Home Isolation Ward

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Isolation Ward ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years

Stu: "The fact that the differences exist proves one thing: CJ has not defined polarity."

(Written in "objective mode":...)

Without having read The Wood Effect, I can see that Aiken is right in his counterpoint against Stu's argument. The fact that people disagree on what polarity is, is not proof positive that Clark didn't define it (nor is the counterpoint proof that it was defined by Clark). For the same reasons, you can't say "that some are aware of polarity and that some have different views of it, is proof that despite the publishing of "The Wood Effect" twenty years ago, CJ has merely reiterated someone else's work without providing real illumination or understanding.". This statement is a personal opinion only, it hasn't been proven by Stu, nor disproven by Aiken or anyone.

If you really want to get into it, there are two more unproven claims by Stu, which are implied as factual..... here: "Come to think of it while various reviewers have praised the works and some are actually on the forum, I see no one backing up CJ. Perhaps that can be taken as proof that his work is insufficient in nature. "

and here:

"And then there are those who simply proclaim that the effect is negligible or scarcely worth the trouble to flip a wire or two or even a switch. Their admission speaks to the knowledge they have gained about the phenomena from CJ."

Followed, ironically, by: "But never fear, I only write lies, and am totally illogical, too."

So yeah, I agree from further reading of his posts on the matter, Stu does bandy about the word "proof" a little too much, which his words don't back up, in order to try to jack up the value of his words to more than their worth (not that I don't do that myself, as I'm known to use the phrase "It's a fact!", quite liberally. But I just do that to annoy the pseudo-objectivists). Although it is hyperbole and less than purely objective (he also goes to extremes on the other side to make his point, such as when he says "I only write lies and I am totally illogical too. My perceptions have totally been false."), I can also see the point that Stu (and it seems others) make here - they came from a real place.

I don't disagree with some of the things Stu's been saying, either, so I mean it when I say I can see his point. And I've seen some of the past arguments on polarity on AA spiral out of control very quickly and get nowhere. So the comments Stu and others make about it are at least based on genuine concerns to further the discussion, seeing that it always descends into fruitless arguments, and it's not mere trolling attacks on the part of Uncle Stu. Again, I don't see how you two have that much differences, since you both have an interest in understanding things like polarity! So maybe Stu was right when he wrote: "It would seem that we have more points in agreement than in contention."

>>He never misses the opportunity to malign. Lord knows why, but I've had my fill of him. Nevertheless I shall proceed in my defense of polarity as the sine qua non of correct audio practice. Free, too!<<

And of course I fully support your defense of polarity, as I feel there should be no disagreement as to its importance in a quality sound system; it is as important as speaker positioning or all the rest of the basics you should get right, if you even pretend to call yourself an audio hobbyist. But I don't think Stu's as hard-headed as you picture, and you say "Lord knows why", but I think the reasons for his antagonism is something he made pretty clear:

Stu:
"Unfortunately I simply do not see any attempt from CJ to do so and his criticism of people who try annoys the hell out of me at times (music is not a life or death situation, so I try not to get so worked up for the most part)."


I also don't understand why it's so hard to define, either. Until my recent excursions to AA, I never saw or thought of audio polarity as a controversial thing. I thought normal polarity and reversed polarity was pretty well accepted. Dave Chesky taught me what it was via his sampler. So I don't know if I want to get this involved (and I can understand Stu's apprehension if you post an opinion on this!...), but perhaps I should still take this opportunity now and go ahead with my 2 bits on what I understand of polarity:

Although there may not be a "de facto" or "de jure or "de lissio" definition of polarity, it seems pretty obvious to me when (conventional) polarity is reversed. No matter- if we're talking about "absolute polarity" (which requires you throw a polarity switch on a DAC or amp), or speaker polarity (inverted phase at the speaker terminals) or AC polarity (inverted plugs on non-polarized equipment). It all produces the same effect at the speakers (or headphones). Correct polarity, as I've always understood it, can be heard by detecting the sound of certain instruments, such as horn or drums. Again, I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subject (nor am I eager to be), and this is only my understanding of it: Under correct polarity, the kick drum will move toward you, under inversed polarity, it will move away. Likewise with the horn, etc. All instruments of course have their own tonal characteristics, that are inverted when polarity is inversed. There is also a sort of inversion occuring on voices, perhaps less easy to define. This, to me, is how you can tell correct polarity without ever requiring a detailed transcription of the recording session, or a special light on your equipment that goes 'ping!' whenever it's inversed, or staying up nights drinking lots of scotch and rum, worrying about the polarity of the last song you heard, and staining the couch with your profuse sweating....

Perhaps a lot of the controversy over polarity comes from the fact that it can only be determined subjectively, and subjectively-only measures appears to be something that frightens the dickens out of most AAers. It means they actually have to learn how to listen, in order to measure. I have, and usually know immediately when AC or speaker wire (at the terminals) polarity is inversed. Of course, if you (unlike me) are not certain whether your polarity is incorrect and want to be sure that polarity is inversed (or normal), you have to compare your sound to the inverse by reversing polarity. Can I prove that I am always right when I determine polarity is inversed? I suppose not, nor do I care to, for anyone. I worry about my own sound, I let others worry (or not) about theirs. When we talk about "absolute polarity" (which I've come to understand as the polarity of the recordings), the subject has limited interest to me. For one reason, even though I have a polarity switch on my Theta, it means having to get up off the couch each time. But even if I had a switch on a remote, I still wouldn't use it. I may be an audio fanatic, but I'm not Enid Lumley. I'm not going to sit there and test each song that comes on for polarity. If I did, I would constantly be listening critically, and not, as my friend Rochlin says, "enjoying the music".


"silence tells me secretly, everything..."

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]