Interconnect Directionality
i thought this was crazy s**t until i noticed that my cables had little arrows, so i promptly changed the direction. big difference in sound. as pointed out it’s the way the copper is drawn out and so has a perceptible impact on the flow of electrons that constitute the audio signal. makes sense i guess. |
Hi jag, that arrow could be more indicative of a shield/ground directional indicator and nothing to do with metal extrusion or crystalline directionality. And electrons don’t really flow. They more or less just sit there and vibrate. Also, they do not constitute the audio signal. But you are definitely correct about the ’crazy s**t’ part! Ha, beat you to it, geoff! |
Even if they do both - travel inside and outside the wire - at least some photons will go through the solid copper. But how can even one photon go long distances through solid copper? Furthermore, if the photons travel inside and outside the wire, the photon velocities outside the copper would be much higher than those inside the copper, no? So the EM wave would not be coherent. You don’t even have to get into quantum mechanics. It’s simple logic. Even if you’re joking. |
If the electromagnetic wave (signal) is comprised of photons AND the electromagnetic wave is carried by free electrons in the copper then doesn’t it make sense that the photons must be traveling through the copper? We know certain electrical and magnetic properties like the induced magnetic field are measured external to the copper wire and perhaps other fields, too. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. |
Relax. There is no paradox. The copper has the necessary free electrons, not the air or the dielectric material. We know photons can travel through solid material. X-Rays, radio waves and Gamma rays are well-known examples. So it’s not as if it’s a mystery. And we don’t need to find a reason why photons can’t travel through copper wire. Follow? |
I understand that. But Isn’t it true the photons are also ’skimming’ across the electrons that constitute the very outer surface of the wire, where they are subject to less mass in the space between the wire and the dielectric? This would create an incoherent em wave, since they are travelling across all the electrons from the center of the wire to the surface of the wire and all points in between. Hence the paradox. Or my grilled chicken. You realize I’m missing Johnny Quest for this... |
We already know that wire directionality is real and that it’s audible. So, obviously the signal must be traveling inside the copper, not outside the copper. Some portion of the signal may be traveling near the surface. Polishing the surface of the wire as Audioquest does seems like a good idea, maybe he knows something we don’t. Another question is how deep does the physical crystal deformation go when a wire is drawn through the die. |
| Post removed |
It actually makes no difference to the argument for wire directionality whether the “energy” of the electromagnetic wave EM travels inside the conductor or outside the conductor. The Poynting vectors argument is a red herring. This is because the material of the conductor and the dielectric determine the nature of the electromagnetic wave, including velocity. The conductor is not irrelevant. That is why the velocity of the EM wave in copper wire is different from the velocity of the EM wave in other materials, including free space where it’s equal to c. This relationship between EM wave propagation and the physical material of the conductor also explains why there is an audible difference in wire direction. More to the point, you cannot rule wire directionality because the EM wave travels outside the conductor. Even though the wire may be acting as a “waveguide” the physical composition of the wire affects propagation of the wave, thus the wave itself. Since we know the composition of wire is non-symmetrical, it makes sense that the wave will propagate differently depending on direction of the wire. Quick Summary of the difference between electron drift velocity and the signal (electromagnetic wave) velocity “The word electricity refers generally to the movement of electrons (or other charge carriers) through a conductor in the presence of potential and an electric field. The speed of this flow has multiple meanings. In everyday electrical and electronic devices, the signals or energy travel as electromagnetic waves typically on the order of 50%–99% of the speed of light, while the electrons themselves move (drift) much more slowly. Electromagnetic wavesEditThe speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave traveling along (guided by) the cable. i.e. a cable is a form of a waveguide. The propagation of the wave is affected by the interaction with the material(s) in and surrounding the cable, caused by the presence of electric charge carriers (interacting with the electric field component) and magnetic dipoles (interacting with the magnetic field component). These interactions are typically described using mean field theory by the permeability and the permittivity of the materials involved. The energy/signal usually flows overwhelmingly outside the electric conductor of a cable; the purpose of the conductor is thus not to conduct energy, but to guide the energy-carrying wave.[1]:360” |
| Post removed |
We are beyond that. I just got through pointing out (get it? Pointing?) 😛 the location and direction of Poynting vectors ☝️ in a copper wire are irrelevant to wire directionality arguments. The next thing you know they’ll be saying all wire sounds the same. But here’s a question for the group. If the “energy” of the electromagnetic wave travels primarily outside the conductor, what about skin effect? Is that a dead donkey all of a sudden? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect |
| Post removed |
You’re supposed to pick a theory and support it. You can’t have it both ways. I’m willing to listen to any theory regarding the general subject of electricity in wires, how the EM wave can be distorted and wire directionality. I’m willing to listen to either side of the issue you wish to propose. So, I’ll ask again, If the EM wave “energy” is entirely outside of the wire what does that mean for skin effect? Also, is current the same thing as the electromagnetic wave? If not, what is the EM wave? This is the Socratic method. Fire at will. Keep in mind the subject of this thread is interconnect directionality. |
OK, here we go! The MAGNETIC 🧲 FIELD induced by current traveling through wire is located outside the conductor. Inside the conductor the flux density of the MAGNETIC 🧲 FIELD is zero. The ELECTRIC ⚡️FIELD portion of the ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE is orthogonal to the MAGNETIC 🧲 FIELD which points outward from the conductor. Thus, ELECTRIC FIELDS are also OUTSIDE the conductor. This has all been described by Heaviside and Maxwell. Nevertheless, the ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE itself is INSIDE the conductor, as are the CURRENT (charge per unit time) and the COPPER FREE ELECTRONS. Therefore it’s possible that directionality of wire is real, and that there is a physical reason for it. One can easily imagine that the electromagnetic wave (PHOTONS) traveling through the solid copper wire is influenced by the orientation of the copper crystal grain structure, deformed when pulled through the final die. The orientation of the crystals - as I’ve oft opined - can be likened to a porcupine’s quills. The easiest way for photons to propagate is with the grain. The only thing we don’t know at this point is HOW the crystal grain structure affects the electromagnetic wave such that directionality is audible. |
| Post removed |
@geoffait, When I was thinking about updating my Blue Jeans Cable interconnects and Monster 14GA speaker wires/cables after reading on such in various forums, @geoffait here on agon was posting about interconnects and speaker wire/cable directionality. At the time I didn’t think anything of it until I bought used 2 pair of Clear Day Cable RCA interconnects and 2 pair of Clear Day Cable Double Shotgun speaker cable. On the interconnects and speaker cable I noticed a very distinct arrow that I assumed was for directionality from the source to the speaker with the Clear Day Cable Double Shotgun speaker cable and from the source to the integrated amplifier/receiver for the Clear Day Cable RCA interconnects. I am not a physicist but I reasoned that if directionality is/was important to Paul Laudati, the owner and maker of those wonderful sounding and very cost effective Clear Day Cables, then it’s ok with me. Paul, has since passed away but I was blessed, to have had a chance to talk to him before his passing. This, I also know from first hand empirical experiences. When I would burn in speaker wire and interconnects, I could tell the difference between my interconnects and speaker wire, coincidentally being burned in - one direction only - and keeping the burned in interconnects and speaker wire - in that direction - after the settle in period. Thanks geoffait. |
| Post removed |
jea48, unless I miss my guess Herman, the person you quoted in your last post, is as confused as a puppy dog meeting his first female puppy about the whole subject of electricity, current and the electromagnetic signal and the fields involved. In fact, there are so many errors in the Herman quotation I hardly know where to begin. But if you insist on a list of errors it would be my pleasure. You realize when you quote people so frequently you do you run the risk of being tagged with the same paint ball, don’t you? |
ahofer, so I assume you don’t actually have any kind of theory and just like flapping your gums. Nothing wrong with theory, but the assertion was there was an *audible* difference in practice. There's a way to support that assertion with evidence, but I'm not seeing it here. Did you mean "flapping your gums" as more of an improbable tweak? Like this? http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm |
Oops, that's (Mr.)
geoffkait. Where's spell check when you need it... |
I think it's those damn quantum states jerking our supposed reality around again.... ...and I think I'll just go back to petting this cat I just let out of a box. It was easy....I don't believe the box everyone keeps talking about 'thinking outside of' exists; just another excuse for bad educational experiences.....;) Y'all are Fascinating. Even Spock would be ROTFLHAO. |
sleepwalker65 Geoffy, you still have not made a case for why directionality exists, much less of how it’s implied asymmetry of energy delivery could possibly be a benefit to sound quality. >>>>Well, actually I have made a case for it. You are not convinced, that’s all. If in fact you did read any of my posts, which you probably didn’t. I can’t help noticing you didn’t refute or rebut any of my evidence. What would convince you? Some people believe what they choose to believe. You’re not one of those people, are you? 🙄 |
asvjerry I think it’s those damn quantum states jerking our supposed reality around again.... ...and I think I’ll just go back to petting this cat I just let out of a box. It was easy....I don’t believe the box everyone keeps talking about ’thinking outside of’ exists; just another excuse for bad educational experiences.....;) Y’all are Fascinating. Even Spock would be ROTFLHAO. >>>>Hic! |
I experimented with a pair of interconnects in a different location in my audio chain and again it seems like interconnect cables have directionality to them. When they are going “the right away,” there is what I will call a “phase issue” that goes away. What I’m not sure on yet is whether or not there is a forwards and backwards or if all that matters is if both cables are going forwards OR backwards together. I’m leaning towards “yes” but the difference is more subtle compared to when one cable is forwards and one backwards. |
| Post removed |
By listening, what I can hear is that when one is “backwards” and the other “forwards”, there seems to be a phase issue where the imaging is less precise. If both are backwards OR both are forwards, the phase issue goes away. I cannot easily distinguish between forwards and backwards for the pair, just that I can figure out how to get the cables in unison if that makes sense. If I hear the phase issue and I swap the direction on one cable it goes away. After that is solved, I can reverse both cables simulataneously so they stay in unison but I have difficulty determining the best direction. I think I have a preference but it’s subtle enough that I can’t be sure I’m not fooling myself. Perhaps more listening will allow me to figure it out. Any suggestions? |
What I’m trying to suggest is how do you know which end of the cables is which if the wires inside the cables were not “controlled for directionality” at the factory. If one wire is the reverse of the other “directionality wise” then it would make sense that your best results are when one cable is the reverse of the other. Of course, having all cables (wires) including speaker cables in the “correct direction” would make it easier to discern differences in direction. You can’t judge a book by looking 👀 at the cover. Plus there’s a direction issue with the shield, if the interconnects are shielded. |
If you want to make your head explode read about Iconoclast Cables.There is a long thread on AudioCircle and a couple of reviews on Audio Bacon.The three styles of Iconoclast cables are made exactly the same and measure exactly the same.The only difference is the type of copper used in each.They all sound different.The man that designs them freely admits he doesn't know why.It's fascinating reading with many charts and calculations for any science nerds that are interested :-) |
In this specific example, these cables were made by hand by myself but there was no controlling for directionality “at the factory,” because at the time of construction I didn’t know directionality existed. I learn more everyday. There are 3 conductors - 1 signal and 2 return. So with 6 wires total between 2 channels it’s possible there is a hodge podge of forwards and backwards. Even if that is the case, there should still be better or worse ways to hook them up. I’m assuming the signal cable plays a larger role so hopefully not all is lost if the neutrals are in the wrong direction. |
