"It’s not a concern for their* particular forms of use."
"Cable directionality" must have some physical manifestation, even if it's at quantum level. The "good" direction must be consistently more effective in energy/information transmission. Otherwise it's distortion which cannot be "good"(local entropy variable) . Energy/information transmission efficiencies mean lives can be lost or saved and money made. One would think this could be of concern.
*all technical civilization based on electricity, except : see below
@geoffkait [cable...]
"...directionality is sound related only"
So only some select audiophiles can measure with their ears local entropy of cables conducting electricity? This skill or knowledge is not available to anybody else and no instrument can match human ears?
Non slippery? My comments are the only ones that aren’t slippery. Maybe
if you tried speaking plain English someone could respond. Who knows?
Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and answers equal one another.
And the answer to the question is complex and defeats most people's ideas on their fundamentals of reality and what they are - what this place is.
Which is already a complex enough statement to have someone come along and post a ridiculing stab in the back bit directed right at me. Just so their mind does not have to do anything that threatens their comforts in knowing who and what they are. Like I note you have already done, for whatever given reason, be it ignorance or determined act..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, just to allow myself to be ridiculed and stabbed at again, for a few more posts or in some other thread I may contribute to...:
A simple way to discern the final answer on the objectivity front, is...: God, or the universe, if you will... can both prove and disprove it’s own existence and both conditions are scientifically valid and true. Simultaneously.
The data set is many thousands of pages deep, in it’s entirety, and many studies and a few meta studies deep. Then the emergent physics that says the same. The problem is not the data, is the complexity of the persons involved in it’s understanding... in their given ’life’.
It’s not something I came up with. Or that I promote openly... as too many people will run at it as if it is a windmill they need to charge and attack/kill.
It is forums that we are communicating on or via.. We’re dealing with individualized cases of crowd psychosis that tend to be applied in Machiavellian fashion. There’s no possible form a win for anyone, here.
Looks like someone had the smarts to copy the High Fidelity Cables. Besides mu metal can be applied to cables external to the jacket since it’s an absorber as opposed to a reflector. You know, what with the induced magnetic field all cables exhibit.
This article is from 1991 (I think) but just re-published and explains some scientific reasons why cables can sound differently. A good read for anyone interested or anyone who thinks audio need more science.
Actually while the article is fascinating it actually doesn’t explain why cables sound different. The article explains why the L-G cable sounds different from other conventional cables. It’s fascinating because it predates the High Fidelity Cables that also employ mu metal for the conductor by about 25 years. Note to self: could the information that the article is from 1991 be written any smaller?
This article is from 1991 (I think) but just re-published and explains some scientific reasons why cables can sound differently. A good read for anyone interested or anyone who thinks audio need more science.
Those are interconnect cables, which are entirely different than speaker wire.
And yes, I certainly do agree there are scientific reasons why cables can sound different. Doesn't mean they do or will though. Pitting the scientific reasons against a blind test to determine if the listener actually does discern a sonic difference is also entirely different.
Nobody said it was supposed to be speaker cable. Got coffee? ☕️ You keep bringing up blind tests. Have you done any? Care to let us know your results? 😀 Also, you obviously missed the entire point of article. As did both posters who provided link to article.
Nobody said it was supposed to be speaker cable. Got coffee? ☕️ You keep bringing up blind tests. Have you done any? Care to let us know your results? 😀 Also, you obviously missed the entire point of article. As did both posters who provided link to article.
I realize nobody said it was supposed to be speaker cable. Yes, I have coffee. I'm bringing up blind tests because I happen to have read and understood the title of the thread. Yes, I have performed blind testing. Thank you Geoff.
geoffkait wrote @12:24pm 3-14-2018Big
deal. No one ever suggested there was a standard for directionality.
Recall directionality is sound related only. Duh! There are no technical
standards for Polarity, for soundstage, for realism, for room
acoustics, for speaker placement, for vibration, for RFI/EMI, for Noise,
for Distortion, frequency response, dynamic range. Yet somehow we are
able to find our way. Well, sometimes...fortunately, directionality is
often the easiest to get to the bottom of. All you have to do is reverse
the cable or fuse, whatever. Fortunately some companies control
directionality, even for power cords making it pretty much a no brainer.
No comment. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a MIL STD for directionality
any time real soon. 😡
Sound waves, as well as their electrical interpretations are sinusoidal, not directional. So is AC current. That means that first they are positive, then diminish, go to zero, increase as negative, peak, diminish again to zero, cross back to positive, grow to a positive peak, ...... wash rinse repeat, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So if your wire is directional, then one half of your music is ALWAYS messed up. Ever watch your speaker cone. See, it goes out. stops, goes back, stops.... Same with your AC cord. Don't think of it as a firehose, but as a two man cross-cut saw. First lumberjack A pulls on it, and then lumberjack B pulls it back. Back and forth. Next thing you know, the tree is cut in two, work is performed. Not like a chainsaw, where the chain only goes in one direction. Chainsaw=DC. AC is more like having two hoses each interacting through pistons with a mechanism on each end, say a cross-cut saw. You have a two pistons, each driving one end of the saw. When we push a piston down on hose A, it pushes on cross-cut saw end A. When we then push on Piston B, it pushes on the other side, pushing the saw back. No water ever leaves the system, but energy at one end is transmitted to the other end. That energy can be transmitted into the system by using a simple cam pushing the pistons back in forth with a circular cam driven by a simply water wheel. This is why AC power transmission works so well.
The AMP is outputting a sinusoidal waveform. The output of the AMP is still positive-negative-positive-n-p-n-p-n................... Again, slap the output onto an oscilloscope, watch, and learn. The only electrical circuits I know of that don't cross zero are very high speed ECL chips. Those move from -2.2V to -5.2v for digital circuits. The price you pay for this unique feature and the blazing speed, is a chip that will fail in less than 10 seconds if not actively cooled. Chips go faster if they don't have to reverse the flow of electrons, but just change the pressure (voltage) in one direction.
SO, please explain how your cable directional. If my explanation doesn't convince you, try making a little test board to put between your amp and your speaker. Just put a simple diode in line with the signal you believe to be directional. That will force your signal to be directional......
Oh, I don't recommend it, cause I don't know what a series of positive only electrical pulses will do to your speakers..... I suspect it will be nothing but bad......... But then, I'm only a degreed engineer from a podunk school like GaTech, who spent his entire career building electronics and if you ever heard me sing, I have a tin ear. As I used to tell my management, knowing is much better than thinking, but stop thinking, cause you're not qualified.
This thread is similar to most of the UFO conspiracy ones: people endlessly argue the topic but the most forget that it is not a topic of science because it deals with individual and often isolated experiences and may involve unique perception states. It is, again and again, paraphrasing Pass, the case of Sommeliers relying on Chemists.
Let’s, at least, agree that:
1) Hearing perception, as any other cognitive functions, is relevant. Case in point: I have a friend with a sort of superhuman audio perception (confirmed by tests) who prefers a certain level of emphasis in the midrange (including sibilance range) while I can’t tolerate it for more than a minute. I have a simple explanation why that might be the case: he hears much more in lowest and the highest range of the audio spectrum so it is only natural for him to emphasize the mids to normalize it. In short, if a cable sounds better even for a single person in their own system after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they spot a UFO and are not known to hallucinate) that alone ends the topic for me.
2) No audio-path component can be evaluated alone and should exclude the original sound source or space we listen to it (or headphones we use). Case in point, the same component may have a different impact on another component in different systems and may result in a "worse" or "same" or "better" experience for various listeners. One question, however, will remain: what is "worse", "same" or "better" unless it is A/B-ed with a wide range of live sounds in the same listening space (preferably including human speech too). If the majority of listeners hears no difference after changing a cable in the same system ad after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they never spot a UFO) that does not surprise me either.
I'll maintain that for those who purport to hear a difference when they reverse their speaker wire really ought to perform their own blind testing (of course with the assistance of a trusted friend).
This would be the best song to listen to in order to arrive at your conclusion.
geoffkait, if you think that photons have a hard time moving in cables, you'd be 100% right unless they are fiber optic cables :)
But electrons, it is an audiophile fact, can be trained to all go in a specific direction and only for a specific band of frequencies too (the imaginary audiophile skin effect).
... those who purport to hear a difference when they
reverse their speaker wire really ought to perform their own blind
testing (of course with the assistance of a trusted friend).
That's pretty silly. Those who have reversed their speaker wire are probably happy with the result - they have no need to test it for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy performing double-blind tests - go for it! Please post results here.
The notion to engage a "trusted friend" in the test is also ill-advised, because it can only taint the process. Plus, if you're going to rely on a friend for help, you'll need two. After all, you want this to be double-blind, correct? A much, much better approach is to employ an abx test and with the right equipment, no assistant is required.
I've long found it interesting that so many who clamor for others to conduct double-blind tests actually don't know how to properly conduct such a test.
......After all, you want this to be double-blind, correct? A much, much better approach is to employ an abx test and with the right equipment, no assistant is required. I’ve long found it interesting that so many who clamor for others to conduct double-blind tests actually don’t know how to properly conduct such a test.
@cleeds
Seems to me you’re skirting the issue. Regardless of the type of test or however conducted, the spirit in what I’m suggesting to those who purport to hear a difference is that *they* should take it upon themselves to validate what they believe, even if simply for their own confirmation. In other words, the only one that ultimately stands to benefit or gain an additional level of satisfaction would be the one making the claim that they can hear a difference, not the one who claims they cannot.
Just the opposite is the case! You've proposed a test that would produce invalid or unreliable results because it isn't double-blind.
Regardless of the type of test or
however conducted, the spirit in what I'm suggesting to those who
purport to hear a difference is that *they* should take it upon
themselves to validate what they believe
Double-blind testing is time-consuming and tedious. Audiophiles who are happy with their systems have no incentive to undertake such testing. It's great if you want to validate your beliefs and if you undertake such a test, please share the details with us.
I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest.
I know of no reports that can claim undisputed, unbiased, statistically significant accuracy. For that matter, I haven’t been able to find any publications that have accurately quantified the difference, in the distortion of audio frequency electrical signals, between Siltech Emperor Crown and zip-cord speaker cables.
I recall my university lectures, regarding "skin effect" and the findings of Lamb and Heaviside. I would proffer the notion that most of the self-professed "golden eared" audiophiles would have found these lectures most uncomfortable to endure. My professor for "EE-101" worked in the design department at Scott before he got the calling to teach. I recall his assessment of one willing to pay thousands of dollars for a piece of wire a few meters long was not particularly flattering.
raindance geoffkait, if you think that photons have a hard time moving in cables, you’d be 100% right unless they are fiber optic cables :)
>>>>>From what I can tell, the speed of photons (electromagnetic wave) is actually slower in fiber optic cable than it is in coax copper cable. Who woulda thunk it? 😳
lanceo I know of no reports that can claim undisputed, unbiased, statistically significant accuracy. For that matter, I haven’t been able to find any publications that have accurately quantified the difference, in the distortion of audio frequency electrical signals, between Siltech Emperor Crown and zip-cord speaker cables.
Just because you haven’t found any doesn’t mean they’re not out there. Maybe you need to refine your search terms. 😃 You can always use the reliable excuse, the dog ate my homework.
Having been the subject of The Amazing Randi’s Newsletter five times, sharing space with Uri Geller 🥄 once, and a bunch of ghost hunters 👻 and dowsers on others, and having been involved with negations with Randi’s Education Foundation for the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip, I think I can say without any risk of contradiction that I know a little bit more about the ups and downs of blind test $$$$ challenges than the average bear. 😛
Step 1-Try some different cables in YOUR system. The Cable Company has a lending library for at-home testing. Step 2- Buy cables you think enhance your listening pleasure.
You can trade or sell said cable at later date as your tastes and/or system changes.
Step 3- (Most important) Ignore anyone on-line or off-line posters or "experts"/"engineers" who want "Blind Testing" or "Scientific Measurements" to "prove" or disapprove the spending of any $$ on cables...or any other part of YOUR system.
Oh yeah...Step 4-Listen to music and stop worrying about truth, it's all reproduced music....Step 5-Attend concerts of all types in all sorts of venues...it helps to know what music sounds like...
As I suspected this test just ended up being held at a waffle house. The exact type of waffle being tested remains unknown, but the results of the waffling are certain
I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest.
Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to
be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological
limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate
themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified
as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and
answers equal one another.
@teo_audio, as you so deftly illustrated above, torturing syntax like Torquemada torturing an apostate doesn't result in "complex English". Nice dodge, but no cigar. Language can be used to communicate, or to obfuscate; I'll leave to readers to identify your usage for themselves.
I think it's clear that cables - whether speaker cables or interconnects - can indeed sound different. Cables can be, and are in some cases, designed as blunt force tone controls, altering the signal to an audible level during transmission. I don't, personally, find that to fulfill the basic purpose of a cable, that being to transfer the signal from component A to component B with as little change as possible. If it measures like a choke, it's a choke, not a cable. It is also possible, and certainly not unknown, for components (Naim anyone?) to have somewhat pathological input/output sections that are not stable over the *normal* ranges of R/L/C encountered in cables. But IMO we're talking about pathology here, not good engineering design.
And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests. None of the cables tested were of the 'pathological design' variety, or designed for a "specific sound" - they were a number of well constructed AQ cables (i.e. no batteries, no potted network boxes, no elevators, no...well, you get the idea).
And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests.
Thank you, @keithahughes
EDIT:
It also vanishes without a trace when dollars are involved.
gdhal"I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest."
I made it clear from the beginning that this challenge should be conducted in public and that includes the design, terms, conditions, methodology and location of the test. You then not only insisted on first conducting discussions privately via skype but you also sought to engage me in a private discussion as to the other terms of the test rendering whatever we would have decided to be dubious in value because it would have lacked input from the interested parties here which is who you initially engaged when first you proposed this challenge. You have also shown previously in this thread as has been pointed out by others that you do not know how to conduct a proper, reliable, repeatable test, or a double-blinded test at all meaning that it would have been impossible for me to satisfy your terms and conditions so I must say that I do not think you're challenge was ever intended to be taken seriously but rather was another effort to raise again the "it all sounds the same and if you believe otherwise you have to conduct a double-blinded test
the onus is on you to conduct that test" argument which is patent nonsense.
gdhal Someone said, “And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests.”
Thank you, @keithahughes
EDIT:
It also vanishes without a trace when dollars are involved.
>>>>Uh, hey, guys, the reason the differences don’t show up in blind tests is the same reason that Randi NEVER lost a Million Dollar bet. Ever. It’s the old double blind tests scam. Blind tests are generally too weird, too constraining, too much trouble, too much stress, especially when those involved aren’t used to them. Hel-loo! It certainly does not (rpt not) mean that sighted tests are any less reliable that blind tests, in any case. Or that there aren’t differences among the cables tested. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. Judge Judy. FWIW I get excellent results over the years with A/B/A tests, until a selection can be made, sometimes over the course of time. It depends on how obvious the differences are, as well as other factors. I have no idea why some people think tests are a slam dunk or easy to do right. Sighted tests AND blind tests are a pig in a poke. 🐖
Actually we (you and I) were doing fairly well in the very beginnings.
Only after I mentioned (privately) that my rationale for having to skype first is because seeing and hearing you lends additional credibility to the authenticity of your interest did things go awry. I went further to add that for all I know, and I’m not saying or implying you are, nevertheless it is a theoretical possibility, you could be a 14 year old school girl without the financial means and/or legal authority to enter into any agreement.
I’ll leave it for the court of public opinion to decide who means business, and speculate as to why you refuse to skype even after I posted my skype ID, and politely asked you to communicate.
gdhal"I’ll leave it for the court of public opinion to decide who means business" Of course you will leave it to the court of public opinion that is exactly why I insisted from the beginning that all discussions regarding your "challenge" be conducted publically in this forum where you first proposed your "challenge" and not in secret except for those matters that are truly appropriate and proper to keep confidential such as account numbers and like matters. Anytime you want to resurrect your "challenge" please feel free to offer it again in public and I will accept provided that it remain in public which is what I insisted on from the beginning for reasons which I stated and if you do that I hope you will first research how a proper double-blinded test must be conducted so that we don't have to waste time resolving that issue first because as others have pointed out it is clear you do not understand proper double-blinded test protocols and methodologies.
Of course you will leave it to the court of public opinion that is exactly why I insisted from the beginning that all discussions regarding your "challenge" be conducted publically in this forum where you first proposed your "challenge" and not in secret except for those matters that are truly appropriate and proper to keep confidential such as account numbers and like matters.
@clearthink
Of course my challenge was posted in public on this forum. How else would I obtain the proverbial "sucker born every minute"?
Because the challenge was made publicly doesn’t mean that once engaged any other matters are public.
It’s apparent you and I cannot agree on even the most basic elements of my challenge. Imagine if you and I attempted to formulate any details. Not sure you would ever undertake my challenge in my lifetime.
Have you actually confirmed this by conducting a double-blind test? If so, please tell us how you conducted the test. Or ... are you just speculating?
Cleeds, I’m using Belden 5T00UP. It’s been tried both ways/direction. There is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind. Unrelated to wire but related to blind testing, I have conducted a blind test where my DAC is concerned.
Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too.
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.
