In fact, Ed's test conditions are perfect for showing up that kind of defect- with a low source Z and a high load Z, the effect of a few ohms would be swamped.
Just tonight I watched several hours of modern physics on a 'Science Channel'. While most of it involved either Hawking or modern astro physics, I could not help but be AMAZED on how our vision of physics has changed in even MY lifetime.
As a boy of perhaps 10, I got my first telescope and checked out my first star gazing book. Later, when in high school, my telescope was stolen out of a back yard, and I didn't think much of astronomy for awhile. However, about 50 years ago, I took a college level astronomy course, and A'd it, finding it so interesting. Of course, then I got the overall view of our galaxy, and star formation. A few years later, in 1963, while working at Lockheed Burbank, somebody forgot to schedule me in for a week, so I went to the astronomy books in the company library and further reinforced my understanding of star formation, etc. Now, by this time I knew more than the average engineer-physicist about astronomy, and like many, on this website, thought I had a true 'bead' on the nature of star and galaxy formation, etc.
However, watching the programs tonight and of course, a number of others over the last 20 years, I never cease to be amazed how astronomy, and the nature of atoms, their creation, neutrinos, etc., etc., have so much changed! It is as if another universe has been generated, once we get outside our local space.
Now why do I bring this up? When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon. They will even go up and confront an astronaut and accuse him of fraud. Why do they do this? It is because they cannot 'bend' with the change in reality that the years bring.
In fact, about the time I got my first telescope almost 60 years ago, my father told me that "we would NEVER go to the Moon! It was too damn far away!" I had fun teasing him about it, perhaps 18 years later.
Please remember that when people post here, often they have the best of intent, and maybe, just maybe, they know or have even accidently found something that won't necessarily make sense, with what we all learned in college, many decades ago. So be it. Better to ignore it, than make up mean and inaccurate excuses to explain it away.
As a boy of perhaps 10, I got my first telescope and checked out my first star gazing book. Later, when in high school, my telescope was stolen out of a back yard, and I didn't think much of astronomy for awhile. However, about 50 years ago, I took a college level astronomy course, and A'd it, finding it so interesting. Of course, then I got the overall view of our galaxy, and star formation. A few years later, in 1963, while working at Lockheed Burbank, somebody forgot to schedule me in for a week, so I went to the astronomy books in the company library and further reinforced my understanding of star formation, etc. Now, by this time I knew more than the average engineer-physicist about astronomy, and like many, on this website, thought I had a true 'bead' on the nature of star and galaxy formation, etc.
However, watching the programs tonight and of course, a number of others over the last 20 years, I never cease to be amazed how astronomy, and the nature of atoms, their creation, neutrinos, etc., etc., have so much changed! It is as if another universe has been generated, once we get outside our local space.
Now why do I bring this up? When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon. They will even go up and confront an astronaut and accuse him of fraud. Why do they do this? It is because they cannot 'bend' with the change in reality that the years bring.
In fact, about the time I got my first telescope almost 60 years ago, my father told me that "we would NEVER go to the Moon! It was too damn far away!" I had fun teasing him about it, perhaps 18 years later.
Please remember that when people post here, often they have the best of intent, and maybe, just maybe, they know or have even accidently found something that won't necessarily make sense, with what we all learned in college, many decades ago. So be it. Better to ignore it, than make up mean and inaccurate excuses to explain it away.
Last edited:
"When people keep ONLY the ideas that they learned in college as virtually sacrosanct or holy, and NEVER changeable or malleable, how can they accept anything new? Often, they do not, and so, assign blame for the 'deviation' to sloppy experiments, defective instrumentation, or even outright fraud.
This was done, and even still believed by a certain proportion of people who are convinced that we have never gone to the Moon."
This sinks to a new low for you JC. Comparing people who have not relinquished firm belief in well grounded scientific and engineering principles which remain the bedrock of our technological knowledge with conspiracy kooks who deny reality so that you can sell your products and ideas for which you admit you cannot explain their supposed superiority to those well versed in these disciplines. Why not add in those who believe in ghosts with those who still think Newton's laws are excellent models unless you happen to be dealing with atomic particles moving at nine tenths the speed of light or faster, Fourier analysis, the validity of principles of negative feedback (when skillfully applied which is often rare in audio), and all of the other methods of circuit analysis? The shoe can be put on the other foot. Remember cold fusion craze in the early 90s. Those were the real kooks, the dissenters who charted a path into the absurd only unlike the audiophile fringe, real money was thrown their way for a time until they were discredited.
A few weeks ago I watched an episode of Universe where theories about alternate universes were presented and asserted almost as proven fact even though there isn't one shred of evidence they exist. I wasn't sure if I was watching a program about astrophysics or an episode of Star Trek. Some sci-fi pie in the sky ideas will bear fruition. There was a Nautilus and a Journey from The Earth to the Moon but there will be no Journey to the Center of the Earth and no War of the Worlds, at least not with invaders coming from Mars unless they are microbes. Anyway, I will not be among those rushing down to my local audiophile store to grab up intelligent ICs, cryogenically treated vacuum tubes, or tees to prop up my speaker wires on. I also won't be losing any sleep over the seventh harmonic of 5 khz either even if bats don't particularly care for it.
Some of the details of physics may have changed, but we still believe in symmetry and conservation laws, relativity, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's equations etc. We argue about Schrodinger's cat and multiverses, but they don't affect the calculations. Some believe in strings, while others laugh at them. This is how science works.
The physics of audio amps has not changed, except in the sense that we can now use the results of quantum physics to make semiconductors. Circuit theory is still the same: Kirchoff, Thevenin and Norton still hold sway.
From time to time I read radio amateurs who don't understand how antennas work invoke photons to hide their ignorance of Maxwell's equations. They are usually trying to avoid the restrictions of the Chu-Wheeler limit on small antennas, and don't want to admit that feeder radiation can be dominant. I guess there are audio equivalents! Here is a rather silly prediction: one day someone somewhere will invoke neutrino flavour oscillation in order to explain his cable directionality.
BTW the idea about axial symmetry being an issue is the first sensible statement about cable directionality I have ever seen. It could affect interchannel crosstalk. Unfortunately someone will now start talking nonsense about photon helicity. Ooops, I just did!
The physics of audio amps has not changed, except in the sense that we can now use the results of quantum physics to make semiconductors. Circuit theory is still the same: Kirchoff, Thevenin and Norton still hold sway.
From time to time I read radio amateurs who don't understand how antennas work invoke photons to hide their ignorance of Maxwell's equations. They are usually trying to avoid the restrictions of the Chu-Wheeler limit on small antennas, and don't want to admit that feeder radiation can be dominant. I guess there are audio equivalents! Here is a rather silly prediction: one day someone somewhere will invoke neutrino flavour oscillation in order to explain his cable directionality.
BTW the idea about axial symmetry being an issue is the first sensible statement about cable directionality I have ever seen. It could affect interchannel crosstalk. Unfortunately someone will now start talking nonsense about photon helicity. Ooops, I just did!
I cannot and will not lump everything and every new 'concept' together and defend it. However, look at the damage done, IF you REJECT each and every new concept, out of hand, and furthermore, attempt to act on it by criticizing it out of existence, much like Lord Kelvin tried to do, over 100 years ago, then you are the one who winds up embarrassed, rather than the people you attacked. Then your statements might be used in a future edition of 'The Experts Speak'. '-)
Last edited:
If I built Ed's test jig and went to our RF screenroom and spent hours of my own time picking apart the cables to find the source of the issues I would be considered by some here to be mean spirited and on some kind of vendetta. That is why I ask him, as I said before those making extraordinary claims seem to be the LEAST curious about what is really going on. (That is not aimed at you Ed, though you do seem to have the energy. Remember Nelson's article showing how much simply bulk R, L and C can do in cables.)
Last edited:
Somebody Told Me Cables Cannot Be Directional...
I stripped and prepared both ends of a length of el-cheapo shielded single channel audio signal cable and terminated these ends at the TT.
I then cut the then mounted cable at the midpoint and fitted RCA plugs.
Signal level and response from both channels were the same, however the stereo centre image was shifted slightly to one side and using the balance control did not cure this condition.
Bad solder/termination is a possible reason, however I am confident that this was not the cause because I did resolder all connections in the first case in an effort to resolve the issue.
I even tried swapping connections at the phono cartridge output pins and no change.
I also swapped the channel assignments of the tone arm wires and still not fixed!.
At this point I gave up and just lived with the problem.
A few months later a hifi dealer (well respected) showed me a pair of interconnects that exhibited for some reason a directional effect - same as my TT, when the IC's were connected in opposing directions, stereo centre image shifted slightly off to one side, and when both cables were reversed (still reversed wrt each other) the stereo centre image shifted to the other side.
With both IC's connected in the same direction, centre image central imaging was restored.
After witnessing this, I returned to the TT problrem and removed the RCA plug from one channel, reversed the cable direction and refitted the RCA plug.
After this, centre imaging was correct.
I don't care about any stinking theories of what causes this, however I do know the condition occurred in these two cases, and confirmed in later experiments.
Eric.
In the TT example I gave, I inadvertently terminated the channel cables in opposite directions.
I stripped and prepared both ends of a length of el-cheapo shielded single channel audio signal cable and terminated these ends at the TT.
I then cut the then mounted cable at the midpoint and fitted RCA plugs.
Signal level and response from both channels were the same, however the stereo centre image was shifted slightly to one side and using the balance control did not cure this condition.
Bad solder/termination is a possible reason, however I am confident that this was not the cause because I did resolder all connections in the first case in an effort to resolve the issue.
I even tried swapping connections at the phono cartridge output pins and no change.
I also swapped the channel assignments of the tone arm wires and still not fixed!.
At this point I gave up and just lived with the problem.
A few months later a hifi dealer (well respected) showed me a pair of interconnects that exhibited for some reason a directional effect - same as my TT, when the IC's were connected in opposing directions, stereo centre image shifted slightly off to one side, and when both cables were reversed (still reversed wrt each other) the stereo centre image shifted to the other side.
With both IC's connected in the same direction, centre image central imaging was restored.
After witnessing this, I returned to the TT problrem and removed the RCA plug from one channel, reversed the cable direction and refitted the RCA plug.
After this, centre imaging was correct.
I don't care about any stinking theories of what causes this, however I do know the condition occurred in these two cases, and confirmed in later experiments.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
The only time I had that issue was due to bad connection with some Oval Analysis cables where their solderless connection had come loose.
Maybe something else was going on with your cable - don't know. I've never observed cable direction with cheap cables I've used (they have no direction labeled on them) and have never that issue. I don't see why symmetric designed cables would have directionality.
Which of course is why when some of us get surprising (or even astounding) results we repeat the experiment multiple times to see what is really going on, refine the measurement equipment over the course of a few years, privately show the experiment to knowledgeable colleagues, then we publish in detail the method used and hope to see if others can confirm or explain them.
So far every theory I have tested, such as microdiodes has not held up.
I am perfectly open to issues such as connectors that mate better with one side of the set up than the other, effects due to skin effect as my test rig approaches that range, or other possibilities. When I have time I will try more experiments. I have learned quite a bit from some of the well informed comments.
Scott,
The problem with finding one reason is that it may be a combination of problems can either cause similar results or combine to provide the results shown. I am sharing observations, on the other hand I do have a magic solution that will actually change the way interconnects behave. Just send me $95.00 and you will get a very small amount in return.
The wary will note I did not say "Improve."
ES
Last edited:
How did you get the notion hat audiophiles perform tweaks after reading whatever?
Real audiophiles perform tweaks according to listening tests only.
From experience I know that almost everything affects the sound of an audio system, though many times I don't know how and why. Even different power outlets have a big impact on the sound, though I have no clue why is it so.
Likely because you continue to refuse to accept the hanky panky that goes on in the head department.
I never said that audiophiles perform tweaks after reading. More likely, they read a few books and then offer spurious 'explanations' of what they believe they have heard by using buzzwords learnt from the books.
That must be why I generally ignore anything that type of 'real audiophile' says. Wiser people have heard of the placebo effect, and so don't fully trust their own ears let alone other people's ears.
Yes.
Dr. Bose taught at MIT. Should we then all buy Bose?
CERN is a great place, and Europe has taken over the deep physics research, at least the big questions. I can look from the front of my apartment to see Lawrence Berkeley Labs on the hill above. There, they 'discovered' many new elements, back in the '40's and '50's. So what? Should I go up the hill and ask them about an audio tweak? Usually, the situation is reversed, and they ask me, instead. Why? Because I have studied audio more than most, and have been relatively successful in my judgments. And so it goes.
CERN is a great place, and Europe has taken over the deep physics research, at least the big questions. I can look from the front of my apartment to see Lawrence Berkeley Labs on the hill above. There, they 'discovered' many new elements, back in the '40's and '50's. So what? Should I go up the hill and ask them about an audio tweak? Usually, the situation is reversed, and they ask me, instead. Why? Because I have studied audio more than most, and have been relatively successful in my judgments. And so it goes.
It might be worthwhile (if you're interested in reality rather than marketing) to ask people who know something about physics if claims of "magic" devices are plausible and comport with first principles. There are plenty of "people who know something" right on the Berkeley campus. That's bound to be more fruitful than flinging around half-understood (to be generous) buzzwords relating to physics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.