As I had promised (please refer to Grimm Mu1 thread and Fee for Audition thread under Digital for more context), I am going to share my experiences using different AES/EBU cables in my system. I am going to gloss over the general question of whether cables, especially digital cables make a difference. I am always careful in choosing my components, and unless something makes a tangible improvement in sound, I will never pay for something. If something makes an improvement, I do evaluate if it’s worth the asking price, and only then do I purchase it. So it’s up to you to decide if something is worth the price that you pay for. Also, please note that, these findings apply to my system in my room and may not translate into the same findings in your system.
Now let’s go into what I heard in my system. I had the following AES/EBU cables. The Mogami cable, Shunyata Omega cable, Nordost Odin 2 cable and the Sablon cable. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain the Jorma design cable as I was unable to reach the cable company either through phone or email. I am not aware of any other dealer who carries it near me.
There is a significant difference between the basic Mogami and the rest of the cables. The difference is easy to discern in the bass. There is simply more texture, dimensionality, and clarity that is missing in bass with the Mogami cable. This is unfortunate as this is the cheapest cable. The rest of the cables are closer to each other. It takes a bit of back-and-forth of listening to discern the differences.
First up was the Shunyata cable. This is an excellent digital cable which is extremely natural sounding. Everything sounds clear with a nice sound stage. The sound stage extends beyond the speakers with a nice depth to it. There is a sense of fullness to the sound, more fleshed out, but in a very natural way. This is the first cable that I had for evaluation (this belongs to my friend). I will be very happy with this cable, if it were my only option. This cable retails for around 4.5 k.
Next step was the Nordost Odin 2 cable. I understand that there is a significant jump in price as this cable retails for over 12 K. The difference between the Shunyata and the Odin 2 cable is more subtle. The primary difference is in the sound stage. The sound extends well beyond the speakers and front to depth soundstage is increased compared to Shunyata. There is also more detail and air at the top end. There is slightly more dynamics with the Odin 2 cable on back-and-forth listening. Please note, these differences are not in your face but subtle. Whether this is worth the price difference is something only you can decide.
The last cable that I had was the Sablon cable. The other cables measured 1.5 m but the Sablon was 1 m. I could not test if the length of cable makes a difference as I did not have the same cable in different lengths. (Please refer to Grimm Mu1 thread for context.)
The Sablon cable brings a lot of nuance to the entire spectrum of sound. The bass is taut and has a lot of finesse. String instruments reveal a good amount of inner detail, whether it’s plucking or bowing. Percussion sounds realistic. It nicely brings out the textures and extremely accurate with regards to tone and timbre. The mid range is extremely clear and well presented, which is one of the strengths of this cable. The top end is clean and extremely accurate. It has an uncanny ability to make the softest sounds really fleshed out and clear. If are a Pink Floyd fan “Hello Colonel, how are you tonight” never sounded this clear, it’s like you are on shrooms.
This is how I would compare the Shunyata, Nordsost and Sablon. The system plays a huge role in laying out the differences. The bass is similar in all the three cables, they go deep, feel taut and have a lot of textures. It’s the midrange and highs that sound different. Nordstrom has a very neutral and sweet presentation that is very inviting. It sizzles in the top end and has superb dynamics. The other two cables cannot touch the Nordost in the highs. The Sablon shines in the midrange. It has one of the most accurate midrange sound and sounds really organic. The nordost is close but Sablon wins the midrange. The Shunyata is close to the other cables but does not sound better. So what did I choose? The sizzling dynamic Nordost or the realistic sounding Sablon?
I always believed that the highs are most important for music to sound alive and imparting the feeling of being there. But Sablon changed my opinion, it’s the midrange that gives the sensation of live music. The Sablon made the music sound more alive than other 2 cables. The difference with Nordost is subtle but definite. The other important thing especially for me was tone and timbre. I play violin and I value tone and timbre (reason for the choice of my speakers) as the most important attribute.The Sablon again wins this. Of course the price is the icing on the cake. So I have decided to buy the Sablon. Of course, in your system and for your ears, the outcome may not be the same. My recommendation is to try before you buy especially considering the price of the these cables.
The original question is about sound quality differences with AES cables. So persons such as donavabdear and panzrwagn need to get your own cables and do some listening. Nobody here on this forum needs to give "a plausable reason" nor do we need to hear statements like "physics is physics".
So get out there and try some cables. Let us know what you hear.
My personal experience is the Snake River Audio Boomslang is a clear, unblurred sounding cable, compared to a Wireworld Gold Starlight, which is not quite as clear sounding. The third one is an older (20 years) Straightwire. This one was just slightly duller than the other two. The differences were more of a refinement, and were not dramatic. If I try another brand soon, it will be Jorma or Audience, or Moon Audio Silver Dragon. The price of the Audience is exorbitant, so I will probably pass on it unless a used one comes up.
I've tried many digital cables throughout the years and I keep going back to Black Cat especially the Tron AES/EBU. It just makes everything sound right. Top to bottom are extended, the sound is extremely clear with a massive soundstage with proper placement of instruments. Its just truly awesome.
@carlsbad2I moved on…. I did not own the Holo May DAC. It belonged to a friend as I mentioned before. I returned it to him. After much research and listening, I bought the playback designs Streamer and DAC. Now I am using PLink which is the best way to connect. I have since sold my Grimm Mu1.
Having listened to most top end (price no bar) DAC/streamer combos, I can say without doubt, USB only wins if you listen to DSD 128 and above as AES cannot transfer above DSd 64. So if you do not have the Optical output (this is not the usual digital optical out but a different standard), the next best is AES/EBU. I2S and USB should be last choice.
@svenjosh I just bought a streamer that uses AES/EBU. thanks for your great review. So 6 months later what cables are you using? I'm an actions-speak-louder-than-words guy.
@svenjosh thank you for sharing your review of various AES cables.
curious, would you be willing to try a Mogami 3173 AES cable to expand the comparison?
Without some kind of blind, controlled testing, or before and after measurements that show a difference known to be audible, we have absolutely no way of knowing ...
When you say "we," who is it that you claim to represent?
You’re not being scientific if you limit your analysis to differences "known to be audible."
When we "hear" a difference, it means we perceive a difference. That may mean we have actually detected a difference in the air pressure modulations reaching our ears, or it may have something to do with what's going on after the sound reaches our ears. Without some kind of blind, controlled testing, or before and after measurements that show a difference known to be audible, we have absolutely no way of knowing which one it is. In either case, it's real. The cables cause the perceived sound quality to change for the OP. That's all we can tell from his report. It may or may not work for you even when listening to the OP's system, and it may have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to detect subtle changes in the soundwaves reaching your ears.
@tonix: Thank you for this info. This article digs a little deeper: TCP vs UDP.
It’s really easy to hear how the gold and silver tuning bullets affect the sound quality on this USB cable and this S/PDIF cable. Since all the parameters are the exact same within each digital cable, there’s more going on than just 1’s & 0’s. As per your explanation, the data is happening in the analog realm.
Data communication is generally made with two base protocols:
TCP/IP which manages: flow, CRC, data loss, retransmission
UDP which does NOT manage: flow, CRC, data loss, retransmission
The most of data exchange procedures (like sending to a printer, sharing a disk, moving data, etc) is made using TCP/IP. So, if some data are lost in trasmission, they are transmitted again. TCP/IP is (a lot) slower but safer.
The most of audio streams (including telephone VOIP) is made using UDP based protocols, so there is no flow control, no CRC, no retransmission. UDP is much quicker, but less safe.What you get is what arrives to you, which may differ from what is sent, due to: RFI, EMI, magnetic fields, bad cable, bad interfaces, etc.
All audio protocols on USB are very close to UDP, exactly as data coming from S/PDIF (from CD player to DAC). They are, in their behaviour, more "analog" in the way they act, than digital (I mean, the content is digital, but the stream of digital bits is trasmitted exactly like is was an analog sound).
@ghasley I hear you, no doubt that good people with great ears hear huge improvements with cables, I have drank the Kool Aid myself just in case I was wrong. Hey I have over 70 speakers in my house and 4 Dolby Atmos systems, 1 professional.
its really bad when the salesmen who distribute the cables can't tell you why they sound better. I was starting in the music studios when digital came out, they said the handshake between components was the key it was either a 1 or a 0 and there wouldn't be so much distortion that the numbers would get flipped apposed to analog where there was a variable handshake with an infinite opportunity to make errors. There are fancy ways components look at digital signals now but generally that's still the case and if the cable can pass a 1 or a 0 it doesn't matter haw much the cable costs.
When the cable is a BNC the dielectric is important it can change the timing of the 1s and 0s, it turns out the timing/impedance of the information in the cable is the most important aspect of digital cables. The timing of the signal in the cable is always the same if exotic dielectrics are not used. The idea that high frequencies move at a significantly different speed around the outer edge of the cable is silly. As I was saying before the latency in any and every digital circuit makes much more difference than any cable skin effect, this is where the snake oil comes in. No one in professional audio cares about designer fluff fluff cables it simply never happens if there was a significant time difference in the high frequency recording engineers would have to deal with it and we don't.
So just think of this, everyone agrees the signal isn’t going to get any better because of cables.
Using your logic then, do cables on the recording side of the equation do any harm? If so, and there are cables on the playback side of the equation that do less harm than others, then wouldn’t they by default do some good?
Believe me, I’m not trying to debate things with experts…its just that so many of us hear absolute, undebateable improvements between various cable brands. The only thing I’m certain of is there are those who are certain I’m imagining things….and they are incorrect.
So just think of this, everyone agrees the signal isn’t going to get any better because of cables. So if the original studio or location sound recording doesn’t use these uber expensive cables of any sort (AC, interconnects, speaker) doesn’t that mean you are wasting your money. Simple premise, where am I wrong? Again I’m not talking about simple cable mistakes like impedance mismatch or errors in gage or cheep cables not using adequate RF protection.
The OP was just a case of using a cable that was adequate for his system, just getting up to "0".
@thyname I understand, I love your audio system it seems you have some expensive cables, you must have some objective reason for buying them. Have a nice day.
@thynameSorry you are making the wrong argument, you aren't keeping the signal the same as it is originally you are only at best keeping the signal the same at the level it enters your speakers there is a world of difference between original and the end of the line. You still never answered the question "do cables add any positive traces to the signal". Also you misunderstood my analogy between "Vaccine deniers" and "Cable deniers" an obviously derogatory term. Calling names is really the lowest form of debate, try harder.
Haven't you ever thought of the hundreds of feet of cable around the voice coils haven't you ever thought of the tracers on the PC board haven't you ever thought of the fuse haven't you ever thought of the crossover PC tracers (at speaker level), come on argue with me give me your technical reasons why an expensive piece of cable at the end of 1000 feet of electrical line is going to help with anything but 3 feet of RF filtering, you can do it.
There is a continual degradation in audio quality from the time of recording to the ultimate listening at your home. We are just trying to minimize the audio quality loss that occurs in our homes. That is the best we can do since we do not have any control over prior processes. So to answer to your question, there no way to get better sound than original but we strive to preserve what we can in the final part of audio reproduction.
@thynameWell argue your point then don't simply put me down, I don't care if it's technical or practical. The question is do cables make a sound system better. No one including the OP is saying that cables don't make a difference they must be up to zero to be perfect. No doubt cables make a difference but no one has ever shown they make a positive difference only a negative one, even getting rid of RF or other forms of over the air distortion still the cable does not add to fidelity ether analog or digital. I don't even think audiophile know what a "cable-denier" is. Perhaps it's more accurate to say "Im a cable cultist, come frolic with me".
@steaksterYou say "cable-deniers" does that mean people who don't think cables will make a system sound better? I asked many cable manufactures at AXPONA what cables do for a sound system only 1 manufacture, Beldon, had an answer. Most of them said "I don't know but people like it". Question for you concerning digital signal processing, can you make the signal better than the original? Think about it for a second if you say no then you also can't make the signal better than the signal you get from the any source at any position on the signal path all the way to your speakers. As far as I know there is no AI algorithm that adds information to an audio signal. What do you say?
It’s just incomprehensible to some technical know-it-alls that amateur hobbyists might know more than they do. When first joining a new-to-them discussion forum, these know-it-alls assume that their new membership is an invitation to inform the unwashed masses of their vast knowledge. Sadly, they have no understanding that the forum they just joined has an accumulated wealth of audio knowledge - acquired over decades & decades of practical experience.
What these cable-deniers just don’t get is that many of these audiophile cable manufacturers were started by professional EE’s and physicists. This forum presents an opportunity to learn something new. Apparently, some posters don’t want to - or can’t.
@thyname I really don't mean to pick on audiophiles and someone pointed out to me lately that I should be kinder, I agreed and I'll try. It's just that this group is full of intelligent people who have the same hobby as I do so I want to add the the knowledge when I have expertise in some cases. I was the first person to record a fully digital signal path for movies and I spend a lot of time fixing the workflow of many studios while at the same time nearly getting fired numerous times because of all the confusion concerning digital signal path. I've been there and have the scares and the Oscar and Emmy winning shows to prove it.
@donavabdear: That’s not what I asked, but OK, I understand, good platform for your rants blowing steam towards the "stupid" audiophile species who are always confused according to your multiple threads you had started. Carry on.
@jeffstrick Cables can’t fix anything, although years ago when a singer was to bright we used an old brown Electro Voice cable that didn’t pass high end very well and it fixed the problem, a little EQ with mic cables. Again cables only degrade they start at zero if they are perfect, cables can only make things sound worse. I listened to cables worth 180k at AXPONA a few weeks ago and the speakers were disappointing even in a $1.3M setup.
@thynameTo answer your question yes, bollocks everyone knows you can't have better sound quality than the original (I did recording for 35 years) audiophile cables especially are perhaps hundreds of times more expensive than professionals use in the studio at concerts and location recording. So yes there are elephants running around in the room and audiophiles are worried about mice. I assume that no one is making an elementary mistake like impedance mismatch in digital cables and not using to small of gage, dirty connectors or anything like that.
There is no denying cables make a difference the difference's start from zero in a digital connection and only go down from there the cables can't make anything sound better.
Speed of transmission is meaningless with the same type of cable (copper, silver etc.) if you are using some crazy conductor the speed of the signal can change drastically by changing the impedance but that is another subject. generally copper/ silver is a little slower than the speed of light producing nanoseconds of differences where latency in digital circuits are milliseconds 1 millisecond is about a foot at the speed of sound in air.
Also just for fun every recording has phase problems the 3 to 1 rule is the oldest in the book -triple the distance from the first mic to the next mic- even a single stereo mic over the conductors head has different kinds of phase problems like the diaphragm's being perhaps an inch apart or acoustic phase problems like reflections from the floor, walls or the music stand in front of the musician. These are real timing errors that actually make a measurable and audible difference, nanosecond timing errors because of the length of the silver cell in the cable are mice among elephants. Hope that's clear.
@donavabdear: it sounds like you evaluate your digital cables solely based on the timing differences, i.e. speed of transmission. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Is this all there is on digital cables? All the other stuff about capacitance, impedance, shielding, radio frequency signal mitigation and more is just .... what? bollocks?
OP: as for Panzerkampfwagen, if you read something like this (copy / paste of his first illuminary contribution on this thread below), run! No need to read anything else from someone with that logic
Digital cables either work or they don't. Binary, zero or one. If they have ANY impact on performance, they are defective.
@panzrwagn@donavabdearYou are amazing guys who showed your profound intelligence in electronics and digital. Now that you have wowed us with your knowledge, maybe it’s time to contribute this same amazingness in other threads too so everyone can be enlightened!
From a professional perspective latency in digital circuits is by far more important than nano second timing differences created by cables. In modern systems used in professional recording you set latency based on buffer size. Last week we did sound and video in an arena with an all fiber network but because there were ancillary audio and video circuits in the sound mixer and the video switcher the signal to the video monitors in the sound room was about 2 frames out of sync, probably about 3 feet as far as the speed of sound. If you are speaking in a microphone and hearing that signal on headphones you will hear 3 milliseconds and up, it's difficult to speak or sing without being distracted by the timing error with only 3 mil. delay which is very low.
The circuit latency in digital systems is practically never talked about in audiophile stats, it is in the realm of 1/1000ths of seconds not 1/100,000 of seconds, milliseconds are very audible microseconds are not. Cables are the connectors between the digital circuits they are not the problem. "Don't kill the messenger" that's all cables are.
Analog systems have much more to do with cable gage and length.
@panzrwagn@david1964you are both well-intentioned, intelligent gentlemen, of that I’m sure. You are both technically correct in an ASR kind of way and yet, here we are….other well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent souls have experienced audible results that are inconsistent with you two fine gentlemen as well as many others. Many of us also may have once been in your camp but managed to keep an open mind and try things from time to time.
I have found alot of the high end fussiness to varying degrees of “less effective” than others have communicated be they footers, some cables, power conditioners, etc, etc. You don’t have to believe that there are considerable gains (or less degradation) to be had by utilizing different digital cables, thats cool. I too was skeptical before trying them. I don’t understand why one well made cable sounds better or worse than another but I have experienced it and made choices based on what I hear.
@panzrwagn You made a claim earlier in the thread that you had tested some cables and found no differences but you didn’t say what cables you tried and with what gear. I cringe though that you might think I’m asking you to share it with us with a blow by blow recap, which I am absolutely NOT doing. Your test was sufficient for you with your gear in your home. Our tests are sufficient for us so again I wonder what your motivation is participating in a thread where some fellow audiogon members are exchanging ideas and commentary about WHAT THEY HAVE HEARD, IN THEIR OWN SYSTEMS. What is your motivation and what can you possibly add to the dialogue?
Is there any references that details that there is effectively error correction in the AES/EBU and USB for low latency application such as audio? From my search it appears that a defective packet sent can be identified but it is just dropped and not re-transmitted because of the low latency. Any technical paper on the subject?
@jerrybjPhysics is physics, acoustics is a branch of applied physics as is digital communications, an area I've dedicated several decades of my life studying and implementing. So I am comfortable saying I have a lot more experience in that area than most. I have been involved with audio, both personally and professionally, even longer.
You are trying to attribute a perceived change in subjective sound quality to a part of the digital signal chain that is demonstrably unchanged. That leaves only three options: (A) the actual cause is not what you think it is. (B) you are falling prey to any number of forms of observer bias. (C) you want to propose that the digital bitstream, from which all content is derived, is mysteriously influenced by some unidentified external force capable of manipulating bits beyond the ability of error correction protocols, and that can only be mitigated by the most exotic cables, alloyed, extruded, woven, braided and terminated according to the incantations of the elders.
I ignore anything written by PWagn, as I do from JBourne, cakhole and a range of others. Seems they say the same thing, with no experience of any of the items.
Panzerkampfwagen: please refrain from posting in threads & topics that are no interest to you (i.e. cable threads). This is public forum to exchange user experiences, and not to change beliefs. You can start your own thread with whatever rant you feel makes you feel better.
There is a continual degradation in audio quality from the time of recording to the ultimate listening at your home. We are just trying to minimize the audio quality loss that occurs in our homes. That is the best we can do since we do not have any control over prior processes. So to answer to your question, there no way to get better sound than original but we strive to preserve what we can in the final part of audio reproduction.
@donavabdearNo one here claimed the final product can be better than the original performance. Some sound engineers understand the principles of audio recording and reproduction, their recordings sound great while others who do not understand produce poor sounding recordings.
There is a continual degradation in audio quality from the time of recording to the ultimate listening at your home. We are just trying to minimize the audio quality loss that occurs in our homes. That is the best we can do since we do not have any control over prior processes. So to answer to your question, there no way to get better sound than original but we strive to preserve what we can in the final part of audio reproduction.
@panzrwagnI don’t think you understand or you are trying not to. I am not interested in changing your beliefs. So you can enjoy with whatever works for you.
@invalidalot of the better studios do indeed use better cables, especially if they are audiophile oriented. Steve Hoffman, Gray, et al.
@panzrwagnyou still seem to be in the wrong thread. This isn’t the thread asking retired IT guys if digital cable quality matters in hifi, this is the thread where the original poster communicated what he heard between multiple digital cables. For those of us who hear clearly the differences, your opinion doesn’t seem to overlay well with our experience.
Also, you may want to recheck your “facts”…spdif/aes data doesn’t get resent.
I've was a professional sound mixer for 35 years and no one uses audiophile cables in a studio or while recording the very largest film productions. I wonder how the final product can be better (more fidelity) than the originally captured product? Perhaps an AI brain will fill in the gaps someday but not now.
There are quite a few music recording studios that use high end audio cable.
@svenjoshI missed the part where I said there is no noise in digital, of course there is. Crank up the ASA speed on a digital camera and you'll see plenty of it. One of the biggest differences between your cellphone camera and a serious digital camera is the bit depth of the sensor and thus dynamic range. This makes cellphone cameras much more sensitive to noise, especially quantization noise, as they have many more opportunities for values between bit levels. But none of this has anything to do with cables.
Within the digital domain any change in sound from a digital source must be accompanied by a corresponding change in the digital bitstream describing that sound. However, if that were introduced by a cable, that would change the checksum and/or parity of the bitstream and would be sensed as an error, and corrected whether by CRC or parity error on the receiving end. This is true for copper, fiber, or wireless Ethernet, AES/EBU, or USB.
Changes in sound - and their corresponding changes in bitstream are prevalent before and after transport at Layer One. Buffering, latency, jitter, all the side effects of various digital filter algorithms, introduction of noise from all kinds of sources, phase noise, quantum and thermal noise from electronics, noise carried in from imperfect grounding schemes, RF noise; in fiber there is quantum (shot or 1/f) noise, thermal noise. My personal favorite, is dark current noise (eery sounding innit?) But i digress, that's a camera sensor thing. None of these are caused by an in spec interconnect.
The point is any change be being attributed to the cable is being done so contrary to the basic operations of frame or packet based digital signal transmission. Those audible changes may be occurring, just not during transmission of the in-band bitstream.
@ghdprenticeWhen I ask this question to cable manufactures the good ones say we don't know but it does seem to sound better. The bad ones give me ridiculous notions of speed of the signal matching and power reservoir and keeping radio frequency interference out.
I've was a professional sound mixer for 35 years and no one uses audiophile cables in a studio or while recording the very largest film productions. I wonder how the final product can be better (more fidelity) than the originally captured product? Perhaps an AI brain will fill in the gaps someday but not now.
well said @ghdprentice Observation is indeed one of the first steps in scientific discovery. Antibiotics from mold? Germ theory of disease? These were both relatively late discoveries, yet so taken for granted today. I hail manufacturers who push the boundaries of our understandings.
@panzrwagn… “I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how the last 1 or 2 meters in the digital communications chain can make a "huge difference" and the previous one or two thousand miles doesn’t make any difference.”
The basic founding principle of science is observation. We make observations, then create hypothesis to explain, in this case, what we hear. You are refusing to observe, until someone can explain the how.
For those of us that have spent decades listening have realized that a digital cable in the last couple meters does mater… as does a power cord. What takes preference is observation… it makes a difference, often large.
I consider myself as an inbetweenist. I have a hard time ’believing’ stuff when no one can explain it.
@rudybLove the term “inbetweenist,” and thanks for at least keeping an open mind with this I too was skeptical about how much digital cables can matter, and I happily used a $60 Apogee Wyde Eye cable (that I preferred to a highly-regarded Stereovox XV2 BTW) for many years until recently when I got “the itch” to try something else. I found a great deal on an Acoustic Zen MC2 SPDIF digital cable, and since I use and love AZ interconnects and speaker cables I thought, why not? I was shocked at how much better in every aspect the MC2 was compared to the Apogee — it wasn’t even close and I’m kicking myself for not exploring this area much earlier. Can I explain it? No. Do I care about that? Hell no, because I’m thrilled with the sound I’m now hearing. My advice is to bite ur lip, curb your skepticism, and just use your own ears as the final arbiter. Here’s the same cable I bought used just fyi…
Thanks for taking the time to share your cable showdown. It’s always better to hear reviews from an independent source rather than someone looking for likes on YouTube or getting paid by ? to give positive results.
@panzrwagnI started reading your post and it was fine until you said there is no noise in digital. This is absolutely not true. Take your phone out and go to a dark area and take a picture. You see noise? Why? Everything is purely in digital realm, 1s and 0s. So why is there any noise? Of course this has nothing to do with audio nor am I implying any connection. I am merely enlightening you to the concept of digital noise.
I started my listening with the cheapest of cables. But I heard a difference when comparing to other cables. I just wanted to share what I heard. I did not say this was the absolute fact for everyone. I also said that if you do not hear a difference, you saved yourself a lot of money. No one is forcing anyone to buy something. The cable companies are just offering a mere invitation to consider purchasing their products. Most offer free trials. If anyone does not believe in the differences between cables or does not hear a difference, it is fine. You do not have to buy an expensive cable.
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.
