intentionally twisting things! (as long as it isn't a pair of wires)
"Either you completely misread my reply or you're intentionally twisting things out of all context in order to try and justify this grandstanding personal rant which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues."
1. you completely misread my reply........
2. you're intentionally twisting things out of all context......
3. which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues.........
Where have I heard these statements before? Oh I remember now...... it was in the hundreds of post where you drag out these Standard Excuses when questioned about some statement that you made that you are attempting to distance yourself from. I'll give them numbers to save bandwidth, reduce your risk of carpal tunnel syndrome, and provide much needed brevity to your future post.
While not old or frequent enough to merit a number (yet), I did find the following "Eddyisms" just to good not to include here.
I found it rather ambiguous.
I questioned that unqualified, unambiguous statement
And it's precisely because it gives no ambiguity that it's erroneous and misleading.
I will leave you to your contributions to the thread on how to buy speakers out of the back of a van. Accusing people of elitism for discouraging such a practice was priceless.
"Either you completely misread my reply or you're intentionally twisting things out of all context in order to try and justify this grandstanding personal rant which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues."
1. you completely misread my reply........
2. you're intentionally twisting things out of all context......
3. which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues.........
Where have I heard these statements before? Oh I remember now...... it was in the hundreds of post where you drag out these Standard Excuses when questioned about some statement that you made that you are attempting to distance yourself from. I'll give them numbers to save bandwidth, reduce your risk of carpal tunnel syndrome, and provide much needed brevity to your future post.
While not old or frequent enough to merit a number (yet), I did find the following "Eddyisms" just to good not to include here.
I found it rather ambiguous.
I questioned that unqualified, unambiguous statement
And it's precisely because it gives no ambiguity that it's erroneous and misleading.
I will leave you to your contributions to the thread on how to buy speakers out of the back of a van. Accusing people of elitism for discouraging such a practice was priceless.
Geez, it was like pulling teeth, but you've finally let me extract that molar. Thanks!
OK, to recap, a test was run, somewhere, sometime, with persons unknown, of which you don't know the protocol or controls. It was run by a magazine that derives significant advertising revenue from people who sell "directional" cables and from selling magazines to people who want to read about cables and love reading about speculative cable "theories." Presumably, there were no independent third parties to verify the setup and make sure that all other variables than wire direction were eliminated.
To put it gently, this falls somewhat short of an evidentiary standard. I'd be a little more open-minded if you or someone else I know and trust had run the test and could fill in the considerable blanks.
OK, to recap, a test was run, somewhere, sometime, with persons unknown, of which you don't know the protocol or controls. It was run by a magazine that derives significant advertising revenue from people who sell "directional" cables and from selling magazines to people who want to read about cables and love reading about speculative cable "theories." Presumably, there were no independent third parties to verify the setup and make sure that all other variables than wire direction were eliminated.
To put it gently, this falls somewhat short of an evidentiary standard. I'd be a little more open-minded if you or someone else I know and trust had run the test and could fill in the considerable blanks.
Hi,
Not to the exact year but I think it must have been around 1985-1986.
While I don't know if any of those results were ever published in that particular magazine I'm certain the topic was discussed by other magazines in the U.K. and France.
Other test run by the same magazine I recall were:
-The effect of a solid-core powerchord as opposed to a standard multi-stranded one.
-The effect of an added external PSU to the Mission Cyrus One power amp.
-The effect off DNM slit-foil electrolytic caps.
That's just the tests I can remember and that I personally attended.
To the best of my knowledge no cable manufacturer ever ran any publicity stating proudly that their wire was directional...
I really don't see any reason for them to do so.
If anyone feels courageous enough to e-mail the staff at HFN&RR and ask thorny questions about this particular topic....
Cheers,😉
Not to the exact year but I think it must have been around 1985-1986.
While I don't know if any of those results were ever published in that particular magazine I'm certain the topic was discussed by other magazines in the U.K. and France.
Other test run by the same magazine I recall were:
-The effect of a solid-core powerchord as opposed to a standard multi-stranded one.
-The effect of an added external PSU to the Mission Cyrus One power amp.
-The effect off DNM slit-foil electrolytic caps.
That's just the tests I can remember and that I personally attended.
To the best of my knowledge no cable manufacturer ever ran any publicity stating proudly that their wire was directional...
I really don't see any reason for them to do so.
If anyone feels courageous enough to e-mail the staff at HFN&RR and ask thorny questions about this particular topic....
Cheers,😉
Well now you've given two different magazines as the source, both of whom are not exactly free of a commercial interest in the outcome. There's much less here than meets the eye, it seems.
Even a troglodyte like me has gotten out enough to have seen all sorts of cables with directional markings, and all sorts of manufacturers who claim to listen to each spool of wire to determine the "best" direction.
Even a troglodyte like me has gotten out enough to have seen all sorts of cables with directional markings, and all sorts of manufacturers who claim to listen to each spool of wire to determine the "best" direction.
Hi,
For clarity's sake it was Hi-Fi Answers running the tests NOT HFN&RR.
Yes, but that has to do with that cable's geometry NOT wire directionality.
Cheers,😉
For clarity's sake it was Hi-Fi Answers running the tests NOT HFN&RR.
Yes, but that has to do with that cable's geometry NOT wire directionality.
Cheers,😉
Nope, I've seen this on cables with symmetrical geometries. And in several writeups, the manufacturers claimed to listen to the directionality of the raw wire. As did the Major Cable Guy about whom I shared an anecdote a page or two back. And I believe that someone (you perhaps?) brought up Ray Kimber...
Hi,
Think so too.
He'd probably know about their competitor Hi-Fi Answers too...
Jimmy Hughes was the driving force behind all these ideas.
It was a brilliant magazine, too bad it went under.
Still I checked HFN&RR online archives and apparently there's nothing prior to the year 2000 available.
Would anyone know if this was discussed in TAS or Stereophile?
Cheers,😉
Think so too.
He'd probably know about their competitor Hi-Fi Answers too...
Jimmy Hughes was the driving force behind all these ideas.
It was a brilliant magazine, too bad it went under.
Still I checked HFN&RR online archives and apparently there's nothing prior to the year 2000 available.
Would anyone know if this was discussed in TAS or Stereophile?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Probably the only mistake JH ever made.
Maybe that's what caused the mag to go belly up after...😀
Cheers,😉
Probably the only mistake JH ever made.
Maybe that's what caused the mag to go belly up after...😀
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
I don't recall any discussion going on with regard to wire directionality back in the mid-80s. Not in Stereophile, TAS, or even IAR. About the only sort of directionality I recall discussed had to do with cables which had telescoping shields (i.e. the shield connected at only one end). But that's a whole other issue.
I checked with Tom Nousaine and he doesn't recall any such test. So I'll just wait to see if JA can shed some light.
se
Folks, this is my input on this subject: My associates hear differences in wire direction, and I have been there when it has been demonstrated.
It is not easy to explain just WHY this is so, but serious designers have put forth opinions on the subject over the years.
I put forth ONE EXAMPLE of how different a strip of COPPER can behave, in real time, at real world temperatures, when looked at under an electron micrcoscope. How else would we see such behavior? A small copper sample area expanded enough to include a whole wire would be perhaps 1 million times magnification, but the small sample would still be representative of the behavior of the whole wire. Is there anyone here who can not understand this?
It is not easy to explain just WHY this is so, but serious designers have put forth opinions on the subject over the years.
I put forth ONE EXAMPLE of how different a strip of COPPER can behave, in real time, at real world temperatures, when looked at under an electron micrcoscope. How else would we see such behavior? A small copper sample area expanded enough to include a whole wire would be perhaps 1 million times magnification, but the small sample would still be representative of the behavior of the whole wire. Is there anyone here who can not understand this?
Yes, I don't understand this, but I'm a materials guy, not an EE. A 1 mm thick copper foil and a .001 micron copper foil will act very differently, electrically and optically. And correlating stuff you see under an SEM (or even an STM) to the ability to transmit audio frequencies is a pretty long stretch.
There is a difference between claiming (and believing) that one can hear the difference in cable or wire direction and demonstrating that such a difference is audible. If someone has actually demonstrated this, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the publication.
There is a difference between claiming (and believing) that one can hear the difference in cable or wire direction and demonstrating that such a difference is audible. If someone has actually demonstrated this, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the publication.
Maybe we should just interpret Johns post in this way. This
observed phenomenon of moving crystals (did I understand
that right) might not be the explanation for the potential
directedness of cables, but it shows that there might still be
many hitherto unknown physical phenomena yet to discover
(unless this was already well-known to physicists), others
which may, perhaps, explain the possibility of directional
conductors.
A slightly different, but somewhat similar case. How many
of you have heard of artificial impedance? I had never heard
about it until reading an article about it today.
observed phenomenon of moving crystals (did I understand
that right) might not be the explanation for the potential
directedness of cables, but it shows that there might still be
many hitherto unknown physical phenomena yet to discover
(unless this was already well-known to physicists), others
which may, perhaps, explain the possibility of directional
conductors.
A slightly different, but somewhat similar case. How many
of you have heard of artificial impedance? I had never heard
about it until reading an article about it today.
Hi,
It's not the crystals that move but the atoms IMHO.
The only plausible explanation to my mind for this directionality is the crystal orientation which is caused by the way the cable is drawn.
Hmmm, yes but I can't quite remember...
Cheers,😉
It's not the crystals that move but the atoms IMHO.
The only plausible explanation to my mind for this directionality is the crystal orientation which is caused by the way the cable is drawn.
Hmmm, yes but I can't quite remember...
Cheers,😉
Right on, Christer! I can't explain everything, but I have found that there is much to 'explain' in the real world, and that the real world does not always and completely behave exactly like the simplified approximations that we make in physics class.
I attempted to ask this question: If a pure piece of copper, perhaps shaped to be conveniently looked at with an electron microscope has interesting properties, what would we see with a piece of copper wire looked at under the same conditions? How different would it be? If it is significantly different, then GEOMETRY and SCALE must be really important. However, I suspect that a piece of copper wire would look and behave essentially the same, maybe worse, if it has more impurities in it.
I attempted to ask this question: If a pure piece of copper, perhaps shaped to be conveniently looked at with an electron microscope has interesting properties, what would we see with a piece of copper wire looked at under the same conditions? How different would it be? If it is significantly different, then GEOMETRY and SCALE must be really important. However, I suspect that a piece of copper wire would look and behave essentially the same, maybe worse, if it has more impurities in it.
It's very easy to move the atoms in a piece of wire. Pick it up.
Crystal and grain phenomena in ordinary metals are extremely well-known and well-characterized. A few courses in solid state physics and conductivity theory can be very enlightening. That being said, the sorts of things relevant to low frequencies (i.e., RF and below) can be best described by Maxwell's equations, which don't need to take into account the fine details of atomic structure. To put that into perspective, in Maxwell's day the atomic theory of matter was still not well understood or even considered as proved.
The interesting stuff, to me, comes with non-ordinary metals, where exotic creatures like solitons and polarons are the charge carriers. But that's not something yet used in audio.
Crystal and grain phenomena in ordinary metals are extremely well-known and well-characterized. A few courses in solid state physics and conductivity theory can be very enlightening. That being said, the sorts of things relevant to low frequencies (i.e., RF and below) can be best described by Maxwell's equations, which don't need to take into account the fine details of atomic structure. To put that into perspective, in Maxwell's day the atomic theory of matter was still not well understood or even considered as proved.
The interesting stuff, to me, comes with non-ordinary metals, where exotic creatures like solitons and polarons are the charge carriers. But that's not something yet used in audio.
I'm sticking my neck out, because I am sure that you are well established around here. First, I measure wire and find distortion where it should not be, why? Could it be that Maxwell's equations were really derived from observing wave motion on a canal and not in a wire?
Do you think that the folks who ran the tests and observations that I cited don't know about such things? I suggest that you contact Forwood or Clarebrough at the CSIRO Division of Chemical Physics and Materials Science & Technology. You should be right at home.
Do you think that the folks who ran the tests and observations that I cited don't know about such things? I suggest that you contact Forwood or Clarebrough at the CSIRO Division of Chemical Physics and Materials Science & Technology. You should be right at home.
I am sorry here, but if everyone here would just look back to the first page of the thread, it would all become clearer.
Here we are arguing about if cable can be directional. Will it sound better if the electrons flow in this direction? If the crystals are lined up this way, the electrons go through more smoothly etc....
The electrons flow in both directions. period. therefore it dosnt matter which way your cables are lined up, unless you want to wire inline diodes into your wires and connect one pair up to conduct going to/from the speaker with this magic "directional" cable, then wire a second set up to conduct in the other direction. Now, trust me... that would be audible. and it would sound like A$$.
Does anyone realize here how insanely large soundwaves are in relation to electrons. It is like comparing one single atom to the planet of Saturn.
Since the birth of electric signals and elecrical science/engineering, there have never been any other "characteristics" of a pair of transmission lines than the ususal R, L and C. All three can exist in any combination at either end of the line. Throught the line, there will always be parallel capacitance, series resistance and inducatnce.
Nothing else.
Here we are arguing about if cable can be directional. Will it sound better if the electrons flow in this direction? If the crystals are lined up this way, the electrons go through more smoothly etc....
The electrons flow in both directions. period. therefore it dosnt matter which way your cables are lined up, unless you want to wire inline diodes into your wires and connect one pair up to conduct going to/from the speaker with this magic "directional" cable, then wire a second set up to conduct in the other direction. Now, trust me... that would be audible. and it would sound like A$$.
Does anyone realize here how insanely large soundwaves are in relation to electrons. It is like comparing one single atom to the planet of Saturn.
Since the birth of electric signals and elecrical science/engineering, there have never been any other "characteristics" of a pair of transmission lines than the ususal R, L and C. All three can exist in any combination at either end of the line. Throught the line, there will always be parallel capacitance, series resistance and inducatnce.
Nothing else.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.