Why!? Please Tell Me Why!

[GUTB]

I bet those use multiple bundles of conductors with large air dielectrics. Probably very nice sounding. 

[GUTB]

20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Ralf11 nailed it in the post above. 

 

No idea who you are quoting in the last sentence of the last paragraph or what the 99% is. 

 

High end audio is an area of developing knowledge and experimentation. Often times the engineering concepts are well known but the reason why some sound better than others isn’t fully understood. Other times manufacturers have to build their own measurement tools. 

 

Instead of willful ignorance, trying listening to gear and then try to figure out why it sounds the way that it does.

[GUTB]

@Albrecht seems like neurotypical guy. Why not listen for yourselves before committing yourselves to a belief system forever?

[GUTB]

Sub-atomic particles are observed to act as a particle and a wave. This doesn’t mean they are magic, it just means we haven’t observed them sufficiently to properly determine thier nature.

 

[GUTB]

Just now, mansr said:

Sure we have. They are both. It's a simple experiment, at least for photons.

 

They can’t be both.

[GUTB]

Everyone knows that burn-in of cables is a real effect. Why?

[GUTB]

Let’s keep this neurotypical. Everyone knows cable burn-in is real. Everyone has experienced this. Why?

[GUTB]

Everyone knows burn-in time for cables is needed. Anyone who has tested new cables know this by experiencing the phenomena. 

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Is everything ok, GUTB? You keep repeating this. Everything still neurotypical?

 

No, there’s massive deviation going on in this thread. Please stop denying reality.

[GUTB]

I thought directional control of signal cables had to do with the orientation of crystal boundaries formed during the drawing / annaeling process which manufacturers keep track of vs the direction wire comes off the factory spool.

 

There is definitely directional flow in conductors regardless of being AC or DC.

[GUTB]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

1st para. - sounds like you've listening to the ignorant posters on Audiogoon

 

2nd para. - No

 

1. Do you know differently?

 

2. Are electric currents instantaneous?

[GUTB]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

1. yes

2. no

 

some basic electricity knowledge can help you in this area

 

Electricity is faster than light?

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

are you drunk?

 

You deny electrical currents have a direction. Even a cursory Google search shows that isn't true. Why do feel like lying about this subject?

[GUTB]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

gummy - at least improve your reading skills

 

Later, if you work very, very hard then you can have this:

 

 

 

Please let’s stay neurotypical. I stated signals (electrical currents) have a direction. You replied "no". I wondered if you thought electricity was faster than light (instantaneous) and after realizing you said something obviously untrue — apparently for no other reason than to disagree with me — you won’t acknowledge it. 

[GUTB]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the dialectical dielectrics !

 

Gummy - I said nothing incorrect - feel free to quote it if you think so

 

now, as to "orientation of crystal boundaries formed during the drawing / [annealing] process"...  I checked with a materials scientist (who informed me we are not allowed to call them metallurgists anymore) about this some time ago - there is a small effect that has been measured but it is of no interest for electrical transmission purposes

 

also, let's not confuse the speed of electricity thru any medium with the translational movement of electrons themselves

 

 Below is something that is taught in Sophomore physics classes - they are only 19...

 

You said "no". 

 

I used used to think electrons just sort of vibrated or hovered in place — in fact they do move (slowly). I’m not trained in these topics, I’m just a neurotypical guy posting on the Internet.

 

A signal is a flow of electricity. There is a direction. Energy jumping across conductor crystal boundaries effects the electrical properties of the conductor. That’s not at all controversial.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

What you are posting doesn’t make sense yet time and time again you post claiming that what you believe is considered “basic” or “well accepted” . 

 

Not sure what the repeated claims of “neurotypical”ity are about?

 

 

Here’s your problem : a signal is not just “a flow of electricity” 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal

 

Albeit the transmission of a signal may involve electrical current, there is no defined/fixed relationship between the direction of signal transmission and the direction of current flow.

 

What you are saying indeed is not controversial — it’s just plain wrong.

 

Now diodes affect current flow on a directional basis. It is trivial to construct a circuit which consists of diodes in parallel/series with resistors/capacitors and inductors. It is straightforward to measure the effects on electrical signals. Similarly if you have a cable which you claim to have these properties, you can demonstrate that the cable has similar effects on the same signals. Short of that you are repeating pseudo scientific sounding hogwash 

 

 

 

Neurotypical means the ability to communicate using context and cultural cues to allow generalizations to convey meaningful information. Pedantry is not neurotypical, unless used as a rhetorical device.

 

A neurotypical reading of "signal" would be "analogue audio signal over a wire" in this context. An audio signal is a flow of electricity. You’ve probably chosen to be deliberately obtuse over voltage transmission for the purpose of disagreeing with me.

[GUTB]

This thread is a good example of “truth by popularity”. Everyone knows that audio signals are directional. The source generates the signals and something receives them. Speakers are a load on the amp. It’s easily understood and no one seriously debates any of that. The debate isn’t with the facts, it’s with me because it’s a social requirement for me to be defeated. I could say the sky is blue and extreme pedantry would be deployed to argue with me. Truth by popularity is why I don’t engage at length because it’s pointless, unless called out by my fans (I have a duty to my fans).

 

 

[GUTB]

Speakers, speaker cables and the amp form an interactive impedence network that is more sophisticated than the simplistic view of speakers putting a load on the amp in a unidirectional fashion. BUT in the neurotypical conversational-generalized sense, the statement that speakers are a load on amps is still true, and everyone knows it.

 

The same thing applies to the direction of audio signals down an interconnect cable. The signal flows from the source to a receiver down a cable. The mechanics of energy transmission, potential change, wave propagation, etc, are more complex than that — HOWEVER it remains completely true that audio signals flow in a direction. A source has an amplification circuit that drives a signal across an interconnect cable.

[GUTB]

3 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

From a flow diagram this is completely correct. DC power, AC power and signals all flow from source to load.  However this description won't fit into Maxwell's Field/Network Theory or Ohm's/Kirchhoff's Circuit Theory's. So if we are going to discuss how an interconnect system works rather than what it accomplishes, we need to use one of those two theories and Circuit Theory is a lot more convent to this type of discussion.

 

I'm willing to discuss theory, its just that conspiracy theories about manufacturers and press fooling audiophiles are hard to tackle.