Directionality Explained

andy2
Also I don’t buy the fact that the "resistance" is lower in one direction vs. the other as said here by Mr. Kaitt.

For example, each spool of wire consists of many many meters of wire. If the wire always measure less resistance in one direction, then by the time you measure from the beginning to the end of the spool, the resistance may go smaller and smaller into "negative". So this can’t explain it either.

>>>>My nomination for the most absurd explanation for why directionality cannot be real. Are you posting while high? You little dickens come up with the most ridiculous reasons why something isn’t possible. Perhaps you’d be better off coming up with reasons why it is possible. 

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but haven’t you skeptics jumped to conclusions? You know, you’re suppose to test BEFORE 🔙 drawing conclusions, not AFTER 🔜. Hel-loo! All this chitter chatter about blind tests or any kind of tests for that matter is just talk. And talk is cheap. Do your own tests and report back. We’ll see who gets what results and tally them up. Gee, it’s almost like you guys never heard of the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis and test to see if your hypothesis is true or not. It’s not complicated. Come on, guys. Get it together.

- Your friend and humble testing guru.

If the impact on frequency response is <0.1db there is little(no) evidence we can detect a difference and even more variance at the upper end of the spectrum to detect a difference. Now try to find a cable not inherently directional, i.e. with circuitry that has 0.1db difference in the audio spectrum by changing direction. Feel free to use square waves for tests with bandwidth limiting and real speakers for transmission line effects.

The next question to ask is what constitute a "good cable"? Who gets to decide? There is a flaw in this logic.

heaudio123
If the impact on frequency response is <0.1db there is little(no) evidence we can detect a difference and even more variance at the upper end of the spectrum to detect a difference.

>>>>Well, no evidence that you’ve provided. That’s for sure. I’m getting the idea you just like running your mouth.

”I’ve looked everywhere but I can’t find any evidence to support their claims.” - Whine of the lifetime pseudo skeptic.

geoffkait 22,183 posts Who likes running their mouth? 22,183 posts. Sorry, though, my fault, when I write number like 0.1db, I am communicating numbers that are well known by those "skilled in the art". geoffkait 22,183 posts. This is a very well known number for volume matching when doing human perception testing in audio as it is known to eliminate volume biasing in testing. geoffkait 22,183 posts. Some researchers would prefer to use 0.05db to ensure more tolerance between identified just noticeable differences and what is used in the test. geoffkait 22,183 posts

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?elib=5163

That 0.1db is with noise spectra where we have much higher sensitivity to differences. With actual music, it is much harder to detect volume differences. Those numbers are for rapid switching too. With longer differences in switching time, small differences in volume are harder to detect.