The more things change the more they stay the same. 😬
Directional interconnect cables
I see several big-name interconnect vendors mark directional arrows on the outer jacket of the cables.
How is it that a wire can be directional? It's a simple electrical conductor, how is it possible for it to be directional, to sound "better" when connected in one direction vs. the other? This does not make sense to me, perhaps someone here can explain how this can possibly be so...
How is it that a wire can be directional? It's a simple electrical conductor, how is it possible for it to be directional, to sound "better" when connected in one direction vs. the other? This does not make sense to me, perhaps someone here can explain how this can possibly be so...
102 responses Add your response
Some folks sure like to argue, I am not interested in starting another one. I just have two questions: i have a Rotel 1580 preamp going to a Rotel 1590 amp. I use a decent cd player going into the preamp. I connect the cd player to preamp and preamp to amp with Transparent Musiclinks. I connect cd player to preamp in the direction indicated on the cable. But when I connect the preamp to amp the same “right” direction (the direction of the flow), it sounds horrible. A 2 year old would say so. But, when I eeverse the preamp to amp cable, it sounds great. 1. Why? 2. Am I going to hurt anything? I would greatly appreciate some guidance from those who clearly know more than I. I was ready to sell my musiclink cables until I tried the reverse direction from pre to amp. Now, I love them. Thanks. |
Here's some food for thought Food? Sure I'll have a slice of pie. Man this liqueur is heady stuff. As for directional interconnects, let's stick to hard facts - the connection is key - and everyone knows that either way round works. Although a shield grounded at one end is advisable, especially if you are not sure of what RF/EM you might pick up. And while your at it, Carl, is there any tea left in the celestial teapot? I'd love a cup! |
Carl109 - I know, it was just a joke. It might be easy to observe that something likely "IS" but much more difficult to prove that something "ISN'T". We just don't know enough. Electromagnetic wave cannot be explained by stack of ping-pong balls or something like that, because there is a space between electrons about 100000x their size. How charge is transfered if they move very slow?. One theory is that electrons emit photons but it does not work either. We learn just few years ago how aspirine works (in usage since 1800s). Once we thing we know everything new discovery come like recent 4-th missing element "Memsistor". I would not involve science in Audio. When I see great spects like THD=0.0001% I expect poor sound - something has to give. I don't even look at specifications. |
Sorry Redkiwi, I was not "attacking" you. You made a statement that I didn't agree with and I said so. It was not at all personal. My definition of proof is "to provide evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true." Kijanki, if you re-read my post you'll see I agree with you; I DO hear differences in IC's and speaker cables. My point though was that these differences may be immeasureable scientifically or even specific to my hearing. |
Then your definition of the word proof is different from mine. As a scientist I do not accept that science ever proves anything. But your PHD may have come from a different university than mine and so I am cool with the way you see things, but not so cool with you calling my statements false. So far I have not attacked you. What interests me is why you felt the need to attack me. As for your teapot analogy, you missed out the bit where we thought we saw a teapot. |
Oh my God - Are you ALL guys SCIENTISTS??? One vodka on ice for me, pleeeeease (always helps in scientific discussions). On the second thought - make it double. Carl109 - There is a huge sound difference between ICs and speaker cables. I tried once speaker cable between pre-amp and power-amp and it sounded non-interesting. No highs, poor definition and a lot of static. |
Redkiwi, you might find the theorising pointless, but so is making completely false statements like "A true scientist realises nothing is ever proven". Science can and does prove things by postulating theories, and then repeatedly testing and measuring to try to disprove the theory. If the tests show that the thoery holds, it becomes 'law', if not it is disproven. Such scientific 'proof' is legitimate in a court of law, but apparently not on Audiogon! There are some things that can't be disproved because science does not yet have the capability or theories to test them accurately, as Richard Dawkins' "celestial teapot" shows; I could say that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth, which at this point in time couldn't be disproved with current astronomical equipment. Does that mean it's true? No, but "teapot-believers" would use that as evidence the teapot must exist. Science disproves burn in for a simple reason; science uses 'before and after' measurements of various parameters of the cable. If these stay the same after the burn-in period, then the electrical properties of the cable are unchanged and burn-in is not supported. Whether you perceive a change with your (subjective) sense of hearing is another matter. You have to remember that human ears are an amazingly sensitive piece of equipment, but the way we hear is subject to many other factors; the shape of the outer ear, wax deposits, nasal congestion, and even our mood can change the way we perceive sound. Despite my science education, I do beleive I can hear differences between IC's and speaker cables, although I haven't noticed any change due to burn-in. But these are just my observations on my system with my ears, not proof. |
I'm just merely stating that knowledge of Ohm Law is not enough to question expertise of cable manufacturers - reality is much more complicated. I would rather depend on my ears or conduct experiment. Since we are starting another round I'll have Pear Martini (to keep it simple). Cook pears slowly with saffran. Thank you. |
I think I reported the results of my experiments. I cannot recall offering a theory, or claim that my experiments proved anything except to justify to me that I should consider directionality and burn in, in practise. I am happy to be corrected on that though. I am not trying to be superior, just pointing out as others have here, that our experiences are relevant, but our conflicting theories lead nowhere. |
I find the theorising here, by both sides, as pointless too. I love that comment that you can't scientifically prove the existence of burn in. A true scientist realises nothing is ever proven, and only seeks to disprove his theories, not prove them. But it is not difficult to assemble evidence about burn in. It is only the practitioner that is forced to assume that tested and undisproven theories are facts. Yet we so often have posters asking for a rationale to support claims or beliefs of others. Why they seek a rationale, when the existence of such a thing proves nothing, is what puzzles me. |
Since you guys are running a tab, I'll have a Pear D'Anjou liqueur and matching set of cables. |
Shardone - Of course not to trust them completely but don't expect evil doing either. When I bought my car I trusted manufacturer - (profit oriented too). Everybody is expecting conspiracy from cable manufacturers at different level. Is 9N copper or 7N silver necessary, what about zero crystal process? Is capacitance of 5pF or inductance of 40nH per foot necessary. Or complicated winding technics to lower skin effect in speaker cables. What about lowering dielectric constant by using oversized foamed teflon tubes? To many all of the above is snake oil and lamp cord from Home Depot is just fine. Whatever! |
trust cable companies - they certainly know more and have more experience. I am sure you can trust many of them, however, I would be cautious about their vested interest in selling higher margin products. And a $400 audio or video cable is likely a much higher margin product than say the latest competitively priced big ticket item such as a plasma HDTV or a speaker. Let's not be totally naive about the fact that these companies actually sell these things for a profit. There are probably very few who sell cables as a service to humanity because they "know more and have more experience". |
Narrod - Thats exactly what I'm saying - trust your ears. Some people are absolutely certain that wire cannot have directional properties at any level tossing left and right equation from high school books while everything is in reality much more complicated (what I was trying to show) So I trust my ears and when I'm not certain I follow manufacturers recommendation (I don't see reason why not to). |
It is a pointless and circular discussion. Trust you ears and don't listen to any pseudo-scientific explanations of cable theory. In a hobby that is immersed in hype, hyperbole and BS, cable, is without a doubt, the most extreme of all. If you like a $10,000 cable that is all that matters. If you like a $10 cable the same applies. No one can, using the scientific method, prove that burn-in is audible. |
scientists still cannot fully understand mechanics of the (fill in the blank). True, but meaningless. Using scientific knowledge to do something or accurately predict an outcome requires judgment - selecting the principles that have a meaningful effect. For example, while it was shown that time is not a constant (as opposed to the speed of light) that result is of no consequence in building a bridge. Suggesting to a group of engineers engaged in the task of building a bridge that we should take into account the non-constant nature of time in the design would properly be met with incredulous looks and a recomendation to avoid sharp objects. What the "science doesn't fully understand ______" line is is a marketing tool, nothing more. The classic technique, well demonstrated here and for many years across many disciplines, is to take a scientific principle and misapply that principle to arrive at the desired conclusion. Drift velocity of an electron, copper oxide once used in semiconductor material, and "extruded diodes" are nothing more than such misapplication in this instance. Do some of the scientific principles expounded in marketing hype have meaning when properly applied ? Sure You had better take into account skin effect when working with RF. Silver as opposed to other metals is meaningful in some applications - I once build a preamplifier to deal with less than 10 microvolt changes with the signal of interest embedded in electrical activity several orders of magnitude greater than the signal. Had to use ceramic spacers and silver solder to take advantage of the low noise and high CMRR of the active device. So silver rather than some other metal was important in that application. Misapplication - silver wire vs copper to move around tens of millivolt and larger signals between cd players, preamps and amps, talking about skin effect with audio frequencies over 20 feet of wire, applying drift velocity to support an idea that cables are directional. No, man does not completely understand anything, but that philosophical fact is just not important in this application. |
Musicnoise - scientists still cannot fully understand mechanics of the current flow and according to some current is carried by Photons (mathematically impossible) and according to others by free electrons (physically impossible - too slow) and even according to some carried outside of the conductor by electromagnetic wave. They are not certain how this wave is created - if by charge transfer then how? The funny thing is that all this scientific discussions are not really necessary because you already explained it to us. |
While the proffered definition of drift velocity is not incorrect, the net velocity of an individual electron, it is not of particular interest in sending an electrical signal through a wire. Interesting view of current "the the velocity of electrons requiered to move a few A of current inside a copper wire is only a few mm per second". While the net velocity of a single electron may not be a few mm per second, the meaninful aspect of current flow is not the drift velocity. Current is defined in terms of velocity or rate of charge flow, with an electron of a certain charge in coulombs. Current = dq/dt, with the current in amperes, q or charge in coulombs and time in seconds. The current flow, or the flow of charge carried via electrons, is what is important in a determing the effect of the electrical properties of the conductor on that flow, and finally on the signal that gets turned into sound. The drift velocity is not really applicable to that discussion and more than talking about the spin of the individual electron. |
04rdking - Many people don't believe in burning-in either. Common measurements done with Ohmeter, Voltmeter etc get a little bit fuzzy when done at -100dB. First solid state amps had bright edgy sound, while their manufacturers were proving (measurements) superiority over tube amps - later Transient Intermodulation and other effects were discovered. All I'm saying is that wire might have "some" directional properties and trust cable companies - they certainly know more and have more experience. |
Kijanki "..... wires are diodes....." Wires are NOT diodes. If anything, they are capacitors, either shielded or twisted pair. I believe some people may hear a difference when the cable is reversed. This doesn't mean the cable is directional. It means the cable has burned-in in that direction and reversing it undoes all that...... |
Musicnoise - as you can see my post was not a joke (part about expensive electrons was). Electromagnetic wave moves in 60-70% of the speed of light but electrons are almost not moving. Small impurities create tiny semiconductor like junctions. It is not possible to measure them since things are happening on the level of microvolts here (-80dB). The way they are oriented may be dependant on cable manufacturing (how cable was drawn). I am speculating here, not knowing exactly what is happening inside. I just wanted to make point that things are much more complicated than we think. Some manufacturers make cables from nine nines copper (99.9999999% pure) and in addition cooling it in hot forms to avoid rapid cooling and crystaline structure (Zero Crystal Copper). Wire like that has one or no crystals per foot while standard oxygen free copper wire has couple of thousand. On the other hand some people buy speaker wire i Home Depot. |
Musicnoise, I agree with most of what you said but the velocity of electrons (called drift velocity) required to move a few A of current inside a copper wire is indeed only a few mm per second. For those lay people confused by this. Think of a a wire like a garden hose filled with water. Water being the current. In order to get a drop of water out one end of the hose you only need add a drop the other end. The drop has not moved magicaly thirty feet down the garden hose but the result is as if it had done so. Sound waves in the room are the same. Remember the Alien film plug "In space, no one can hear you scream" - so this kind of thing won't work in a vacuum. In the same way that the water in the hose transmits a signal the air particles in your room jostle around and bump eachother and convey the pressure wave (acoustic signal) to your ears - this all happens very rapdily (speed of sound). In the case of electrons, this also happens very fast (close to the speed of light - now that is seriously fast!) - even though an indiviudal electron does not physically move very far - think of the wire being stuffed full with electrons. Audio signals can be thought of in the same way as the garden hose analogy rather than "electrons racing through a wire and encountering all kinds of obstacles". This means a small added pressure (voltage) at one end is all that is needed to get a signal out the other end. It also meand that small impurities (say for example dissolved particles/minerals in the water) have practically no influence on the result. If you were to add a restriction in your hose or a one way valve or a conrtolled nozzle then this would somewhat be analogous to a diode or a transistor in the circuit ;-) |
I am assuming that Kijanki's entire post was intended as a joke, however for those who may take it seriously, the following: Whether Copper oxide was ever used to make diodes does not support the notion that wires are diodes. The comparision is merely an example of faulty reasoning - "copper oxide can be used to make diodes, wires are made from copper, hence, wires are diodes." Socrates would love that one. The next time a diode goes out in a piece of electronic equipment, don't buy another diode, just grab a piece of glass (silicon) and tape it to the pcb. Diodes don't just magically appear because they are composed of an element that can also be used to make diodes. We are then in the realm of alchemy. The last bit of faulty reasoning I heard on this site as to new and exciting diode manufacturing techniques was that diodes were created by the extrusion process in manufacturing wire, I guess that theory was that the process created a taper and that resulted in a diode - kind of like a funnel I suppose - make up the science as you go along approach. Furthermore, what happens inside a wire is well defined, complicated or not, with regard to the effect the wire has on an electrical signal transduced to sound. Whatever deep quantum mysteries lurk within the realm of the eerie wire are of no significance when it comes to listening to the end result or in measuring the audio frequency signal at the ends of the wires. Surely the remark as to the speed of current flow within a wire was intended as a joke, and if not, even readers with no technical or scientific background will realize that this is an incorrect statement. One thing I have always wondered with the mysteries beyond the realm of science argument is how we are able to repeatedly make reliable complicated electronic equipment if there is so much to chance as a meaningful probability that a wire will act as a diode. Wires are not diodes, diodes are diodes, wires conduct equally well in either direction. |
Shadorne - wires are diodes. some impurities in the wire might create semiconductor junctions. As an example - copper oxide (wire in never 100% oxygen free) behaves like semiconductor. It was used to make rectifiers. Quote from Wikipedia below: "Copper(I) oxide was the first substance known to behave as a semiconductor. Rectifier diodes based on this material were used industrially as early as 1924, long before silicon became the standard." What happens inside of the wire is complicated. Electrons are not moving very fast (about 1/2" per second) and with AC signal they will never leave the cable. I would not polarize my cable with DC and loose my expensive electrons I paid for (ha ha). |
The experiments used bare wire, the only insulation being air. Yes, the cables could be burned in after a while in the changed direction. People find it easier to ascribe directionality to the dielectric, and I have not attempted to prove or disprove that the dielectric is part of the issue, yet. But I have proved to myself that when wire burns in then it gets some form of directional quality to it. I don't know why this should be, and that would be a very interesting thing to know, but I don't have access to the kinds of research funds to find out. At the level I work I am happy to just accept it as an insight and work with it, and I was able to afford the funds to buy an Audiodharma cooker. One of the things I can say from experiments conducted is that high conductor purity diminishes the burn in issue and directionality issue markedly. High purity alloys of suitable metals are also fine. It is when metals are contaminated with oxides, sulphides etc that directionality and burn in issues are most severe. |
By running the wires in air. This was achieved with some difficulty of course, but nevertheless achieved. No shield and no dielectric apart from air. The two components were faced back to back, the wire connecting the RCAs was very high purity silver, 24AWG on cold and 26AWG on hot, and then tensioned so that the wires ran in parallel througn the air with no insulation used. With the wire concerned, once it had been burned in, reversing it resulted in a change in sound, most particularly a loss of openness in the treble, and loss of firmness in the bass; a sound very similar to what an identical set that had not been burned in sounded like. |
