Interconnect Directionality

This conversation can serve no purpose any more. 

geoff? Is that you? Are you projecting again?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no Wikipedia involved in my posts, though a quick perusal of your posts suggests you quote Wikipedia ....a lot.

Nope, not reading comprehension here geoff. I am simply repeating your words back to you .... you know they are there for everyone to see and I always make sure to keep a copy so you can't go and change it and claim you said something else.

You have to stop with these straw-man arguments, it is pretty much admitting that you have lost. I don't know why you keep insisting that you do that.

And now come on geoff, you know the sky really is more clear, but appears blue due to Raleigh scattering when the sun shines on it :-)

You will pardon me for saying so but you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I’ve explained it twice. You still don’t get it. I suggest you sit this one out and let someone else get involved. Your so-called arguments are nothing more than Wiki cut and paste truisms, a word which you appear to be totally unfamiliar with. A truism is a statement of fact but a fact that doesn’t disprove or even dispute the contention you find objectionable. The sky is blue is an example of a truism. I suspect you are just in knee jerk mode. Well to the BIG Leagues, slugger!

So pretty much you are walking back your statement.

Let me remind you what you said: "IS ACTUALLY BIG"

But wire directionality is actually BIG because all cabling, speaker wiring, transformer wiring, capacitor wires, etc. are ....you guessed it, DIRECTIONAL. So we’re a long way from what is possible you know, sound wise. Follow?

And now, below .... well maybe it is big ... you know if it exists,  which I am not claiming it is .... but maybe it is .... in which case maybe it is big.

Your claim that "some audiophiles are knee-jerk reactionaries they refuse to listen" is just a false claim at best said to support an unsupportable hypothesis. I could make a similar and more supportable claim that "most audiophiles refuse to listen without their eyes".


One thing is clear now, why you edit so often :-)

geoffkait17,972 posts11-04-2019 2:33pmI already explained what I meant by BIG, maybe you were too busy flapping your gums, but I don’t mind explaining it again.

It’s BIG because - if true, the directionality of wire in a fuse or speaker cables, for example, means that ALL wire in the entire system is directional. I’m not even trying to PROVE wire is directional. I’m simply suggesting if it is, then look at the logical conclusion. But since some audiophiles are knee-jerk reactionaries they refuse to listen. But if they did listen they would be able to make BIG strides in improving their system’s sound. Which they won’t, because they would rather fight about it. How’s that? Do you see what I meant by BIG now? All of that from one tiny wire in a fuse. That’s BIG!

I already explained what I meant by BIG, maybe you were too busy flapping your gums, but I don’t mind explaining it again.

It’s BIG because - if true, the directionality of wire in a fuse or speaker cables, for example, means that ALL wire in the entire system is directional. I’m not even trying to PROVE wire is directional. I’m simply suggesting if it is, then look at the logical conclusion. But since some audiophiles are knee-jerk reactionaries they refuse to listen. But if they did listen they would be able to make BIG strides in improving their system’s sound. Which they won’t, because they would rather fight about it. How’s that? Do you see what I meant by BIG now? All of that from one tiny wire in a fuse. That’s BIG!

New here, not "new".

I don’t know why big fish in a small pond assume they are "big fish".

I have made lots of real arguments. You have not made any ... at all. You made a statement that showed a lack of knowledge. I didn’t. You even agree that the statements I made are accurate ... which you should realize, negate what you said. You have actually not refuted anything I said. If anything, you agree with them.


The only one pounding their chest, is you actually. It is not me making the claim of "BIG", that is you. To claim "BIG", you would assume one would be able to qualify that statement in some .... any? fashion. But as of yet, you have not done that ... at all. You have just made a claim of "BIG". Perhaps you should start by qualifying how your arrived at "BIG", since saying that is the case, does not at all make it true. Since "BIG" is a significant adjective, I assume you can easily back that up? .... not that I think you will, I suspect there will be more "Birefringence" on your part ...

geoffkait17,971 posts11-04-2019 1:24pmI don’t know why newbies waltz in 🕺🏻here thinking they’re the smartest guy in the room. Looks like this a a stubborn case and will take some education, the one he didn’t get in school. By the way, you haven’t made any real arguments. So I can hardly dispute them. The ones you did make I disputed. You have been pounding your chest a lot, though.

I don’t know why newbies waltz in 🕺🏻here thinking they’re the smartest guy in the room. Looks like this a a stubborn case and will take some education, the one he didn’t get in school. By the way, you haven’t made any real arguments. So I can hardly dispute them. The ones you did make I disputed. You have been pounding your chest a lot, though.

You are out of your depth here, so I am cutting you some slack. You don't know, and you don't have to say it because it is obvious.
However, if you would like to address my arguments and redeem yourself, that would benefit you.

geoffkait17,968 posts11-04-2019 12:23pmYou’re new here so I’m cutting you some slack. If you don’t know just say you don’t know. There’s no reason to get yourself all worked up. You can’t prove a negative. Relax and enjoy the ride.

You’re new here so I’m cutting you some slack. If you don’t know just say you don’t know. There’s no reason to get yourself all worked up. You can’t prove a negative. Relax and enjoy the ride. 

You can claim that wire is directional, as it is, which will express as some reduction in SNR or IMD at some frequency bandwidth, with some given source, load, and connector and cable impedance .... because it is.


You cannot claim it is "BIG" because factually that is not remotely true, no matter how many pieces are in the chain, because the total chain length is short, the frequencies low, the dynamic range minimal w.r.t. that frequency, and variability of other components in time generating far large changes making detection of directionality (if there is any) pretty much impossible.


The simple act of getting your ass out of a chair, walking to your equipment, making changes to your equipment (cable direction), walking back to your chair, and sitting down, would create more short term physiological changes that would impact hearing and perception than cable change ever could eliminating any ability to detect changes short term.

Longer term changes in temperature and humidity in the listening environment, day to day, even hour to hour diet and health changes, etc. would again swamp out any potential difference in cable direction.

geoffkait17,964 posts11-04-2019 10:26amNo, I did not create the theory. Nor did I create reality. Reality is there to be discovered if a person is really interested in doing so. Take off your blinders and SEE! 👀 I’m glad you agree with with me about the wire asymmetry. Som there is still room for my theory, right? 😀 The first step in recovery is recognizing the problem. 🤗 I’m not saying directionality is all that matters. That’s an illogical argument. Of course there are other issues. Duh! But wire directionality is actually BIG because all cabling, speaker wiring, transformer wiring, capacitor wires, etc. are ....you guessed it, DIRECTIONAL. So we’re a long way from what is possible you know, sound wise. Follow?

No, I did not create the theory. Nor did I create reality. Reality is there to be discovered if a person is really interested in doing so. Take off your blinders and SEE! 👀 I’m glad you agree with with me about the wire asymmetry. Som there is still room for my theory, right? 😀 The first step in recovery is recognizing the problem. 🤗 I’m not saying directionality is all that matters. That’s an illogical argument. Of course there are other issues. Duh! But wire directionality is actually BIG because all cabling, speaker wiring, transformer wiring, capacitor wires, etc. are ....you guessed it, DIRECTIONAL. So we’re a long way from what is possible you know, sound wise. Follow?

"You say" ... so you created a new hypothesis for electricity that you have not shared with the scientific community at large for peer review? oooookay.


So now we are down to the crux, since I pointed it out, the only justification is asymmetry, which would show up as impedance mismatches which gets us back to lack of high speed edges (frequencies) on analog interconnects, the short distance of said interconnects, and the already gross mismatch in impedance between analog interconnects and source and load impedances and connector impedances .... and no, not everything matters. Some things actually don’t matter.

Semantics Argument. You say electrons produce induced E and H fields. I say it’s the current that creates them. It’s the Right Hand Rule in action! But the point is, setting aside semantic arguments for a moment, and cutting to the chase, directionality in wire is due to physical asymmetry of the wire. And we are only interested in the signal, current, electrons whatever you wish to call it, moving toward the speakers. That’s why one should CONTROL wire for directionality during manufacture of the cables. Failing that, the end user should always try fuses, speaker cables, digital cable, interconnects, BOTH WAYS 🔛 to see which way sounds better. Follow?

You are showing a critical misunderstanding about the way electrical fields develop leading to induced magnetic fields and energy transfer in an electrical circuit.


Directionality can exist when one considers minor differences in cable construction and the timing of reflections due to transmission line effects that would differ in each direction, but those effects arise with very fast edge rates (not analog interconnects as the topic of this thread), not to mention that would also assume some level of impedance matching, something not really existing no matter "claims" when you have source and load impedances significantly mismatched and then non-impedance controlled connectors in the middle, and then cables that exhibit the exact construction end to end. Sure you could make a cable whose impedance changes end to end and that would be technically directional, even though you would be just changing the problem with the mismatched connectors, etc. etc.

However, you are implying something completely unrelated it seems w.r.t. fundamental conduction and energy transfer that is simply not true.

Potential and moving electrons everywhere in the circuit, whether moving in-bulk towards the speaker, amp, whatever, or moving away are responsible for the total e-field and b-field and hence are also responsible en-mass for the energy imparted to those electrons in the voice coil (which moves the speaker ultimately).
If you want to make an "instantaneously" in time argument, then only the electrons in the voice coil matter and the ones outside it whether moving towards or moving have mathematically 0 impact.

Yes, push and pull is correct. That’s why I wrote it. The same idea is TRUE for power cords and fuses, too. Any wire in an AC circuit. That’s why power cords and fuses exhibit directionality. Including fuses in speakers. That’s why the statement, “All wire is directional,” must be TRUE. And why the common statement, “Wire or fuses in AC circuits can’t be directional because the signal goes both ways,” is FALSE.

If you accept they are truisms, then you must accept that your explanation is wrong.

Your second statement about "pushing it out" and "pulling it back" ... maybe you should read that again and ask yourself that if you believe this to be true, then if the statement you made is correct.

Again to clarify, my two statements, that you agree are truisms, say everything that is needed to prove that your statement is not true.

geoffkait17,959 posts11-04-2019 6:59amatdavid

Those two statements are truisms, and no one ever said they aren’t true, at least I didn’t. But it’s like saying the sky is blue. It isn’t really evidence - much less proof - that my explanation of how current in the speaker cables or any AC circuit works is not true. There is power at one + or - wire at a time. It is never simultaneous. Even for high frequency AC at 20 kHz or whatever.

One wire pushes the speaker out, the other wire pulls it back. When hooked up out of phase the opposite occurs.

atdavid
There is nothing "to prove", though this would typically be later year electrical engineering, engineering physics, physics material related to electricity so it is not surprising that many people do not know it. Asking me to prove it is like asking me to prove 1+1 = 2. It just is.
However, let’s go point by point (all 2 of them).

1. It is not the electrons moving toward the voice coil or the electrons moving away from the voice coil that we care about, it is the electrons in the voice coil.
   
2. The energy imparted to those electrons in the voice coil is dependent on the total e-field (electrical) and b-field(magnetic) in the complete electrical circuit made up of the conductors going to the speaker and away from the speaker

Those two statements are truisms, and no one ever said they aren’t true, at least I didn’t. But it’s like saying the sky is blue. It isn’t really evidence - much less proof - that my explanation of how current in the speaker cables or any AC circuit works is not true. There is power at one + or - wire at a time. It is never simultaneous. Even for high frequency AC at 20 kHz or whatever. One wire pushes the speaker out, the other wire pulls it back. When hooked up out of phase the opposite occurs.

You can also say the electrons are the charge carriers, but they are not the current, which is the charge per unit time at a given location along the wire. You can come up with many definitions. The E and B fields are dependent on - are a function of - the electromagnetic wave that travels through the conductor.

There is nothing "to prove", though this would typically be later year electrical engineering, engineering physics, physics material related to electricity so it is not surprising that many people do not know it. Asking me to prove it is like asking me to prove 1+1 = 2. It just is.
However, let's go point by point (all 2 of them).

1. It is not the electrons moving toward the voice coil or the electrons moving away from the voice coil that we care about, it is the electrons in the voice coil.
   
2. The energy imparted to those electrons in the voice coil is dependent on the total e-field (electrical) and b-field(magnetic) in the complete electrical circuit made up of the conductors going to the speaker and away from the speaker.

Prove it, Mr. Smarty Pants. It’s not a very convincing argument to simply say I’m wrong. You’re supposed to you know, back it up. I’ll even help you out. Maybe you can try Wikipedia.

I know you make fun of people who use Wikipedia, but a perusal of Wikipedia and other sights may improve your understanding of how energy transfer via electricity works. Your interpretation below is not accurate.

geoffkait17,948 posts11-03-2019 4:01pmLet’s summarize, shall we?

“Speakers work by converting electrical energy into mechanical energy (motion). ...In speakers, a current is sent through the voice coil which produces an electric field that interacts with the magnetic field of the permanent magnet attached to the speaker.”

So, it’s current that provides the energy to the voice coils, current that alternates between the + and - wires. Whilst traveling toward the speaker on + wire current travels in the opposite direction on the - and vice versa. Thus, only the outgoing current - i.e., toward the speakers 🔜 - affects the sound of the speakers. The ingoing current - the current going toward the amplifier 🔙 - does not (rpt not) affect the sound. The current alternates at the “instantaneous frequency” of the audio waveform. See, that wasn’t so difficult, was it?

Prove it! (Is Herman your imaginary friend?) 

Let’s summarize, shall we?

“Speakers work by converting electrical energy into mechanical energy (motion). ...In speakers, a current is sent through the voice coil which produces an electric field that interacts with the magnetic field of the permanent magnet attached to the speaker.”

So, it’s current that provides the energy to the voice coils, current that alternates between the + and - wires. Whilst traveling toward the speaker on + wire current travels in the opposite direction on the - and vice versa. Thus, only the outgoing current - i.e., toward the speakers 🔜 - affects the sound of the speakers. The ingoing current - the current going toward the amplifier 🔙 - does not (rpt not) affect the sound. The current alternates at the “instantaneous frequency” of the audio waveform. See, that wasn’t so difficult, was it?

I haven’t been wrong since 1965, for your information. And unlike yourself, I didn’t retire from McDonalds. 🍔

Note to self: Is it just me or is it getting crazier out there? 🤡

Problem with the internet ... you don't know if you missed an inside joke, intentional trolling, or gross misunderstandings ... or all 3 wrapped up into one.

Lizzie, are you channeling Pee Wee Herman? Thanks for the laughs!

All this because we want to listen to some tunes?

The speaker doesn’t move on the outward strokes, silly goose. It only moves on inward strokes. That’s pretty obvious. Well, not to you, maybe. Have you tried Smart pills? 

The amount spent is directly proportional to the placebo effect. 

Since the ideal is to make the speaker move the same on the inward and outward strokes, any directionality in fuses on the DC side would be a detriment. and on the AC side, a religion.

Maybe his ego collapsed under its own weight.....

His auto-destruct mechanism must’ve got hit and blew itself up.

roberttcan "I am in your head and you can't get rid of me, no matter how many senseless questions you may pose on this thread :-)"
That is pretty funny because by all appearance, evidence, and indications the moderators have gotten rid of you and you're argumentative, insulting, and frankly outright false, misleading, and deceptive statements, claims, and pronouncements for once and for all. :-)

Gee, Bobbie disapproves of me.   Still laughing!

You are the Don Quixote of Pseudo Skeptics. Fighting the windmills in your mind. Mom said I have to study hard in school to be somebody. No, ma, I don’t. I’m going to be a comedian. 🤡

Nothing but ASSumptions and excuses.   No comprehension    Pathetic, yet laughable!

I dub three Crown Prince of Bloviation. A title you richly deserve.

If the rule you followed brought you to this what good was the rule?

Typical of robertcon’s knee-jerks and hubris, to fail to comprehend/totally miss the point of my post(beside adding to Geoff’s list of modern history’s highly debatable subject matter).    I’ll bet robertcon never got past the date of the article.    Once again: I especially like the first three sentences, of the last paragraph, WHICH STATES, "Efforts to disprove ’cold fusion’ remind me of the O. J. Simpson case--the evidence is clear enough that most people have firm beliefs, yet truly conclusive proof is elusive.   But science is not law: when one puts a scientific theory on trial in an experiment, the existing theory is presumed guilty of explaining your observations until it is proven innocent by showing that only a new theory will fit the evidence properly.   Large changes in well-established theories require a stronger body of evidence."                          That statement’s FACT and whether the article’s 20 years or 120 years old, won’t change it!    Theories are TRIED and either proven or proven false, by experimentation.

Then there’s: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-current-scien/  I especially like the first three sentences, of the last paragraph.

Breaking Gnus!! 🐃 🐃 🐃 More good stuff from the author of....you guessed it! Zen and the Art of Debunkery. The terms professional debunkers and “knee-jerk skeptics” are not intended to disparage anyone here on this thread, of course. 🙄

“While informed skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, professional debunkers — often called “kneejerk skeptics” — tend to be skeptics in name only, and to speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionately skeptical. At best, debunkers will occasionally expose other people’s errors; but for the most part they purvey their own brand of pseudoscience, fall prey to their own superstition and gullibility, and contribute little to the actual advancement of knowledge. As such, they well and truly represent the Right Wing of science.

To throw this reprobate behavior into bold — if somewhat comic — relief, I have composed a useful “how-to” guide for aspiring debunkers. This manual includes special sections devoted to debunking extraterrestrial intelligence, alternative healing methods, astrology and “free energy.” I spotlight these fields not because I necessarily support all related claims, but because they are among the most aggressively and thoughtlessly debunked subjects in the whole of modern history.

Many of the debunking strategies laid bare here have been adapted nearly verbatim from the classic works of history’s most remarkable debunkers. Though they often cross the threshold of absurdity under their own steam, I confess I have nudged a few across it myself for the sake of making a point.

As for the rest, their fallacious reasoning, fanatical bigotry, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared explore beneath oceans of denial and disingenuousness, and have attempted in good faith to report their observations.”

robertcon-  " Your lack of knowledge of how to design experiments to eliminate bias does neither validates your last statement NOR invalidates the fact that it is the pundits who need to take said blind tests and prove they can hear a difference since they are the ones making the claim. No need to worry about the preferences, biases or experience since the only people taking the test are the ones making the claim."                                                             The above is simply another of your blatant shows of hubris(and attempted obfuscation).      ie: You know absolutely nothing, about me or how much of what I have studied.     Unlike you and your obvious insecurities, I have nothing to prove or promote.    My only agenda, is to encourage others, not to take someone else's theories as fact/truth and to actually test things/listen for themselves, with their own ears and on their own systems.      It's the only way they'll ever know, if whatever they're curious about actually makes a noticeable difference, TO THEM.