Differences between cd transports?

No...... You can't..... No one can, Sir.

Oh my God..... That Geoff Kait.... of Machina Whatever in-fame.

geoffkait:
Please explain precisely what you mean when you say that audio  wire is "directional." 

I take your point, mapman.

However, after working my way through the longgggg Stereophile exchange between Mr Kait and his critic/commentators, I am none the wiser about what his actual claim about "directionality" is. "Sounds better" is not a physical property.

What one wants from him is: 1. An actual physical description of what directionality is, and 2. Given that, an actual physical explanation of how that physical phenomenon occurs in wires and cables....

You know, physics "all the way down."

It does not seem to be forthcoming, however.

Alas.... 

geoff kait chides me: "I never said it [i.e. directionality] wasn’t physical or electrical. But that’s not what you asked. You asked what I meant by directionality. You have to know how to ask the right question."

Ok, geoff kait, I'll try again to get to the point that you seem to want to evade forever: If the directionality of a cable is the property of its sounding better, then what electronic, i.e. physical, property explains that? What electronic, i.e. physical, property grounds the "sounding better"?

Surely, that question is apt and answerable.

So........?  

To geoffkait:
Ok.... so having directionality means that a cable will sound better when the signal is sent in one direction rather than the other.
Now.... what is the precise physical explanation for this behaviour? 

Oh gosh, Mr Kait:

Re the comment: "geoffkait14,247 posts03-12-2019 6:16amPhysics all the way down? Who talks like that? Oh, I know. An English major." 

From the FYI Department: "Physics all the way down" is a common locution among.... wait for it.... philosophers of science.

Sir.... You obviously do not have a clue about.... well, much of anything....  that pertains to electronics, physics.... i.e. the stuff that pertains to this issue of "directionality."

Enough.... You truly are a charlatan.

You are too modest, Elizabeth....
But, at the same time, a tad too indulgent of Mr Kait, who never manages to say anything worth hearing.
He just will not answer straightforward questions about what in the real physical world could explain his pet phenomena.
Belated confession: I do feel guilty for having contributed to the unfortunate highjacking of the OP onto an entirely irrelevant tangent.