Directionality Explained

Most degreed engineers I know that work in electronics, are electrical engineers, and refer to themselves as electrical engineers or electrical and electronics engineers. Degreed electrical/electronics engineers would also be well aware of transmission line effects in cables, and most with any experience would be quite aware of bulk circuit effects which would occur in anything that is not symmetrical in nature. They could probably even come up with a few more reasons for directionality. I can’t help but question your "engineering" qualifications based on your statement.

A degreed and working engineer, work not consider the article you link to be an explanation or proof at all. They would just view it as marketing blurb.


Of course, a degreed electrical/electronics engineer with any experience would be able to quantify, at least to an order or two in magnitude, the effects of these directional properties of cables at audio frequencies, at which point they would conclude directional effects, which are a given in virtual anything not perfectly symmetrical that carries current, would not be remotely audible, and hence are not truly "directional" in an audio sense.

As an electronic engineer, I struggled years ago with the idea of wire being directional because it did not fit into any of the electrical models I had learned. It simply did not make sense to me that an alternating music signal should favor a direction in a conductor.

heaudio123
Most degreed engineers I know that work in electronics, are electrical engineers, and refer to themselves as electrical engineers or electrical and electronics engineers. Degreed electrical/electronics engineers would also be well aware of transmission line effects in cables, and most with any experience would be quite aware of bulk circuit effects which would occur in anything that is not symmetrical in nature. They could probably even come up with a few more reasons for directionality. I can’t help but question your "engineering" qualifications based on your statement.

A degreed and working engineer, work (sic) not consider the article you link to be an explanation or proof at all. They would just view it as marketing blurb.

>>>>You know some degreed engineers who work in electronics? Lots of laughs! Give us a break! That is the perfect example of a logical fallacy - Appeal to Authority, favored by pseudo skeptics the world over who try to win technical arguments by quoting an engineer “buddy“ or famous expert. You might as well quote Einstein or Maxwell or Toole. Better luck next time! But kudos on your writing skills. An English major, one presumes, yes? 😀

Appeal to Authority
“When writers or speakers use Appeal to Authority they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."“

geoffkait, when someone is blinded by a dogmatic need to behave in a certain way, then will often read into a situation what they want to read or and unfortunately that interferes with their comprehension and objectivity. 


I didn't use a call to authority. I pointed out the skill set that would be expected of a degreed working electrical engineer. Pointing out a skill set is not a call to authority. Next I pointed out that a person with those qualifications would a) not make certain statements, b) have the skills to analyze a certain situation and c) not consider marketing fluff proof or evidence.  Someone who is not being dogmatic would understand that is not a call to authority.

I think it was an appeal to marketing fluff. "I'm an EE and I used to not believe stuff then I got this idea to sell stuff and now I hear stuff and my stuff is better because of stuff."