Shunyata's TAP technology: rooted in a true understanding of physics

[JemHadar]

Cannot find the TAP patent number on their website. Does anyone know it ?

Btw...the perforated grill of a microwave oven is just an ungrounded Faraday Cage...a zero-mode wave guide is something completely different and not to be confused with single mode operation of a coplanar waveguide (which are way cool)...auch, you can spank me now...no more smarty pants stuff...apologies....could not help myself 🤭[emoji51]

But I will read the TAP patent if I can find it...one caveat though...a patent (application) does not equal a peer reviewed paper

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by Jem666

Cannot find the TAP patent number on their website. Does anyone know it ?

Btw...the perforated grill of a microwave oven is just an ungrounded Faraday Cage...a zero-mode wave guide is something completely different and not to be confused with single mode operation of a coplanar waveguide (which are way cool)...auch, you can spank me now...no more smarty pants stuff...apologies....could not help myself 🤭[emoji51]

But I will read the TAP patent if I can find it...one caveat though...a patent (application) does not equal a peer reviewed paper

Its not a patent yet, its a US patent application on the USPTO web site.

[JemHadar]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Its not a patent yet, its a US patent application on the USPTO web site.

Found the site... but would need the number or exact title to find it.

Do you have the link ? Thx

[Puma Cat]

I found it by searching for "cable" and "Poulsbo"; don't have a link, sorry.

[JemHadar]

I Browsed some of the Gaelen patents I could find. Could not find the TAP application unfortunately.

I now understand where the OP observations come from and Puma Cat did not misquote.

From a purely theoretical perspective, a signal is carried by an EM wave in a cable. However, from a practical pov, the wavy part only becomes relevant at radio frequenies or when dealing with digital data transmission. I would never consider a cable a transmission line at low frequencies (power or audio freq) because it really wouldn’t matter when calculating...Ohm’s and Kirchoff’s laws would do just fine.

The patents are definitely not providing a context for falsifiability (I assume they are not required to) and have to be taken at face value.

The modes of operation described seem scientific, no hocus pocus here (in the language anyway). However whether the outcomes are relevant to the claimed performance, one should ask a physicist.

As a general observation...waving patents or patent applications around doesn’t really tell us anything. Why not publish peer reviewed papers and be done with it. If one is really serious and sincere about the science part it shouldn’t be a problem. Now it is just empty words at best and marketing hyperbole at worst.

[tima]

The United States Provisional Patent Application Serial Number is: 62/439,299; the title is: DEVICE THAT USES ELECTROMAGNETIC POLARIZATION
TO IMPROVE AUDIO CABLE SOUND QUALITY.

Wrt TAP: "There is no electrical contact between the TAP device and the conductor. Gabriel claims the device improves performance of the cable not by altering the signal as with network circuits but rather by eliminating a subtle form of micro-distortion.

There's no pretense of cocksure certainty out here on the cutting edge. I found it refreshing that Gabriel—ever the scientist—states that while the theory of operation "is currently under investigation, there is evidence that the apparatus functions as an electromagnetic polarizer." Gabriel theorizes that the metal discs mounted perpendicular to the cable interrupt or block the longitudinal EM wave running parallel to it. An EM wave traveling perpendicular to the cable, a transverse wave, would tend to pass through the TAP array. Shunyata claims that just as polarizing sunglasses allow certain waveforms to pass while blocking others and clarifying vision, TAP "uses electromagnetic polarization to improve sound quality in audio cables." "

You can read about all the Sigma interconnect cable technology in my review of the Shunyata Phono Cable here - which includes the above quote.

Let's keep in mind the rationale for the technologies and features in Shunyata's current top-of-the-line ICs is to reduce audio signal distortion or mitigate its causes. Fundamental to their goal is, as they put it: "to preserve and protect the signal."

Shunyata works diligently to explain and educate about the scientific foundations of Gabriel's products with literature, videos and demonstrations. In my experience there is no other audio cable manufacturer with the same openness and forthrightness about their products and no other cable manufacturer who expends the effort to explain then. We've come a long way since the days of cable snakeoil scepticism and Shunyata plays a major role in that effort.

TAP is unique to the Sigma IC lineup. The Alpha series of ICs has all the technology features of Sigma except TAP. It should be very easy to compare an IC from the two lines to learn the effect of TAP in your system. Debates and discussion on the physical foundation of cable features is fine - this thread is interesting - but don't forget to directly experience the reality of what you're talking about.

[JemHadar]

I understand what Shunyata is trying to do with the polarizing sunglasses analogy. Unfortunately “polarization” is only applicable on transverse waves. So the analogy is a bit confusing/unlucky as the claim pertains to the blocking of longitudinal EM waves in a solid which is incompatible with the principle of “polarization”.

FYI...there is no such thing as a longitudinal EM wave in free space.
The only confirmed longitudinal EM waves are Plasma waves and I don’t think that applies with regard to TAP.

[jdandy]

There is no doubt in my mind that cables do make a substantial difference in the realism of audio reproduction in a high-end sound system. I have made direct comparisons with quite a few manufactures cables over many years. I continue to be amazed at how technology, metallurgy, and science have raised the bar on audio performance, not just with cables, but amplifiers, and digital components, as well. I will be the first to admit that some claims for performance gains in the audio industry appear to be pure hocus pocus, while other claims are measurable and verifiable. The value of these performance gains, real or perceived, is determined in the marketplace. Credibility is earned, not bestowed. None the less, naysayer opinions will forever be present no matter the product or its price.

[SCAudiophile]

"A Porsche is veritably better in ALL parameters than a Tahoe. It is faster and handles better than a Tahoe. Unless of course you need to haul a trailer or need the cargo room."

***Replying but not attacking you on this I promise..the statement is a useful example only; my point being that we as humans and manufacturers often frame an evaluation VERY subjectively, purposely inflating or callimg certain aspects and claims while downplaying or simply not memtioning others and with a distinct psychological bent to it to elicit a specific thought process and response...

The lead statement above is true for example using a partial list maybe.. power, handling, acceleration, braking, aerodynamics, coolness factor and stroking ego factors, curing male midlife crisis factors, etc...(clearly joking on last 2) :-)

There are clearly more parameters to consider for a Tahoe or other SUVs which are not meant to be performance sportscars so comparing a 911 and a Tahoe and saying better in all categories is not quite fair as we may be forgetting these and other parameters;

- safety factors in an accident
- Total Cost of Owneship
- Maintenance Cost
- Reliability (3 friends have had a long list of issues with newer 911s over last 3 to 4 years including 2 engine fires...)

Intended as a bit of good spirited counterpoint, nothing else [emoji3]

[ariess]

PHC1. You don’t believe it’s possible that a cable alters, smears, contaminates or otherwise impacts the signal it carries or that there is an audible impact if it does or that that impact is worth paying for. I do.

You have also said in this forum that it’s not possible than men landed in the moon 50 years ago. You think both are conspiracies.

I rest my case.