May be it was inspired by elementary Physics regarding creating a permanent magnet where a steel rod is rubbed with a magnet in one direction. Electrons were visualized as arrows where directivity is affected by the rub. same with material (solid) heat conductivity.
Yet signal propagation is more than electrons meandering slowly along at about 0.1mm/s...the accepted origin seems to stem from the habit of connecting shields at one end only and this has morphed into another audiophile myth.....
Remember also that when someone perceive/hear a sound, there have been many things happened between the source and the ears. The speaker, the room and the ears itself.
Back EMF caused by speaker driver that fed back into amplifying stage through feedback circuit, is a theory that probably has not matured enough. But imagine how a certain speaker driver can change the behavior of an amp, hence the "sound" of the amp. And this might be missed in measurement (with resistive load).
So when two amps are measured "similar" and are ABXed. Listen to them with speaker that represent a highly capacitive load. Then you will hear differences.
Or bring a device that emit strong EMI, so that the amp (or cable) with poorer shielding will expose itself.
That would mean that people can't distinguish between electron spin (which has a direction) and electron charge (which does not have a direction); they weren't listening during their elementary physics class.Jay said:
We need to be clear about this: cable directionality for audio is impossible. Anyone advocating it is either ignorant of basic circuit theory or chooses to dispute basic circuit theory - in either case one would not wish to buy anything from them (apart from a good story). If they dispute circuit theory then they need to suggest a sensible alternative, but they have rather a large weight of accumulated evidence to overturn as circuit theory is merely the low frequency approximation to EM theory - on which our modern world depends.
But if you can find a flawed and debunked measurement and keep pounding at it, Tinkerbell will live. Basic rules of hucksterism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IKaLF4Fqc
There are so many confounders here that no conclusions can be made, got tired of asking ED to actually use two real sine wave generators. Also note that this is an all battery setup but the mains interference is larger than anything of interest. Big difference too between A and B in the mains components even though they are not part of the stimulus, big red flag to me.
Last edited:
If Someone like Bruno Putzeys would make a similar measurement, that would put some weight to it.
I don't know how many degrees we have to get, or how many successful projects that we have been in charge of, to get any 'credibility' with you 'hear no difference' people, but there is no end to the criticism that we get from producing a result different from your initial beliefs. That is why Ed or I can't make a test that you will recognize as useful or even accurate. Now, the 'hear no difference' types are going backward in time to discredit Otala, Walt Jung and me, as well as anyone else who has spent half a lifetime listening to audio differences.
It could be a 1 time fluke. It could be the person (unconsciously) working towards a result. It could be a systematic measuring fault. And so on.
Replication by others is essential in science.
At the levels these measurements are made, minus 70 dB or less, it is just differences in shielding being seen. And what a heck of a noise, or is that supposed to be the signal. Sorry, but this is the typical pseudoscience always being used in instances like this. Just because an AP is a fine measurement instrument, doesn't mean that all measurements made with an AP are fine too.
Last edited:
Bruno is painstaking and careful, gives enough detail for replication, understands error bars and repeatability, and is inclined when seeing a remarkable result to poke at it himself to see if it's real. No need to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hear no difference people,' unless that's your code for 'people who expect evidence for extraordinary claims.'
Saw Scott posted in a similar vein. This brings me to the article on copper drawing Scott posted earlier. Has anybody taken the time to read it? Are the science hackers able to find anything even remotely relevant to audio?
Credible measurements are of almost no interest of the audience, there is not enough space for speculations.
The thing is, John, that you DON'T have to apologize or explain yourself to anybody, here or elsewhere. Stop thinking that way.
The key obstacle to a reasonable discussion on this subhect, which is no doubt well worth it, in inhibited by audiofools on one side, who will gobble up any stupid thing one tells them, and "objectivist" jihadists, which we seem to have a lot here. Both sides are manically locked into their respective shells and are unable to get out of them. Not that they really want to, either.
Both sides are like that for one reason and one reason only - they do not trust their own ears. One side will use all kinds of downrigth stupid "explanations" for whatever and will prolifically imagine they hear something others don't, while the other side needs measurements and oscilloscopes to believe they are hearing anything.
Being extremes, in my vew as all extremes, they are beyond reason, and are therefore outside my scope of interest. They should be outside yours as well, since in your case, they have an added bonus of proving somebody who is a recognized name in audio "wrong". To some people here, that seems to be the pinnacle of their lives; truth be told, you sometimes help them out by paying too little attention to how you phrase your views, and that sometimes opens the door to several possible interpretations.
As for going back in time, I would suggest to let them rant. Otala and Lohstroh have proved their point beyond any reasonable doubt, which they of course will always have, but will not make that amp and listen to it themselves. God forbid, it might actually sound damn good, despite its by now antiquated measuring results, and this would thwart many an "objectivist" jihadist.
Work on developing an in-built Simth-Papoulos 350 dB/oct. filter in your head, switch your reception bandwidth to "ultra narrow" for all those who do nothing but create noise. Stick to those who have proven themselves by deeds, like Pavel, Jan and Demian, to name but a few.
And remember - trust your ears only. There is no better measuring instrument, after all these years.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.