directional cables?

NsGarch and Simply_Q, I see that you have run into Herman's 'this is beyond your comprehension' explanation. Of course Herman is still working on the math that he told me to do, which, actually, does prove that there is no directionality for AC carrying cables. Perhaps the math is beyond Herman's comprehension also.

Salut, Bob P.

Jea48, I know the story behind the Kimber Cable you mentioned. There was a screw up during manufacture of that cable and they went with it due to expense. When other companies had an error like that they blew the cables out through their dealers or Audio Advisors. Kimber elected not to do that.

I am very familiar with Audioquest products and orientation of their cables. Bill Low always had direction clearly marked for their cables, but....they always said try it the other way and see if you like it better. In that respect it was a matter of personal taste of the user not whether or not the cable had a specified or recommended direction built into the cable by the manufacturer.

I personally tried Audioquest interconnects reversed on many occasions and I preferred the direction recommended by Audioquest everytime. When discussing this topic with Bill he always said the marked direction is the right direction.

I believe there is an industry standard for cable direction although there is an exception to every rule and an ocassional fluke as in the case of the Kimber interconnect.

Nsgarch, Whether an interconnect is shielded or not once the cable is installed in a system the cable will break-in to the direction in which it is installed. If there is no way of distinguishing a direction you may find yourself breaking in cables everytime they are disconnected and wondering why your system isn't sounding right.

I also took the liberty of contacting several cable manufacturers and the response was the same from each manufacturer. They all stated if there is an arrow the cable should be installed with the arrow followinging the direction of the signal and most agreed it is an industry standard.

Hi Bob, sorry, I forget what we were discussing?

I never said that to simply Q, I pointed out an error in his statement about current not being the flow of charges.

Mr Garch made several statements that are fundamentally wrong including "DC can't travel as far as AC" and "there is no energy transfer unless work is done."

When I pointed out that he was wrong he insisted I was "nitpicking." This is physics. These things adhere to the laws of nature. When someone's reponse to being corrected is to brush it aside as being unimportant in the first place then the logical conclusion is they don't know what they are talking about.

Just like Rrog. Several people here have given concrete examples to the various implementations of arrows (including the aformentioned informative post from Mr Garch about his experiences in the early 80's) yet Rrog continues to insist that all arrows mean the same thing.

While looking for our last exchange I came across a thread where you were discussing high current amps and if I had seen that earlier i would never have responded to Garch. In it he makes even more outlandish staements than he did in this thread and you and others tried in vain to make him understand. When he said

1. Watts are a product of volts times current.
2. So 200 watts could equal (A) 1V x 200A or (B) 200V x 1A
3. When impedance (ohms) drops, and the speaker wants lots of watts, you could give it A or B, but an electrostat would prefer A because it's a current hungry device, not a voltage hungry device like a cone driver which prefers B.
4. Tube amps (generally speaking) have more amps in each watt while SS amps have more volts in each watt,
5. Ergo, a 35 watt tube amp may be capable of delivering the same amount of CURRENT as a 200 watt SS amp.

So if it's current you're after, a good tube amp will do it -- if it's voltage you need, you'd be happier with the SS amp.
,

you should have realized he did not grasp the fundamentals and given up on him like I have now. Statements 3-5 as well as the conclusion are so fundamentally flawed they would appear to be indefensible yet he defended them to the end. What's really sad is somebody with even less knowledge thanked him for his misinformation.

Let's face it. Some people no matter they are confronted by facts to the contrary are incaple of admitting they are wrong.

.