The following is an excerpt from Clark Johnsen's article in
Postive
Feedback Issue 1 called Yes,
Polarity is Absolute? But Only Your Ears Know For Sure!. I
have made
changes to text where I feel his position is not clear by using the
wrong
term (at the wrong time) and have removed text using the HTML strike
feature. Added text is highlighted
in orange.
The Comments are added by myself. The excerpt
quoted begins
about 1/3 of the way through Clark's peice at paragraph number 15:
"Yes, Polarity is Absolute? But Only Your Ears Know For
Sure!"
(...or the "Marked-Up"
Excerpt from
"http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/cjwoodeffect.htm")
"The
topic
of acoustic polarity, also known as Absolute Polarity, has cropped up
again
recently. No surprise?since 1962 it?s lingered in the professional
literature,
where most researchers claim that polarity matters greatly. But today,
who cares? ...
Mr. Blackburn begins his tale auspiciously enough:
"When the scientist
selects a test with hidden variables, the test may end up being
invalidated
later." Quite right, but then: "The experiments that prove polarity is
audible have been incorrectly performed for decades." Very well, how?
"In
every case I've seen, these experiments are conducted by reversing the
connections somewhere in the audio signal chain." All right, what's
wrong
with that? "None of those methods are adequate for evaluating the
audibility
of polarity reversal." And why not? "When you reverse the connections
at
a loudspeaker... you also reverse the direction the audio signal is
applied
to wire in the loudspeaker."
There
you have it, ladies and gentlemen. No one who performed these
experiments
"ever seems to have evaluated the audibility of reversal of direction
of
signal travel in wires... All of them made the same mistake-assuming
that polarity reversal is the cause of the change in sound they hear."
So the trick's in the metal! "This information would seem to imply that
switching polarity could very well be inaudible." How to respond to
what
I would call errant nonsense? Well, for one thing, I am conversant with
wire-direction anomalies. I keep one set of cables hanging around, not
because they sound good (they don't), but to demonstrate the aural
effect
of reversal, which in this case is fairly dramatic-but nothing like
polarity.
Doug is correct about wire directionality; where he errs is in
attributing
the whole of polarity audibility to that phenomenon.
Comment:
I
assume that the cable
Clark has is an interconnect.
In this case, the RCA plugs prevent the polarity from being alterered
and
only the directionality can be altered via a "end for end" swap of the
RCA plugs. With the system now in this state of optimality (at the
preamp
or source end where RCA jacks rule), Clark will now conduct "polarity"
experiments at the speaker end by "flipping" connections at the speaker
binding posts.
Question: If you switch polarity and
the speaker's binding
post, How do you separate the effects of "directionality of wires in
the
speaker" from "polarity ?
Other
objections Key points
to his thesis quickly arise.
For instance, what if the
reversal
is accomplished with an internal switch? Very little wire within a
switch!
Ah, but Blackburn argues that "reversing the direction
the audio
signal is applied" to any wire produces his effect, which means that
even
switching
cartridge leads, or bits in
the digital domain,
will
not
change the performance
of
all
local
wires following.
Comment: The
above changes to the
above paragraph clearly
show that you misunderstand Doug's thesis. Recall that "Directionality"
means the direction that electrons drain in the wire from the
"source/hot"
end of the signal. You can take me to the task of answering why I
struck
out "internal switch" and "cartridge leads" from your text, but I come
from the less is more school of writing. They are not essential to your
arguments after having corrected your text
Likewise,
switching even the internal loudspeaker leads right at the
drivers-after
all, there are still the coil windings in which the signal may be
altered
by those nonlinearities we (wrongly) associate with polarity. Don't
forget,
"reversing the direction the audio signal is applied to wire in the
loudspeaker"
explains the entire phenomenon. Whatever expanse of wire may be
involved
following the switch point, we are assured that only it must be blamed
for what we hear.
Let's
inspect that claim more closely. Just what does the writer by
directionality ? It's not "hot" and "cold" that are
actually switched.
Ground remains grounded, nor do but
electrons do change
their general direction of travel in
wire between
components with audio polarity
directionality
reversal. Diodic/directional
effects in Wires know nothing about
treat
acoustic compression and rarefaction
wavefronts differently.
In any event, they represent the opposite sides of a sine wave
slope, both of which they pass with equal differing
ease. With signals continuously
fluctuating, as musical instruments comprise a mix of both modes, are we
to suppose that rectification
can be a basis for wires somehow differentiate
these? That would be the result
required by Blackburn's astonishing but ultimately
insupportable analysis.
Comment: Doug
only puts forth a
simple observation that
the
where electrons are fed/drawn into a wire matters (locally). A separate
point that he raises is that it is possible to conduct an experiment in
the digital domain where we can fix "directionality" but change
"polarity"
independently. Based on the above modified text, we can see
how
polarity can co-exist with directionality and explain why one polarity
might be preferred over another in a given system. A
directionality/rectification enhanced system
can/should enhance polarity detection.
I cannot
imagine why he I
feels the
need to deny a perfectly obvious and simple physical principle, thus
doing Soundstage
readers a severe disservice. Perhaps his my
confusion arises from that common misapprehension: "You I
really need to use recordings polarity experiments
that are known to be polarity
correct directionally
stable." Once
again: There are no standards for "polarity correctness" on tapes,
records,
or CDs. None. Nada. It is a fantasy that leads you astray."
Comment: So
Clark have you tried
hearing "polarity" by flipping
it in the "digital domain"? In this manner, directionality is not
altered
and all you hear is your "Wood"/"Polarity" effect.
