Interconnect Directionality

roberttcan
I spent some time yesterday trying to find any credible evidence that the EM wave flows back and as it moves from the source to the load at near the speed of light, (in a vacuum). I found nothing. And I mean nothing at all that supported your claim. Not even the slightest mention.

>>>>>Wikipedia to the rescue! How often we see this type of statement by a skeptic - “I could find nothing at all that supported your claim.” That’s gold, Jerry, gold! 🤗 But you’d be sure and tell us if you did, right? Wink, wink!

Great,

As you know "some person" who is an expert, why not get them to sign up to this forum, under their own name (so we can verify the claim you are making and his background), AND then, since they appear to be an expert in the field, they should be able to easily formulate and put numbers around, at least ball-park figures for how transmission line effects and other effects related to conduction would impact the audio signal.

I would be happy if they just did the latter and someone else posted it ... formulate and post some order of magnitude numbers, about the potential impact to the audio signal. It sounds like that would be very easy for them?

You make some pretty substantial claims for your cables here: http://www.teoaudio.com/technical/ so I would assume you can quantify them w.r.t. audio? I do notice a claim of GHz bandwidth, but lots of cables have GHz bandwidths and more (obviously at a given source/load impedance).

Interesting use of the term ionic "plasma", it certainly does not fit the normal definition of plasma. If you had said Fermi gas, I think that would be more supportable by standard definitions. This article / marketing seems to be based around Landau-Fermi liquid theories for conduction so at least a link to Fermi gas would apply.





teo_audio1,153 posts10-24-2019 10:51am

THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS .... you know, the ones that make 100GHz cables, that ones that put gigabits through twisted pairs, the ones that developed the HDMI standard, the people who make measurements systems, all the ones where real bits, real SNR, real waveform shape = money, the ones whose customers have sophisticated test and measurement equipment, etc. etc. would never ever claim, except where a directional shield is concerned, or there is an intentional passive element built a cable, that, within the framework of audio, that directionality of an interconnect has any detectable difference in the sound.

" as to that, I know a person who took their physics degree in transmission lines and the like. Basically their masters in the physics of conduction.

they ended up, in part of their resume, running a coast to coast telecommunications system as the head engineer.

And when it comes to audio and the signals involved and what is done in audio, this person quickly came to understand that people connected to and invested in things like the above quote...really don’t know the difference between their backside and a hole in the ground."

The trouble I have with blind tests or any tests really is their inherent fallibility. So many things can go wrong. If the results are negative it could very well be for any of the following reasons. This is not intended to be a complete list.

The system has one or more errors in it.
The system is not revealing enough.
The subject is not capable of hearing the difference.
The test software is out of polarity or just plain not good enough to reveal differences.
Cabling and or electronics are either brand new or not broken in or not earned up properly.
Weather issues mask the audible differences.
Tests can be easily rigged to produce negative results.

On the other hand, if results of a test are positive, I might be more inclined to think something might be going on since positive results were obtained IN SPITE of all the pitfalls. But, generally to be convincing tests should be repeatable and transferable. One test has very little significance especially if the results are negative. If no tests are done at all then someone making bold claims that controlled blind tests will prove such as such is just plain absurd. 

- I am willing to test on any system you wish to configure. Based on this assumption every person who makes a claim has errors in their system
- I am willing to test on any system you wish to configure, hence if it is not revealing enough, that falls on you. 

However, since you are making the claim (as have others), then their systems would make the most sense to test on, and/or a manufacturers system who is also making the claim.

- The subject is not capable of hearing the difference: .. since it is the subjects ability to hear the difference claimed that is being rejected, I would say that is often a moot point. In the context of general testing, you normally do larger sample sizes and most who would participate in these define themselves as audiophiles.

- Cabling and or electronics are either brand new or not broken in or not earned up properly.  See point one. You (or the vendor) has complete flexibility in the system used.

- Test s/w is out of polarity or not good enough to reveal the differences. This speaks back to my point about the person making the claim to hearing differences being the ones who is being challenged. They have already made that claim on a range of S/W, so do the test with the same S/W.

- Weather issues mask the audible differences. If weather issues mask the audible differences, then how can you be sure you even heard a difference due to the component change in the first place and not due to a weather change. However, since this is a somewhat quick A/B test, both scenarios experience the same weather. We could also assume indoor and somewhat climate controlled.




geoffkait17,697 posts10-24-2019 12:15pm"The trouble I have with blind tests or any tests really is their inherent fallibility. So many things can go wrong. If the results are negative it could very well be for any of the following reasons, which is not intended to be a complete list.

The system has one or more errors in it. 
The system is not revealing enough.
The subject is not capable of hearing the difference.
The test software is out of polarity or just plain not good enough to reveal differences.
Cabling and or electronics are either brand new or not broken in or not earned up properly.
Weather issues mask the audible differences.

On the other hand, if results of a test are positive, I might be more inclined to think something might be going on since positive results were obtained IN SPITE of all the pitfalls. But, generally to be convincing tests should be repeatable and transferable. One test has very little significance especially if the results are negative."

geoffkait, you have again advanced the henny penny argument that "the sky is falling".  That all the small chances of something not being correct in the double blind test outweigh the much larger chance that nothing will go wrong.  In order for all the things to happen that you say could go wrong there is the unwritten inference that one of the test sponsors has something to gain from a certain choice and will sabotage the test to achieve his advantage.