Can cables be directional?

Please your Self.

quote:

---

Does anybody on the forum actually have any experience of any of the products he designed, which I believe are mainly self-build projects published in Wireless World and elsewhere? If so do the results support the rhetoric?

---

Yes they do, in as much as the amplifiers produce very low-distortion into a non-reactive dummy load.

They also sounded shite when plugged into a pair of speakers...

I built a pair of the 'blameless' amps that appeared in the EW+WW articles, and some of his advice is sensible and down to earth good engineering.

In other cases though it's a bit of a wood-for-trees thing, improvements made to the linearity of parts of the amp have a sonically degrading effect when the amp is called upon to drive real-world loads, owing to other performance parameters degrading in direct response to the 'improvement'. Fundamental factors inherent to good sounding class AB amps were not dealt with in his design.

Class B / AB amplifier design is really much harder than many give credit for - if you wish to design a good-sounding amp, without some serious learning, start with class A, single ended and low power. Then work up from there.

I believe Doug currently works for TAG McLaren - that may tell you all you need to know about his designs

Andy.

P.S. You only have to read his section on op-amps to realise he knows diddly-squat about their sonic performance - differences between different, but almost identically specced op-amps are obvious to my ears, but not to my test gear.

Quote:

"if this were the explanation it would be measurable"

This reads, to my eyes, equivalent to :

"I we cannot measure it then it cannot exist"



This is really the root of the problem.....misplaced absolute confidence that there is no more progress to be made in our ability to understand, let alone measure,new phenomena

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on FRIDAY 24 January 2003 at 07:16.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin Payne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arye_Gur:
About less than 100 years back, the theory that you can divide an electron to 3 subparts.

---

Arye,

I'm guessing this is down to your translation, but the Electron is (apparently) an "elementary" particle, and cannot be sub-divided.

I think you mean that an atom can be divided into three components - electrons, protons & neutrons.

cheers, Martin

---

I'm sorry, maybe you are right and this is my mistake (a short in my memory, not a tranlation problem ). Anyhow, there was a great argue about this point and the physician who thought about the idea, was ignored by the scientific group and couldn't publish his theory but in little and unfamiliar magazines.

I'll try to look after the exeact details.

Arye

Arye,

thinking about it, you could also mean the proton or neutron, which are composed of three quarks.

cheers, Martin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin Payne:

...thinking about it, you could also mean the proton or neutron, which are composed of three quarks.

---

so far...


regards,

michael

"so far..."


Michael,

I don't think there is much evidence that this view is wrong, but the quarks themselves may not be elementary.

cheers, Martin

quote:

---

"if this were the explanation it would be measurable"

This reads, to my eyes, equivalent to :

"I we cannot measure it then it cannot exist"

---

Your eyes are distorted.

It means exactly what it says. If cable directionality were caused by rectification effects then it would be measurable. It would be measurable with a sine wave and a distortion analyser. Therefore cable directionality isn't caused by this effect.

quote:

---

This is really the root of the problem.....misplaced absolute confidence that there is no more progress to be made in our ability to understand, let alone measure,new phenomena

---

You are deploying a straw man.

The root of the problem is that effects are claimed and physical causes mooted, and all before the audibility of the effect is established.

Most claims of audiophile ephemera are less credible than claims of alien abduction, because they are provable but their advocates choose not to prove them.

It's a very simple point, whether effects are measurable or explicable doesn't matter. Methodologies exist to determine whether they are audible. Prove audibility and then you can challenge 'science' to explain, but not before.

Laurie claims to be some sort of physicist, but he seems happy to exist in the realm of pseudo-science.

Paul

Paul....now, now....I seemed to have touched a nerve. I just wish I shared your certainty... life would really be much simpler then.


Laurie S

Yesterday there was a program about the Hubbell Telescope in the first channel of the Israeli TV.

The people from Nasa described that with the Hubbell they saw for the first time galaxies that are 13 billion light years away from us and they can see the universe there as it was only 1 billion years old. They named it the Hubbell Deep Space.

What was interesting and I think has a link to our thread here, is the fact that because of this new discovery, the Astronomies are sure now that the universe expanding speed is accelerates to a higher and higher speed. Until now, they were sure that because of the Gravity, this expanding speed will slow to a point in which the universe will collapse.

Now, when they see that it is not going to happen, the meaning is that they know nothing about Gravity – and further more, there is a force in the universe that opposes
Gravity but they know nothing about it and they even can’t guess what it is.

Arye

quote:

---

I seemed to have touched a nerve. I just wish I shared your certainty... life would really be much simpler then.

---

You haven't touched a nerve, it would appear the reverse. You are the one displaying 'certainty' and living the simple life.

And you persist with your straw men. It's a little irritating.

Paul

Arye,

I don't understand your point at all.

Science applies theories to phenomena. In the case of audio cable directionality the phenomena are that people report differences, not that differences exist. It is equivalent to the phenomenon of alien-abduction.

And there's a simple solution. Prove you can hear rather than see cable directionality.

(I've heard it, have you? My jaw didn't drop, my stereo image didn't collapse, the bass didn't vanish or boom. I'm sceptical it actually exists. I'd like it proven.)

Paul

quote:

---

I don't understand your point at all.

---

Paul,

I don't think a point was made to begin with.

Thomas

Paul...just would constitute proof for you?...as I have said on numerous occaisons, I have conducted rigorous blind tests in my own home. Sufficiently, such that I am reasonably well convinced that there there are significant differences wrought by reversing cable direction.

Contrary to your suggestions, I regard myself as having a healthy dose of scepticism, and would agree that there is a large "bullshit factor" in many so called tweaks...I rely on tests.

The fact that you may not have heard these effects when you tried it does not diminish the validity of my findings,to me.You seem to suggest that you cannot find any theoretical basis to suport my findings; I report on the effects with Naim equipment. You are not using any Naim equipment, I believe. Perhaps your kit does not respond to these changes in the same way...certainly I have read that (recent) Linn kit claims virtual immunity from mains supply artefacts. Naim equipment most certainly does not have this immuninity. Considering that this is the Naim forum, and my comments are aimed primarily at users of Naim, I feel that my own experience might well be relevant to a large number of people.

Clearly you ARE irritated ...by my "straw man"(?)

Does that explain why, when I paraphrased your earlier comment:"if it exists then we should be able to measure it" with the logical corrollary " if we cannot measure it then it does not exist" you opted for some sort of cheap jibe about my eyes, which I will admit, ARE distorted...(that is why I wear spectacles.and probably explains my numerous typing errors).. rather than tackle the substantive point I was making.

I assure you that my brain, and ears, though, are in perfect working order

In addition, you dig out my personal details from my profile, and throw in another cheap jibe about my "expertise". My qualifications, such as they matter, are real enough. (you choose not to disclose your own details)

For what it is worth, I feel that these sort of comments are not worthy of you....we can all make serious points without getting personal

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on SUNDAY 26 January 2003 at 16:15.]

quote:

---

The fact that you may not have heard these effects when you tried it does not diminish the validity of my findings,to me.

---

I said I had heard it.

quote:

---

You seem to suggest that you cannot find any theoretical basis to suport my findings

---

I suggested that the 'rectification' theory was unlikely because it would generate an easily measurable effect.

quote:

---

I report on the effects with Naim equipment. You are not using any Naim equipment, I believe.

---

I've done cable directionality listening tests with Naim equipment.

quote:

---

Perhaps your kit does not respond to these changes in the same way...

---

You are suggesting that cable directionality varies with the kit? It's possible but rather too convenient.

quote:

---

Does that explain why, when I paraphrased your earlier comment:"if it exists then we should be able to measure it" with the logical corrollary " if we cannot measure it then it does not exist"

---

That comment was directly related to the rectification between crystal boundary suggestion. As I've said more than once.

FWIW your second statement isn't a 'logical corrollary' (is there any other sort?) of the first.

quote:

---

you opted for some sort of cheap jibe about my eyes, which I will admit, ARE distorted.

---

You repeatedly appear not to read clearly. See above.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
You are suggesting that cable directionality varies with the kit? It's possible but rather too convenient.
Paul

---

Could whatever underlying difference that apparently causes the difference not be operating as a moderator variable? I've no sense either way, and far too lazy to move all my gear around to check, but your comment about it being 'too convenient' made me wonder if interaction effects are rare in electronics.

Personally I have an open mind to anything but I do have a trained pair of ears (I am a musician) and only ever believe what I hear. I am not at all technical and couldn't care less what measurements are achieved. I use only my ears to assess and if I can't hear a difference albeit better or worse then there IS no difference, at least not in the system I am listening to at that time. One thing is for sure that when assessing any modifications then a system MUST be fully warmed up and anything else that is new in the system MUST be run in, perhaps even more important is that YOU are really familiar with your sound and are really relaxed and not under any strain or influences (especially alcohol) when you sit down to do comparisons. Common sense really but I have known folk do tests when drinking and then wonder why their system was worse the next time they sat down with it. It is also necessary that you use several discs to assess and preferably ones you are really familiar with as this does without any getting used to aspects and any fine detail is easily picked up on.

Good point, Wiltshireman.
I think the mood I'm in has a larger effect than most any other "change" to my system.
If you're not receptive to the music, it can't inspire you.
Tough to get this out of the equation when doing subjective side-by-side comparisons.
David

Paul Ranson,

I don't know about cables directional sensitivity and had never tried it. For me it is obvious to follow the manufacturer’s instructions.
I tried to say that if people are saying that they hear a difference, I don’t think that the knowledge about AC current is a proof that they are wrong.
There may be something unknown that causes the phenomenon.
I told here few weeks ago that a famous professor of physics of the University of Tel Aviv lectured that in listening to music we involve many parts of our ears and our brain that nobody knows how they work.
He told me that to his opinion it seems to be logical that stereo manufacturers will claim to differences of sound quality without having the possibility to explain why.

Arye

"I have conducted rigorous blind tests in my own home. Sufficiently, such that I am reasonably well convinced that there there are significant differences wrought by reversing cable direction."

The main problem would be to divise a test regime rigorous enough that the only variable was the the direction of the cable. Otherwise how would we know that the differences are (for example) not caused by cleaning of the connectors or the plug/socket combination being a better fit one way around or another?

This degree of rigour, along with a ABX test is this one that I would like to see.

BTW All my cables are all the 'correct' way around.

Martin M....why bother.....just fit them in the way that gives the sound you prefer...unless you are planning starting a cable business

laurie S

Laurie Saunders said "....why bother.....just fit them in the way that gives the sound you prefer"

Presumably to answer the question posed in the thread title?

But Martin M does make a point often made by the Subjectivist camp -- namely that there are elements of audio which are too complex/subtle to capture by traditional means, or else are easily destroyed by minor differences in the equipment used, and so can legitmiately exist but not show up in an ABX test.

This sort of reasoning is what Carl Sagan refered to as the dragon in my garage (See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/ref=ase_internetinfidelsA/103-4815573-9483812) where someone claims that there is a dragon in his garage and then, when the garage appears to be empty, invents various reasons why the dragon cannot be detected by any experiment you might devise (e.g. its invisible, etc). Of course the dragon might be there and the dragon believer is just relying on the fact that you can't prove a negative, but most poeple would weigh the balance of probabilities and make a working assumption that the dragon does not exist.

The other thing to remember is that science does have theories that explain why controversial effects like cable directionality may not be reproducable in a proper scientific sense. The obvious examples are that the observers are delusional, experimenter suggestion, hearing what you want to hear, etc. There is no reason why science's failure to idenitify these effects means the effects must exist and be explained by somethign unknown to science.

In other words, given a relatively controversial claim like cable directionality implies effects exist that are caused by factors completely unknown to science despite this being in a area which Science generally has a good understanding you might be forgiven for saying that despite anecdotal evidence cable directionality is not shown in ABX testing and so the anecdotal evidence is probably more likely explained by psychological factors relating to the observer rather than real effects.

Of course the ABX testing could prove that the effects exist and then everyone is happy and we can all go and thumb our noses at Doug Self.

Matthew

"But Martin M does make a point often made by the Subjectivist camp -- namely that there are elements of audio which are too complex/subtle to capture by traditional means, or else are easily destroyed by minor differences in the equipment used, and so can legitmiately exist but not show up in an ABX test."

Crikey, did I? :-). All I thought I was saying, is that by physically reversing a cable's direction in the types of tests outlined so far, you are in fact doing far more than just changing it's direction. Things like quality of contact in the plug and socket, and the physical relationship of the cables to each other and the ground upon they sit on are all changed too, and these can affect the quality of signal transmission. So to sight this type of test as showing that cable directionality does exist and that this disproves the rather simple models of electrical transmission being used here (no mention of insulator or dielectic directionality for example)is potentially misleading in my view.

Matthew,

I think that one of the greatest question is what are you measuring. It is a possibility that you don't know what to measure and that's why what you (science) do measure doesn't give you the all objective results.

I don't like the example of the dragon because there is one person who claims for something, there are many persons that are claiming that cables are directional sensitive. I guess that it is quite easy to test this argument with a group of people in a scientific way and to find if it is true or not by a statistical measurements.

Another interesting point I read is a thought that while listening to music a person activates in his brain a part that deals with art. While you put this person in a test - the mathematical part of the brain starts to act as it is a test. Therefore it may be that under a test people have different experiments than when they are listening alone.

Arye

Ross,

I went through changes with my attitude to stereo outcome. Originally I thought that there is no connection between quality of sound and measurements and I was sure that you couldn’t measure everything. I don’t know if you remember – but you also told me that you read an interview with the chief engineer of Exposure and he said that they build everything by simple electronics rules and nothing is unacceptable.
Engineers in the Israeli forum told me time after time that everything you hear must be measurable and if it is not – go for a psychological treatment. So I started to believe it is so (Naim – don’t be afraid, I didn't think of replacing Naim with Lenco).
I thoghtthat maybe the engineers in the forums don’t have the knowledge that the Hi FI engineers have.

Then I listened to the lecture of professor Kazir, and I was shocked. Standing on the cathedra of physics he said loud and clear that there are things we hear and none can measure and there are things we can measure but the different measures outcome have no influence to the way we hear music.

To me, it is the highest educated person (a professor of physics of the University of Tel Aviv and a famous one) who officially says this.

Arye

To those convinced that cable directionality is easy to hear; why not scrub off the printed arrows on your NACA5 (not difficult), pile the cables in a heap in the middle of the floor, then connect them up by ear. If you are a scaredy cat you could mark one end inside the plug cover.
Most of my lengths of NACA5 lost their printing years ago and I don't believe it matters which way they are initially connected BUT after some use there is a change if they are reversed. I believe it is to do with static affecting the dilectric, and can easily see how this could affect the sound.

malcolm