Some reading material for you.
Directional wires/cables
Is there any reason to support the idea that cables, interconnects or any other kind of wiring can be considered directional? It seems that the theory is that carrying current will alter the molecular structure of the wire. I can't find anything that supports this other than in the case of extreme temperature variation. Cryo seems to be a common treatment for wire nowadays. Extreme heat would do something as well, just nothing favorable. No idea if cryo treatment works but who knows. Back to the question, can using the wires in one direction or another actually affect it's performance? Thanks for any thoughts. I do abide by the arrows when I have them. I "mostly" follow directions but I have pondered over this one every time I hook up a pair.
67 responses Add your response
Some cables are directional and it isn't BS. If they are made from solid core material and cold extruded through progressive dies, the cold forming alters the grain structure in the material and stretches them. The grain lines up better in the direction of the extrusion and therefore the flow of current. | |
Interesting that he is not a big advocate but says he has heard the difference. I do understand if they are made in such a way that it's intended to be used one way or the other, that it may be more important. It is also interesting to note that he says wire should be used to coincide with the way it was extruded. Most of us will never know how it was made. His suggestion to listen and see if you can hear a difference, makes some sense. If there is anything to it in those cases (IC's without arrows), maybe we just solved how the wire was extruded. I'd be surprised if I can hear that difference but I'll sure try it. Unlike most people, I like to be proven wrong as it means that I got to learn something. I still question burn in with cables as this suggests that they will change with use. I'm pretty skeptical on that but there are folks who claim to hear them change so, who knows.Thanks for all the comments. Bill | |
As far as my understanding, some interconnects are grounded or shielded on one end so are designed to be used in one direction but could be wrong with that. But one day I inadvertently installed my digital cable backwards and my system sounded totally broken and I was panicked. I fairly quickly realized my mistake and when I reversed that interconnect everything was great again. I don’t know whether it was the cable’s construction or whether it had been burned in that way, but the difference was severe and unmistakable. For whatever reason, ignore directionality at your peril.
| |
@soix - if a cable is shielded, then it should only be grounded on one end, usually on the source side. If you ground both sides, then you are creating another full circuit and turning it into an antenna. @billpete - I worked for company for 32 years that made speciality metal alloy wire, tubing and machined parts for the medical device market. I was the 5th employee of what is the world leader in the market. And I have drawn my share of both. (FYI, the process of making metal tubing and wire from larger diameters, is to "draw" it, not to extrude it. Extrusion is usually only done from the cast initial billet of metal by pushing it through a die. In drawing the metal is pulled through the die.) In a nutshell, the reason for the directionally of electrical flow is due to what is called the grain structure of the metal. (Think of it like the cells in a leaf.) As the material is drawn smaller and smaller, the grains become elongated (smaller and thinner) and pointed in the direction of the drawing force. The surface of the material is also undergoing changes in stresses. And since electrons move along the surface of the metal, when they hit the grain boundries and jump to the next grain, it affects the electrical flow. Thus, the electrons will flow smoother in one direction better than the other.
@roadcykler - Not to start a war here, but it is physics not sentienticy, and grain configuration/stresses in the metal do affect electron flow. And that can be tested and measured. A classic measurement is to take a straight wire and measure the resistance. Now take that same wire and bend into a tight curve. The resistance will go up because you are stressing the metal where the electrons flow across.
| |
I use Kimber Silver Streak(s) all the way through (CDP-pre-amp) and this thread got me curious, and from the searches that I did they were saying that the heat shrinked "Silver Streak" logo around the cable should read so that the 'S' is at the end that the source is on. I just went and checked and that's the way I have mine; I don't remember if those cables came with directions with them and that's why I had them all pointed that way, or if it was just by coincidence. And actually I do remember, many many moons ago, hearing or reading that cables are directional, but that over time it would "learn" the other direction. "I don't think "learn" is the term that was used, but it's the best I can think of at the moment.
| |
If dealing with -0 Crystal Copper or 6-9s pure it’s drawn in a specific type procedure in a nitrogen atmosphere , I don’t know the exact procedure ,there are only a handfully of foundries that do this.and drawn in that specific direction , and slightly better they say the cable needs to be first run in , then maybe compare it would not be a huge difference maybe low level detail. I will inquire though for my own curiosity , my WireWorld Eclipse cables have the arrow going from the amplifier to the Loudspeakers ,and many others do this also. | |
Matthew, I've been told the same thing by a different cable company. When reading the writing, the flow is left to right. As for the "learning" the direction, I've heard that as well. While electron flow over time will affect the grain structure and stresses, It would take a LOT of continous current (high amperage) and building up of heat to completely alter the structure (i.e. annealing the metal). Minor changes (key word being minor), that is dependant on the material, impurities, and initial grain size, but does happen. Thus the infamous cable "break-in" period. | |
@audioman58 - The nitrogen atmosphere in the drawing process is to prevent the surface of the copper from oxidizing. If the surface is oxidized, it will have a higher hardness level and create smaller grain sizes when drawn. Smaller the grain size, the bigger the impact on the electron flow. There are a lot of good videos on Youtube about "wire drawing" if interested. | |
The brands of interconnects with directionality, as specified by the manufacturer, that I have, have all stated that the reason for the directionality is that the shield is grounded at the source end and is floating at the destination end. This reason makes sense to me, from an interference shielding reasoning. None of these brands have claimed that the reason for the directionality is that it is about a specific grain structure. | |
BS TO directionality! I RECAL AUDIOHOLICS SAID IT WAS bs | |
@jeffbij Not to continue the war, but while the existence of crystalline grains affecting electron flow may have a base in physics, it still does not support the idea of cables being directional. A musical signal alternates - potentially imperfectly at times, and an AC current (power) alternates rather perfectly, even if potentially distorted from a pure sine wave. Also, note that what is typically called ’electrical current’ is not the motion of electrons, but the variation in electromagnetic field, which is not the same thing at all (see e.g. Veritasium’s video on electricity). I’ll accept that asymmetrically terminated cables (e.g. with shielding connected at one end only) may transmit signal differently if plugged in A --> B vs. B --> A, however I would also point out that it’s not ’the material in the cable’ being directional as such, but the effectiveness of the shielding in two different points of the EM field. This said, if people believe that they hear differences, I’m not getting in their way. | |
@jeffbij Would OCC cable not render the directional question moot, as most cable lengths we use would, in theory anyway, be one single elongated grain? | |
In an audio system the electrons are not flowing from the source to the destination component. The signals are AC - though a bit asymmetric -so about half the time they are flowing one way and about half the time the other way. Although, I guess there could be some DC coupled SS pre or DAC (no capacitor on the output) where the signal is a modulated DC voltage. Has anyone ever measured a DC offset on a source component's output? For shielded cables where, except for balanced connections, the shield is connected to SIGNAL ground (the outside of an RCA plug) so it is probably true that the source end should be grounded. | |
Interesting reading. Thanks for all the participation. It is clear that at least some cables should be used the way they were intended, simply by how they were made. As I said, I have always followed the arrows but always thought that it meant they should point away from the source. I may have misunderstood that but it always seemed logical to me. What about ones that do not have directionality in mind? Will they "learn" to be better in one direction than the other? This would mean that they physically changed over time. This is the part that I struggle with the most. Thanks, Bill | |
I respect the directionality of my cables whether it does anything or not. Just makes me feel better. I did buy some amazing Kimber 8PR (Their "bottom" line, improved from previous model, sound astonishingly good and a serious bargain) speaker cable last year and they're NOT directional it seems. Allegedly they develop directionality later...to keep 'em honest, spades on the speaker end and bananas to the amp using their "special" solder sent with the connectors. | |
Seems confusing. I bought some higher quality cat6 cable to my system and read that they should be oriented from the source to the sound, or words to that effect. So, from the wall is “source”… to a switch. The next short run is to a Roon and a second run to a DAC. Think of a letter Y. I was not sure with my short, fancy and fairly pricy cables which way to put them in to the Roon and the DAC; after all, that Roon signal is bidirectional. I ended up placing the DAC connection as going from the switch to the DAC. But I’m still not sure what to do with the Roon. If all Systems worked in series it’s be easy. But if the signal is bidirectional - who knows? | |
An electric current IS the flow of electrons (through a wire e.g.) from the -ve source, through the destination and then back to the +ve terminal of the source.
See this article
| |
A rewind:
| |
1) Your first statement above is completely incorrect. A fuse (to take your example) does not carry a voltage (whatever that means, since it is a meaningless statement in the first place). The idea of ’source’ and ’load’ are irrelevant in electrical theory; you can represent any part of a (linear-ized) circuit as a ’source’ with an ’impedance’ that is connected to the rest of the circuit ("load"). The fact that we as humans interested in hearing sound being reproduced interpret one component as a source and another as a load has nothing to do with the way in which electrical circuits behave. 2) All the parameters of an RLC representation of a real component will be influenced by the properties of the materials they are made and surrounded by. Not just capacitance. 3) The fact that a drawn wire will show a grain orientation does not imply your (or anybody else’s) opinion that there is any "directionality" or asymmetry in the way in which a non-DC waveform is transmitted through it. 4) Your "stated above" is not fact; it’s a mixture of poorly understood electrical theory/physics, and opinions. As is your idea that because materials with a high dielectric constant take longer to polarise therefore this justifies the phenomenon of burn-in. 5) Very little of what you have posted has anything to do with the topic of this thread, which is about the directionality of cables to audio signals. Before continuing, kindly get a degree in electrical engineering (which I happen to have), rather than posting nonsense under the flag of "it’s new theory". No, it isn’t. The idea that electrical currents move as ping-pong balls in a tube is not based on "old theories"; it’s a (bad) analogy used today with high school students who start learning about electricity without having the mathematical background to understand different and more correct/complete representations. It’s neither more nor less than second grade students being told "you cannot do 2 minus 3" as they have not been introduced to negative numbers. | |
No, they won't - there is no "direction" to an AC signal that would change the material to conduct preferentially in one sense rather than the other - and if there were, it would be a cause of significant distortion. Either the cable is manufactured asymmetrically (with different shielding or cable geometry) or it isn't - the asymmetry may cause differences in sound when the cable is plugged in one way rather than the other, but the asymmetry would not change because a signal is sent (from a human "teleological" perspective) from A to B instead of from B to A. | |
Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works. That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY. The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing. Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it. Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, FUSES, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems. The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point: https://www.steamnews.org/ then: and: | |
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872) "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873) "The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University) "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923) "Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895) "The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project) When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH." Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft. Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe). I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday) PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it? | |
What a coincidence! Just saying these guys also have a science background. - - - Bybee Technologies – Founded by Jack Bybee – Physicist Jack Bybee’s first commercial products emerged from Cold War-era military-industrial research. The stealthy shadow contest of nuclear submarine detection, location and evasion demanded ever-quieter circuits, lower electronic noise and greater signal-to-noise ratios. Practitioners summed up the problem as: “reducing 1/f noise, from DC to 2000hz”. Bybee’s technology involves exotic blends of rare-earth metals or their isotopes to reduce electronic noise in circuits. In the mid-1990s, Bybee’s AC filtering was among the first of its kind to use exotic doped materials instead of transformers or balanced power, which made it a novel concept at the time. Jack’s science and physicist background gave him the understanding about negative effects of quantum noise. Link here.
Purist Audio Design – Founded by Jim Aud – EE & Physicist From there, I earned my Electronics Engineering degree at Brescia University, and would later study Computer Science for almost two years at Westinghouse. Then I came to South Texas Nuclear, and studied what they’d call today nuclear physics. Link here.
Shunyata Research – Founded by Caelin Gabriel – Research Scientist
Caelin Gabriel is a former US military research scientist with a background in research and design of ultra-sensitive data acquisition systems. These systems were designed to detect extremely low-level signals otherwise obscured by random noise, requiring years of intensive research into the sources and effects of signal and power-line noise interference. Link here.
Silversmith Audio – Founded by Jeffrey Smith – Engineer CEO/Designer Jeffrey Smith is a Wyoming native and graduate of the United States Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree in General Engineering. He also earned a Master of Science Degree, With Distinction, in Defense and Strategic Studies. Link here.
MIT Cables – Founded by Bruce Brisson – awarded 20 USPTO engineering patents. MIT Cables founder Bruce Brisson began purposely designing audio cables in the 1970’s after encountering the sonic problems inherent in cables typical of the day. Link here.
Audioquest – Garth Powell - Sr. Director of Engineering Formerly with Furman Power for 12 years.
Iconoclast Cables – Galen Gareis – Belden Engineering Center, retired. Galen Gareis, a now-retired product development engineer working at the Belden Engineering Center in Richmond, Indiana, has decades of experience in designing practical precision cabling for a wide variety of professional applications - but at the same time is a high-end audio enthusiast. Link here. | |
@bimmerlover , Kimber Silver Streak isn't shielded and I get the impression that there is a suggested direction for it to be used in. | |
@billpete In the end, the correct answer is to try your cable both ways. The way that sounds best to YOUR ears, is the correct direction. Regardless of how the cables are marked. Everything else is meaningless. | |
Yes, that’s changed in "recent years" (very much in quotes). I graduated in 1990, I have kept myself professionally up-to-date since (unlike you, clearly), and none of the stuff from the late 19th century that you keep thinking is what people are taught, because you were taught it, is current now. My children, who are going through university now, are not taught that, and real images of atoms (electron clouds) are commonplace since the early 2000s. Wake up and smell the roses - you are out of date and out of order.
Inescapable fact: we understand pretty well how electricity works, otherwise we would not be having this conversation on devices that use electricity on scales that range from quantum effects to human scale observables. None of the unresolved conflicts between GR and QM is applicable to computers or audio equipment. The story you keep telling yourself that ’nobody understands electricity’ is completely false - and funnily enough, it was Feynman that with QED (Nobel in 1965) added the last pieces to the puzzle. You quote, but you don’t read or understand.
Very loud laugh from me. Keep digging. Incidentally - nobody here is saying that different cables do not sound different, or that asymmetrically constructed cables do not exhibit directionality in terms of their susceptibility to noise. Neither of those two observations requires any of the woo-woo that you are spouting about the lack of understanding of electricity (or your incorrect use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context; it doesn't mean what you think it means. A dictionary would be of help - as would a guide to typing. Multiple spaces to align text went out of fashion with typewriters, circa 1985). | |
Yep. And you aren't saying anything that is out of kilter with a "moderately up-to-date" understanding of electromagnetism, unlike others on this thread. 😉 | |
WELL: the Cargo Cult's still building runways. Time for another repost:
| |
HILARIOUS! This Dunning-Kruger exemplar doesn't even know the difference, between picturing/modeling an electron cloud and actually viewing an electron. https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/ AND: Well: that WOULD be hilarious, were it NOT so pathetic!
| |
The cargo cultist is still posting - that is you, @rodman99999
This seems to be the situation indeed. You keep posting things that you don’t understand, and no matter how much I or others try to explain to you that things aren’t how you think they are, you simply cannot understand.#
That would be you, again. Ad hominem does not make you smarter or even seem smarter. Please - inform yourself before digging yourself further into the solid rock that you have reached 5 posts ago. I will no longer reply to your nonsense posts, here or anywhere else on this forum. Take care. | |
@dlevi67 , You've not been on here long enough to know that those incredibly long winded repetitive posts are his standard go to whenever this subject comes up.
| |
