Interconnect Directionality

The trouble I have with blind tests or any tests really is their inherent fallibility. So many things can go wrong. If the results are negative it could very well be for any of the following reasons. This is not intended to be a complete list.

The system has one or more errors in it.
The system is not revealing enough.
The subject is not capable of hearing the difference.
The test software is out of polarity or just plain not good enough to reveal differences.
Cabling and or electronics are either brand new or not broken in or not earned up properly.
Weather issues mask the audible differences.
Tests can be easily rigged to produce negative results.

On the other hand, if results of a test are positive, I might be more inclined to think something might be going on since positive results were obtained IN SPITE of all the pitfalls. But, generally to be convincing tests should be repeatable and transferable. One test has very little significance especially if the results are negative. If no tests are done at all then someone making bold claims that controlled blind tests will prove such as such is just plain absurd. 

Great,

As you know "some person" who is an expert, why not get them to sign up to this forum, under their own name (so we can verify the claim you are making and his background), AND then, since they appear to be an expert in the field, they should be able to easily formulate and put numbers around, at least ball-park figures for how transmission line effects and other effects related to conduction would impact the audio signal.

I would be happy if they just did the latter and someone else posted it ... formulate and post some order of magnitude numbers, about the potential impact to the audio signal. It sounds like that would be very easy for them?

You make some pretty substantial claims for your cables here: http://www.teoaudio.com/technical/ so I would assume you can quantify them w.r.t. audio? I do notice a claim of GHz bandwidth, but lots of cables have GHz bandwidths and more (obviously at a given source/load impedance).

Interesting use of the term ionic "plasma", it certainly does not fit the normal definition of plasma. If you had said Fermi gas, I think that would be more supportable by standard definitions. This article / marketing seems to be based around Landau-Fermi liquid theories for conduction so at least a link to Fermi gas would apply.





teo_audio1,153 posts10-24-2019 10:51am

THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound.

" as to that, I know a person who took their physics degree in transmission lines and the like. Basically their masters in the physics of conduction.

they ended up, in part of their resume, running a coast to coast telecommunications system as the head engineer.

And when it comes to audio and the signals involved and what is done in audio, this person quickly came to understand that people connected to and invested in things like the above quote...really don’t know the difference between their backside and a hole in the ground."

roberttcan
I spent some time yesterday trying to find any credible evidence that the EM wave flows back and as it moves from the source to the load at near the speed of light, (in a vacuum). I found nothing. And I mean nothing at all that supported your claim. Not even the slightest mention.

>>>>>Wikipedia to the rescue! How often we see this type of statement by a skeptic - “I could find nothing at all that supported your claim.” That’s gold, Jerry, gold! 🤗 But you’d be sure and tell us if you did, right? Wink, wink!

cleeds…."Here we go again with a call for blind testing, an exercise that is of very limited value - if any at all - to the typical audiophile."

Respectfully Cleeds, I have no ideal why what I believe is a small group of persons on A'gon would think that blind testing won't yield fair and impartial results.  Please do not repeat the GK arguments against it that the testers are going to rig the test.

Simply put, if you were blindfolded and tasted Coke and Pepsi, would not the one that you like the best be a fair indicator of your preference?  Now I do understand that if the blind test was not performed in your home with your audio system, what sounded best in a foreign system might not sound the best at your home.

As I remember Upscale Audio did a blind test including the Prima Luna gear that was well received?

clearthink,

I did NOT mean the moderators .. 

jea48,

Extraordinary claim ... "changing cable direction is as clear as the nose on your face". I am not making the claim, but if the difference is that obvious, it should be easily shown.

I used to do a lot of this type of work, comparative audio studies, under contract. Me, not "some guy I know". Me. If I owned the data, and not our customers, I would gladly publish it. Most of it was around speakers, some amplifiers, some "gadgets"... 

I have seen many many challenges to suppliers of cables and similar products to prove their claims in blind tests at an audio show. People are even willing to lose money on these challenges. Suppliers never take them up on it.

A room at Axpona, RMAF, etc. is about $4000-5000, and we would need to equip it with suitable equipment. I don't know about you, but I would gladly put in $1,000 to do this if it was done well. However, don't be surprised when the show organizers don't allow you to have a room, so you would likely need to do it offsite.

I have only see one person request a "legal" document, a certain cable vendor who blustered about his complete willingness to do such a test, he would draw up the legal documents and everything .... and then crickets.

jea48,

It is AC .. it is akin to connecting a battery one direction, then the other direction.

Of course energy transfers from source to load, and as that happens electrons "flow", slowly, albeit they do. In AC, the net movement is 0, they move one way, stop, then they move the other way. They don't vibrate in place, so much as don't move very far, on average. 

But what is missing in your argument below is it is not a "wire" from the source to the load, it is a circuit of which the wire, both conductors, are part of. Sure there are effects as we are limited by the speed of light so the wave has to propagate along the length of the loop, but we are talking 300,000,000 metres/second and audio frequencies.

Because we are transferring energy in each polarity of the AC signal, and it is a loop, and both conductors are an integral part of that loop, presenting the same number of free carriers in either direction (practically), and equivalent geometry (again, practically at audio frequencies), direction, taking into account classical or quantum model of conduction, and knowing that audio interconnects are not even impedance matched to source and load, then this line of argumentation for the directionality of audio interconnects is not valid.

Now, if we were talking GHz, or hundreds of MHz, or MHz and really long cables, and reasonable ratios of impedance, then you could make an argument, and keep in mind MHz digital has frequency components into the 10's/100's of MHz, hence why transmission line effects practically come into play at relatively low frequencies. 

jea483,154 posts10-24-2019 10:26am@ roberttcan 

I see you deleted your post, responding to my previous post.

I posted your post from the other thread, for the intended use of an AC mains Line fuse used in a piece of equipment, to show your credibility. The fact you will not support a claim you make in a post other than "I am an EE and you are not" does not help in supporting your credibility.

I spent some time yesterday trying to find any credible evidence that the EM wave flows back and as it moves from the source to the load at near the speed of light, (in a vacuum). I found nothing. And I mean nothing at all that supported your claim. Not even the slightest mention.

In an AC circuit the magnetic fields around the conductor does vibrate (pretty much in place) building and collapsing 120 times per second (60 Hz) but it does not cause the EM wave to go back and forth as it travels near the speed of light from the source to the load. (With a load connected)

roberttcan"I seem to have a harassment issue"

I find it highly unlikely, remote, and dubious that the moderators hear would harass you in any way. As one "contributor" hear is fond of saying:

"That which is submitted with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence."

I have always found the moderators of this group to be polite, intelligent, and fair in they're treatment of those in this group and if you're experience is otherwise I heartily suggest that the problem may be with you and not with them!

THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound.

as to that, I know a person who took their physics degree in transmission lines and the like. Basically their masters in the physics of conduction.

they ended up, in part of their resume, running a coast to coast telecommunications system as the head engineer.

And when it comes to audio and the signals involved and what is done in audio, this person quickly came to understand that people connected to and invested in things like the above quote...really don’t know the difference between their backside and a hole in the ground.

I’m a fan of LIGO, have been for twenty years. Why else to you think I would post so much on LIGO? I corresponded with Kip Thorne back then. By no mere coincidence I am the designer of the first 6 degree of freedom Sub-Hertz isolation platform for audio applications which, if you can believe if, used a single 5 inch tall airspring. The rest of your pseudo skeptic ramblings I choose to ignore.

roberttcan

You just assume I have never done these tests. I have, and more ... I am not under any illusion that all the typical measurements done fully characterize an amplifier. It is one of the reasons why I designed a specific piece of test equipment for a customer ... IF the direction of a cable, independent of a shield is as plain as the nose on my face, then surely it is dead easy to replicate this, blind tested?

Here we go again with a call for blind testing, an exercise that is of very limited value - if any at all - to the typical audiophile. I just don’t understand why those who call for such tests don’t conduct their own, and then share results with the group.

I’ve also suggested that the blind testing advocates organize such a test and recruit subjects from Audiogon. It could be interesting to have such a test session at an audio show, for example. (Caution! Results of such tests can be surprising - and even demoralizing!) When I’ve offered such suggestions in the past, I’m met with orders to do it myself, or required to put up money in a wager, or have an agreement with lawyers regarding the test.

To be clear, I think the results of these tests are not always what they seem, and I question the ability of these tests to correspond to what we actually experience as listeners and audiophiles. But they have their place.

Perhaps the problem is that it is not a simple matter to conduct such a scientifically valid, controlled double-blind listening test. And if it’s not properly conducted, a test obviously has no value at all.

geoff,

I saw in one of your other posts that you follow the LIGO. Now you have to admit, that is a pretty impressive feat of measurement, right?

So what you are telling me, is that we can measure gravity waves, which I think you said requires sub-atomic accuracy, BUT we cannot measure the electrical signals in cables to a level of precision beyond human hearing such that this topic could be easily put to bed?

Now keep in mind, we are not talking about the complex acoustic and psychoacoustic effects that happen with respect to how we perceive sound, we are simply talking about an electrical signal going from one end of a cable to another. That it ends up as sound is moot, other than the limits of hearing, of which I am willing to generously give you as 100KHz, and 140db, even though there is no tested evidence to suggest that level of information content is required to test the limits of hearing.

We know that even fairly high levels of THD are hard to detect, even when weighted to harmonics we do not like.

I am not a skeptic geoff, I am a professional in the industry (though right now more into other things outside audio). You just assume I have never done these tests. I have, and more. I spent a few years doing just this sort of work for a range of clients. Now we are not talking amplifiers here. I am not under any illusion that all the typical measurements done fully characterize an amplifier. It is one of the reasons why I designed a specific piece of test equipment for a customer. We are talking cables, and even more than that, the directionality of analog cables, independent of shields as for the most part, electronics negates any digital transmission issues (note I did not say EMI noise coupling).

IF the direction of a cable, independent of a shield is as plain as the nose on my face, then surely it is dead easy to replicate this, blind tested? I don’t think that is an unreasonable hurdle to acceptance of your claim?





geoffkait17,693 posts10-24-2019 8:28amroberttcan
THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound.

>>>>That’s what makes the whole directionality thing so interesting - that it IS audible. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. All wire is directional. Simple tests can be performed by any REAL skeptic, someone who was interested in getting to the bottom of things rather than a pseudo skeptic who prefers debating endlessly. 🔛 All you need is an open mind, and a little curiosity, you know, parts of the scientific method sometimes conveniently forgotten. Follow the arrows. 🔚

---

roberttcan" Stop. p.s. I dare you, no I double dare you to show anywhere I have been racist.'

Wow a "double-dare" that kind of juvenile, childish, immature threat may work for you on the playground but not hear where at least some of the contributors are actual adults

roberttcan"I will continue to ignore your mindless rambling"

roberttcan you are the sole, singular, solitary expert on "mindless" you have been hear just a few days and 3/4 of all of you're posts have been deleted because of they're vile, insulting, racist content what is you're problem. If you continue I shall alert the moderators to you're abuse of this forum and it's many educated, thoughtful, expert users!

roberttcan
THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound.

>>>>That’s what makes the whole directionality thing so interesting - that it IS audible. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. All wire is directional. Simple tests can be performed by any REAL skeptic, someone who was interested in getting to the bottom of things rather than a pseudo skeptic who prefers debating endlessly. 🔛 All you need is an open mind, and a little curiosity, you know, parts of the scientific method sometimes conveniently forgotten. Follow the arrows. 🔚

THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound. 

The AudioQuest article is meant to SELL cables to people that cannot read what they have written and say "BS - this does not apply at audio frequencies, and this does not apply well, almost ever". You can't say in one sentence, oh, our cables are amazing, due to their fantastic shielding, and then claim a paragraph later ... well ya know, there is directional impedance (is there? ... how much), and ya know, that RF interference will cause things to ring yada yada ... well which is it? Do they shield from noise, or do they cause some strange effect that no one outside the audio "marketing industry" has ever experienced? .... OH, and lets not forget, all signals in audio are AC, AND at analog audio frequencies transmission line effects don't exist and any that would would be swamped by source impedance, load impedance, and cable mismatch ... of which we can guarantee there are.  If it is USB, Ethernet, etc., unless it causes data loss, and it won't and it is easily tested with a BERT, it is meaningless. What is the typical USB / wired ethernet data loss in the home? ... effectively 0 for audio, i.e. you may lose bits every once in a while, not at any rate that would impact audio quality.  Want to throw timing at me for a electrical SPDIF or similar? .... easily, easily proven, lots of excellent test equipment out there that can measure jitter at the receiver, equipment that actual technical professionals, not marketing professionals use. Easy for any of these company to measure a jitter improvement claim, you know like was done to show the improvements in electrical over optical connections. Of course lets not forget that any competent DAC today buffers and reclocks so that jitter on the input has no correlation to jitter on the DAC.

OK, this conversation has officially bottomed out. 🔚 Let’s hear a little from the professionals on the dodgy subject of is there or is there not directionality 🔛 in wire. You have to ask yourself, why would somebody go to all the trouble, and expense, of controlling directionality for speaker cables, interconnects power cords, HDMI cables, Ethernet cables? Does anyone really believe they’re running a scam? Is this some foul hoax perpetrated on naive gullible audiophiles to squeeze them dry of their hard earned cash? That doesn’t make any sense. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. Come on, people! Hel-loo! Deprogrammers are standing by.

Exhibit 1 - AudioQuest on directionality

https://www.audioquest.com/theory-education/article/83-directionality-its-all-about-noise

jea48, do both you and GK both go to the pedantic school of engineering ignorance?  CONTEXT. Quote EXACTLY what I wrote:

3) Current IS the movement of electrons literally by definition. Current is measured in Coulombs / second AND SINCE POSITIVE CHARGE CARRIERS DO NOT MOVE, THAT MEANS ELECTRON MOVEMENT.

It is pretty obvious, if you are skilled in the art, from the above I know that a) Coulomb, is a measure of charge. b) That coulombs/second is a movement of charge carriers, and c) that charge carriers can be either positive or negative (electrons). I ALSO know that in a wire there are not mobile positive charge carriers, and HENCE, in the context of the post, which was about whether current in the wire was the flow of electrons (and not photons), that by definition, in that context, CURRENT IS THE MOVEMENT OF ELECTRONS.

Now, if you wanted to say, "Hey, I get what you mean in the context of what you posted, and it is clear you understand current is the flow of positive and negative charge carriers, but others may not understand the context, so probably should not say "by definition .... "  then perhaps you would have added something to the conversation. 

George, george, george, you are going to be pedantic, you should improve your reading comprehension and not quickly jump to your keyboard (after wikipediaing) ....

Let’s start with your grossly ignorant last statement about what changes the "sound" in the wire. Since we are talking sound, we are talking analog, and since we are talking sound, we are talking information, so let’s start with information theory, so let’s go back to Shannon’s limit which is a way to characterize the information in a signal (or to be carried in a cable). So let’s see how much information is carried in an analog audio signal ... say 140db, 100Khz ... I am being real kind here. That is about 4.6mbits/second of information. Don’t try to throw "timing" into this as that is inherent in the SNR. That is it ... the total audio signal for 140db, 100Khz is 4.6 mbits/second. Any directional em/quantum effects will not remotely come into play at this data rate. They barely come into effect at 10 gbits/second.

That YOU try to bring up any EM wave/field or quantum is truly laughable. Absolutely laughable. You know who does things like that, bring up things meaningless to the problem? ... PEOPLE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM or at least the magnitude of the problem. To them, everything is a nail, and their only tool is a hammer. YOU don’t understand it, so you are trying to apply anything you do know (sort of) to the problem.

2) YOU have really horrible reading comprehension. What you have tried to imply I said below is not remotely what I wrote. THAT tells me that you are at best wikismart, though I know what what you have wrote you think you are much more than that.

Holy crap, MY STATEMENT STARTS WITH "What propagates the signal is an electromagnetic wave." ... and you tell me I am wrong ... then say the exact same thing "The signal is the electromagnetic wave". Are you so blinded by the NEED to be right that you can’t even comprehend the words you are reading?

I am sorry you did not understand the subtlety of the EM wave is carried in a field around the electrons ... you know those electronics in the conductor ... I will blame it on your wiki level of knowledge. Instead of wasting my and others time with ridiculous notions that such effects as you describe would have any and I mean any detectable impact on audio signals ... which have very little information.


geoffkait17,689 posts10-23-2019 8:57pmroberttcan
jea48,



>>>>Sorry, that’s actually incorrect. The electric and magnetic fields generated by the current are obviously outside the conductor, and are orthogonal to each other, but they are not the electromagnetic wave, which travels inside the wire. The magnetic field obeys the right hand rule, of course. That’s what causes the change in sound according to direction of the wire, which is physically slightly asymmetrical. The signal is the electromagnetic wave, not the induced electric and magnetic fields. Better luck next time.

roberttcan
jea48,

Unfortunately, the real answer to what carries the signal is pretty complex, but sometimes an analogy is best.

What propagates the signal is an electromagnetic wave. The electromagnetic wave is induced by a voltage potential. The energy is technically "carried" in the electromagnetic wave. It is not even carried in the wire, but in the field around the electrons (and wire), but that does not mean that at audio frequencies esoteric dielectrics for wire make any practical difference. That wave induces electron flow in a given direction. Current, by definition is the flow of electrons, but what really happens is more complex.

>>>>Sorry, that’s actually incorrect. The electric and magnetic fields generated by the current are obviously outside the conductor, and are orthogonal to each other, but they are not the electromagnetic wave, which travels inside the wire. The magnetic field obeys the right hand rule, of course. That’s what causes the change in sound according to direction of the wire, which is physically slightly asymmetrical. The signal is the electromagnetic wave, not the induced electric and magnetic fields. Better luck next time.

roberttcan, when do you go back to work? 

I knew Romy. And he’s no Romy! 

Nope, I have not and never will delete a post, unless I post something wrong, and then I will edit is to say, "My post was in error,  hence I deleted the content"


jea483,149 posts10-22-2019 1:37pm

roberttcan70 posts   

10-22-2019 12:24pm   

Enjoy your CJ you two :-) 

@ roberttcan


I notice you deleted your first thread. Embarrassed because you didn’t get one response? You’re off to good start. Welcome back to the Gon. 70 arrogant responses in 2 days. That has to be a record. 

Just curious, if I may ask, what was your old username?

Best regards, 

You have a nice day. :-)

Exactly! Relax, when I go after you, I’ll give you a heads up. 😀

Obviously this new guy is nothing more than a potty mouth wannabe. Good luck, y’all. Mods, do your duty. 🤡

Whatever. It’s pretty obvious who I was addressing:  Mr. Smarty Pants 👖

Enjoy your CJ you two :-)

I was not addressing you, sir. 🤡 The feeling is mutual, now that you mention it. Plus you’re a slow learner. 

It’s pretty clear you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying. You have an answer for everything. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. The reason I mention fuses so often is because understanding fuse directionality is the portal to understanding wire and cable directionality. 

Uhmmmm your friend jea48 was, but if you aren't going to invest the time to read all the comments, what is the point of responding?   We are talking about the directionality of fuses and your erroneous claim that the fuse only impacts the current in one direction (take your pick  either positive or negative phase of the wave), not both directions .... which is simply not true.

geoffkait17,612 posts10-22-2019 12:29pmUh, we aren’t discussing shielded cables. Hel-loo! I’m afraid someone doesn’t yet know what directionality even means. I won’t mention any names. I suspect this is probably just a case of can’t see the forest for the trees.

Uh, we aren’t discussing shielded cables. Hel-loo! I’m afraid someone doesn’t yet know what directionality even means, whilst arguing so strenuously. I won’t mention any names. I suspect this is probably a case of can’t see the forest for the trees. Perhaps something more uh, disturbing. 😫

NO, this is just a new account. I left his group a few years ago ... to start a company, making electronics .... you know things you don't understand.

thecarpathian, clearthink has been on a targeted harassment campaign against me since I rejoined, literally yesterday (as obvious with him posting here), and jae48 tried to troll me, and failed miserably. IF people want to have conversations as adults, and not try to come across as experts when they clearly are not, then you will find things will be quite civil. 

clearthink914 posts10-22-2019 1:27amroberttcan" I don't understand half of what you said, probably less."

If you are patient and polite you will learn more from this group do not expect to know everything right away you are still new here!

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with clearthink.
roberttcan, your knowledge is appreciated. Your insults and condescension, not so much...

roberttcan"This below is almost too stupid to answer"

Then why bother what is the issue if we are all so stupid why are you wasting time with us perhaps you should find a group that is as smart as you because we don't seem to qualify!