Neutral electronics are a farce...

Thanks for the responses, Ralph & Geoff. I read through Mr. Louis’ introduction to the polarity list. He makes clear that all of the entries in the list have been determined by him, simply by listening and "discerning polarity by deciding which polarity sounds more like live music." The only recordings he appears to recognize as being comprised of a mix of sounds encompassing both polarities are Phil Spector’s wall of sound recordings. Given those facts, as well as the incident Ralph cited, I would have to agree with Ralph that the list should not be taken seriously.

Also, in the case of preamps which provide polarity switches, and accomplish polarity reversal in the analog domain, I wonder if in many cases those who report major sonic differences when changing the setting of that switch are actually hearing differences in the sonics of the preamp itself, resulting from the change in circuit configuration that occurs when the setting of the switch is changed. At least, that is, in the case of preamps having unbalanced internal signal paths, where accomplishing the polarity reversal might involve switching an active stage into or out of the signal path, or some other circuit change that might have audible consequences. (That concern would presumably not apply to balanced designs such as Ralph’s preamps, where the reversal can be accomplished simply by interchanging the inverted and non-inverted signals at some point in the balanced signal path).

Geoffkait 03-03-2016 4:47pm
The reason I brought this up on this particular thread is because you had just asked what the speed of sound had to do with the price of spinach. Which was actually the question I asked last week on another thread and which Roger answered. The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier.

Hopefully Roger will provide further clarification, as a claim that "the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier" (that being Geoff’s restatement of Roger’s position), or to use some of Roger’s words earlier in the thread, "emulating the properties of air" and "addressing the delivery speed" are statements that have no meaning as far as I am concerned.

Regards,
-- Al

I should also point out that George’s criterion for determining which is better N or R for a given recording is that it’s one that sounds more like "live" music must be N. Roger’s criterion is the same, I.e., "live" music, for what his amp sounds like compared to amplifier X. In fact audiophiles generally speaking are fond of using the SAME CRITERION for what the home playback system should sound like or at least strive for - "live" music. Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George's list.  Can you point to any recordings on George's list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa?

geoffkait,
 

The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier. With inverted polarity, with the trumpet being sucked instead of blown it’s almost like the Acoustic Waves of the musician’s breath and coming from the trumpet are traveling backwards. So forget about keeping the velocity of sound in air consistent (Roger’s term is Mach 1) between the recording venue and the listening room. Obviously there are other potential issues but if 80 or 90 percent of audiophile type recordings are in fact R then that would be big news. And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity.

How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?
I know this is a hard concept because it is giving most audiophiles a tough time wrapping their heads around it.

I can assure you that even if you play the "venue" in the reverse absolute phase - you can still tell that the location of objects is secure. Obviously switching to the [plus] phase will make it sound much better as it could be perceived as live. As far as the sucking of air [into] the sax, at least with a stable velocity its "sucking point" in space would remain still. Not the case when velocity is left unchecked. In fact you will have a much harder time telling the correct phase with a system that allows velocity deviation.

There is no bad news here - just a bad understanding.

Roger

Roger wrote,

"How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?"

Actually, it doesn't dismiss your claim about a stable velocity.  Score one for Roger.

Cheers

Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George’s list.

As I alluded to in my post of 4:27 p.m., I believe that for the majority of recordings there is no polarity that is "correct," although one polarity may in some of those cases sound "better" to some listeners with some systems than the other polarity. I also believe that in the case of the relatively few recordings that have been mic’d and mastered with purist techniques (just two or three microphones and minimal post-processing), that there can be a polarity that is correct, and a polarity that is incorrect.

Can you point to any recordings on George’s list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa?

Just one of the preamps I’ve had over the years included a polarity switch, and I did not do a great deal of experimenting with it.

Regards,
-- Al