So you think wire conductors in cables are directional? Think again...


Here is a very relevant discussion among physicists about the directionality...the way signal and electrons should flow... based on conductor orientation. Some esoteric, high-end manufacturers say they listen to each conductor to see which way the signal should flow for the best audio quality.

Read this discussion. Will it make you rethink what you’re being told and sold?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-copper-conductor-directional.975195/
edgewound

Showing 45 responses by andy2

If wire had directionality to audio signals somebody would already have invented a device to measure and quantify it! So where's this device?
It's called a vector network analyzer.
"By participating in a discussion regarding the existence of God you have proved you believe God".


“The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton." ...and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It 's a ghost!"
Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me. science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. or ghosts either."
Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Law of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts."
...we see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values


General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity


The original theory of MOND by Milgrom was developed in 1983 as an alternative to "dark matter". Departures from Newton's law of gravitation are governed by an acceleration scale, not a distance scale. MOND successfully explains the Tully-Fisher observation that the luminosity of a galaxy should scale as the fourth power of the rotation speed. It also explains why the rotation discrepancy in dwarf galaxies is particularly large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity#Relativistic_MOND

Damn!  Now I don't even know if I should believe in God or these so called scientists :-)


Legit curious question: What more than 1's and 0's constitutes digital signal?
1's and 0's are the abstraction.  There is really no 1 and 0 in real world data.  It's just the voltage level.  We assign a high voltage as 1, and low voltage as 0, but that voltage level can be anything.  You can also call high voltage as 0 and vice versa if you want.  There are rise time fall time.  There are jitter.  There are overshoot, undershoot.  It's all analog.

What most don't see is how these can affect the signal jitter.  Why does jitter matter in audio?  Because the DAC needs a clock and if the clock is affected by jitter, the audio coming out will be affected too.

Most RF engineers probably don't get it.  I know because I get asked this same question by a lot of so called "electrical engineer", and I have to explain this to them.  They would soon understand.



Not sure why but Audioquest has a lot of hates from the "objectivist" bunch. Their dBS has generated a lot of ridicules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLghg0QXPzs&t=37s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf3Yez8WTz4

It’s funny to see these frequency response and distortion measurement.
Kind of funny the RF folks now are criticizing about cable directional.  RF folks are known for their measurements so they have to live and die by it.
If you insist on measurement, you got to put up or shut up.

In RF, there is something called "insertion loss" or RF people would call it "SD21" or "SD12".  SD21 is the insertion loss in one direction whereas SD12 is insertion loss in the other direction.  And these are never the same especially in RF.  You measure insertion loss in one direction, then the other direction, and the results are close but never the same.

Also if RF folks also are making fun of cable lifters, remember that RF cables are very sensitive to the cable bending.  If you bend the cable just slightly, your SD21 will change.  Expensive RF cables are less sensitive but they all are.  

You see, there a lot of these voodoo scientists ... errr... I meant "objectivist".  They keep pounding on the word "measurements", but they themselves can't withstand close scrutiny.  A lot of these people are using the word "measurement" as a mean to an agenda but a lot of them don't know what they are talking about.


Here is a riddle for you guys.

Let's say you have a track from point A - to - B.  This track is not symmetric but have obstacles, uphill, down hill but everything is non-uniform.  May have more uphill or downhill depends on direction.

Case 1: You run from A to B then back to A.
Case 2: You run from B to A then back to B.

Will you expend the same amount of energy in both cases?
Drive your car to work, then drive back. Your mpg is not the same both way because one way will have more uphill or downhill vs. the other way.

Same for electrons. They will expend different amount of energy differently directionally because the metal structure is not uniform.

At least that is the theory, but as far as if you could hear a difference, I don't know.  My old age hearing probably not good enough.

Insertion loss and return loss are relevant for RF in antennas and microwave but not audio in a few feet of wire.
Since you're the data guy, I suppose you have data to back it up?  Otherwise you're just talking out of your behind.


Alternating current alternates, it's the energy that flows in one direction.
Congratulations!  You finally got it.
Those guys in the link above from the OP, when they start talking about digital signal as 0's and 1's, well they pretty lost all their credibility.  Only a layman would think digital as 0 and 1.
It's just not true...especially for AC. The AC current travels in both directions. Here's an easy explanation.
Wrong.  AC current travels in one direction.  Look up Poynting vector.  We've been through this.  You're a bit late to the party.

The link you provided is like high-school level for those who can't get past first year college.


If Feynman couldn't explain it, what hopes are there for you guys to be able to explain it.
^^^ AudioVoodooScienceReview.com.  I thought this name would be more accurate to describe them.
Lols. You looked up my quote and got the one from Sartre.

You couldn’t find it because it came directly from me. That’s why google couldn’t find it either Looks who still busy growing up. See that’s then intention of the quote.

Here’s another one for you.
"You throw a rock over the fence. The dog that barks first is the one got hit."
A lot of the so called "objectivists" believe in some of the so called "measurement websites".  They measure some frequency responses, some basic distortions and make some wild claims that nobody cares to check.  

It's funny how these "objectivists" are taken for a ride and they just blindly believe without even questioning about the validity of these so called "measurements".  How funny as they are being duped.  
In my day job, we wouldn’t trust any equipment. We actually have to characterize equipment to make sure they measure what they advertise.

Apparently, some here just google up some equipment and think they are good enough.

$10K for 0.05% accuracy out to 1MHz
I suppose some people have the data to back up 0.05% is good enough to measure human hearing. I don’t, but if you post something, you need to back up your claims.

That is sufficiency accuracy for a cable in audio.
Again, a statement without evidence or proof.

Interesting how some can so readily believe in what they search on google. :-)
So yes, 0.05% is more than good enough for human hearing, or any practical manufacturing process.

So basically you just pulled some number out of a hat without anything to back up.  Kind of like a magician.  So much for being an objectivist :-)

A high school drop out could say what you said since it doesn't mean much.

Even $8K he has not justified. A quick search shows $10K for 0.05% accuracy out to 1MHz.
OK, some misinformation here.  You claimed your LCR meter can measure up to  "0.05%" of accuracy.  How does that equate to .004dB at 20MHz?  Seems like a slight of hand.  Unless you are referring to frequency response of .0004db at 20KHz in which case you sort of changing your story.  I don't see how .05% of LCR can equate to .004db at 20MHz.  Anyway, if your meter can't measure the difference between silver and copper cables at 20KHz, I am not sure it is worth that much, because anybody can clearly hear the difference between silver and copper cables.  Oh wait I know what you'll say.  You say these people are all delusional and you're right.  I guess it's the case of the whole world is wrong and you're right.

But data will not be on your side here.  No two cables will measure to have exactly the same LCR.  But oh wait I know what you'll say since you guys are all too predictable.  It's all "below human hearing threshold".  Like parrots repeating each others.  But a lot of these guys at the so called "measurement websites", have no clue about the science of human hearing.  If you have no idea about human hearing, how in the world do you know something is below the human hearing threshold.

I have to laugh at some of the attempts of these guys trying to measure cable frequency distortion.  They would compare the distortion of two cables, and declare that they are close enough to be all below human hearing threshold.  They actually tried to show off that they could measure up all the way to 100KHz.  I had to laugh.  A flaw measurement doesn't make it right even if you can do it at 100KHz.



At least the author uses science and math.


I didn’t realize how an objectivist can be fooled so easily. Just throw around some fancy equations and they will just bend over.
Look at all that chest puffing, but not an argument among the four of you. That is rather telling.

Hm... interesting.  Any data from you yet?

By the way, equations are not data.

Everything a human is capable of hearing can be measured.

Maybe the most naive statement in audio.  The objectivists are starting to show how gullible their reasonings are.


Not everything can be counted, counts. Not everything that counts, can be counted.

You can’t judge a speaker by just the freq. response graph. Same for cables.

Yes, if there are some obvious anomaly in the freq. response, then sure you can say it’s a bad speaker or cables, but within some acceptable range, measurements cannot separate the bad from the good.

The problem is 99% of the speakers or cables on the market all fall within the "acceptable range". Only listening can tell.

If you think you can measure a cable freq. distortion and can tell the good and the bad, you may as well spend your time watching paint drying.
Everything a human can hear can be measured, no ifs, ands or buts. There is no equivocation,  no in principle, it's a simple fact. Plain and simple everything we hear is a physical phenomena transferred via the air around us.
Something tells me you don't fully understand what you wrote.

There is a difference between measuring sound pressure which anybody can measure. 

But it's difference from measuring how human perceive music.  No instrument on earth that I know of can do that.


Here is an concrete example why if you believe in equation, you're can be so wrong.  Let's take an example of silver vs. copper.  We all know silver sounds brighter compared to copper.  But it's not so obvious if you believe in the equation.  See below for the DC resistance of silver and copper which is a mere 2ohm per 1000 ft for 24-gauge.  For a typical 6ft speaker cables, the resistance difference is a miniscule .012 ohm.  For thicker 12AWG wire, that difference may even be smaller.  The objectivists looking at the equation would state that 0.012 ohm is well below the threshold of human hearing.  But it's not that simple since we can all hear the difference in silver vs. copper.

But here a curve ball.  I build my own speaker.  Now if I use a 2.0Ohm resistor on my tweeter, or a 2.012ohm I probably won't be able to hear a difference.  Why is that?  To be honest, I don't know.  But I can clearly hear the difference between silver vs. copper.

OK, now you may say skin affect is what makes a difference.  But if you use Maxwell equation to solve for skin affect, at 20KHz, the difference between silver vs. copper  going to be even more miniscule.  Objectively skin affect should only affect RF frequency.  Looking at the equation you will conclude that it's all below the threshold of human hearing.  But again we can all hear difference in silver vs. copper.

You see how the objectivists can be fooled if all they look at is the equation.  That's why they believe in these so called "measurement website".  They look at thing at only one dimension and make their own conclusion.  But there too many variables.  Too many that can be counted.


Silver and copper are the two most conductive metals known to mankind, with gold following behind in third place. The conductivity of silver clocks in at 63 x 10^6 siemens/meter, roughly seven percent higher than the conductivity of annealed copper, which stands at 59 x 10^6 siemens/meter. Measured in ohms, the difference in the resistance (the amount of electricity lost as a current travels from point A to point B through a material) of 24-gauge, 1000-foot-long silver and copper wire is minor. The resistance of the copper wire is a mere 2 ohms higher.

As a scientist can you tell us how science would go about creating test where we can " trust our ears"?
If I were you I'd stop posting.  The more you post, the more you sound kind of ignorant. 




I’m not saying to measure anything. Just don’t cheat and use your eyes when trying to judge what you’re hearing. That’s all.
djones apparently doesn’t know how the brain functions in term of localizing a sound source. Both eyes and ears are needed for the brain to process and localize where the sound is coming from.




Ahem .... I got something the objectivists can chew on. Given the complexity, this will probably take them some times. Unless, djones et al ... can possess sonar capability, hearing by itself is not going to give you accurate localization. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674475/

The visual and auditory systems frequently work together to facilitate the identification and localization of objects and events in the external world. Experience plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining congruent visual–auditory associations, so that the different sensory cues associated with targets that can be both seen and heard are synthesized appropriately. For stimulus location, visual information is normally more accurate and reliable and provides a reference for calibrating the perception of auditory space. During development, vision plays a key role in aligning neural representations of space in the brain, as revealed by the dramatic changes produced in auditory responses when visual inputs are altered, and is used throughout life to resolve short-term spatial conflicts between these modalities. However, accurate, and even supra-normal, auditory localization abilities can be achieved in the absence of vision, and the capacity of the mature brain to relearn to localize sound in the presence of substantially altered auditory spatial cues does not require visuomotor feedback. Thus, while vision is normally used to coordinate information across the senses, the neural circuits responsible for spatial hearing can be recalibrated in a vision-independent fashion. Nevertheless, early multisensory experience appears to be crucial for the emergence of an ability to match signals from different sensory modalities and therefore for the outcome of audiovisual-based rehabilitation of deaf patients in whom hearing has been restored by cochlear implantation.

Hey maybe you can start a business curing people with cancer using their mind.  Can make a lot of money.  Win a Nobel Prize too.
Funny thing is there are numerous examples of people having something very much akin to sonar. It generally is referred to as echolocation, and has been the focus of some experiments/studies, scientific-like and everything ( they probably even use voltmeters and stuff ).
Can these people maneuver in a dark room? No because they are not bats. There is a difference from having some special skills vs. actually possessing capability that can paint the surrounding with sound.  Bats can do that and dolphins can but human can't.


I am curious to know why if they could, why would they still need a stick to go around? Maybe in some special cases, but I could only see two vid on youtube.

I do recall some circumstances where people claim to have cured their cancer with their mind, but there are on a few reported cases.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260132610_A_summary_of_research_investigating_echolocation_abilities_of_blind_and_sighted_humans

To some very limited degree. If a blind person can ride a bike on a crowd street then there may be something to it. I am sure blind people mental capacity can develop to compensate for the lost of vision, but to say human can have the ability as bats which is quite inaccurate.

Because they take advantage of their hands and because they walk on solid earth they dont swim or fly...
Because they need to use the stick to know if there are obstacles on their path.  They can't do that with sound echo.
With only 11 posts, got some real credibility.  The posting language probably didn't help either.
Ya see how bizarre things are here djones51 and edgewound. I am now the thing under the bed now. You two made the mistake thinking this was an audio site? Nope? Instagram for audio children who never grew up past high school. Can't have a mature discussion about cable's here or audio. They are not interested. It's a cliche and you are not invited. How bizarre, how bizarre.

Thank you for the comedy.  I was laughing out loud.

If you hear a difference but your measurement instruments are saying no difference, then there is something wrong with the way you measure. 

You don't go to your doctor to have your ears checked.  That would be a bit odd.  I don't know of anyone who would come to this conclusion.  
Just curious...What does a doctor know about hearing?

Aren't they all come from the same guy lols.
Just curious, what does a physicist know about cable?  Announcing oneself to be a physicist is somewhat of a give away.    
It's kind of a interesting phenomenal.  Someone with only a few posts making all the noise.  First it was the yessomething guy, now it's snratio.  
With all joking aside, I’m confident that from the listening position, a half dozen strategically placed throw pillows can influence sound more than any speaker wire, no matter how much it costs or which direction the arrows are pointing.
It also depends on the resolution of the system. If you have a system that is "more than neutral", it would be easier to hear the difference. When I say "more than neutral", I mean the system sounds brighter than usual.

For example, if you intentionally have the tweeter level more than a few db above the rest of the audio frequency, then any changes in equipment can easily be heard.

And of course having a good hearing also helps.