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).
stfroth, as always a good rant, and an entertaining one. When you imply, well you actually say, some folks hear directionality, I don’t think you fully appreciate how long this debate has been going on or just how many people have invested in aftermarket fuses since they first came out, was it Isoclean and HiFi Tuning? And they were followed by a host of others. I reckon there must be thousands of satisfied aftermarket fuse customers with probably, I’m guessing here, many hundreds of positive reports on various audio forums as well as on manufacturer websites over the years.
The other point worth making is that if you think naysayers and skeptics react vehemently to fuses and wire directionality just wait’ll ya get a load of when something really controversial and preposterous comes along. Then you'll see the fur fly. What kind of things, you ask? You know, things like tiny little holographic foils for CDs, battery powered clocks that improve the sound when placed in the room, cream electret, tiny little bowl resonantors, things of that nature.
stfroth, just for the record I haven't given a personal opinion as to what I hear with directionality one way or t'other. Heck, I don't even use fuses or cables in my system. How about them apples? Then why are you even in this thread, you ask? The action. 😛
Thanks for your input, with which I completely agree, except for "the movement of electrons is the cause when it is the effect". In my view, the two are dual, in the mathematical sense.
I guess that comment is intended for you and Al and Ralph.
@nonoise To take your triumvirate posting one step further, the first triumvirate dissolved after Crassus died fighting in Syria. Pompey and Caesar fought it out resulting in Pompey's demise. That, for some, is the beginning of the Roman Empire as Caesar assumed total power and became a dictator.
Who might be playing the role of dictator on this thread and generally this forum??
Thanks for your input, with which I completely agree, except for "the movement of electrons is the cause when it is the effect". In my view, the two are dual, in the mathematical sense.
It is very simple to me. EM waves move through a vacuum without any movement of electrons. If the same waves move along a wire and the electrons in the wire vibrate in response then the only cause can be the EM wave. The wave can move through various mediums without electron vibration. The electrons can't vibrate without the wave. So which is the cause and which is the effect is very clear.
@hifiman5 I just meant to imply that the first triumvirate was the one favoring directionality and the second one didn't without regards to actual history.
Just having fun.
As for who'd be a dictator on these thread, I'd have to opt for the role of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnnatus (had to look him up) and remain ever the statesman who, after being called to duty, did his stint and returned to his farm, or in my case, my stereo.
@nonoise I'm sorry. I was not clear enough. I was not referring to you as the dictator, rather a frequent "authority", who pontificates authoritarian views here with disturbing frequency.
@nonoise Cincinnatus was a direct role model for George Washington. Indeed, a statue was made of Washington as a Cincinnatus figure! Plow and all. Washington was the quintessential public servant ala Cincinnatus.
Your introduction of history into this thread is welcome as it lends perspective on the present.
@hifiman5 , I didn't take your remark as "me" being a dictator at all. No worries here, but I don't see myself as an authority on anything, truth be told. Just another one of many with an opinion, and hopefully a funny one at that. 😇
As for Cincinnatus being a role model for Washington, I can only wish that were a requirement for all succeeding presidents, written on some dusty old parchment, attached to the Constitution.
herman So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous. If that was true then the means we have for determining whether or not a wire is hot by placing a device near them would not work, like those little gizmos that you put near an AC line that beep when the line is hot. If all energy was contained inside the wire then transformers would not work. Radios would not exist. etcetera
I never said all the "energy" was traveling inside the wire. I posting earlier that components of the electromagnetic wave - such as the induced magnetic field B - are obviously outside the wire. Even the mathematical paper someone linked on this thread (in a failed attempt to prove the energy traveled outside the wire) described "energy" inside the wire. Please read what I say more carefully so as not to put words in my mouth. Obviously radio transmission is an entirely different subject. Like radio communications via satellite, which I also recently decribed. I.e., photons. You know, EIRP.
I never said all the "energy" was traveling inside the wire.
you most certainly did. I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you like I quoted you below.
You stated here that the audio signal is traveling through the wire, "not outside."
This all means the audio signal electromagnetic waves must be traveling through the copper, not outside the copper, just like voltage and current.
BTW voltage does not travel. It is a difference of potential between 2 points. Current does flow if you define it correctly as the flow of charge. Unfortunately if you do a search you will find it more often than not incorrectly defined as the flow of electrons.
You state again "it doesn’t" travel outside the wire
How does that comport with the electromagnetic wave - the audio signal - traveling outside the conductor as you claim? Hint: it doesn’t.
Then at one point you contradict yourself in the same post by saying saying energy outside is preposterous, then contradict that by saying some does travel outside.
So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous. Obviously there can be some components such as induced magnetic field outside the wire per se.
The problem with "debating" you is you are consistently inconsistent. This is very convenient for you since you can quote yourself from an opposing point of view when it is pointed out that something you stated was incorrect. If you are on both sides then you can always quote yourself as being correct. You can say again that you didn’t say it , but the quotes above prove that you did.
What that ultimately means is you are entertaining yourself by engaging us in a discussion that can never conclude because no matter what you say, you will deny you said it and twist your words to mean something else. It is all very clever in a way but ultimately a waste of everyone’s time.... good day
How convenient for you to cherry pick what I wrote. I wrote recently, as I just got through saying, that obviously some components of the "energy" are outside the cable. What don’t you understand by that statement? If you had read the technical paper from the physics journal as I did you would have seen that some energy is inside the cable and some energy is outside. Which makes more sense. Besides, you seem to be supporting the naysayers in this argument. Who knows why? You said yourself that "if you hear directionality it must be real." So, if you’re so smart how about sharing with us why you think directionality is real? I’m talking of course about wire per se, not shielded wire or single ended cables, whatever? Or, as I suspect, you just want to be on the side that eventually wins, so you’re leaving yourself some wiggle room, which is that same tactic Al uses, very wisely. And your argument that radios (which are obviously wireless) prove that energy travels outside wire is ridiculous.
Despite what you say, radio waves are a perfect example of what I was discussing since RF is an EM wave just like the audio is. If that EM wave is outside the wire then the energy from any other EM wave can be too, and is.
As far as being directional, I am not on either side. I did not enter the conversation to discuss that even though I did say I can see why it could be real. I entered at the request of another poster who asked me to clarify something about the transfer of energy and so called "flow of electrons." Since you were one of those spouting misinformation I got drawn into yet another of your countless worthless discussions.
I did not cherry pick... I quoted you directly. If you state three times it must be inside then say it can be outside I would say you have given yourself "wiggle room." I am not here to win anything. I am simply trying to clarify some common misconceptions. As for you, I think you probably understand more than you let on. It appears you just like to argue so you post things that you can easily twist around to suit whichever side you want to be on at the moment. Like I said, clever in a way, but ultimately tiresome. The snarky comments about other people (calling them little girls playing around) doesn’t add anything to the discussion either.
I want to retract my statement "It appears you just like to argue." You obviously love to argue as evidenced by the countless posts you make doing so. With that I again apologize for hijacking the thread and getting into another worthless debate with the master of the worthless debate.
Your only saving grace is some of the stuff you post is so absurd it is sometimes entertaining, but usually not.
Feel free to twist what I said. Like Al and Ralph who had the good sense to drop out earlier... I’m outta here!
God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. I’ve said at least twice that the energy is inside and outside the cable, even according to the technical and mathematical paper for the physics journal that was posted on this thread a couple days ago. Furthermore, the asymmetry in the copper wire is actually mostly in the outside surface of the wire. Follow? I admit I learn as I go, unlike some people. I never claimed to know everything. When you say you’re leaving again is that supposed to be promise or a threat? Finally radio communications bears so little resemblance to wire communications that it’s two separate worlds. I give you B+ on your personal attacks, C- on your physics.
See if you can spot the logical fallacy, false argument, on this thread.
AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Your evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I’m right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]
A is an authority on a particular topic A says something about that topic A is probably correct Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[8]
Forms General The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[5][9]
A says P about subject matter S. A should be trusted about subject matter S. Therefore, P is correct. The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.[5][10]
DISMISSAL OF EVIDENCE The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form:[14]
B has provided evidence for position T. A says position T is incorrect. Therefore, B's evidence is false. This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes that there is disagreement with it.[14] This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.[15]
Appeal to Logical Fallacy: Person A makes statement, person B assigns Logical Fallacy of choice as a means of refuting person A's statement, regardless of whether the application of the Logical Fallacy thus invoked is the correct one or even if a Logical Fallacy does not exist in person A's statement.
The self-fulfilling prophecy in this case being that fuse directionality and wire directionality are not real, that they're FALSE. In this case the self-fulfilling prophecy is being perpetrated by the, uh, Three Amigos. So what is a self-fulfilling prophecy? A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. In the case of fuse directionality the self-fulfilling prophecy takes the form of, "fuse directionality disobeys the laws of science and electricity so must be patently FALSE." And it can be "proved" scientifically and mathematically that fuse directionality is FALSE, a myth.
The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a FALSE definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.
In other words, a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion—declared as truth when it is actually false—may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.
See also Backfire Effect, which is very similar to Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. This thread also provides abundant examples of the Backfire Effect, embracing false beliefs even more strongly when confronted with contradictory views or evidence.
stfoth Geoff--I think you are misapplying the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy, here. However, you seem correct on at least the appearance of the backfire effect, on both "sides."
sfroth, how can the Backfire Effect apply to anyone except the naysayers? You know, since fuse directionality is real. The naysayers just won't take no for an answer, that's all. Live and let die, I say.
While I would certainly agree with George that this thread is not lacking in the substance to which his last post refers, one way in which the thread can provide at least a modicum of value is that it may help those reading it to better calibrate (i.e., to assess) the responses its various participants may provide in other threads, on other subjects.
When seeking information on the Internet, in trying to distinguish between the wheat and the abundant chaff it is inevitably surrounded with it can often be useful to have some perspective on the author of what is being read.
almarg While I would certainly agree with George that this thread is not lacking in the substance to which his last post refers, one way in which the thread can provide at least a modicum of value is that it may help those reading it to better calibrate (i.e., to assess) the responses its various participants may provide in other threads, on other subjects.
When seeking information on the Internet, in trying to distinguish between the wheat and the abundant chaff it is inevitably surrounded with it can often be useful to have some perspective on the author of what is being read.
Regards, -- Al
Whoa! What?! The Naysayers are restless tonight. More legalize gobbledygook from the man with the golden Barco Lounger.
That's funny! The master of gobbledygook himself Geoff, accusing the educated voice of reason, Almarg of spreading nonsense. Just to re-iterate for the newbies, treat anything Geoff says as entertainment and anything Al says as gospel.
Analogoober That’s funny! The master of gobbledygook himself Geoff, accusing the educated voice of reason, Almarg of spreading nonsense. Just to re-iterate for the newbies, treat anything Geoff says as entertainment and anything Al says as gospel.
Every organ grinder has a monkey. - old audiophile expression 🙈
Remember, I said it would be fun. I didn’t say for who. 😀
>>> Wow! Hey, just spotted! An Australian Yellow Speckled Whiner!
I’d rather be called that, than a voodooist, who’s trying to re-write all the laws of electronics, but has zero understanding of them, who’s also been laughed off many other technical forums.
Hey, George, I broke two laws of electronics today. It was an accident. I didn’t mean to do it. Should I turn myself in? Should I turn myself in to the closest university? To the local power company? National Academy of Science? Better Business Bureau?
i always keep everything running one direction then if i change that wire move it someplace else I keep same direction. On reinstalling it. But i don't hear any differences. I just keep flow always 1way I have the black fuse. Im not even thinking about reversing 4
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.
