the market size. You are “damned if you do and damned it you don’t” engage in marketing terms and description. I certainly understand why Tellurium cables refuse to engage in any technical descriptions whatsoever in their product descriptions, they are never open to criticism for misleading, evasive, or hyperbolistic ad copy. On the other hand, every single review of their cables seems to include at least a hint of frustration on the reviewer’s part because they don’t disclose any technical details.

If by ‘charged dielectric’ you mean DBS, not impressed. AQ makes waves by claiming this is some new concept of active shield, but it certainly isn’t and it isn’t even a true active shield. A true active shield applies the signal on the shield as well the center conductor. You can’t have capacitive displacement current effects in the dielectric at all when the potential on the shield and center conductor is the same. And yes, applying the signal to shield still means the shield can do its’ job of shielding the inner conductor from external EMI. A technique that has been used in other applications, and better implemented to achieve the intended purpose to boot. 100% AQ marketing.

2 Likes

Hmm, ye. That’s kinda what I suspected. The DBS concept somehow always annoyed me.

Are there those of us who could discover the best sounding cables they’d ever heard in their experience, yet not like or buy simply because there are no measurements/formulas provided with the literature that accompanies them?

“Shirley”, you gest.

:roll_eyes: