Possibly, when dealing with shielded interconnects, variations in the shield braid could account for some of the perceived 'directionality' of the cables. That is, if the center conductor receives less shielding at one end of the cable than the other, switching the cable around might move the poorly-shielded end closer to a source of interference, or vice versa. I can't imagine that this would be noticable, but who knows.
r0cket- said:
Sure. But this is still just cart-before-the-horse speculation and does absolutely nothing to answer the most fundamental and as yet unanswered question of all: Are any effects due to the direction of the wire actually audible?
This has yet to be established except by what amounts to leap-of-faith religious dogma, i.e. "because I subjectively perceive a difference, it must be audible." But in light of the fact that that's not always the case, it establishes nothing other than some have subjectively perceived differences, which no one is refuting.
se
Hi,
They are audible.
I often received factory fresh wire straight from the Phelps-Dodge plant in New Jersey.
The differences one way around or the other weren't subtle, yet after a few days of use these effects were less and less obvious.
Nowadays all the wires that we order are cryogenically treated and sound even better no matter how they're hooked up.
Do I worry about this? Not in the least...I'm pretty much convinced that over time these difference aren't audible any more .
Strange dogma...did the wire smell different at first too?
Instead of playing armchair scientist why not run some tests at home?
Cheers,
They are audible.
I often received factory fresh wire straight from the Phelps-Dodge plant in New Jersey.
The differences one way around or the other weren't subtle, yet after a few days of use these effects were less and less obvious.
Nowadays all the wires that we order are cryogenically treated and sound even better no matter how they're hooked up.
Do I worry about this? Not in the least...I'm pretty much convinced that over time these difference aren't audible any more .
Strange dogma...did the wire smell different at first too?
Instead of playing armchair scientist why not run some tests at home?
Cheers,
"Doing the test" is an exercise in trying to mold water, based on my experience. I tried it with speaker cables and interconnects. Oh, no, two wires are no good, OK, I'll use one. Oh, that's no good, either, you didn't use linear crystal wire. (We don't mention that if the effect is real and has the proposed mechanism, ordinary wire should show effects even more strongly)
Before ANYONE wastes their time like I did, I'd suggest getting a specific experimental protocol from the people claiming this effect. Then you can waste your time.
Before ANYONE wastes their time like I did, I'd suggest getting a specific experimental protocol from the people claiming this effect. Then you can waste your time.
Hi,
No idea about the others but the only claim I see so far is that someone named the thread "Cable directionality" which could mean directionality from a single wire to directionality from interconnects to speaker cable.
The latter two could very well behave differently in one or the other direction by construction alone.
My claim is that yes, I can hear difference from wires hooked up one way or another when:
a) The wire is brand new.
b) Of sufficient high quality.
c) In a system of sufficiently high resolution.
Since I also claim that after burn-in this effect largely disappears and I don't care much one way or the other...
Listening tests mostly.
Cheers,
No idea about the others but the only claim I see so far is that someone named the thread "Cable directionality" which could mean directionality from a single wire to directionality from interconnects to speaker cable.
The latter two could very well behave differently in one or the other direction by construction alone.
My claim is that yes, I can hear difference from wires hooked up one way or another when:
a) The wire is brand new.
b) Of sufficient high quality.
c) In a system of sufficiently high resolution.
Since I also claim that after burn-in this effect largely disappears and I don't care much one way or the other...
Listening tests mostly.
Cheers,
That Dogma won't hunt.
"This has yet to be established except by what amounts to leap-of-faith religious dogma, i.e. "because I subjectively perceive a difference, it must be audible."
Of course there is no dogma in "I can't hear it, measure it, or understand any of the physics that could help to explain this, so none of the rest of you can either"!
About a quater of the time optimizing one's system and doing some research might be about 10 times more productive than constant arguments online. There are designers that take wire directionality seriously who's products sound very good to me. A lot of guys I know that do mods have known about directionality for ten years. I have played with cryogenically treated wire and parts and have found pretty noticeable differences from this and the break-in process. A lot of this extreme attention to details like these is to shorten the break in time. Since many people don't want to wait a month to find out what something can really sound like. This is critical when you are sending products out for review and don't know if the reviewer is going to spend several weeks letting the product break in.
I get a kick out of these fire storms over things that have not been controversial in high end audio for at least ten years. Maybe we should change the forum name to Last To Know audio.
"Yet to be established" is a pretty humorous phrase from somebody that has had to swap positions so many times on issues that were very firmly established in his mind.
"This has yet to be established except by what amounts to leap-of-faith religious dogma, i.e. "because I subjectively perceive a difference, it must be audible."
Of course there is no dogma in "I can't hear it, measure it, or understand any of the physics that could help to explain this, so none of the rest of you can either"!
About a quater of the time optimizing one's system and doing some research might be about 10 times more productive than constant arguments online. There are designers that take wire directionality seriously who's products sound very good to me. A lot of guys I know that do mods have known about directionality for ten years. I have played with cryogenically treated wire and parts and have found pretty noticeable differences from this and the break-in process. A lot of this extreme attention to details like these is to shorten the break in time. Since many people don't want to wait a month to find out what something can really sound like. This is critical when you are sending products out for review and don't know if the reviewer is going to spend several weeks letting the product break in.
I get a kick out of these fire storms over things that have not been controversial in high end audio for at least ten years. Maybe we should change the forum name to Last To Know audio.
"Yet to be established" is a pretty humorous phrase from somebody that has had to swap positions so many times on issues that were very firmly established in his mind.
Steve Eddy said:
Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that even if there are audible differences in some cables, they may have absolutely nothing to do with any real directional bias in the wire, per se, but just in cable manufacturing flaws or environmental factors, which should be eliminated or mitigated, respectively, by a top-quality cable (ironically, the sort where you'd be charged $$$ for the supposed directional benefits).
john curl said:
John,
the REAL WORLD are cosmic rays, neutrinos and quantum effects too. Question here is can we HEAR those ?
Can we really claim to hear those effects that are almost beyond the borders of measurement capabilities (electron microscope in this case) yet can be heard in such a mundane application as a piece of conductor between an amp and grossly distorting electromechanical device (speaker) using grossly distorting medium (air in the room) to transport the information to another grossly non linear and imperfect electromechanical device (ear drum) ?
And say all this with a straight face ?
Bratislav
PS discussions on digital cables is completely out of place here, as there are real, easily explainable physical properties that have measurable effect (is it hearable ? possibly, but yet to be proven).
Digital cable works as a transmission line, where geometry of the cable and connectors have siginficant effect. At audio frequencies none of this applies. Well, it still does I suppose, but its effect is in there somewhere with cosmic rays, gamma bursts and neutrinos. Maybe we should start the new thread about those ? I assure you those are REAL WORLD too. Astronomers go through great pains to detect them - maybe few golden ears can give a hand here ?
EDUCATING ALL RITAS???
Hi,
Even if I were to be the only one perceive it that would be enough for me.
I can assure you though that I'm certainly not alone in perceiving this.
More important than directionality of said wire is its actual construction.
I never use multi-strand wire, only the best dielectrical materials and geometries that are rather immune to external interference etc, etc.
Blind and both in groups or with a limited audience.
That's been my feeling most of the time around here since I joined, some exceptions notwithstanding.
Cheers,
Hi,
Even if I were to be the only one perceive it that would be enough for me.
I can assure you though that I'm certainly not alone in perceiving this.
More important than directionality of said wire is its actual construction.
I never use multi-strand wire, only the best dielectrical materials and geometries that are rather immune to external interference etc, etc.
Blind and both in groups or with a limited audience.
That's been my feeling most of the time around here since I joined, some exceptions notwithstanding.
Cheers,
Re: That Dogma won't hunt.
Of course there's dogma in that. However I have made no such claims as those.
And I'm glad their products sound very good to you. However that still doesn't establish that there's anything actually audible with regard to wire direction.
But simply subjectively perceiving differences doesn't establish actual audible differences either. Again, people have found pretty noticeable differences in their audio sytems after placing photographs of themselves in their freezers.
There usually isn't much controversy among dogmatists who share the same dogma. What you're saying here is tantamount to saying that there's not much controversy among Christians about the divinity of Christ. Or that there's not much controversy among white supremecists about the supremecy of the white race.
True Believers would be more apt.
The pretty humorous phrase is this one. If my positions were so firmly established in my mind as you claim, then I wouldn't be swapping positions now would I?
What you point out here is that I'm not a dogmatist as so many others are. That I keep an open mind (and don't just give it lip service) and am willing to consider any arguments to the contrary and upon being presented with a convincing argument, I'm perfectly willing to change my views.
This is how it should be.
Instead we have a lot of people clinging dogmatically to a particular notion, claiming to be open-minded but immediately sticking their fingers in their ears shouting "Blah! Blah! Blah! I can't hear you!" when those notions are questioned or challenged.
se
Fred Dieckmann said:
Of course there's dogma in that. However I have made no such claims as those.
And I'm glad their products sound very good to you. However that still doesn't establish that there's anything actually audible with regard to wire direction.
But simply subjectively perceiving differences doesn't establish actual audible differences either. Again, people have found pretty noticeable differences in their audio sytems after placing photographs of themselves in their freezers.
There usually isn't much controversy among dogmatists who share the same dogma. What you're saying here is tantamount to saying that there's not much controversy among Christians about the divinity of Christ. Or that there's not much controversy among white supremecists about the supremecy of the white race.
True Believers would be more apt.
The pretty humorous phrase is this one. If my positions were so firmly established in my mind as you claim, then I wouldn't be swapping positions now would I?
What you point out here is that I'm not a dogmatist as so many others are. That I keep an open mind (and don't just give it lip service) and am willing to consider any arguments to the contrary and upon being presented with a convincing argument, I'm perfectly willing to change my views.
This is how it should be.
Instead we have a lot of people clinging dogmatically to a particular notion, claiming to be open-minded but immediately sticking their fingers in their ears shouting "Blah! Blah! Blah! I can't hear you!" when those notions are questioned or challenged.
se
Re: EDUCATING ALL RITAS???
And that's perfectly fine. I've never said it shouldn't be enough for you. But when you make claims of fact beyond your own subjective perceptions, you're making claims of universality.
If you simply say "I perceive differences depending on wire direction" you're simply relating your particular subjective experience, which no one should question.
But when you make a universal claim of fact that wire directionality is actually audible, you've gone beyond simply sharing your particular subjective experience.
I never said you were. But just because some number of individuals report sharing similar subjective experiences doesn't establish actual audibility. More than one person has perceived the effects of phogotraphs in freezers too. So does that establish that frozen photographs affect our audio systems? Of course not.
Great. Can you give some details on the protocol used and what the actual results were?
If there's something to it, then it should be repeatable. Any volunteers?
se
fdegrove said:
And that's perfectly fine. I've never said it shouldn't be enough for you. But when you make claims of fact beyond your own subjective perceptions, you're making claims of universality.
If you simply say "I perceive differences depending on wire direction" you're simply relating your particular subjective experience, which no one should question.
But when you make a universal claim of fact that wire directionality is actually audible, you've gone beyond simply sharing your particular subjective experience.
I never said you were. But just because some number of individuals report sharing similar subjective experiences doesn't establish actual audibility. More than one person has perceived the effects of phogotraphs in freezers too. So does that establish that frozen photographs affect our audio systems? Of course not.
Great. Can you give some details on the protocol used and what the actual results were?
If there's something to it, then it should be repeatable. Any volunteers?
se
Hi,
Such as?
I said that when asked for a plausible explanation I received given explanation from the manufacturer, that makes it their explanation not a claim just that; a plausible explanation.
I don't know how you establish experience as facts but to me a number of repeated expierences sure indicate that it is audible to at least a number of people.
I therefore conclude that it can be audible.
If it's not audible to ALL doesn't make it any less audible to the remainder of the participants.
Procedure wasn't any different from any other blind tests, no reason for it to be different anyway...
The net result was that more than 75% of the particapants could repeatedly detect a difference which was the only goal set.
Cheers,
Such as?
I said that when asked for a plausible explanation I received given explanation from the manufacturer, that makes it their explanation not a claim just that; a plausible explanation.
I don't know how you establish experience as facts but to me a number of repeated expierences sure indicate that it is audible to at least a number of people.
I therefore conclude that it can be audible.
If it's not audible to ALL doesn't make it any less audible to the remainder of the participants.
Procedure wasn't any different from any other blind tests, no reason for it to be different anyway...
The net result was that more than 75% of the particapants could repeatedly detect a difference which was the only goal set.
Cheers,
Every blind test has a different procedure, except for those meant to attempt replication. There's no "universal" blind testing procedure in any sensory science, including my field. You're making a radical claim, and I'd sure like to have enough detail on procedure and statistics to evaluate it or try to replicate it.
Hi,
At best I'm a fine young canibal, not a radical...
The test procedure was exactly as what you're preparing for the passive component shoot out except that all participants were present at the test location and the test was run over several days with about 150 people filling in their forms.
Cheers,
At best I'm a fine young canibal, not a radical...
The test procedure was exactly as what you're preparing for the passive component shoot out except that all participants were present at the test location and the test was run over several days with about 150 people filling in their forms.
Cheers,
fdegrove said:
Such as: "They are audible" and "This is due to crystal annealing and the effect can be lessened by cryo treatment."
Where did you say that when asked for a plausible explanation you'd received a given explanation from the manufacturer? All I say you say was:
If this is the case - I have a hard time believing so - , wouldn't this be a QC error?
Other than cable geometry, which is a deliberate design choice, it's the wire that's directive.
And
This is due to crystal annealing and the effect can be lessened by cryo treatment.
I don't see any mention there of these being the words of any manufacturer.
Blind listening followed by statistical analysis and subsequent repeatability of the test.
Similar subjective experiences can indicate that something MAY be audible and worth further investigation, but I don't see how similar subjective experiences indicate actual audibility. At least at the microscopically low levels we're talking about here.
Can be? So you're saying that actual audibility is still speculative?
I never said otherwise. If actual audibility can be established for just ONE person that would be sufficient to establish actual audibility. There's no requirement that it must be audible to ALL.
There are numerous procedures and protocols for blind testing.
What cables were used? Were they the exact same cable with the only difference being the orientation of the wires? How many tests were run and what were the statistics of the results? How were the listeners kept blind? And did any of those administering the tests know which wires were which?
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.