Banning silly ideas would be wrong. Much better to attempt to correct them, even though we know that in most cases we will fail. Failure usually comes from the fact that the fan has just enough knowledge to understand the idea, but insufficient knowledge to understand its rebuttal.
There are, of course, other audio websites where silly ideas are celebrated, and at least one where they are banned. I think DIYaudio gets the balance right.
There are, of course, other audio websites where silly ideas are celebrated, and at least one where they are banned. I think DIYaudio gets the balance right.
Someone has to find the evidence, doesn't it?
Good. I'm more the one to blame here. Although I think the direction of the discussion became clear a few posts later.
I fear there is little I can teach you when it comes to comedy. Feel free to express your sense of humor anyway. 😀 We need jokers from time to time, to make our debates cheerful.
Yes it is, if directionality is measured using the scientific method we discussed so far.
Mine are unshielded, so in theory they shouldn't have. I have listened and determined my best direction anyway.
An intelligent person can sound as a stupid one from the point of view of a particular group of people. And vise versa.
This is starting to sound serious. 😀 Throw the demented ones into the asylum!
This sounds like religious preaching to me. What if I think the same towards my opponents in the debate? Did you read Assimov's essay mentioned in this topic?
Tell me if someone here did spread ignorance and if yes, how exactly did he/she do it?
Last edited:
No. Even if directionality could be shown by careful listening tests alone, the resistor would still be faulty. This is because it is a property of ohmic resistance that it should not be directional. Just as we expect a diode to be directional, so we expect a resistor to be non-directional; in each case, to the extent that the device is different from what it should be, it is faulty.50AE said:
At this point someone might drag up the issue of the outer foil on film caps; it has already been mentioned in this thread. This is not comparable. A film cap plays two roles in a circuit: a largeish capacitance between the two end points, and a smallish stray capacitance from the outer foil to whatever is elsewhere in the circuit. It is obvious that in this case that there is a very minor directionality - not in the main capacitance between the two leads, but in which end gets the stray capacitance. This is all well-understood physics. If a resistor were made as a coaxial construction, with outer and inner conductors and a resistive element between them then the same issue would apply: non-directional between wires as a resistor, but 'directional' in the sense that only the outer conductor has significant stray capacitance. Unless the air is very damp or the circuit is immersed in water, a resistor does not have stray resistance to elsewhere and few resistors have a coaxial construction.
found this on respectable Audio build site
problem solved
Not quite, ZM, this only solves the problem in 2 planes. All my signal lines are tri-state.
Don't get me wrong. I strongly support efforts of those who celebrate cables, resistors' directivity and similar stuff because ignorant and incompetent should have their fun too. They are part of this universe with a purpose - to create a friction that's essential for our general development as a human kind (remember: perfectly logical Matrix wasn't acceptable for anyone).
And if you inevitably have to have such people all around the planet it's much better for all to let them play with phantasmagorical directions of wires and resistors than to start political parties, churches, armies and such...
It's just that such an activity needs a clear label or they will (by sheer persistence) gain legitimacy and step by step, wire by resistor, takes us back to Dark Ages.
And if you inevitably have to have such people all around the planet it's much better for all to let them play with phantasmagorical directions of wires and resistors than to start political parties, churches, armies and such...
It's just that such an activity needs a clear label or they will (by sheer persistence) gain legitimacy and step by step, wire by resistor, takes us back to Dark Ages.
DF96, I think this: you are asserting that ideal resistors are non-directional and by comparison ideal diodes are extremely directional. But you (and I, and others) are not asking the OP to accept that the ideal resistor is supposed to be non-directional, and that in turn by logic alone, any anisotropic directional behavior differences are a sign of a non-ideal, and essentially faulty resistor.
And by the same token, those posters who continue to argue that yea, there are directional differences that result in different audible behavior … have not yet accepted that such nominal behavior is non-ideal, and if audible, imperfect to the point of being a fault of the device, or its design.
For as long as we continue to doggedly assert that ideal behavior has ONE definition and things that poorly approach that ideal are faulty, AND when 'they' just as doggedly adhere to the notion that non-ideal behavior is real (of course) and possibly useful (arrgghhh!!!), then … there is no real discussion going on.
Further (as if there need be more?), we've again trotted out two different philosophical/religious notions: that if it can't be measured, then logically it cannot be heard … and moreover, that all well-meant but ultimately unfounded notions are worthy of consideration, investigation, discourse and incorporation into one's sound system (or ANY system).
Once one actually takes an electrical engineering and electronic sub-specialization university degree, it is REALLY HARD to accept either of those shibboleths. Because -- as you say -- the state of scientific investigation and enterprise is such that we can get space probes to the planets, measure time to trillionths of a second, and purify chemical to 9 nines purity. By comparison Audio is sloppy, barely accurate to 3 nines, subjective, intrinsically distorted by potentially all components, and comically-ironically, have source recordings that aren't even modestly like 'the original' source. Its like being in a auditorium that has an MMA boxing ring next door, and is across the street from an airport. … and we're arguing about 'directionality' of the direction of the paint application affecting sound quality.
Just saying.
GoatGuy
In order to make you feel happy and mentally satisfied, I count your ignorant statement as personal offence. Your post will be reported to a moderator. Have a nice and fruiful evening.
Nah… just because you don't like the message doesn't meant that it isn't fair in its way. I actually feel the same way: for people who celebrate the infinitesimal differences in especially costly fashion statement products, and in particular those reviewers who at great rhetorical liberty conjure up all nature of verbal hokum in describing the self-same infinitesimal differences, I praise their conjured explanations. After all, there are a LOT of us who also read science fiction, nominally penned with equally liberated-from-reality authorship.
GoatGuy
ignorance is an "objective" state, not an insult, everybody is relatively ignorant of some field of knowledge compared to others that have studied, practiced in that domain
I do get amused by the poor rhetoric, annoyed by the "evil", "black bag" rhetorical attempts to sway opinion without reference to logical argument, scientific merit
I do get amused by the poor rhetoric, annoyed by the "evil", "black bag" rhetorical attempts to sway opinion without reference to logical argument, scientific merit
Oh, cmon, lighten up 🙂 He just displayed a textbook example of ear envy, common for those born with audiophile dysfunction of the inner ear 😛
found this on respectable Audio build site
problem solved
No no - this!
Attachments
Except (re: the silly parallel resistor with dots diagram)
Except that such an arrangement - if the resistors were truly directionally anisotropic - would just result in a symmetric anisotropy, not the elimination of the anisotropy.
You can thank me later, after you work out the math.
LOL
in other words... "improved" non-directional anisotropy
GoatGuy
Except that such an arrangement - if the resistors were truly directionally anisotropic - would just result in a symmetric anisotropy, not the elimination of the anisotropy.
You can thank me later, after you work out the math.
LOL
in other words... "improved" non-directional anisotropy
GoatGuy
Just for the debate... say that a component is directional (in some way)... why would it sound *better* in a particular orientation?
#1 The component is exposed to a a load/signal where the current passed, shifts direction. When a bin (duration in time) of information that is detectable by the ear-brain has passed the component, its orientation has indeed shifted many times.
#2 What asymmetry in the the ear-brain is present, that detects (or suppresses) an error in a rising signal level as opposed to a falling? Is it plausible that the ear-brain is asymmetric in this sense? I don't know but I seriously doubt it because I can not see any advantage in reproduction or getting fed by such a property - rather the opposite as it is indeed a distorsion generator. While #1 is about hearing, #2 is on the envelope which is probably not even relevant.
//
#1 The component is exposed to a a load/signal where the current passed, shifts direction. When a bin (duration in time) of information that is detectable by the ear-brain has passed the component, its orientation has indeed shifted many times.
#2 What asymmetry in the the ear-brain is present, that detects (or suppresses) an error in a rising signal level as opposed to a falling? Is it plausible that the ear-brain is asymmetric in this sense? I don't know but I seriously doubt it because I can not see any advantage in reproduction or getting fed by such a property - rather the opposite as it is indeed a distorsion generator. While #1 is about hearing, #2 is on the envelope which is probably not even relevant.
//
See my comment just above. Directional anisotropy doesn't cancel, but becomes symmetric and non-directional with attempts either at parallelizing or series-izing the problem away.
You are exactly right in questioning whether reversing (or using in the design-spec) the polarity is going to have a better direction. It is only fair to think that it would result in a different directional quality. Whether it is better is subjective.
For instance, there are notably anisotropic resistance substances which could easily be lashed into creating a test. Classic is bare copper wire, heated to color-change with an alcohol flame, then inserted (with a gap) into a standard potato. The resistance can easily be measured to be 'high enough' for substituting into a circuit, and with high-sensitivity ("e.g. modern, elcheapo") digital scales, its also easy to show resistance-directionality asymmetry.
then listen away!
And flip direction!
Then substitute a 'standard film resistor' of the same mean value.
And listen away.
While no one would seriously consider making play-dough and copper-wire hermetic anisotropic resistors, they would be fairly stable for years. One could easily work out ever more highly stable yet ridiculously anisotropic resistance elements with cheap materials if one wanted. But to what end?
Then again, people buy cryogenically “treated” power cords, and volcanic sand filled boxes having loops of coax as naturalpathic delicate signal cable conditioners. And they believe that “single crystal” cables exist. Apart from the fact that not only can they not, but moreover all practitioners claiming that they are speak out of the sides of their mouth.
LOL
GoatGuy
You seem to imply that there is something inherently wrong with starting political parties, churches, armies etc. Now discussing these matters on here will be ruled by the Mods as strictly OT, so dissing them must be equally OT too.juma said:
Some of us are trying to correct wrong technical thinking. It doesn't help to have insults and calls for subject bans to be thrown around.
don't give me math
as I stated :
I'm always puttin' anode end on source of signal side , even when plain resistors are in question
so , your math doesn't apply , at least not in my reality
ZenMod … you forgot my first caveat: “re: that silly diagram with polarized resistors in parallel”
Doesn't matter whether you like math or not. You can do it with graphs, or you can swing garlic braids around your head counterclockwise while howling at the Moon for all I care. … really …
There always is an effect for parallelizing components. Math or not. If you do any circuit-schematic reading at all, you know that parallelizing resistors results in a lower resistance value than either resistor alone. RP = (R₁R₂)/(R₁ + R₂)
And you know that parallelizing capacitors ADDs capacitance.
And you know that parallelizing inductors is like the resistance formula.
And so on.
I personally like arranging resistors (that have old-fashioned color stripes) with the stripes all starting at the same side of the motherboard. Left, and bottom. Makes the lil' bûggers easier to read later. But I sure ain't doing it for the sound.
Mileage may vary.
Good luck!
GoatGuy
Doesn't matter whether you like math or not. You can do it with graphs, or you can swing garlic braids around your head counterclockwise while howling at the Moon for all I care. … really …
There always is an effect for parallelizing components. Math or not. If you do any circuit-schematic reading at all, you know that parallelizing resistors results in a lower resistance value than either resistor alone. RP = (R₁R₂)/(R₁ + R₂)
And you know that parallelizing capacitors ADDs capacitance.
And you know that parallelizing inductors is like the resistance formula.
And so on.
I personally like arranging resistors (that have old-fashioned color stripes) with the stripes all starting at the same side of the motherboard. Left, and bottom. Makes the lil' bûggers easier to read later. But I sure ain't doing it for the sound.
Mileage may vary.
Good luck!
GoatGuy
So much, so much....
I set up a four resistor bridge using the naked Vishays at 1,000 ohms. All print facing and the signal left in and out the right. After that run I reversed one of the resistors and measured again. I looked for 2nd through 7th harmonics.
The injected signal was 10 volts RMS at 1,000 hertz. The attenuation at the bridge point was a bit better than -50dB. Noise level was around -155 dB re 10 volts. So the S/N required was only 105 dB well within the limits of my AP System 2.
I set up a four resistor bridge using the naked Vishays at 1,000 ohms. All print facing and the signal left in and out the right. After that run I reversed one of the resistors and measured again. I looked for 2nd through 7th harmonics.
The injected signal was 10 volts RMS at 1,000 hertz. The attenuation at the bridge point was a bit better than -50dB. Noise level was around -155 dB re 10 volts. So the S/N required was only 105 dB well within the limits of my AP System 2.