What happens when you flip off a light switch? Light goes off immediately.

I would interpret "immediately" to mean small fractions of a second after flipping the switch, after the energy in the lines has completely been absorbed by the load.

Just questioning the "one way direction" of energy in an alternating current conductor, but that’s fine.

If it's designed directional, it should have arrows on it. It's that simple.

If the vendor claims it is directional and does not indicate the correct direction, that's a clear design defect and I would find another vendor.

 

So much rhetoric.

Much simpler to try both directions yourself than to try to understand the elusive reasons why

Much simpler to try both directions yourself than to try to understand the elusive reasons why

Absolutely @kennyc

Some of us just like to hurt our brains every once in a while.

I recall reading that Jay, the proprietor of Audio Bacon website, was reviewing the Snake River Audio Boomslang digital cable a few years back. After talking with the cable’s designer for follow-up information he found out that he actually had it in backwards- he didn’t know it was directional- and he definitely heard a difference putting it in the "right" direction, but he actually preferred the sound of it "backwards".

@mclinnguy Said:  02-12-2025 at 04:29pm 

I would interpret "immediately" to mean small fractions of a second after flipping the switch, after the energy in the lines has completely been absorbed by the load.

I think the answer is instantly. The switch is opened, Games over.

.

Just questioning the "one way direction" of energy in an alternating current conductor, but that’s fine.

Not sure what you mean. The ac signal energy does not travel inside the conductor. It flows in the spaces between the conductors. The conductors are a guide for the ac energy to flow from the source to the load in the form of  electromagnet waves.

As for the electric charge, current, in the wire it is not moving back and from the source to the load. It is vibrating +  -  or  -  + hardly moving at all.

I'm sure @rodman99999 could explain it better than me though.

.

 

I might of missed reading a post on this thread but wanted to put in my two cents, just in case:)

 

I have made all my interconnects for around 40 years now. In the last 25+ I have only used Conare Star Quad which is dual twisted pair high grade microphone cable. One pair to the center contact, one pair to ground. Braided shield to ground on the input end, cut off and tucked carefully under the jacket at the receiving end. Silver solder, good connectors.

 

I have also used it for balanced cables.

 

Either way they are superb and I have never felt the need to go to any more costly cables even in what would be in today's dollars close to a $40k in gear alone for my highest end car audio competition build. ZERO noise, totally black background, very dynamic and ran as high as 20v balanced signals through them, 4+ volts single ended.

 

Rick.

 

 

 

 

Well, I sure didn't mean to stir up such a hornet's nest but there has been a good amount of discussion and information to be read. 

I watched a video with Gene DellaSala and John Siau and what their thoughts were on the subject. They put far less importance on it than many others seem to. In the big picture, it does seem to be way down the line from other factors. I think this is fair as well. Once a person has every other aspect covered from TT (cartridge and all), DAC, CD player, whatever source you listen to, your ultimate power source, preamp, amp, down to the speakers, then maybe it's time to start tweaking with better wiring, power supplies etc. There is always something we can do to improve our system, so it seems. They don't suggest that you go out and buy the cheapest wire and cables that you can find either and I don't. 

Anyway, I'm moving on. Many thanks for all the insight. 

Bill

My thinking is a cable can only be directional if it uses a floating ground.  The floating end should be connected to the receiving component.

 

It is a type of rf shield.

@stevencason Agreed. A floating shield is usually totally floating ie. not grounded at either end (just a terminolgy/interpretation thing I guess), and in this case I can’t see why direction of installation would matter.

A single-end-grounded cable might sound different if installed a different way round because of where any RFI noise picked up by the shield drains to. To my mind and in my experience, this is the only directionality which matters. I’ve never understood or experienced directionality in the conductors themselves.

jeffbij +1

Glad to see a rational, informed posting here. I mean, "sentiency"??

Yes, I’m sure you’re absolutely correct in stating that grain structure has a lot to do with directionality. I once had a long conversation on the topic with a figure no less formidable than Garth Powell (the brilliant enginner who designed Audioquest’s Niagara power-conditioning line, among other things) and he went into the physics of grain directionality in great depth. I have a degree in Physics myself, so this was far from an exercise in hand-waving. Garth made sense, and although there’s no way to measure the effect quantitatively in a particular cable product, the physical phenomenon undoubtedly does exist in cables that have certain manufacturing steps -- like Audioquest's directional cables. I walked away from that discussion thoroughly convinced -- and I’m not an easy person to bamboozle when it comes to voodoo engineering.

Related: Someday, maybe I’ll post a thread about my experience deciphering the design details of Synergistic’s HFT products, those bizarre little shirt-button-sized bits of metal that, when pasted around your listening room, are supposed to improve transparency and imaging. Now, THAT’s an interesting story.

 

cundare2. Do Tell!!

Electrical energy movement (120V power to home, audio power to speakers, etc) is just energy transfer by electrons inside the metal wires! Really not matter with any structure of the matals in the wires! 

Please, do not incline to the non-scientific rationale of the BS manufacturers. If you have not studied chemistry, it is very easy for you to listen and believe the non-scientific retionales. I am a PhD of chemistry (retired). I did research to find molecular structure of organic componds using very expensive analytical instruments. It is very sad for not-science-oriented people to spend money for the expensive audio wires! I really hate the manufacturers of the BS stuff.  

a lot of misinformation here backed up by sites that have misinformation. Basic physic classes sometimes use the electron flow model as a simple way to explain things, but they are simply wrong.

The AC signal that is transferring energy from the source to the load (amp to speaker for example) is NOT doing so by moving electrons from the source to the load. Electrons are NOT flowing down the wire like water through a hose.

Think about it..

The energy will flow through a capacitor which has an insulator in the middle of it. How do the electrons flow through an insulator? 

The energy can travel through a vacuum where there are no electrons, think radio waves.

High frequency AC  waves are commonly sent down tubes called waveguides which are hollow = no conductor = no electrons. 

 

 

 

 

I said ELECTRICAL energy transfer, especially through the wires, not all form of energy transfer!

Read carefully!

 

r27y8u92, everyone here is talking about the same energy. They may not know that, but it is all the same form of energy.  The problem is, some, like you,  just don't understand what they are talking about. Sorry, but I don't know of a nicer way to say that.

In a stereo system, it is energy in the form of an electromagnetic wave that follows a wire from one point to another. It is NOT a flow of electrons. That same energy can flow through a vacuum which pretty much proves it is not carried by, or caused by, or causes a flow of electrons. 

You can find all sorts of sites that say that it is the flow of electrons, but they are wrong. You can either educate yourself and accept the truth or continue to believe something that isn't true.. up to you.. I can't help you any further.

 

I did not say electron flow. Actually electrons does not flow in the audio cases.

I said energy transfer. Transfer is not same word as "flow".

In some cases, the electrons actually, really flow. Einstein's Nobel paper is not of the relativity theory, but electron flow effect in vacuum tube!

More talk about "Electron move/flow"

Wikipedia explains Einstein's Phoelectric Effect consisely like this:

The photoelectric effect is the emission of electrons from a material caused by electromagnetic radiation such as ultraviolet light.

I’ll add my $.02 of observation - about all it’s worth. I won’t profess to understand why or explain how as I’m a finance guy (retired) and realize the limitations of my background in this area.

I auditioned some TOTL speaker cables - in a line whose “house sound” I am well acquainted with. The dealer didn’t have them in stock so he had his distributor ship them to me. I didn’t like them as they weren’t an improvement over the brand’s model I had in system. The dealer was really surprised and we discovered in talking that the distributor sent me a fresh pair that had never been used. Dealer was frustrated and got a set that had been played in which resulted in a different experience. No - not night and day as the general sonic signature was the same, but there was an ease to the sound that was missing before. Cable break in is fairly well documented.

If cable “break in” is a thing, then is it not possible that they break in directionally? Again - not a physicist. But it made me aware of the potential.

It would not surprise me that some cable types and topologies exhibit this effect to more than others. I’ve since moved on, but used Silversmith Fideliums (superior performance/value at their price range) speaker cables for several years. No dialectric, floating ground, or direction indicated. I can imagine those being somewhat or even entirely immune to the effects of directionality. Indeed, I did not experience them breaking in over time though they may very well have. I can only confirm they were good out of the box. But Nordost and AQ are clear in indicating direction and their topology is markedly different. And I did experience break in with Nordost. On my Matthew Bond speaker cables, they did improve with time (could be my imagination) but the effect was less pronounced than with Nordost (pretty sure it wasn’t my imagination).

My local dealer then relayed a story about another audiophile customer of his who is a professor of biomedical engineering (I believe - might have the discipline wrong - but science related) who does work in the medical imaging field. That customer relayed to him the need for cable break in on their sensitive imaging devices. He said the quality of the image is notably better after the cables have settled in for several weeks. The dealer relayed that story to me after my experience - so it was not “expectation or confirmation bias” that I was exhibiting. It was data confirming what I had already heard.

As always YMMV - particularly given the remarkable variations in cable chemistry, topology and technology employed. Interesting discussion.

  

It is amazing how people ignore facts, and go on what they think is right no matter what.

My favorite foolish statement this time around in this was when someone stated that if electrons went through metal, they would all build up at one end of the cable.  Utter lack of understanding how electricity flows through a conductive metal (not a problem), then insisting that this was a fact (problem).

The easist way for your own benefit is simply test for yourself.  Cables are always directionally marked, so reverse them.  If you don't hear a difference, it doesn't matter to you.  The only way that you would fool yourself on this would be if you are using lampchords or some other electrical wire.  They aren't marked in what direction that they are extruded, since that detail wouldn't matter for a AC circuit.

Though in reality, cables are directional.  It is a basic scientific fact (not theory).  The extrusion process creates variation in the way that the metal molicules pack.  As the electrons migrate down the wire, the packing variation affects the movement from one end of the wire to the other.  This property is called inductance.

From Wikipedia: Inductance is the tendency of an electrical conductor to oppose a change in the electric current flowing through it. The electric current produces a magnetic field around the conductor. The magnetic field strength depends on the magnitude of the electric current, and therefore follows any changes in the magnitude of the current. From Faraday's law of induction, any change in magnetic field through a circuit induces an electromotive force (EMF) (voltage) in the conductors, a process known as electromagnetic induction. This induced voltage created by the changing current has the effect of opposing the change in current. This is stated by Lenz's law, and the voltage is called back EMF.

There is more going on than just inductance.  But that is the biggest effect and easist to understand.

By training, I was a physical chemist.  I did extensive training and study of the packing of molecules.

But unless you insist on being stubornly stupid, don't feel bad.  I even had to explain this to electrical engineers,  Unless they worked creating audio or video devices, they were unfamilar with the importance of these effects on audio or video equipment.

I remember having a friend over, and he insisted it didn't matter.  At the time he did not have very good stereo equipment at home.  I reversed the leads on one of my systems, then reversed them back.  He looked at me and stated it does matter.

When he bought better equipment and retested directionality himself, he reproduced the effect.

From science, inductance is real, and inductance affects the pathway of electrons through a conductive material.  The packing of the molicules will change inductance.  Stereo equipment is DC, which is a directional current.  Therefore innductance is different in either direction using the same wire.  It is a fact on packing variance.

mgrif104: could have been pre broken in.  Break in is real.

Think of recharable battery memory as another variant.  You have electrons ;moving around a system.  Electrons are the basis of chemical reactions, so by using electricity there is going to subtle chemical changes to your wires.

From my own experiments (the benefit of having more than one good system in my house), once you break in a cable, remove it, then place it on the exact same system, it tends to stay broken in.  Change the cable to another system, you need to go through the break in process from close to squrre one, but it never seems to go back to the point that a brand new cable goes to.

I have a hypothesis on this.  No cable's metal is free of impurities.  Talking to cable manufacturers, control of impurities is very important for consistancy and final quality of audio cables.  There may be some subtle chemical reactions going on between the metal and the components.  You could see how inductance, discussed in my previous post, would change and the interaction between contaminates, the metal component, and also other metals if the cable is a hybrid of say, copper and silver.

There will always be directionality in a wire.  That is the nature of packing on an extruded wire.  It may be very slight in the case of the wires that you are using.  So slight that it isn't material on your particular setup.

I really enjoyed your comment.

@r27y8u92 

I like this quote from Ralph Morrison.

If we accept the idea that fields carry energy in space, it must be true at all frequencies. That is the law. If it is true for light, it must also be true for 60Hz power and at DC. For utility power, the energy travels in the space between conductors, not in the conductors. This is not the picture presented by circuit diagrams, where energy seems to be carried by conductors. In digital circuits, the signals and energy travel in the spaces between traces or between traces and conducting surfaces.

Buildings have halls and walls. People move in the halls, not the walls. Circuits have traces and spaces. Signals and energy move in the spaces, not in the traces.

.

 STILL a topic in 2025?

The most impressive thing about this thread is the number of responses in a relatively short time span.

Carry on.

Fun read while I enjoy my fresh ground dark roast listening to newly acquired music from the used bins at my local store.

 

  

“..could have been pre broken in.  Break in is real.” no proof statement again.. yes, there is aging processes in any device s involved in sound amplification and transmission, pareto is in tubes/SS/Dig not wires. cables exposed to aging as well, but, aging makes wires performance degradation with time, due to dielectric hardening and resistance of wires increase.. connectors have own life in this process, and depend on both interconnected sides design, finishing / plating / terminating issues. 

cable can have directionality if cable is unsymmetrical in mechanical or electrical sense, such as having additional filter clamps, special optimized connectors different on two sides, or different cable prep. 

 

Several of my cables are directional, and although I cannot hear the difference, I follow the instructed direction. For unmarked cables, I use an ad-hoc approach, ensuring that the label aligns with the flow of electrons. I believe in it—why not? It’s doing something in the background, and the cumulative effect might surprise you, right? Even if it’s snake oil, there’s no harm, right?

“..the label aligns with the flow of electrons” electrons in cable move only for DC connection! All audio signals’ are AC, thus electrons are only shaking both ways, and generate EM wave moving from source to load! Not absorbed EM wave in impedance mismatched signaling schemes, such as “RCA <=> high input impedance and low output driver impedance”, creates reflections, thus time domain signal distortions.

@r27y8u92 -

     Here's a rehash, of something I posted in response to a thread entitled, 'Ok, but does your audio gear have rotons (metamaterials)?', back in 2021.

     The skill of paragraphing on this site had eluded me, at the time.

                         The following should be an easier read.

     Don't take anything toward the end of the post personally, as it was in response to a genuine dolt, back then.

           Back in 1927 Vienna, at the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics, some of the greatest minds on the planet (ie: Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Curie, etc) got together to discuss things like photons and electrons.   

            Arguments quickly ensued between those that wanted the universe to make sense, based on classical Physics and/or Relativity and those that were theorizing about quanta (packets of energy) and how so many things, observed in their experiments and in their theorems, based on such as Planck's Constant and Heisenberg's Uncertainty, seemed irrational. 

            Every day: Einstein would come up with an objection, as to why such must be in error and by evening: Bohr would have an answer.   

            As an example: Wave-Particle Duality.      Einstein wanted electrons to just be solid particles, all the time.    Bohr asserted that they existed as fuzzy/indistinct waves, with no particular position.   Only a multitude of possibilities, until observed or detected, at which time, they become particles.  

             Einstein replied, "So, you're telling me the moon doesn't exist, until I look at it?"   

             Anyway, that's a miniscule, much simplified slice of what took place then.               

             What followed that conference, is a matter of history and experimentation.   

                                                        Some proved Einstein's assertions. 
                                                                      Others: Bohrs    

              Probably: the resultant inventions that are most notable, whether you believe them to be evil or not, were the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.  

                                                    Obviously: Quantum Mechanics works.   

               One of the arguments, of which I was most interested, back in the 60's, while studying Physics, was that of Entanglement (if a photon or electron are split into two entities, each when detected/observed, will exhibit identical properties (spin), whether across the room, or across the universe.    Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance".  

                To make it fit with Relativity, his universal speed limit (speed of light) and make any sense, at all: he postulated that when a photon is split in two, both (at the source) already have those properties determined.     

                 Quantum Mechanics stated they exist as wave functions and don't exhibit any properties until observed/detected, at which point the information is instantaneously communicated (again: regardless of distance).      

                 No one had a theorem, by which to test that, until a guy named Bell (who I believe to have actually been ambivalent about the whole thing) came up with one.   He lacked the means by which to test his math, however.     

                 Then: a couple guys at Berkley, California cobbled some equipment together and proved the Quantum Mechanics view correct, using Bell's theorem.    

                 You can deny the facts, until you're blue in the face, BUT: without what's been gleaned from the study of Quantum Mechanics: we wouldn't have a few of the inventions that, I'll just bet, most of you have in your homes.  ie: LASERs, GPS, anything digital (computers, cellphones, smartphones), semiconductors (ie: diodes, transistors, ICs, etc), the electron microscope, and MRI (well... maybe those two: not in your home).  

                                                             The list could go on.     

                  Then, there's Nicola Tesla.   Make fun (if you will) regarding his belief in Quantum Mechanics, but he's to be thanked for the AC you're enjoying, in your home.     His inventions and genius* took the likes of you Deny'intologists, kicking and screaming, into the Twentieth Century.   

                   *ie:  Ever heard of the Niagara Falls Power Project?

       My point always is (refer to my prior posts): no one has all the answers, yet! 

                                                      Happy listening!                                   

 

 

                         Still working on those paragraph/typing skills.

     In the Feynman/QED model: the electron oscillates and generates a virtual photon/particle.

                  Someone mentioned liking to hurt their head?

                                            ENJOY:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

       Dielectric polarization also comes up in the discussion, toward the conclusion and Feyman diagrams.

@rodman99999,

Would I be wrong saying nothing, life, would exist without EM waves?

I ran across this video years ago which, to me, says life would not exist.

Electromagnetic waves and the electromagnetic spectrum

(To watch the video X out of the blue box by clicking on the white X upper right hand side of blue box. Then press start.)

Audio frequencies would be to the far left of the electromagnetic spectrum. My understanding because of the audio frequencies EM wavelengths wires are required to guide the EM waves from the source to the load.

What say you?

And or herman?

.

@jea48 -

     From a cursory reading, seems that link mostly deals with the need for the EM spectrum, regarding things around us and whether we could do without it.

                                  How about, "living" without:

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539805/

                                                      and/or:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/anatomy-and-function-of-the-hearts-electrical-system

                                                          ?

     I will admit: it often appears many seem to exist, without the first (ie: Alpha, at least entirely/correctly) functional.

                                               Happy listening!

jea48 -

     Regarding the vid in that link: replace, "change" with, "disturbance" and you have the same basic descriptions/principles as my link on virtual particles.  Insert, "oscillation" for either and you have the description I use most often.

     The pictoral representations and nomenclature/semanics, contained in the various, previous postings/links, on our model/theory (QED) may vary greatly, but: all represent the same basic particle/wave functions and the Right-Hand Rule. 

Stereo equipment is DC, which is a directional current

Of all the stuff written here, this I follow the least, but there are plenty of other contenders!

DC refers to Direct Current, that is to say it only flows in one direction.  Sure, our equipment runs internally on rectified and smoothed DC derived from external AC, but our equipment is fed and delivers AC signals.

AC or Alternating Current flows for a short period in one direction, then reverses direction repeatedly. Analog audio signals are AC, and current flows as a result, in speaker and interconnect cables alike.  Current is the net movement of electrons in a direction.

In a metal conductor, a cloud of free electrons exists, with each electron randomly whizzing about.  When we measure a current, it is because there is slightly more movement of electrons in the other direction - and it is called electron drift and is very slow.  Often you could run faster.

That does not mean the signal is slow!  Newton's balls illustrate this, because a ball impacting on end of a line of balls causes the ball on the far end to fly off, even though the net movement (flow) of the row of balls in the middle is almost imperceptible.

Solid metals form crystal lattices, where all the atoms line up in rows.  The atoms vibrate with thermal energy.  Sometimes an atom is missing (called a vacancy) and sometimes a part row is missing, forming a slip line.  Big bits of metal are formed from many crystals, known as grains, and where these grains join, there is a disorganised mess.  Impurities tend to migrate to these grain boundaries.  Current flow is impeded by such messes.

When a metal is plastically deformed (permanent shape change) bigger crystals break up into smaller ones.  This happens when a wire is drawn, a sheet is rolled, or a shape is forged.  The grains tend to become orientated. The grain structure along a wire will show elongated crystals, compared with the structure across the wire.  It will have lower resistance along the wire than across it.

If the metal is heated sufficiently, grains tend to coalesce again to form bigger structures in a process known as annealing but this rarely happens at normal temperatures (lead does creep very, very slowly because its vacancies can move at room temperature).

Given that speaker and interconnect wires generally carry currents that alternate in direction, I would expect any effect along the length of the wire in one direction to be exactly the same in the other direction along the wire.  The only directional effect is from shielding.

AC or Alternating Current flows for a short period in one direction, then reverses direction repeatedly. Analog audio signals are AC,

ELECTRICITY MISCONCEPTIONS:

.

@jea48 -

                                       Save your keystrokes!

                                            Happy listening!

         

@richardbrand +1 

to add: DC is connected btw source and load with two wires, one is for forward the other one for return current, in opposite to forward direction. This makes all cable directionality proposals DOA. 

@herman

The AC signal that is transferring energy from the source to the load (amp to speaker for example) is NOT doing so by moving electrons from the source to the load. Electrons are NOT flowing down the wire like water through a hose.

Think about it..The energy will flow through a capacitor which has an insulator in the middle of it. How do the electrons flow through an insulator? 

The energy can travel through a vacuum where there are no electrons, think radio waves.

High frequency AC  waves are commonly sent down tubes called waveguides which are hollow = no conductor = no electrons. 

The amplifier transferring energy to the speaker does it by moving electrons backwards and forwards through the connecting wires.  If the energy was flowing in space, you would not need fat wires and the wire resistance would not matter. Some energy does leak out as electromagnetic radiation but this energy is wasted!  QED.

A capacitor acts as a storage unit for electrons.  Pump some in on one plate, and electrons will depart from the opposite plate.  Then the current will stop unless you pump the other way (that is, reverse the applied voltage). Lo and behold, current flows the other way.  Keep alternating the voltage, and alternating current appears to flow through the capacitor, even though the plates are completely insulated from each other. The higher the frequency, the less impedance the capacitor presents to the flow of AC alternating current although the capacitor completely blocks DC (direct current).  QED

Energy can flow through a vacuum as electromagnetic radiation (light, X-rays, infra-red heat, radio waves, microwaves, etc) which vary from each other only in frequency.  Energy can also flow in a vacuum as electron streams (think the old cathode ray TV sets, vacuum tubes, electron microscopes).  So what?  QED

At very high frequencies, most of the current flows at the surface of a conductor because of the skin effect.  The effect becomes important at radio frequencies: at mains frequencies in copper the skin is about 10-mm thick!  Consequently for high frequency transmission, there is little reason to fill the centre of a conductor with expensive metal.  Instead the energy is carried by electrons flowing at the surface of the hollow tube.  However, there is a conductor and there are electrons flowing.  QED

@jea48

I think the answer is instantly. The switch is opened, Games over.

This was in response to what happens when a light is switched off, and of course the answer given is so wrong on so many levels!

When the light is on, it is because power is delivered in an electrical circuit featured by voltage and current - likely to be direct current in a car or alternating current in a home. When the current is suddenly interrupted because the switch is thrown, electrical pressure builds up at the switch. This pressure is known as voltage. If the current was big enough, the voltage becomes high enough to ionise the surrounding air and cause sparks at the switch contacts.

This is precisely the phenomenon used by older car ignition systems to generate very high voltages from 12-Volt DC electrical systems.

On another level, the light will keep generating light as the current it receives slowly dies away. High power incandescent lamps will still be hot enough to shine for a while after receiving no power at all.

Albert Einstein would assert that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It would take at least that long for the signal from the switch to reach the bulb. He would also say that there is no such thing as a single instant. Time is relative to where you are and how fast you are moving. Your ’instant’ is different to mine! But you claim to know all this stuff?

@rodman99999 

Were it the DC voltage/current, from an amp's power supply, modulated by the amp's output devices, into an amplified musical signal; it would appear much more complex, but: still a sinusoidal wave

The musical signal is more than a sinusoidal wave, otherwise it would not be considered musical!  We talk of the harmonics that make say a flute sound like a flute, or an electric guitar sound like the distorting amplifier it is connect to.

Fourier theory has it that any repeating waveform or musical note can be represented as an infinite sum of sinusoidal waves, being the base frequency plus all the possible harmonics or overtones.  You can create a graph of the frequency spectrum of the note, although the original note exists entirely in the time domain.

You can apply a mathematical Fourier transform to convert the time domain into the frequency domain, and back again (but not perfectly).

This idea is so pervasive that many audiophiles speak and think in the frequency domain - the treble does this, the midrange does that, and the bass something else.

The only thing I can think of in nature that converts the time domain to the frequency domain is our ear / brain system, which fires complex patterns of neuron activity where the original neurons which fire respond to particular frequencies, but fire at rates depending on loudness.  The initial firing pattern depends on arrival patterns in time.

There are a couple of issues.  Obviously we do not hear high frequency harmonics above say 20-kHz.  To reconstruct sharp transients (for example square waves) very high frequency harmonics are needed to capture the leading edge.  And mathematically without these high frequencies the Fourier transform wobbles before and after the leading edge.  As more higher frequencies are added, a spike appears extending the leading edge.  Ouch

      For anyone interested in expanding their understanding of sinusoidal/audio signals, without a lot of semantic gymnastics:

              https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/video-tutorials/applications-of-sinusoidal-signals/

 

Albert Einstein would assert that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

        And: proven wrong, by some of the most vigorous testing/experimentation in Physics, as mentioned previously and (obviously) ignored by the Dunning-Kruger sufferer above.

                                                     ie:

   https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/proving-that-quantum-entanglement-is-real

           The willful ignorance on this site has become SO very tedious.

                           QED (repeatedly)?

                          Mostly: non sequitur!

 I will no longer reply to your nonsense posts, here or anywhere else on this forum. Take care.

                                        Uh huh!

                          Like I said on the first page:

                           Don't blame you, one bit  

 You've nothing with which to counter, but: your ignorance of Physics.

                                Happy listening!

@rodman99999

Thanks, your reference https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/video-tutorials/applications-of-sinusoidal-signals/ has a nice illustration of what I described as square wave wobbles - relevant for digital signals.

This article explains and animates what a sinusoidal or sine wave is: Sine wave - Wikipedia and covers Fourier analysis amongst other things.

Albert Einstein would describe @jea48 ’s hypothetical "instantaneous" light switch's behaviour as impossible "spooky action at a distance". Quantum entanglement has not proven that information can travel faster than light - at least, not yet!

 

@richardbrand Said:

AC or Alternating Current flows for a short period in one direction, then reverses direction repeatedly. Analog audio signals are AC, and current flows as a result, in speaker and interconnect cables alike.  Current is the net movement of electrons in a direction.

So you are saying in a closed circuit the signal flows back and forth from the source to the load. Correct?

If the source is a CDP and the load is an Integrated Amp, using only one channel, the signal leaves the output on the hot wire of an IC,  flowing back and forth, flowing to the input of the Amp, through the input circuit of the preamp, and then returns on the return wire back to the CDP output... Correct?

As for the current the "net movement" of  charge, it will measure the same on the hot wire as the return wire in the IC back to the analog output section of the CDP. Correct? This whole event takes place in the wires... Correct?

I'm confused with this theory of the signal flowing back and forth in the wire from the CDP, through the input circuit of the preamp section in the integrated Amp, and then back to the CDP output circuit. Is this the way you say it works? How does the input section in the preamp, for a better word, extract the signal from the IC as it travels through the closed circuit, flowing back and forth, back to the CDP? And what happens to the signal that returns back to the CDP? 

Wow! Is that how you are saying it works?

.

It's makes a lot more sense the signal travels in the spaces between the two conductors in one direction from the CDP >>> to the input section of the preamp section of the Amp, in the form of EM Waves at near the speed of light in a vacuum. The signal does not return to the CDP.

The wires of the IC are needed to guide the signal energy from the CDP to the preamp. The transmission line is the two wires. You need the wires to create an Electric field and a Magnetic field  to create electromagnetic fields outside of the wires. The CDP supplies the voltage for the E field. My understanding, the B (magnetic) field is created by the electric charge flowing in the closed circuit. (Flowing, slower than cold maple syrup) And the electric charge does not flow back and forth in the wire. It's vibrating  + -  and hardly move at all in the wire.

.

You asked in a post about the size, thickness, of the wire. Simple ohms law I = E/R. The bigger the connected load, more current, amperes, the bigger the AWG of the wire needed. More Current, Amps, in the closed circuit, the stronger the magnetic fields. The bigger the load, (lower resistance), the greater the energy transfer from the source to the load. 

Energy is what makes the light bulb light, not the current. Current is not consumed by the load. Proof, it returns to the source. Current measures the same on both sides of the load.

 Energy is not consumed, it is transferred.  It does not return to the source.  

Not sure you read this post of mine on page 2. I assume you have heard of the Late Ralph Morrison.

Click on this date and time 02-10-2025 at 11:38am 

Ralph Morrison What is Electronics

Using your theory how things work, You have to disagree with everything Morrison said that I quoted of his. All of the books he wrote and published, wrong... How many books have you written?    And no I haven't written and published any books.

 .
Are you familiar with the "School of Physics, The University of Sydney"

Understanding Electricity and Circuits:
What the Text Books Don’t Tell You
Ian M. Sefton
I.Sefton@physics.usyd.edu.au

https://www.vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/2002Sefton.pdf

 Do things in the white paper sound familiar? Is Ian M. Sefton wrong too?

.

 

This article explains and animates what a sinusoidal or sine wave is:

       As did mine (very clearly) and how they're sinusoidal audio/musical signals, in our audio applications.

     As I often mention: there are a plethora of phenomena surrounding us (our universe*), that science/Physics has yet to understan

     For instance: 95-96% percent of what makes it* up, to this day remains unknown/a mystery.

            No one has all the answers, or: can make definitive statements.

      That's why what's studied in our halls of higher learning, is refered to as 'Electrical Theory'.

                                      Regarding entanglement*: 

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-quantum-entanglement-nanoscale.html

       *That particular phenomenon (second paragraph in above article) has been accepted by Physicists, for decades.

                                            Happy listening!

 

@mclinnguy +1

@rodman99999 

Were ... the DC voltage/current ... modulated ... into an amplified musical signal; it would appear much more complex, but: still a sinusoidal wave

Your article about sinusoidals did not actually define what they are!  They are pure sine waves.  Musical signals are not a pure sine wave as you stated.  However, any periodic wave can be mathematically represented by an infinite sum of sine waves  each having a wavelength which is an integer fraction of the target wave.

Explanations work best when the terms are used correctly.