I am a fan of Chris Sommovigo's Black Cat and Airwave interconnects. I hope he does not mind me quoting him or naming him on this subject, but Chris does not mark directionality of his IC's. I recently wrote him on the subject and he responded that absent shunting off to ground/dialectric designs, the idea of wire directionality is a complete myth. Same with resistors and fuses. My hunch is that 95% of IC "manufacturers", particularly the one man operations of under $500 IC's mark directionality because they think it lends the appearance of technical sophistication and legitimacy. But even among the "big boys", the myth gets thrown around like so much accepted common knowledge. Thoughts? Someone care to educate me on how a simple IC or PC or speaker cable or fuse without a special shunting scheme can possibly have directionality? It was this comment by Stephen Mejias (then of Audioquest and in the context of Herb Reichert's review of the AQ Niagra 1000) that prompts my question;
Thank you for the excellent question. AudioQuest provided an NRG-10 AC cable for the evaluation. Like all AudioQuest cables, our AC cables use solid conductors that are carefully controlled for low-noise directionality. We see this as a benefit for all applications -- one that becomes especially important when discussing our Niagara units. Because our AC cables use conductors that have been properly controlled for low-noise directionality, they complement the Niagara System’s patented Ground-Noise Dissipation Technology. Other AC cables would work, but may or may not allow the Niagara to reach its full potential. If you'd like more information on our use of directionality to minimize the harmful effects of high-frequency noise, please visit http://www.audioquest.com/directionality-its-all-about-noise/ or the Niagara 1000's owner's manual (available on our website).
I don’t deny truth. However, before attaching strong beliefs to unsubstantiated claims I require something more solid than conjecture. This is why man-made global warming remains a remote and infinitesimally small possibility to me as nobody has successfully proven the main hypothesis is true in our atmosphere (which we know for certainty is influenced by other natural factors to a much larger degree than claims for man-made effects)
This is not paranoia it is actually just being reasonable and independent of thought rather than being a sheep and blindly believing everything one is told.
Right on mitch2. Kinda like shadorne ridiculing the potential sonic benefits of such products without ever trying them because he is so "cognitively selective".
And bringing global warning into this totally unrelated topic demonstrates the "appeal to authority" maneuver that Geoff Kait frequently describes.
It would be best for each to report honestly and accurately about our own personal experiences (positive or negative) with audio products and leave the intellectual arguments and psychological voodoo for other endeavors outside audio.
There are a couple of guys here on A-Gon that, when I see they posted in a thread, even if the topic is of no interest to me I usually click and read. I often learn something.
There are a couple of guys here on A-Gon that, when I see they posted in a thread, even if the topic is something I may be interested in I pass on by because I know the thread has, or quickly will, become gibberish.
It's not often I see them all in the same thread, so this thread is kinda weird as it pegs back and forth...Bam, good info...Bam, nonsense...Bam, good info...
It's funny how some here adhere to use of science, measurements and math as a basis for their argument and when it comes to climate change, they discard it at the drop of a MAGA hat. 🤔
If anyone here is versed in the field of statistics, can they explain the chances of thousands of listeners who hear a difference and the odds that they're all delusional? Mass hysteria just doesn't cut it. It can't be the water or cool-aid since they're so spread out so something else is afoot. 👞
Ivan True enough. Caveat emptor. Wouldn’t have it any other way, myself.
Well, actually, ironically enough, that expression caveat emptor does NOT apply to fuses as much as people think, you know, since most aftermarket fuses come with a 30 day guarantee, and at least one aftermarket fuse comes with 60 day guarantee. Hel- loo! Heck, you’d have be stupid not to buy aftermarket fuses. Not to mention the Black fuse is being sold right now as we speak at the ridiculous price of three for the price of two. Hmmm, are they getting ready to release a new fuse?
Can anyone tell me if this is accurate and has it been debunked as of late? I came across it yesterday and it's a few years old so it must have been brought up at some point but I've yet to hear anything about it.
And thanks, Geof, for the heads up on the 3 for 2 offer. I've been holding off on getting the Black fuses and this may motivate me.
sebrof There are a couple of guys here on A-Gon that, when I see they posted in a thread, even if the topic is of no interest to me I usually click and read. I often learn something.
There are a couple of guys here on A-Gon that, when I see they posted in a thread, even if the topic is something I may be interested in I pass on by because I know the thread has, or quickly will, become gibberish.
It's not often I see them all in the same thread, so this thread is kinda weird as it pegs back and forth...Bam, good info...Bam, nonsense...Bam, good info...
Can anyone tell me if this is accurate and has it been debunked as of late?
Yes and no, the only wire that was, was LC-OFC (Linear Crystal- Oxygen free Copper) developed by Hitachi and Audio Technica some 25 years ago. It was heated up to a point where it crystallised the copper at the same time of being drawn into strands. Stereophile presented microscopic photos of the crystal structure and they were arrow shaped and lined up nose to tail, naturally the arrow head was pointed, and was considered as the flow direction. Sounded very good, BUT!!, trouble was that it was as fragile as cast-iron or glass. You couldn’t bend it much at all, if you did it cracked and cause micro air gaps between the crystals (sort of diode effect). Which resulted in worse sound than normal copper.
georgehifi Stereophile presented microscopic photos of the crystal structure and they were arrow shaped and lined up nose to tail, naturally the arrow head was pointed, and was considered as the flow direction.
>>>>>That’s weird. I would have thought the flow direction would be the opposite, the EM wave would travel more easily - I.e., with less resistance - in the head to tail direction. That direction would present a smoother pathway. Like stroking the quills of a porcupine in the direction of the quill tips, not the opposite direction, against the quill tips.
Yes, I am versed in statistics. The chances of many people believing something cannot be estimated without reference to either a lot more data (such as how many don't believe it), or simplifying assumptions.
I would point out that lots of people believe things without foundation. See especially the Nazi's strategy of The Big Lie, and note how it has been broadly applied in the modern world.
Terry I would point out that lots of people believe things without foundation. See especially the Nazi’s strategy of The Big Lie, and note how it has been broadly applied in the modern world.
But that’s different from someone who experiments and finds out something for himself. For those who have heard fuses and reversing fuses for themselves there is foundation for them to believe. The Big Lie analogy would actually be more properly applied to naysayers of fuses or wire directivity, who accept at face value when someone says, I’m a scientist and you can believe me when I say the laws of physics forbid it. Or, when someone says, I have seen no evidence of wire directionality at NASA, in digital electronic design labs or military weapon systems.
@terry9 I understand the need for more data to accurately arrive at a stat but my point was a knock against mass hysteria/delusion being the culprit. Your second point was addressed by @geoffkait and I agree with his point that the nazi's Big Lie was a tactic of propaganda whereas what we're experiencing with wires and fuses are first hand observations.
I'm just going to rely on my own ears. They've served me well so far....
Never said it did work for everyone. That's the way the cookie crumbles. We've been over that already, ad nauseum. There are many reason why audiophiles sometimes don't get the results they were looking for. Because the thing under test is a hoax or a dud or any such thing is not one of those reasons, however. It's like just about anything, any cable, any tweak, in audio - you can always find someone who doesn't get good results. C'est la vie mon Cherie. You just keep your fingers crossed it's not the dude who is about to review your product for a major online audio publication. 😬
My response was to your direct question about statistics.
As for your point about first hand observation, statistics has something to say about that too. It is very tempting to think that one is experimenting when one is just fiddling. Unfortunately, experimenting can be quite hard, especially when dealing with psychological phenomena, such as sensory perception. To do that right, one needs a lot of sophistication: mathematical, statistical, and psychological.
And then, after all that sophistication, one can still get it wrong, which is why professionals use peer review.
By all means, trust your ears. It's your system and your money.
"I don’t deny truth. However, before attaching strong beliefs to unsubstantiated claims I require something more solid than conjecture. This is why man-made global warming remains a remote and infinitesimally small possibility to me as nobody has successfully proven the main hypothesis is true in our atmosphere (which we know for certainty is influenced by other natural factors to a much larger degree than claims for man-made effects)"
"This is not paranoia it is actually just being reasonable and independent of thought rather than being a sheep and blindly believing everything one is told."
I think I will just leave that lay.
@geoffkait
no crystals.
"Well, actually, ironically enough, that expression caveat emptor does NOT apply to fuses as much as people think..."
"Hmmm, are they getting ready to release a new fuse?"
I think you may be conflagrating "scientific research" with "empirical experimenting". Strictly speaking, it isn’t really necessary for us to ’establish facts’ or ’principles’ or in some way necessarily advance the cause of science in order to justify an experiment. We are hobbyists first. More often than not, we only need to enlighten ourselves, to address the unknown issues that are immediately in front of us, not the ones that define a specific school of scientific thought.
So if, say, we don’t know something...something even quite simple, like "How do I know if I really need room treatments??", or "Are the effects of insulation audible in audio wires??" and we have just no real clue as to what the possible answer might be, then likely as not, a simple, even rudimentary experiment might be in order. You know, the simpler the better. Like taking a bunch of sheets or towels or dirty socks or whatever and trying to systematically place them around the listening room to get a feel for not only whether or not you could benefit from absorption, but also where the most important problem spots in your room might actually be. Or deciding to take an old couple of pairs of Monster Cable IC’s you have lying around and take the time to strip away all the insulation on one pair and leave the other pair untouched (your control group) and swap them in and out of your system and compare them. I know because I myself found it necessary at some point to run both experiments.
It’s odd, but I think this is really a widespread problem in this hobby in particular...and in fact, it’s likely a problem for us virtually nowhere else in our lives. If we get our car stuck in some sand, we think to toss some gravel or other debris in front of the mired tire in order to get some traction. It’s just that we’re not having to do this while also trying to visualize how electrons might be moving through a lattice. Unfortunately, in this hobby many folks seem to be walking around with their minds already blown when it comes to how expansive most of the concepts are. And it’s particularly because of the newness of that state of expanded awareness that seems to readily interfere with our normal ability or inclination to reduce problems down to their simplest terms in order to get a better grip on them. It’s also odd to me in a similar way, that I think that people as a matter of course, can ’switch on’ this expanded frame of mind whenever they happen to be occupying themselves with the hobby and then switch it off when they’ve disengaged the subject matter...never once it having occurred to them to try switching it ’off’ once in a while when they are trying to come to grips with something new in the hobby.
And please don’t anyone get the idea that this has escaped the attention of manufacturers and marketers.
stfoth Geoff--Perhaps this has been adequately and succinctly discussed elsewhere, but, assuming all cables are inherently directional with sound differences from one way to the other, what might be some reasons someone, with a good trained ear with a highly resolving setup and with no skin in the game, wouldn’t be able to hear a difference?
--I’m not trying to bait you. I may be a skeptic, but I’m genuinely interested.
>>>>>Of course you would expect a better chance of success when all the variables are under control. So, the question is how many VARIABLES are involved in what might appear to be a simple and straightforward test of fuse or cable directionality? You mentioned THREE, well, actually FOUR variables already, making my job easier 😀 - a trained ear, system set up and resolution (actually two different things, since there can be errors somewhere in the system unbeknownst to the tester, e.g., out of phase, out of absolute polarity, etc.), and motivation of the tester (does he have an axe to grind, is he a manufacturer?). By the way, who determines whether a particular system is resolving enough, the tester? The last time I checked all audiophiles thought their systems were highly resolving. 😛
I would add to the list of variables, (1) whether the tester followed instructions correctly, (2) whether the tester’s hearing is impaired for some known or unknown reason, (3) whether the tester is "psyched out" by the pressure of having to get results and or publish them on this site or a victim of the dreaded reverse expectation bias 😁, and (4) the recordings used for the test - for example, many CDs are in reverse absolute polarity or aggressively compressed. I suppose you can add time of day and weather conditions and things of that nature to the list of variables. Probably others, too. With so many variables involved, you can see why I say, in the context of so many positive results, it’s probably best to just throw out the negative results. They are outliers.
Stfoth 8-2-2017 Perhaps this has been adequately and succinctly discussed elsewhere,
but, assuming all cables are inherently directional with sound
differences from one way to the other, what might be some reasons
someone, with a good trained ear with a highly resolving setup and with
no skin in the game, wouldn’t be able to hear a difference?
If we assume as your question posits that all cables are inherently directional, IMO the key to obtaining an answer would be obtaining an understanding of **why** such an effect may occur. And as I said in an earlier post, IMO the least implausible explanation I have seen is the one stated by Audioquest.
I doubt that any of us are in a position to say conclusively one way or the other whether the effect claimed by Audioquest is likely to be great enough in degree to be audibly significant in some or many systems. But let's assume that it is. The explanation revolves around electrical noise. Sensitivity to electrical noise that may be present will be highly dependent on the specific designs of the components, cables, and system that are involved, on how AC power is distributed to the various components, on how the components and cables are physically arranged, and on the noise environment at the particular location. And it will be highly dependent on the spectral composition (frequency distribution) as well as the amplitudes of whatever noise may be present.
As I said in one of my previous posts in this thread, noise effects tend to have little if any predictability, and tend to be highly system and even location dependent.
It should be noted, finally, that none of these factors have any particular correlation with the sonic quality or musical resolution of the system, or with the hearing acuity of the particular listener.
Ivan, I was simply pointing out the difficulty of conducting a valid experiment. There are too many ways for the mind to trick a putative experimenter. The scientific method is capable of controlling these to a large extent.
Should one choose to ignore the scientific method, alternative explanations of any 'result' are obvious. As I tried to point out, I don't care if people wrap their cables in thousand dollar bills, it's their money. But I put no credence in any 'result' which offers neither theoretical justification nor valid experiment.
almarg Stfoth 8-2-2017 Perhaps this has been adequately and succinctly discussed elsewhere, but, assuming all cables are inherently directional with sound differences from one way to the other, what might be some reasons someone, with a good trained ear with a highly resolving setup and with no skin in the game, wouldn’t be able to hear a difference?
If we assume as your question posits that all cables are inherently directional, IMO the key to obtaining an answer would be obtaining an understanding of **why** such an effect may occur. And as I said in an earlier post, IMO the least implausible explanation I have seen is the one stated by Audioquest.
>>>>Rather than say someone’s explanation is not plausible how about telling us an explanation that is plausible.
I doubt that any of us are in a position to say conclusively one way or the other whether the effect claimed by Audioquest is likely to be great enough in degree to be audibly significant in some or many systems. But let’s assume that it is.
>>>>That’s mighty decent of you.
The explanation revolves around electrical noise. Sensitivity to electrical noise that may be present will be highly dependent on the specific designs of the components, cables, and system that are involved, on how AC power is distributed to the various components, on how the components and cables are physically arranged, and on the noise environment at the particular location. And it will be highly dependent on the spectral composition (frequency distribution) as well as the amplitudes of whatever noise may be present.
>>>>Well, if he had said noise plus distortion would you be on board?
As I said in one of my previous posts in this thread, noise effects tend to have little if any predictability, and tend to be highly system and even location dependent.
>>>>>But he’s not talking about random or Gaussian noise, he’s talking about noise (and distortion) produced by the wire in one direction moreso than the other direction. You’re quibbling.
It should be noted, finally, that none of these factors have any particular correlation with the sonic quality or musical resolution of the system, or with the hearing acuity of the particular listener.
>>>>>>None of what factors? Noise and distortion? Obviously what Audioquest means and what HiFi Tuning means is that the difference in sound quality IS PREDICTABLE and not random. You’re being uh, purposefully obtuse. Differences in noise plus distortion do actually correlate with what people report for cables and fuses in terms of directionality.
And as I said in an earlier post, IMO the least implausible explanation I have seen is the one stated by Audioquest. .
The first part Al regarding the shield only connected at one end and which end to dump the RF to ground, is plausible, but I agree, the rest is not, and is just voodoo without any technical fact just to suck in the gullible here.
stfoth Geoff--hasn’t a lot of this discussion, from both "sides," illustrated the lack of predictability, particularly with so many variables--some difficult or arguably impossible to control for?
>>>>>I think you might possibly be misunderstanding. No offense. There are variables associated with tests which explain negative results as I just got threw describing. There is no reason to second guess or explain positive results, however. Since there are, what, a thousand times more positive results than negative ones, at least, we can throw out the negative ones. Remember most skeptics never get down to brass tacks and try aftermarket fuses or ever try reversing cables. They would rather fight than switch. 😀 Fair enough?
Geoffkait: "With so many variables involved, you can see why I say, in the context of so many positive results, it’s probably best to just throw out the negative results. They are outliers."
One might argue just the opposite, as well.
>>>>>>It would be a bad argument, or an illogical one, since positive results are more *important* than negative ones since, you know, even if there were some obstacles in the way the results were still positive. not to mention there were SO MANY positive results. Nothing succeeds like success and failure is no success at all.
It seems that many of the skeptics won’t be convinced without scientific proof. If that proof materialized, I suspect many would "believe." Some, may still deny, find fault with the method, or raise the bar. For the "pro" directionality folks, what would it take to convince them that there isn’t actually
>>>>>I suspect, based on this debate and many others I have seen or been involved in, you cannot change the mind of the determined skeptic - no matter what you do. That’s why this thread has been laboring along for so long. Did you happen to catch my post where I defined pathological skepticism?
I suspect a lot of this is simply a case of, you know, people following the wrong sheep.
I see your problem. Positive results are not due to any of the variables, they are obtained in SPITE of them. See the difference? Assume for a moment that directionality is real. Then the few audiophiles who get negative results MUST do so because of some error or hearing issue or one or more of the other reasons I’ve already listed. By the way, when can we expect your test and test results?
Stfoth, you’ve raised a number of excellent and sincere questions during the course of this thread. Regarding your most recent question...
Are the believers trying the fuses or wire switching at multiple times, trying to verify that the perceived result wasn’t due to one of the variables and trying to make sure the result is repeatable? As much as a skeptic might not even try it, might some believers not make the effort before advocating?
Almarg 7-8-2017 See the first of my posts dated 10-28-2016 in the long running "Synergistic Red Fuse" thread, in which I quote posts that have been made here by Ralph [Atmasphere] and several other designers of well regarded audio electronics on the subject of fuse directionality. I quoted Ralph’s comment (which had originally appeared in another fuse-related thread) as follows:
Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere:
… Fuses are inherently incapable of having directionality in any way whatsoever.
… I joined this thread recently with some results on testing. Those results are that the directionality appears out of coincidence and that actually greater improvement can be had by rotating the fuse in the holder for best contact…. Reversal is improving the contact area because fuse and holder are not dimensionally perfect and the fuse might sit better in the holder in one direction. By rotating the fuse in the holder without reversing it gets the same effect only more profoundly.
Also, in the numerous fuse-related threads that have appeared here over the years I can recall exactly two members who have reported experimenting with fuse rotation: Ralph, and a member named SGordon1, who posted in the Red Fuse thread on 5-3-2016 about having done that. Both gentlemen reported that significant differences resulted.
Also, as far as I can recall none of the many people who have reported hearing differences as a result of reversing the direction of a fuse have ever indicated that they went back and forth between the two directions multiple times, reinserting the fuse each time with randomly varying rotational orientation, to verify that their results were repeatable and that they were unrelated to rotational orientation.
Now, does it seem unlikely that rotating a fuse in its holder would have a reasonable likelihood of making an audibly significant difference? In the absence of empirical evidence, such as Ralph has provided, my technically-based instinct would be to consider it as being unlikely although possible. However, I would think it to be vastly more unlikely, and in fact impossible, for a fuse to have **inherent** directional characteristics, to an audibly significant degree. And as I mentioned, several other designers of respected audio electronics whom I quoted in the post I referred to above agree with me.
And also this comment in that thread:
Almarg 7-10-2017 However, the problem is that establishing that changing the direction of a fuse makes a difference does not establish that a fuse is inherently directional, as many seem to automatically assume. One does not necessarily follow from the other, especially given Ralph’s empirical findings that I cited above (which he reported to be both measurable and audible), and also given that in the opinion of many of those having an extensive background in electronic design there is no means by which that is possible. As I put it in my post in the Synergistic Red Fuse thread that I referred to earlier:
[Inherent directionality in fuses] is fundamentally irreconcilable with any reasonable understanding of how electronic circuits work. Which is not to say, of course, that an understanding of how electronic circuits work can explain or predict everything about what we hear or don’t hear from our systems. It certainly can’t. But it can often help to provide a perspective on what does or does not have a reasonable possibility of being audibly significant.... And again, none of this is to say that I doubt the accuracy of most of the reported perceptions, it just means that in cases where those perceptions are accurate I believe that the cause was something else.
When the direction of a fuse is reversed all of the following variables, or at least potential variables, are being changed simultaneously:
1)Contact area. 2)Contact pressure. 3)Contact resistance. 4)Oxidation between the mating surfaces. 5)Warm-up state of the equipment. 6)Contents of "volatile" digital memory elements that may be present in the design (i.e., memory elements that don’t retain information when power is removed). 7)The states of other circuitry that may undergo re-initialization at turn-on. 8)Probably other variables that I haven’t thought of. 9)The direction of the element in the fuse.
In order to conclude and legitimately be able to claim that no. 9 is responsible for the difference that is heard, given especially what I and four different experienced designers of well regarded audio electronics have said in posts here which **strongly** point away from that possibility (again, see my post dated 10-28-2016 in the Synergistic Red Fuse thread), at the very least it is necessary to reverse and re-reverse the fuse multiple times, reinserting it each time with varying rotational orientation. To verify that the perceived difference is repeatable, and that it is not due to the phenomenon Ralph has reported, or to other variables.
And as I and Davehrab both said earlier, it appears that no one posting in any of the various fuse-related threads here who has claimed to have found that fuses are directional has done that. Which is understandable, given that significant time and effort would be required to do so with reasonable thoroughness. What is not understandable, though, to me at least, is failure to recognize that any of the other variables I listed may be responsible.
Note, however, that for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread I for one do not totally rule out the possibility of wires (as used in cables) being intrinsically directional in **some** applications, to at least a small degree. In contrast to my opinion about fuses.
stfoth Al--Thanks. I read some portions of the fuse thread, but, to be frank, I couldn’t make it all the way through.
Geoff--You have a dizzying intellect.
>>>>>OK.....
Geoffkait:"Positive results are not due to any of the variables, they are obtained in SPITE of them. See the difference?"
--I don’t. It’s a circular (or backwards) proposition that presumes the truth of the cause and of the result.
>>>>Are you pulling my leg?
"Assume for a moment that directionality is real. Then the few audiophiles who get negative results MUST do so because of some error or hearing issue or one or more of the other reasons I’ve already listed."
--Sort of.
Geoffkait: "By the way, when can we expect your test and test results?"
--I offer no such thing to anyone. I’m a curious simpleton and can only offer that I’ve tried reversing nearly all of my reversible wiring and cabling in five different setups (more, if variations after swapping gear count) and could discern no audible difference.
>>>>>Oh, well, C’est la vie. Feel free to consult my list of possible stumbling blocks where you went wrong.
Assume God exists, in the ultimate "appeal to authority," and God told the directionality folks, "It’s all a lie, there is no such thing as an inherent audible directionality in cabling. It was written by the devil’s left hand. I should know." Then, God also told the skeptical folks, "Yes, indeed. All cabling carries within it the glory of an audible improvement in one direction v. the other. I should know."
Who would be more likely to believe God’s word?
>>>>>Heavy. The ultimate naysayer argument. Is God following the wrong sheep, too?
Almarg Note, however, that for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread I for one do not totally rule out the possibility of wires (as used in cables) being intrinsically directional in **some** applications, to at least a small degree. In contrast to my opinion about fuses.
That’s preposterous. Why on Earth would you believe cables can be directional but not fuses? I trust you’re referring to unshielded cables, NOT balanced cables or single ended cables. What physically is going on with cables to make them directional? Oh, no! You’re not going to say the directionality is caused by how the RCA connector is reinserted into the RCA jack, are you? You know, the old "fuse holder" argument? I especially like your characterization of the effects as "at least to a small degree" even though you’ve never actually tried it or heard it. That’s awful decent of you, you big smoothie.
That’s preposterous. Why on Earth would you believe cables can be directional but not fuses?
Because as I’ve said numerous times in numerous fuse-related threads in which you’ve participated:
If Geoff’s comments about all wires being significantly directional are to be believed, then these differences [referring to the almost infinitesimal direction-related differences in fuse resistance that are reported in the HiFi Tuning paper which you continue to cite] would be totally swamped by BOTH the resistances and the alleged direction-related resistance differences of the vastly longer associated wiring. In the case of mains fuses, that would include the power transformer and the power wiring in the component, as well as the power cord and the AC wiring in and outside of the house.
Those having an understanding of how resistances or other electrical quantities that are in series combine, as well as an understanding of the fact that most cable parameters and cable effects are proportional to length, will understand that. Or, more precisely, **almost** all of them will. There are always a few outliers, as you would say.
You may disagree, and for that matter I’d expect that you will find some way to disagree. But I wouldn’t be so quick to characterize my contention as "preposterous."
Ignoring all the wonderful comments before me, the original statement was about an
NRG-10 AC cable
being directional. Forgetting audio signal connectors for a second, and commenting strictly on AC power cables ONLY, I find the whole subject silly and mute based on one simple fact. AC is alternating current, as in it changes direction 120 times a second, or sixty cycles. That's why every AC-DC power supply design uses some form of a bridge rectifier. And to state on the
NRG-10 web-page, "No matter how perfect an AC power source, distortion is added within
any AC cable, especially within a stranded cable. Even the most
sophisticated filters and power supplies cannot eliminate this
cable-induced distortion." I would think that just a few audio equipment designers would have been insulted by now. Thanks, Steve
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
