Directional cables - what does that really mean?


Some (most) cables do sound differently depending on which end is connected to which component. It is asserted that the conductor grain orientation is determining the preferential current flow. That might well be, but in most (all) cases the audio signal is AC (electrons going back and forth in the cable), without a DC component to justify a directional flow. Wouldn't that mean that in the 1st order, a phase change should give the same effect as a cable flip?

I'm curious whether there is a different view on this that I have not considered yet.
cbozdog

Some (most) cables do sound differently depending on which end is connected to which component. It is asserted that the conductor grain orientation is determining the preferential current flow. That might well be, but in most (all) cases the audio signal is AC (electrons going back and forth in the cable),
Cbozdog

That might well be, but in most (all) cases the audio signal is AC (electrons going back and forth in the cable),
Cbozdog
Is it? Are you sure about that?

Start here.
>http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?htech&1295324474&openflup&12&4#12


Then read this thread......
>http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1274104190&openusid&zz


Quote from page 3

05-26-10: Herman
Jea, There are positive and negative charges and they are what they are. They do not change from positive to negative. In the case of a wire there are negative charges in motion but in some mediums there are + charges in motion and in some there are both.

So it isn't + 0 - 0 + 0 - as in the charges are changing polarity it is L 0 R 0 L 0 as in the negative charges are vibrating left and right around a zero point.

If electric current is the movement of charge what is wrong with using the word current in place of the word charge?
Any place you see "current" you can substitute "movement of charge." If you say movement of current you are saying movement of movement of charge. It is redundant.

Look at it this way. In order for something to move it must exist. Current is not a thing or a form of energy, it is a word that describes movement. If water stops flowing the water is still there but there is no current. Did the current just disappear? No, it never existed, it is a concept, not a thing.

From a previous post of mine: 05-26-10: Jea48
"With the load consuming power from the supplying alternating voltage source explain the process movement of current to the load."
05-26-10: Jea48

Thank you, thank you, thank you for asking. That question is a perfect example of why "alternating current flow" is a very bad description of what is going on.

In a nutshell AC current does not move or flow to the load.. That is the very heart of my debate with simply_q.

As stated above current does not move. Current means something is moving. If we switch to charge instead of current then those don't move to the load either. The charges in an AC circuit merely sit there and vibrate.

Power isn't moving to the load either. Power is the rate at which we transfer energy. Power is not a thing, it is not energy, it cannot be moved or consumed.

So what's moving from the source to the load? Energy. A wave of electromagnetic energy moves down the wire and the energy in it is transferred to the load. Charges are vibrating everywhere around the path but energy is flowing in one direction...source to load. It is converted into another form of energy like heat or light, or motion, or it is launched into space if the load is an antenna.

.

It is asserted that the conductor grain orientation is determining the preferential current flow.
Cbozdog

So if the signal is a wave of electromagnetic energy that is moving down the wire how could the directional placement of a wire sound different? (For this example the cable is non shielded)
.
Nothing substantial for speaker cables... Ac current comes out your amp.
It's a concept born in the marketing dept as a mean to differentiate the product.
For interconnects, idk.
Jea48 - yes... seems that the question is not new. I should have looked at prior art before starting a new tread. Bummer.
"Thank you for correcting Geoff's view.
Cbozdog (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

I wasn't trying to correct anyone. I wasn't sure myself and was just looking to see if I had it right or not.