I have read it argued against by those who think they know Here is proof
Paul Speltz Founder of ANTICABLES
shares his thoughts about wire directionality. Dear Fellow Audiophiles,
As an electronic engineer, I struggled years ago with the idea of wire
being directional because it did not fit into any of the electrical
models I had learned. It simply did not make sense to me that an
alternating music signal should favor a direction in a conductor. One of
the great things about our audio hobby is that we are able to hear
things well before we can explain them; and just because we can’t
explain something, doesn't mean that it is not real.
"glubson, what in tarnation are you mumbling about now? Are you off your meds or on your meds?"
I am happy that you are still using my "ask school to give you money back" invention from almost two years ago as your joking point. I guess it was a good one then, too.
Interesting. So you think there is an invisible chevron pattern below the surface, but you don't think annealing does anything. You been sharing one too many with Miller I think.
The “chevron pattern“ below the surface of the wire - the deformation of
the copper atomic structure - would be damn hard to see unless you had
Superman’s X-Ray vision. 👀 Furthermore the chevron pattern on the
surface of the wire, if that’s even there, which I’m not sure it is,
doesn’t necessarily mean anything. So, far we’re not anywhere closer to
an explanation than when we started.
You’re putting words in my mouth again. I never said annealing doesn’t do anything. What I said was annealing cannot correct the physical deformation caused by the wire manufacturing process. It’s irreversible. Try to keep up with the conversation, Mr. Smarty Pants. 👖
You claimed annealing could not change the crystal structure. Try to keep things straight.
geoffkait22,154 posts05-25-2020 10:28amYou’re putting words in my mouth again. I never said annealing doesn’t do anything. What I said was annealing cannot correct the physical deformation caused by the wire manufacturing process. It’s
In keeping with the OP's opening link, here's part II of what seems to be an ongoing thread over at Mono & Stereo: https://www.monoandstereo.com/2020/05/wire-directionality-part-2.html#more Paul openly admits it's just a theory of his but I'm sure it'll provide plenty of ammo for the already entrenched, foxhole crowds. Ready, aim, write!
“What does not make sense with my theory, is that music is traveling through the wire as an alternating current. This makes my theory difficult to accept. What is not difficult, is hearing the difference in wire directionality. I don’t know how to prove my theory, so it will simply remain a theory for now.“
>>>>>That’s a pretty big plot hole since all audio cables are alternating current. If he had paid attention to Audiogon Threads on directionality he would know the answer.
What does not make sense with my theory, is that music is traveling through the wire as an alternating current. This makes my theory difficult to accept.
At least he realizes the same thing most people have been saying. Hm... what if I told him AC current is directional?
Also I’ve seen the impedance of the cable changes if you flex them in one way vs. another, that is its impedance changes due to physical orientation. But I have to admit that this is probably caused by the change in the dielectric insulation and probably not because of the wire. The wire "directionality" in coupled to the dielectric material may play a role.
1. Would it be enough to be audible. 2. AC current simply flows with the charge being pushed by voltage it doesn't care about wire directionality. Flip the wire around and the current flows just the same if there was a difference it too would be easy to measure.
AC current simply flows with the charge being pushed by voltage it doesn't care about wire directionality. Flip the wire around and the current flows just the same if there was a difference it too would be easy to measure.
I've read it. Doesn't change the way current flows. Electric current and electric energy where Poynting vector comes in are two different things. How you make current is move charges you do that by applying voltage.
If any part of an AC current is directional, then the AC signal itself must be directional - by definition. It’s like 2+2 = 4.
When a cable is connected from the amp to the speaker, energy flows from the amp to the speaker. That is at the amp end, the cable will experience more energy vs. the end closer to the speaker, hence by definition, an AC current is "asymmetric" due to the energy distribution.
If I install a wire between an amp and speaker the current flows from the amp to the speaker if I turn the wire around it flows the same way. If an AC current were directional the way wires are being touted as directional then the current would flow backwards from speaker to amp when the direction of the wire was changed. AC currents are nothing but flows of charge the charge flows from the difference in voltage potential no matter which way the wire is.
Here is: the current is symmetric, no argue there. But the voltage is not.
For example, as the current flows from the amp to the speaker, due to loses from heat, the energy will be less and less as the current flows toward the load, in this case it's the speakers. That is the amp will send some energy out, but by the time the energy arrives at the load will be slightly less due to loses such as heat. If the energy is the same, it would violate the conservation of energy law.
Energy is equal to = V * I. And since I is symmetric, then it's must be the voltage that is NOT. That is voltage at the amp end will always be slightly larger than the voltage at the load (speakers).
If you are using current for your argument why wire cannot be be directional then you will need to prove the electric charge carries the signal from the source to the load. And you know you can'
That isn't what I said. I'm not talking about energy flow but charge flow and if a wire is directional (affects the charge flow different depending on which end voltage is applied to) then it's measurable. Whether that affects anything audible I never said.
This has to be the baseline to start from. Not just for cable
directionality, but why cables sound different. Why the type of
dielectric used to cover the wire makes a cable sound different.
I put a 1000 gram weight in your left hand. I put a 1000.1 gram weight in your right hand. Absolutely those weights are different. There is no way one could dispute this and claim they are the same. However, if I was to ask you which one was heavier, you wouldn't have a clue and if 1000 people did the same test, the results would be 500/500 approximately or purely random. No knowledgeable engineer or physicist would dispute inherent directional effects in a cable or any other multi-element series/parallel circuit for that matter. Similar to the 1000 and the 1000.1 grams weights, there is a big difference between a "technical" effect and one that is detectable by a human being.
This "directionality" at least as it applies to audio, would be easy to measure and/or quantify .... sort of like dielectrics, and once quantified, could be evaluated if within the realm of audibility. Transmission line effects are well understood and would be orders of magnitude below audibility. Most bulk circuit effects, i.e. resistance, inductance, capacitance are not even at the level to be audible (unless poorly designed/specified). The direction differences in those values, unless intentional, will be orders of magnitude below that .. or inaudible.
This "directionality" at least as it applies to audio, would be easy to measure and/or quantify .... sort of like dielectrics, and once quantified, could be evaluated if within the realm of audibility
Using this logic, then all cables should sound similar since human hearing can hear any difference.
Most bulk circuit effects, i.e. resistance, inductance, capacitance are not even at the level to be audible (unless poorly designed/specified).
Again, this logic suggests that our audible ability is so poor we couldn't tell the difference. But it's been shown our hearing is highly acute.
The direction differences in those values, unless intentional, will be orders of magnitude below that .. or inaudible.
There is also the voltage law which must follow the conservation of energy
The voltage changes around any closed loop must sum to zero. No matter what path you take through an electric circuit, if you return to your starting point you must measure the same voltage, constraining the net change around the loop to be zero.
Read this it will tell you everything you want to know about electrical circuits and then some. There is also some good links into sound and hearing read those too. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
The voltage changes around any closed loop must sum to zero. No matter what path you take through an electric circuit, if you return to your starting point you must measure the same voltage, constraining the net change around the loop to be zero.
This may be the first time someone using his own logic against himself :-)
Think of a simple voltage divider. The voltage gets smaller and smaller going in the loop. Then at the source, it gets regenerated and we start the same thing all over again. All the while this going on, the current in the loop is always exactly the same.
Since voltage is electric potential energy per unit charge if voltage doesn't sum to zero in a closed loop then you've violated the conservation of energy.
Also I don't buy the fact that the "resistance" is lower in one direction vs. the other as said here by Mr. Kaitt.
For example, each spool of wire consists of many many meters of wire. If the wire always measure less resistance in one direction, then by the time you measure from the beginning to the end of the spool, the resistance may go smaller and smaller into "negative". So this can't explain it either.
Our audible ability is poor for certain types of differences. Except where large resistance, capacitance or inductance are brought into play significantly impacting frequency response, and/or volume balance, there is little (almost none), what would pass for scientific evidence, that humans can detect changes brought about by cabling. Lots of anecdotal evidence, with some evidence w.r.t. speaker cables where cable bulk parameters are such, either on their own, or by generating amplifier instability, that changes are large enough in the frequency response to be audible. If cable direction (or cables at all), made such significant impacts, then their vendors would be clamouring over each other show that is actually the case. It is not a matter of they rarely demonstrate, it is a case of they absolutely never demonstrate it. Like literally never.
"Our hearing has been shown to be highly acute". How so? Can you quantify what that means? Most people completely misinterpret the scientific evidence that actually exists. Our ability to tell apart two sounds of similar volume is somewhat low. Introducing fairly significant phase-shifts across the frequency response is not readily detected, if at all, and the differential ear/ear timing ability of microseconds, does not confer a frequency response beyond 20Khz, or any other properties beyond differential timing.
And no, that last statement is not an opinion, that is simply a fact of basic manufacturing control. A cable that is 50 ohms characteristic impedance in once direction doesn't become 40 in the other. The difference in direction will be small, or you wouldn't be able to have 50 in the first place.
This "directionality" at least as it applies to audio, would
be easy to measure and/or quantify .... sort of like dielectrics, and
once quantified, could be evaluated if within the realm of audibility
Using this logic, then all cables should sound similar since human hearing can hear any difference.
Most bulk circuit effects, i.e. resistance, inductance,
capacitance are not even at the level to be audible (unless poorly
designed/specified).
Again, this logic suggests that our audible ability is so poor we
couldn't tell the difference. But it's been shown our hearing is highly
acute.
The direction differences in those values, unless intentional, will be orders of magnitude below that .. or inaudible.
That's because the resistance would not be different from one direction compared to the other. The impedance at a given frequency will be different though, but practically, at audio frequencies, with any reasonably manufactured cable, the difference in impedance from one direction compared to the other would be again orders of magnitude less than other dominant impedances.
andy21,116 posts05-26-2020 12:20amAlso I don't buy the fact that the "resistance" is lower in one direction vs. the other as said here by Mr. Kaitt.
For
example, each spool of wire consists of many many meters of wire. If
the wire always measure less resistance in one direction, then by the
time you measure from the beginning to the end of the spool, the
resistance may go smaller and smaller into "negative". So this can't
explain it either.
heaudio123- Our audible ability is poor for certain types of differences. Except where large resistance, capacitance or inductance are brought into play significantly impacting frequency response, and/or volume balance, there is little (almost none), what would pass for scientific evidence,.
One more time, since logic clearly is not your strong suit-
Our audible ability is poor for certain types of differences... there is little (almost none), what would pass for scientific evidence,
So which is it? "Our audible ability"? Or "what would pass for scientific evidence"?
Oh and while you're at it, just who gets to decide "what would pass for" scientific evidence?
If the wire only behaved as resistance and inductance in series, then there would be no difference in direction. However, the wire also has capacitance, and the capacitance acts as another conductive path at non-DC frequencies between the + and - wires. If you draw wire as a bunch of resistors and inductors in series, with capacitors between +/-, and you recognize all those resistors, inductors, and capacitors are different, then it becomes obvious the wire must have directional effects. The debate is not about whether those effects exist or not, it is whether they are truly audible. That directional change would be measurable.
djones512,046 posts05-25-2020 9:51pmIf the direction of the wire caused a change in current it’s measurable.
Not specifically me, but it would be people who have a clue what an experiment that involves subjective human response looks like, and any time you have to measure subjective human perceptive response, you have to isolate what is being tested, which means using only your ears, and not your eyes. Test as long as you want, test with whatever music you care to test with, get 20 of your audiophile buddies together, ... you just don't get any visual clues about what is happening. This is not rocket science.
You have been saying our hearing is so poor based on scientific evidence, would you mind sharing those "scientific evidences"?
Most bulk circuit effects, i.e. resistance, inductance, capacitance are not even at the level to be audible (unless poorly designed/specified).
Apparently, our hearing can be effective if the cable is "poorly designed". Based on your logic, all good cables should sound the same since we cannot hear any differences.
The next question to ask is what constitute a "good cable"? Who gets to decide? There is a flaw in this logic.
andy2 Also I don’t buy the fact that the "resistance" is lower in one direction vs. the other as said here by Mr. Kaitt.
For example, each spool of wire consists of many many meters of wire. If the wire always measure less resistance in one direction, then by the time you measure from the beginning to the end of the spool, the resistance may go smaller and smaller into "negative". So this can’t explain it either.
>>>>My nomination for the most absurd explanation for why directionality cannot be real. Are you posting while high? You little dickens come up with the most ridiculous reasons why something isn’t possible. Perhaps you’d be better off coming up with reasons why it is possible.
I hate to judge before all the facts are in but haven’t you skeptics jumped to conclusions? You know, you’re suppose to test BEFORE 🔙 drawing conclusions, not AFTER 🔜. Hel-loo! All this chitter chatter about blind tests or any kind of tests for that matter is just talk. And talk is cheap. Do your own tests and report back. We’ll see who gets what results and tally them up. Gee, it’s almost like you guys never heard of the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis and test to see if your hypothesis is true or not. It’s not complicated. Come on, guys. Get it together.
If the impact on frequency response is <0.1db there is little(no) evidence we can detect a difference and even more variance at the upper end of the spectrum to detect a difference. Now try to find a cable not inherently directional, i.e. with circuitry that has 0.1db difference in the audio spectrum by changing direction. Feel free to use square waves for tests with bandwidth limiting and real speakers for transmission line effects.
The next question to ask is what constitute a "good cable"? Who gets to decide? There is a flaw in this logic.
heaudio123 If the impact on frequency response is <0.1db there is little(no) evidence we can detect a difference and even more variance at the upper end of the spectrum to detect a difference.
>>>>Well, no evidence that you’ve provided. That’s for sure. I’m getting the idea you just like running your mouth.
”I’ve looked everywhere but I can’t find any evidence to support their claims.” - Whine of the lifetime pseudo skeptic.
geoffkait 22,183 posts Who likes running their mouth? 22,183 posts. Sorry, though, my fault, when I write number like 0.1db, I am communicating numbers that are well known by those "skilled in the art". geoffkait 22,183 posts. This is a very well known number for volume matching when doing human perception testing in audio as it is known to eliminate volume biasing in testing. geoffkait 22,183 posts. Some researchers would prefer to use 0.05db to ensure more tolerance between identified just noticeable differences and what is used in the test. geoffkait 22,183 posts
That 0.1db is with noise spectra where we have much higher sensitivity to differences. With actual music, it is much harder to detect volume differences. Those numbers are for rapid switching too. With longer differences in switching time, small differences in volume are harder to detect.
heaudio, you are at least two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. One hundred thousand have heard it for themselves. There are only about four of you who continue to argue. The goat laughs at you,
And once again the town fool makes an insult, gets proven wrong, then as opposed to being an adult and admitting his mistake, doubles down and throws out more insults. Physical age advanced, mental age about 8 ... prove me wrong.
Hey mods, if you are going to delete this posts, please delete well pretty much all of geoffkaits posts as about 50% of them (or more) are nothing but personal insults of other people here.
One hundred thousand have seen ghosts but it's going to take more than them claiming they saw them to prove they exist. I don't care if a million claim they hear a difference in wire directionality unless it's through tests controlled for biases.
I don't know a lot but I do know that claims about what people see or hear are filtered through normal human biases, if nothing is done to try to filter these biases then the tests and claims aren't worth much.
... I don't care if a million
claim they hear a difference in wire directionality unless it's through
tests controlled for biases.
That's rather odd that you'd sweep aside the observations of 1 million people so readily, and it suggests you have quite a bias of your own. Is there any reason you haven't conducted your own "tests controlled for biases?"
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
