QED Reference Audio 40


Well-known member
Feb 4, 2022
Verifiable evidence please, or if non available say it’s in the reviewers opinion rather than giving the impression that it is fact.

Lol, totally. It took me years to realise that the main reason What HiFi existed was not because of their love HiFi but because of their love of sponsored snake oil. Its a shame that they still do it because in this day and age it kills their credibility. I mean if they will take money to write a review about a cable then think about the rest.
  • Like
Reactions: WayneKerr


Well-known member
In the review, the sound of the QED is being compared to cables from other brands.
Would WHF be able to identify each in a blind test?
Cable believers always avoid the question of blind tests, saying that they prove nothing (whereas of course, they could prove everything).
What's WHF's excuse? Surely they should be able (and willing) to do their own blind tests - if the differences are as described in the review, then surely they're readily identifiable in unsighted tests.


Well-known member
Sep 7, 2020
I have to agree with all the previous comments, in particular the absence of objective/subjective proof, the blind test. In addition I would have to suggest that QED are providing some real mumbo jumbo.
According to QED, in this cable 'copper conductors carry the audio signal, with each a different diameter to, QED says, provide an alternative path for the high frequencies that could become time-smeared within a single pathway.' This suggests that the HF signal travels at a different speed dependant on the diameter of the conductor. I'm not in a position to dispute that. Surely, however, the high frequency signals now have two conduits with two different arrival times at the destination. I'd say the differing conductor diameter, if anything, increases the time smear. Then again we are talking speeds of around C*0.5 to C*0.98 so over a 1 metre cable I calculate it to be a maximum of 1.5 nano seconds.


Latest posts