Directional interconnects?

[Bigmoney]

What are directional audio interconnects. When are they appropriate and when are non directional cables the way to go?

[Feanor]

What are directional audio interconnects. When are they appropriate and when are non directional cables the way to go?

I've I got it right, the theory is that the insulatiing material (dilelectic) in the interconnect assumes a slightly different electrical configuration over a period of time depending on the direction of the flow of the current. Furthermore, that once stablized for the particular direction of current flow, the sound is better.

Many interconnects come with direction indicators, but in most cases there is no physical diffence one direction versus the other. The idea is that if you use them consistently with a given direction of current, the cable's dielectric will stablized for that direction.

I personally have never heard a difference in cables with respect to either burn-in or direction, but other people may well hear a difference (or imagine they do).

[Luvin Da Blues]

I've I got it right, the theory is that the insulatiing material (dilelectic) in the interconnect assumes a slightly different electrical configuration over a period of time depending on the direction of the flow of the current. Furthermore, that once stablized for the particular direction of current flow, the sound is better.

Many interconnects come with direction indicators, but in most cases there is no physical diffence one direction versus the other. The idea is that if you use them consistently with a given direction of current, the cable's dielectric will stablized for that direction.

I personally have never heard a difference in cables with respect to either burn-in or direction, but other people may well hear a difference (or imagine they do).

This may be true for a DC current but an audio signal??? :confused5:

[bfalls]

Audioquest has interconnects designed around this theory, the DBS (Dialetric Bias System). The cables actually have a 48V source to align the polarity of the dialetric around the conductors. I haven't seen any reviews, or seen anyone list them as interconnects in their reference systems. It seems the design would reduce the "burn-in" time.

[JohnMichael]

Some IC's are directional because they are shielded and the shield is only grounded on one end. Of course I can not remember if the grounded end of the IC is supposed to be at the source end or the amp end.

[Bigmoney]

Ahh, I see. I suppose it may have some scientific explanation as to how it may improve sound but it seems for all intensive purposes it's just more snake oil, agreed?

[oaqm]

Some IC's are directional because they are shielded and the shield is only grounded on one end. Of course I can not remember if the grounded end of the IC is supposed to be at the source end or the amp end.
If memory serves, they are grounded at "opposite" ends, which is why they are marked for direction (to prevent the grounded ends being hooked to the same component).

Directional cables are one of those things that I am just ..... how shall I put this? I am unconvinced.

[Smokey]

This may be true for a DC current but an audio signal??? :confused5:

Somebody got busted :D

[Feanor]

Somebody got busted :D

I just told it the way I heard it. I wonder ... is it the direction of the current or just which end of the pipe is "hot"??

[Mr Peabody]

Cables such as Transparent and MIT's must be directional due to the use of networks. Insert the cable incorrectly and the effect is obvious.

On a typical cable the reason to maintain ONE direction is due to Eddy currents. The flow of current through the cable creates an electromagnetic field. I don't fully understand exactly the theory to explain it. The Eddy currents is what causes "skin effect" in cables where the highs are forced to the outer surface of the wire. The effect on audio cables is also due to the flow of electrons, some how when they flow in one direction for a period of time with the effect of Eddy current the flow will meet more resistance the other direction.

Feel free to correct me if I got some of that jumbled. You'll see some manufacturers talking about a method they utilize to minimize the Eddy effects.

[Feanor]

What are directional audio interconnects. When are they appropriate and when are non directional cables the way to go?

Here's a link to AudioQuest's "cable theory" (http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/aq_cable_theory.pdf). The document targets audiophiles, not scientists, so it isn't difficult to read. It presents various plausible-sounding theories as to what effects speaker sound.

[markw]

Cables such as Transparent and MIT's must be directional due to the use of networks. Insert the cable incorrectly and the effect is obvious.

On a typical cable the reason to maintain ONE direction is due to Eddy currents. The flow of current through the cable creates an electromagnetic field. I don't fully understand exactly the theory to explain it. The Eddy currents is what causes "skin effect" in cables where the highs are forced to the outer surface of the wire. The effect on audio cables is also due to the flow of electrons, some how when they flow in one direction for a period of time with the effect of Eddy current the flow will meet more resistance the other direction.

Feel free to correct me if I got some of that jumbled. You'll see some manufacturers talking about a method they utilize to minimize the Eddy effects.Again. we're talkin' AC here, not DC. The current is constantly changing direction.

[Mr Peabody]

If you are referring to the Eddy currents it apparently has an effect on both AC and DC. Eddy current effects are effectively used on braking systems for trains and roller coasters. Your speakers receive a DC signal. The effect still happens with lower level signals.

[markw]

Your speakers receive a DC signal.No, speakers receive an AC signal if the amplifier is working properly. That's what drives the speaker. If it's receiving any significant amount of DC, there's a problem with the amp.

Besides, we're talking about interconnects, aren't we? So, where do speakers come into play?

In any case, unless there's a diode in the signal path, the "directionality" of a cable (or interconnect) will have no efffect on an AC signal at all.

And, for eddy currents to be an issue there must be physical movement which is valid for train brakes but is absent here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current

I'm waiting for someone to say that the signal path has to tilt downwards because the signal flows better going downhill due to the effect of gravity.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I'm waiting for someone to say that the signal path has to tilt downwards because the signal flows better going downhill due to the effect of gravity.


OK...

..the signal path has to tilt downwards because the signal flows better going downhill due to the effect of gravity. :biggrin5:

[markw]

OK...

..the signal path has to tilt downwards because the signal flows better going downhill due to the effect of gravity. :biggrin5:Oh, a wise guy, eh? whyyioutta.... :biggrin5:

(pick two fingers)

[Smokey]

And, for eddy currents to be an issue there must be physical movement which is valid for train brakes but is absent here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current


How did train brakes get into this discussion :D

Mr Peabody, Eddy current is caused by [moving] electromagnetism. In DC electromagnetism is constant, so there is no eddy current in DC.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Oh, a wise guy, eh? whyyioutta.... :biggrin5:

(pick two fingers)


Duh, why do you think people put their amps on the floor? Why does lightning look like it goes from the sky down? Why did they used to put powerlines overhead?...so when they hooked up houses it was down hill. Need more proof? :lol:

[Mr Peabody]

Naim felt Eddy current effects cables
http://www.naim-audio.com/products/cables.html

Here's a guy who engineered all of his audio products around resisting Eddy
http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/404listening/

Audience cables claim to fame is resisting Eddy
http://www.stereotimes.com/cables071001.shtml

Here's a great article by an engineer at Marshall Electronics, not only does he mention Eddy but gives many valid reasons why one might hear differences in cables
http://www.pcrecording.com/cable.htm

This guy who is a robotics engineer talks about claims made by cable companies. He says Eddy currents are evident in any conductor in a magnetic field. He provides a good explanation of Eddy and why it is in conductors. He also says the effect would be minimal in the audible range. It is interesting he says a stranded wire is best to minimize Eddy where Audience claims a solid core conductor is best. Gee why would anyone be confused.....
http://white.hometheatertalk.com/cableclaims.htm

Here is another good article about cable claims in general but as the others validate the existence of Eddy in cables
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html

Yet another cable company, yet another acknowledgement of concern over Eddy in conductors (wire)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nLGyrK63bYwJ:www.sunnycable.com/files/SCT-Theory.pdf+eddy+current+effect+on+audio+cables&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

You can believe it's there or not.

[Mr Peabody]

BTW-

Does he say the power supply converts AC to DC, how did you all miss that?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/amplifier1.htm

[markw]

And they're free to believe that but if they try to convince me they did, I'd have the same reaction to someone telling me that an AC signal flows better in inew direction than another.

That is, don't piss on my shoes and try to tell me it's raining.

I don't see anywhere in those links you so kindly provided that have anything to do with audiable differences depending on the directionality of cables. do you? So, nice try pulling a melvin and side-stepping the directionality issue.

I still say gravity has more of an effect. After all, electrons do have weight so it must have an effect, right?

AFAICT, what started out as a valid solution to a grounding issue got misinterperted by (sarcasm mode on) "one of those in the know" (sarcasm mode off) and he told two friends, and they each told two more friends, ad infinitum and, before you know it, another hi-fi myth is born.

We're getting into areas covered in another thread entitled "What's really killing the high end" here.

Here's some more for ya : http://www.machinadynamica.com/

Now, how about we get back to the subject at hand (directionality) and please watch where you're pointing that thing.

[Rich-n-Texas]

No, speakers receive an AC signal if the amplifier is working properly. That's what drives the speaker. If it's receiving any significant amount of DC, there's a problem with the amp.

Besides, we're talking about interconnects, aren't we? So, where do speakers come into play?

In any case, unless there's a diode in the signal path, the "directionality" of a cable (or interconnect) will have no efffect on an AC signal at all.

And, for eddy currents to be an issue there must be physical movement which is valid for train brakes but is absent here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current

I'm waiting for someone to say that the signal path has to tilt downwards because the signal flows better going downhill due to the effect of gravity.
I got in trouble with my electric shop teacher in high school because I got the answer wrong on a test: In which direction does current flow? Well, I was looking at the meter in front of me and answered with... left to right, because the + side connection was on the right side and the - was on the left. True story. And boy did he get pissed!!!

[Bigmoney]

Mr. Peabody, in all honesty, I tried hookin up a pair of directional cables in the opposite direction as well as one rca in the correct direction and one in the opposite. Not to disclaim that their is a lot of science and research that goes into building a high quality cable, BUT I beg to believe that beyond the basics to cable design ( shielding, capitance, inductance, termination, solid verse stranded and copper grade) all other innovations are inaudible to even the most trained ear. That is unless by trained you mean canine.............

[Mr Peabody]

Markw, The links were provided because you and your nay sayer friends didn't seem to understand the claims of Eddy currents in cables, which was given as a reason for the directional arrows. You and Smokie are like the guy discussed in the one article you are quick to dismiss anything, open your mouth all the time to criticize but have never tried the tweak you condemn. I personally wouldn't buy directional over non-directional for any reason unless one sounded better in my system. I also do not support or dismiss the directional theory. I figure if a cable manufacturer provides arrows and says it should go this way, then they must have a reason for doing so. Like when I replace a battery, I put in in the way the arrow shows. In addition, I didn't see you providing any links on direction one way or the other either. The links were provided to show I didn't just make up the claims of Eddy currents in cables. I post from things I've read or from experience which you might try. It's much easier for those of you to claim disbelieve when you talk from your butt.

The link to Pear cables does mention direction. Grado's Signature cables are directional but they don't say why.

This guy validates something already mentioned here about the grounding and one end having ground not connected to prevent ground loops.
http://listserve.com/archiver/html/collins/2002-07/msg00506.html

I have to admit it is easy to find cables with arrows and recommend a certain direction but an explanation why is more difficult. I guess they expect us to already know.

[Mr Peabody]

Bigmoney, I have some RCA's that have arrows, one pair is from Audio Note, and I have incidently put them in place backwards and didn't notice it when listening. However, the cables mentioned, Transparent and MIT, use networks, I have many Transparent brand, and when those are in backwards it is audible. I'm not sure what are in the networks but apparently the direction of the connection is very important. Their story is all about something called "antenna effect" of runs of cable and the networks are said to counter that effect. The reason I purchased them is the vast improvement in sound quality I noticed. Some people like to split hairs and mense words for argument sake, like saying cables cannot improve the sound quality of your equipment. Although, in one aspect I agree with that, cables can however improve the overall system presentation by allowing more of what your system is capable of to shine through. By claiming cables don't make a difference is the same as saying better parts can't improve the sound of equipment. The signal is leaving one piece of equipment to enter another and it stands to reason the better that signal is protected and the easier it flows the better the result.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Although, in one aspect I agree with that, cables can however improve the overall system presentation by allowing more of what your system is capable of to shine through. By claiming cables don't make a difference is the same as saying better parts can't improve the sound of equipment. The signal is leaving one piece of equipment to enter another and it stands to reason the better that signal is protected and the easier it flows the better the result.


I'm in 100% agreement.:cornut:

Well said.

[hermanv]

National Instruments makes test equipment and software.

Here is a link to their article on cable shields and grounding. They talk about instrumentation amplifiers, think audio input.

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3344

[markw]

The link to Pear cables does mention direction. Grado's Signature cables are directional but they don't say why.Well. perhaps you can shed some light on this? OTherwise, it's just puffery.


This guy validates something already mentioned here about the grounding and one end having ground not connected to prevent ground loops.
http://listserve.com/archiver/html/collins/2002-07/msg00506.htmlIf you'll read my other posts more critically, both here and in another current post around here, you'll note that I did state that they could be useful in correcting grounding issues. See? Sometimes it is really as simple as reading.


I have to admit it is easy to find cables with arrows and recommend a certain direction but an explanation why is more difficult. I guess they expect us to already know.It's not that difficult, really. It's for grounding if it becomes an issue. Da arrow points to da RCA plug that has the shield grounded. How difficult is that to master?

Oh, since you castigated me about my lack of web sites to calidate my point, here's what JBL has to say about Directional Interconnects/Wire.

"Since audio is an alternating (AC) signal, overall the electrons in wires will spend exactly half of the time moving in one direction, and half of the time moving in the other. They end up where they started. Since there is no net flow of current, there can be no directional preference in the conducting wires. If there were directional behavior in interconnects or speaker wire, we would have the beginnings of diode behavior, meaning that one half of the audio signal would be distorted - clearly not a good idea. This is part of the 'smoke' of audio. There is, however, one legitimate situation where the orientation of an interconnect matters, and that is if one ground connection has been broken to eliminate a ground loop. In this case the end with the attached ground should be plugged into the signal source. See: Alternating Current, Ground Loop, Unbalanced Connection, Diode."

Here's the link : http://www.jbl.com/home/technology/glossary.aspx?language=ENG&country=USA&region=act=glossary&term=D

But, I did misspeak at one point on the other thread that brought this up. The ground should be at the source, not the target but, in most cases it's a moot point since an audiable difference is rare, as was shown by BigMoney's test here.

[markw]

Although, in one aspect I agree with that, cables can however improve the overall system presentation by allowing more of what your system is capable of to shine through. By claiming cables don't make a difference is the same as saying better parts can't improve the sound of equipment. The signal is leaving one piece of equipment to enter another and it stands to reason the better that signal is protected and the easier it flows the better the result.



I'm in 100% agreement.:cornut:

Well said.

Agreed. Nobody ever disputed the need for good shielding, but what's this have to do with directionality of the signal passing through an interconnect?

[hermanv]

Agreed. Nobody ever disputed the need for good shielding, but what's this have to do with directionality of the signal passing through an interconnect?
Nothing, it has to do with directional interconnects, "correct" shielding is one shield end grounded making the cable ipso facto directional.


If you'll read my other posts more critically, both here and in another current post around here, you'll note that I did state that they could be useful in correcting grounding issues. See? Sometimes it is really as simple as reading.
Perhaps you can re-read the original post, no mention was made of signal flow direction or of sound quality improvements, real or imagined. The honest question was, "What's up with directional interconnects?"


Da arrow points to da RCA plug that has the shield grounded. How difficult is that to master?
Harder than it looks, da arrow points away from da end whose RCA plug is supposed to be grounded.

It's easy to get caught up in sniping, I know I've done it. It usually doesn't help the original poster and sometimes it's hard to get the egg off your face. I sort of picked on markw, certainly he's not the only one caught up in watering his neighbor's shoes.

[markw]

Nothing, it has to do with directional interconnects, "correct" shielding is one shield end grounded making the cable ipso facto directional.


Perhaps you can re-read the original post, no mention was made of signal flow direction or of sound quality improvements, real or imagined. The honest question was, "What's up with directional interconnects?"It's all about context. Mr V. My input here was a continuation of a conversation I was having with bigmoney in another thread on this a few days ago.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=26057

You'll notice I had no inclination to jump in her until Peabody dedided to verbally fertilize this thread.

Also, please note that although I hadthe ground/no ground scenario reversed, the implementation I suggested was correct. that'll teach me to doubt myself.



Harder than it looks, da arrow points away from da end whose RCA plug is supposed to be grounded.

It's easy to get caught up in sniping, I know I've done it. It usually doesn't help the original poster and sometimes it's hard to get the egg off your face. I sort of picked on markw, certainly he's not the only one caught up in watering his neighbor's shoes.Again, the subject of grounding was broached early in the thread and our Mr P, who is so eager to defend the high end, decided to start spraying everyone's shoes with imagined reasons, train brakes and other hyped up links purported to define the "scientific" reasons for differences in the "Sound" of cables.

Technoblabble and floobydust is jumped on like flies jump on garbage and Mr P surely makes a good target,.

When, in the end, it's all about the ground, which is technically not a "directionality" issue but a ground issue.

Ultimately, your diagram and the explanation on the JBL web site were all that was really needed.

[hermanv]

The sound of cables is certainly a worthy subject. Thousands of impassioned words have been published here and in other places about whether or not exotic cables are snake oil or contribute a genuine effect.:incazzato:

Discussion is actually baned on some forums because of the passions both sides have in the contention that their view is the only correct view. Worse, either side can easily quote evidence of their positions correctness. :ciappa:

I have exchanged many emails with Mr. P we get along fine. Mr. P is welcome to invite the cable sound guaranteed flame war, I'd just as soon not wish to review that issue here. :hand:

[markw]

The sound of cables is certainly a worthy subject. Thousands of impassioned words have been published here and in other places about whether or not exotic cables are snake oil or contribute a genuine effect.:incazzato:

Discussion is actually baned on some forums because of the passions both sides have in the contention that their view is the only correct view. Worse, either side can easily quote evidence of their positions correctness. :ciappa:

I have exchanged many emails with Mr. P we get along fine. Mr. P is welcome to invite the cable sound guaranteed flame war, I'd just as soon not wish to review that issue here. :hand:I'm glad you two get along just fine and since this does involve the "sound" of cables with regards to their directionality, I'd be interested on your positions on his postings here, particularly in regards to train brakes. ;)

After all, you were surely free with criticizims on mine so your observations on his input would only be fair, no? :ciappa:

...or you saying that you agree with all he said and it's relevant to the matter at hand?

[Mr Peabody]

I did not state the Eddy currents as anything accept a given reason by some companies to explain why a cable would be directional, or to explain why some one should buy their cable vs another. Every cable has "a story" or theory behind why they think their cables are better. The only difference is some cables actually do help, I know that to be true and remain open minded, and you don't want to accept anything. I think it was your zealous attempt to be sure we all remain using entry level everything that prompts your attitude.

Actually the debate is good, it gives me a direction to research and as in many other audio debates I find the same with this one, even those who are behind the cables, companies and engineers don't seem to agree. As I posted links to show where the Eddy current theory originated there are at least that many I ran across that states they aren't important or don't effect audio frequencies etc. So don't try to twist things to make it look like I tried to push the theory or give it as fact. If you checked the Eddy current for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to belittle then we wouldn't be having this exchange now.

No thread on this board has ever stayed on topic so why are you jumping up and down? Besides that I believe what has been said is all related.

.

[markw]

I did not state the Eddy currents as anything accept a given reason by some companies to explain why a cable would be directional, or to explain why some one should buy their cable vs another.So, you're saying you were just parroting sales material with no basis to either believe or disbelieve it?

Face it. you bought into the mantra fully in post 10 and I called you on it in post 12. Next thing I know, you're throwing train brakes into the discussion. Cheeze and crackers, man, gimme a break!


Every cable has "a story" or theory behind why they think their cables are better. The only difference is some cables actually do help, I know that to be true and remain open minded, and you don't want to accept anything.Now, don't put words in my mouth. I do accept that some cables can be improperly designed and impair sound. some may even prefer it as a rudimentary tone control, which the high end eschews, just as some prefer high orders of even harmonics in their amps.


I think it was your zealous attempt to be sure we all remain using entry level everything that prompts your attitude.Funny, I think it was your readiness push some cable manufacturer's sales brochures as fact that fanned this fire.


Actually the debate is good, it gives me a direction to research and as in many other audio debates I find the same with this one, even those who are behind the cables, companies and engineers don't seem to agree. As I posted links to show where the Eddy current theory originated there are at least that many I ran across that states they aren't important or don't effect audio frequencies etc.And, if they don't affect audio frequencies or directionality, why bring them up? ..or you saying they do? Which is it?


So don't try to twist things to make it look like I tried to push the theory or give it as fact. If you checked the Eddy current for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to belittle then we wouldn't be having this exchange now.Well, yeah, you kinda did. Re-read this thread.


No thread on this board has ever stayed on topic so why are you jumping up and down?I'm not. I just have fun when people throw red herrings into a discussion in order to prove a non-existent point or try to baffle people with BS when one can't dazzle 'em with brilliance.

IOW, some people can't say simply "I don't know why but I believe it"


Besides that I believe what has been said is all related.And that. my friend, explains a lot as to why the high end is slowly dying.

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=markw]So, you're saying you were just parroting sales material with no basis to either believe or disbelieve it?

* What I'm saying is I heard of it before and threw it out as a possibility.

Face it. you bought into the mantra fully in post 10 and I called you on it in post 12. Next thing I know, you're throwing train brakes into the discussion. Cheeze and crackers, man, gimme a break!

* I did not believe one way or the other. If I was sold I'd be using them, wouldn't I?

Now, don't put words in my mouth. I do accept that some cables can be improperly designed and impair sound. some may even prefer it as a rudimentary tone control, which the high end eschews, just as some prefer high orders of even harmonics in their amps.

Funny, I think it was your readiness push some cable manufacturer's sales brochures as fact that fanned this fire.

* That was not the intent. That was your assumption.

And, if they don't affect audio frequencies or directionality, why bring them up? ..or you saying they do? Which is it?

* I didn't say they did, but I showed where some do say that. Some say they don't. I say I don't know one way or the other. If I tried one of those brands and the sound of my system was some how more pleasing using them, then I would buy them. I use Transparent, their claim to "antenna effect" makes sense but that's not the reason I bought them. Siltech whom I also use, utilize mixtures of copper, silver and gold. Again, their claim is not what got me to pay to put them in my system. There are claims that say Eddy currents are a problem, there are claims that say they aren't, just because of the articles that say they aren't true, don't make it so either. You can't prove Eddy currents have no effect. You just have your belief. The difference is I don't know if they do or not but remain open to it, where you, who knows no more, wants to take a hard line.

Well, yeah, you kinda did. Re-read this thread.
* Well no, I kind a didn't, that was your assumption.

I'm not. I just have fun when people throw red herrings into a discussion in order to prove a non-existent point or try to baffle people with BS when one can't dazzle 'em with brilliance.

* I think you have the honor of the BS. It was your accusations that I some how made up what I said that started the exchange.

IOW, some people can't say simply "I don't know why but I believe it"
* And some can't say I don't believe it but it could be.

[markw]

Whatever you say, Mr P. Our posts speak for themselves. We'll let others decide who tried to clarify and who tried to obfuscate the issue.

[hermanv]

I was asked where I stand on the cables sound debate, it's only fair to re-state my position:

1. I personally believe cables effect sound quality, there are a number of qualities affected, the biggest in my opinion is that better cables contribute far less to listener fatigue.

2. I have bought foamed Teflon tubing expensive RCA jacks and ultra pure silver wire to make my own "exotic" cables. My cost was in excess of $200 per pair not counting labor. So if you add labor, packaging, customer support, profit and distributor mark up I don't agree that $500 exotic cables are generally overpriced.

3. The ones I made myself were pretty good, but not as good IMHO as those commercial products using construction techniques all but impossible for a home builder.

4. The ones I made were directional in the sense of how they were grounded. I don't know how to make cables where sound quality (not noise immunity or EMI suppression) differs depending on signal direction.

I do have more to say about cables, this isn't he thread for that. Everyone here has pretty much declared for one side or the other and further debate seems unlikely to change anyone's mind.

[markw]

I was asked where I stand on the cables sound debate, it's only fair to re-state my position:I asked for your critique on Mr P's contributions to this thread. You've already offered your opinion on mine.

[Mr Peabody]

Hermanv, this may not be the thread, but the issue arose here, so do you have a short answer for this; if the power supply of an amp converts the AC coming in to DC how does it become AC again traveling through line outputs? This is one I was wrong on, I knew the power was converted but I did not know it was ever converted back. All the transistor circuits we built in school were always DC power.

If it isn't too involved what areas are DC and what areas are AC?

Thanks

[Smokey]

4. The ones I made were directional in the sense of how they were grounded. I don't know how to make cables where sound quality (not noise immunity or EMI suppression) differs depending on signal direction.

I really think that pretty much sums up our discussion.

Even if we did design a cable that favor a direction of signal, then the question become what about when signal reverse and go in opposite direction? Whatever cable parameter is effecting the signal in one direction, will have same effect in opposite when signal changes polarity.

If we take away grounding and shielding issues from IC, one can see more clearly as to why cable directionality really don’t have any merit.

[hermanv]

Hermanv, this may not be the thread, but the issue arose here, so do you have a short answer for this; if the power supply of an amp converts the AC coming in to DC how does it become AC again traveling through line outputs? This is one I was wrong on, I knew the power was converted but I did not know it was ever converted back. All the transistor circuits we built in school were always DC power.

If it isn't too involved what areas are DC and what areas are AC?

ThanksI will try for a short answer.

The sound signal is always an AC signal even though some musical instruments have a significant DC component (brass for example). This signal is sometimes added to a DC signal in order for transistors or vacuum tubes (both DC devices) to amplify the signal. After amplification the DC component is usually removed with a transformer or a capacitor.

If you use complementary transistors and matching plus and minus voltages for a power supply it is possible to amplify the signal while the average value remains zero (i.e. no DC) even though the transistors are DC powered (instead of a 12V supply think about a +6V and a -6V supply. It adds to 12VDC) the transistors act as if it's DC but since the average voltage equals zero it comes out as if it were pure AC.

There are both subtle and complex variations on this theme, but the two techniques I just described cover probably 98% of all sound processing circuits.

[Luvin Da Blues]

If it isn't too involved what areas are DC and what areas are AC?

Well in a nutshell, Mr.P, a transistor (ie; output transistor) passes a varying amount of voltage (current) dependent on the input signal, which can be at a much lower level. Think about it as squeezing a hose with varying amounts of pressure and frequency to alter the flow.

In the case of an audio amp the higher voltage DC current from the power supply passes thru the output transistor and is altered by the lower voltage source signal (ie; CD player) after it passes thru a bunch of fandango circuits.

Tube equipment basically works the same way but uses tubes instead of transistors to alter the DC signal.

There is obviously more to it but you get the drift.

[hermanv]

<snip> Whatever cable parameter is effecting the signal in one direction, will have same effect in opposite when signal changes polarity.

If we take away grounding and shielding issues from IC, one can see more clearly as to why cable directionality really don’t have any merit.
Many electronic devices behave differently when current flows one way vs flowing the other way. The most common device is a diode which is specifically optimized to magnify the directional effect. If I reverse the wires to my speakers (or push the Levinson polarity button) I can hear a change, I for one could not tell you which polarity is most correct, but I do hear a difference.

Some cable manufacturers have claimed (rightly or wrongly) that these directional effects take place microscopically in metal grain boundaries within a cable's conductors and even within the insulator dielectric. To the best of my knowledge current physics can neither support nor fully disprove this claim. One problem is semantics, conductivity covers the spectrum from super conductors to perfect vacuum. Most real materials are neither a perfect conductor nor a perfect insulator. What these people claim might be possible, whether or not it is also audible is a whole other subject.

I am an audio hobbyist that happens to be an EE, I do not claim expertise beyond the average engineer in cable technology. I also do not mean to pontificate, but the world is rarely as absolutely black and white as our brains insist on seeing it.

[jneutron]

Markw, The links were provided because you and your nay sayer friends didn't seem to understand the claims of Eddy currents in cables.....

None of the links provide factual claims to any extent. Much of it is hyperbole and speculation. But very little of merit.






The links were provided to show I didn't just make up the claims of Eddy currents in cables.

I concur that you did not make up the claims. You had no need to, as others have made up the claims...

For example, the robotics guy: (my input is red)


Eddy currents. Eddy currents are circular currents within any conductor in a changing magnetic field, rotating in a plane perpendicular to the field. (correct)They are a result of electromotive forces (emf) from the magnetic field on the moving charges in the conductor (no, they are the result of Faraday's law of induction applied to a conductive material within which a time varying magnetic field is happening This generation of voltage loops alters the gradients within the conductor, this alters the sectional current density profile..Perhaps he is confusing Lenz law here?? ), opposing the current in the circuit. In other words, they are a byproduct of the cable's inductive reactance (There are two components of inductance here, external and internal. The external is not affected by the internal happenings, as the external is entirely dependent on the integration of current around the entire conductor, which is symmetrical, and skinning as a result of internal fields is symmetrical about the axis...so no effect on the external field profile.. The internal will drop a maximum of 15 nHenries per foot from DC to Ghz frequencies..). The eddy currents in an AC wire are what produce skin effect, which is frequency dependent and negligible at audio frequencies. The eddy currents in the wire are in the cross-sectional plane of the wire, so they rotate around the surface in a circle. (The internal eddy currents are toroidal in nature, he is confusing the magnetic field driving the effect with the effect itself. Silly...)

Of your links, this robotics guy was the closest, and as you can see...he wasn't very close.

Cheers, John

[markw]

Please elucidate. You've got me curious.

[E-Stat]

Hi, HV. How's it hangin?


I do have more to say about cables, this isn't he thread for that. Everyone here has pretty much declared for one side or the other and further debate seems unlikely to change anyone's mind.

Yeah, this isn't like the good old days when some of the guys in this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=68518) thread were still here. :)

rw

[hermanv]

"some musical instruments have a significant DC component (brass for example)" = Huh?
Please elucidate. You've got me curious.You blow into a brass instrument you never reverse that airflow. When close miked, that positive air pressure is visible in the output waveform. The frequency is basically too low to be audible, does it influence absolute polarity in an electronic reproduction system. I don't know, it might.

For me, acoustic guitars of all things, sound the most different when the absolute speaker polarity is switched. The leading edge is more defined one way, the harmonics structure is more defined the other way. There are aficionados who mark each recording they own with an absolute polarity note so they can play it back "correctly". Like I said it sounds different to me, but I could never tell you which is correct nor do I think I would hear a difference if he polarity switchover wasn't nearly instantaneous.

ps. Hi jneutron, haven't seen you here for a while or maybe I've just been reading the wrong threads.

[Feanor]

Well. perhaps you can shed some light on this? OTherwise, it's just puffery.

...

Does anyone else see a lot of Q-Ray ads on the tube? I've see enough of them that I want to puke. In Canada, Q-Ray implies health benefits for their product, saying that the promote "a feeling of Chi" (http://www.qray.ca/Aboutqray.aspx); they have testimonials from celebrities claiming that Q-Ray "changed my life". The U.S. Q-Ray (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2008_02/pr1903.htm) site is a lot vaguer about Q-Ray benefits.

Rational people know Q-Ray is all bullsh!t: pure placebo effect. It's too bad that audiophiles too fail to realized the roll that self-delusion plays in the differences they perceive among, e.g., cables.

Don't get me started on religious people. :nonod:

[jneutron]

You blow into a brass instrument you never reverse that airflow. When close miked, that positive air pressure is visible in the output waveform. The frequency is basically too low to be audible, does it influence absolute polarity in an electronic reproduction system.

The harmonic content of the source cannot influence the absolute polarity of the system. I think you meant, does the absolute polarity of the system affect that type of waveform..


ps. Hi jneutron, haven't seen you here for a while or maybe I've just been reading the wrong threads.

Hi there hermanv;
I haven't posted here in a while, I'm averaging maybe one post a month.
I've found very little of interest here since the owners made the sweeping changes a while back.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Does anyone else see a lot of Q-Ray ads on the tube? I've see enough of them that I want to puke. In Canada, Q-Ray implies health benefits for their product, saying that the promote "a feeling of Chi" (http://www.qray.ca/Aboutqray.aspx); they have testimonials from celebrities claiming that Q-Ray "changed my life". The U.S. Q-Ray (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2008_02/pr1903.htm) site is a lot vaguer about Q-Ray benefits.

Rational people know Q-Ray is all bullsh!t: pure placebo effect. It's too bad that audiophiles too fail to realized the roll that self-delusion plays in the differences they perceive among, e.g., cables. :nonod:

A good friend of mine started wearing magnetic bracelets. He claimed they made him feel better, and asked me what I thought.

I explained to him that there was no logical, rational, medical, physics based reason behind anything the bracelet did and his feeling better.

I told him, if they do not harm him, keep on wearing them. If he feels better, or even if he just perceives himself as feeling better, then he has spent his money well.

He was happy, it is not my role to quash that.

Cheers, John

[Feanor]

A good friend of mine started wearing magnetic bracelets. He claimed they made him feel better, and asked me what I thought.

I explained to him that there was no logical, rational, medical, physics based reason behind anything the bracelet did and his feeling better.

I told him, if they do not harm him, keep on wearing them. If he feels better, or even if he just perceives himself as feeling better, then he has spent his money well.

He was happy, it is not my role to quash that.

Cheers, John

Whose job is it to fix the woes of the world? It's too big a job for you or me to take on, but I certainly believe that the human condition suffers because people are content with -- indeed seek out -- happy illusions.

Granted, on the personal level, people who are unreasonably optimistic, self-confident, or religious are generally happier and often more productive than those who aren't. As for me, I have made a personal choice to avoid self-delusion and seek truth even at the expense of contentment. Understandably, other may make the opposite choice. But as general phenomenon it retards human progress.

[Smokey]

Some cable manufacturers have claimed (rightly or wrongly) that these directional effects take place microscopically in metal grain boundaries within a cable's conductors and even within the insulator dielectric. To the best of my knowledge current physics can neither support nor fully disprove this claim.

Since most of link Mr P provided were from cable companies........


None of the links provide factual claims to any extent. Much of it is hyperbole and speculation. But very little of merit.

That explain why current physics can't support it :)

[jneutron]

That explain why current physics can't support it :)

Actually, no. Their explanation, which has been "cherrypicked" from real physics and misapplied to the problem set, does not explain it.

There may indeed be something which is capable of explaining what is heard as different (as opposed to perceived as different). But all the links presented are floobydust for the most part. It constantly amazes me all the "experts" who could not understand nor apply Maxwell's equations to the issue of wires, but yet they are internally validated as "in the know". Such is the realm of "retail". (Note: to be honest, there are also a large number of "experts" out there who support the wire is a wire cause, and they are just as bad when it comes to the understanding (or lack thereof..)..but they are also supported by their followers.)

As long as garbage such as that is presented as the "facts", those who are cognizant of the real physics will not bother looking into the issue, they stay away from such explanations lest some of that stuff "sticks" to a legitimate researcher. I hit that wall about five years ago when I approached the acoustic experts in academia..they run the other way regardless of the legitimacy of the hypothesis....you can thank the cable guru's and vendors for that.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

....but I certainly believe that the human condition suffers because people are content with -- indeed seek out -- happy illusions.

"Suffers", I don't necessarily agree with that "blanket"....nor do you, as you state next...

Granted, on the personal level, people who are unreasonably optimistic, self-confident, or religious are generally happier and often more productive than those who aren't.



As for me, I have made a personal choice to avoid self-delusion and seek truth even at the expense of contentment.

Not me, I sought self-delusion..I'm an engineer, nuff said..:)

Cheers, John

[Smokey]

There may indeed be something which is capable of explaining what is heard as different (as opposed to perceived as different). But all the links presented are floobydust for the most part. It constantly amazes me all the "experts" who could not understand nor apply Maxwell's equations to the issue of wires, but yet they are internally validated as "in the know". Such is the realm of "retail". (Note: to be honest, there are also a large number of "experts" out there who support the wire is a wire cause, and they are just as bad when it comes to the understanding (or lack thereof..)..but they are also supported by their followers.)



You make it all sound so hopeless :D

One question for you:

If a cable company strictly use Maxwell's amd other real physics equations-for example to make ICs, does that make the cable design totally subjective and would that be the best cable?

If not, what is the best approach to make a cable (assuming cable is not system dependent)?

[hermanv]

<snip>
If not, what is the best approach to make a cable (assuming cable is not system dependent)?
Hi Smokey; Although you didn't ask me , I did read page after page of DIY cable articles some time back. I am a cable sound believer and simply didn't want to spend the money the cables with the best reviews were getting. I decided to try my hand at building my own, many pairs later I was moderately successful.

The basic consensus among the internet contributors was that a good wire was important, but the single biggest ingredient was an insulating dielectric with a dielectric constant as close as possible to 1 (dry air or vacuum).

This site below has the materials for sale and the recipe for a decent DIY cable (I have no financial connection with this vendor). http://www.venhaus1.com/diysilverinterconnects.html I ended up with three of the foamed Teflon "sleeves" braided and the bare silver conductors slid inside. Two conductors went end to end for ground and signal, the third was grounded at one end (source) only.

Fair warning; the material cost is high especially the RCA plugs (you pick your favorites, I like the Cardas, they are well made and cheaper than many competitors).

In the end the cables I made were quite good, equal to my older WireWorld reference series but I found a commercial cable that was still better to my ears, it was about the same price as the WireWorld at $490/meter heavily discounted. Yes I do know this is nuts, but damn it, they just sound better (to me at least).

[jneutron]

You make it all sound so hopeless :D

Nah..hopeless is trying to hire engineers that are 30 somethings to do power, analog, magnetics, superconductors, motion control, and live in NY.




One question for you:

If a cable company strictly use Maxwell's amd other real physics equations-for example to make ICs, does that make the cable design totally subjective and would that be the best cable?
Good ol' Max can tell ya what to do for a specific goal. If that goal is matched impedance, trivial...if it's lowest stored energy, again trivial, if it's low coupling, same...

What Max can't tell ya is which is optimal for the application, as the application requirements are not defined in engineering terms. "Black background", "image smear"...what that means with respect to power delivery is not defined.

The best one can hope for at this point in time, is defining the criteria (however arbitrary it may be) for the wires, modelling the wires from an e/m standpoint, testing the result in the application, and using the feedback to alter the criteria.

A significant issue is the criteria may not be consistent from speaker to speaker, amp to amp, source to source.

Bob at SP technologies seems poised to do this for his speakers, he's using a spreadsheet I helped him with to determine wire build for his product. He defined a criteria and is using Max to help him..It remains to be seen if his effort (and criteria) stand the test of time..

But in all cases, if a cable or speaker vendor comes up with a criteria set that stands above all others, do you think they would provide the criteria and the solution to all so that the price is driven into the "jellybean mud"? Nah, they'll divert away using marketing blurbs, or claim real physics is involved but it's proprietary.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

(assuming cable is not system dependent)?
Why do you assume that?

rw

[jneutron]

Hey, waitttaminute....weren't you just over there???====>:confused5: Nevermind...


""(assuming cable is not system dependent)?""



Why do you assume that?

rw

It's a necessary start to the process. One must assume an initial set of conditions, and from a complexity point of view, this is probably the best assumption to start with. It is a known omission of dependency of a confounder with the knowledge that it's omission eventually must be considered for a complete solution..

Another example would be that of load impedance.. is it constant, does it change? For speakers, I begin with Z is constant and pure resistive, no crossover branches..otherwise the math quickly becomes intractable. (I have enough problem with Ohm's law)

For line level, same deal...line Z, load Z, source Z, constant, varying...ground loop?..

It's neglecting the confounders that will bite one in the derrier if they are forever ignored.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Hey, waitttaminute....weren't you just over there???====>:confused5: Nevermind...
A sprinkle of Floobydust in the chimney. :)


It's a necessary start to the process.
The problem is that most *experts* like Russell end there as well. Measuring a cable attached to a test load is like testing a car's drag coefficient running on a dynomometer. It is a point of reference but tells you little of the real world.


For speakers, I begin with Z is constant and pure resistive, no crossover branches..otherwise the math quickly becomes intractable. (I have enough problem with Ohm's law)
Maybe that's why conventional cable *wisdom* fails with real speaker loads interacting with the amplifier.

rw

[jneutron]

The problem is that most *experts* like Russell end there as well. Measuring a cable attached to a test load is like testing a car's drag coefficient running on a dynomometer. It is a point of reference but tells you little of the real world.

Much much much can be learned by connecting and testing a cable with a test load. Even more when the test load is two or three way with crossover. But guys like Russell do not know what it is that needs testing.

Not because their stupid, they are far from that. They don't know what to test for.




Maybe that's why conventional cable *wisdom* fails with real speaker loads interacting with the amplifier. rw

No, it's simpler. They do not know what the end criteria is. They are using a specific criteria in their understandings, but that criteria does not include what humans are sensitive to.

I blame you for that, of course...:)

Seriously, I blame the audibility researchers, they have far to go.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Not because their stupid, they are far from that. They don't know what to test for.
That's a diplomatic way of putting it. Ever heard his crowning electronics achievement, the C-26 ? Naturally, it sounded perfect because the measured THD was 0.1%. :)


No, it's simpler. They do not know what the end criteria is. They are using a specific criteria in their understandings, but that criteria does not include what humans are sensitive to...Seriously, I blame the audibility researchers, they have far to go.
I'll make it simpler still. Designing an audio component solely by numbers is inept. Along those lines, here's a post from AA where I quoted comments from the designer of the Harman-Kardon Citation 11, another early SS unit produced in the 70s (and far better sounding than the early Mac SS stuff).

Lee Kuby on design (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/20/201243.html)

rw

[Smokey]

The basic consensus among the internet contributors was that a good wire was important, but the single biggest ingredient was an insulating dielectric with a dielectric constant as close as possible to 1 (dry air or vacuum).

This site below has the materials for sale and the recipe for a decent DIY cable. http://www.venhaus1.com/diysilverinterconnects.html I ended up with three of the foamed Teflon "sleeves" braided and the bare silver conductors slid inside. Two conductors went end to end for ground and signal, the third was grounded at one end (source) only.

After reading the link, I have one problem with it. Cable venders go into great details as how important electrical properties such as dielectric, wire material and gauge are. And then do a 180 degree and design cable that is based on subjective rather than objective. Fir example, they use silver that is the best conductor, but use a 28 gauge as to starve the IC current flow.

To me it seem they use electrical properties as far as it is convenient, but the same principles is no where to be found when designing a cable.


What Max can't tell ya is which is optimal for the application, as the application requirements are not defined in engineering terms. "Black background", "image smear"...what that means with respect to power delivery is not defined.

The best one can hope for at this point in time, is defining the criteria (however arbitrary it may be) for the wires, modelling the wires from an e/m standpoint, testing the result in the application, and using the feedback to alter the criteria.

That is a fair statement. But what if the feedback designer got to alter the criteria degrade cable's e/m standpoint. Do we sacrifice science in favor of positive feedback?

[hermanv]

Far be it from me to defend any cable makers "magic". They don't use silver because it's the best conductor, after all the input impedance of most audio gear is 47,000 Ohms. 28 gauge wire (copper) is .064 Ohms per foot, so the gauge pretty much falls out of the picture. I don't intend to defend their reasons, only that conductivity is usually not the reason cited.

Silver is used (they say) because it has no or at least very few grain boundaries. They claim that those grain boundaries cause problems. Their explanation goes something like "copper eventually oxidizes at the grain boundaries, copper oxide can be used to make rectifiers, so a grain boundary must be bad news". Engineers do not support those claims, they have looked for the presense of rectification in copper cables and not found it.

I must confess that after many listening sessions I do prefer 99.999% pure silver wire at 17 gauge for my midrange/tweeter cable (my speakers are bi-wired). I hear little effect for my woofer except that very large gauge cables sound better (9.5 AWG or bigger) and I can't begin to afford silver in that gauge for a pair of 8 foot cables.

So I hear an improvement, I'd like to understand why, but I can listen to what sounds better to me without knowing any scientific explanation. I used to own silver interconnects, I now have copper ones, in this brand they sound better to me. I usually believe my ears, cable sales and marketing departments be damned.

A footnote: Redbook CD has more than 4 significant decimal places of information, 4 places would be 0.01%. Most audiophiles can hear an improvement if more digits are used such as in DVD-A or SACD. So it seems to me that anyone looking for cable effects needs to look into details or measurements of two cable samples to at least 4 decimal places. Most commonplace test equipment fails that level of detail by an order of magnitude or more. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's not a casual effort.

[juggalojeff]

man i always thought the arrows were for the chinese building them so they knew which way to pass it on to the next in line!!!

[thepogue]

Hi, HV. How's it hangin?



Yeah, this isn't like the good old days when some of the guys in this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=68518) thread were still here. :)

rw

Yea...dem were da good ole days...

(slips away to grab a brew):mad2: :mad2:

peace, Pogue

[Feanor]

...

Yeah, this isn't like the good old days when some of the guys in this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=68518) thread were still here. :)

rw

To quote myself on that occassion:


... Foolish me: I listened to various people tell that my amplifier is highly sensitive to power cord selection and also, that it is very sensitive...to vibration. I took various measures in these regards, (thankfully not costing too much money), but I have heard no difference at all. This is my subjective evaluation and proves only one thing: differences that might exist are irrelevant to me.

Of course, golden ears will tell me (1) that I have waxy ears, and/or (2) I would have heard a difference if only I bought some much more expensive device. You can't win these arguements. [emphasis added]

[hermanv]

Listening to music and being an audiophile is not quite one and the same thing. For me being an audiophile is a hobby, I enjoy the tinkering and the pursuit of what sounds technically better to me. I can identify Beethoven's 9th when it is played on a an iPod with low resolution bit rates and cheap earphones, but I enjoy it less.

A very good friend of mine is an remote controlled airplane junkie. He has probably built 200 airplanes. He does this because he enjoys the building, to fly one you can go to a hobby store for as little as $49 and get one ready to fly. In a very similar way, I invest time and money in the audiophile hobby because it pleases me.

To me, that's the only measurement of performance with any meaning.

I have built my own cables (but found better commercial ones) I built my own passive pre in use today and a good friend and I are wrapping up a 7 year effort to build loudspeakers we couldn't hope to afford. In spite of these projects I still have the price of a decent used car tied up in my equipment.

Buy any product that pleases your ears, don't listen to others (or to me). Make friends at a shop that will let you borrow stuff for trial or make audiophile friends and listen to their system. Yes there are crooks, but much of the high priced stuff sounds better to most folks.

[O'Shag]

With respect to directional interconnects - Agree with Mr. P, there are only one type of interconnects and speaker wire where I've observed any difference when reversing the direction, is with models using networks, such as Transparent. In such case, there is a very clear difference, with the sound being just being plain wrong when the cable is reversed. Weird... But Feanor do agree with; Try as I might I've observed no difference otherwise. Ask most any engineer and they will put 'directionality' down to marketing. I tend to agree with this assumption. But like a dummy, if I have an interconnect or speaker wire that has arrows pointing one way, I will point in the mfr recommended direction even though I know it kinda know it won't make a difference. Just superstitous (or stoopid) I guess.

[O'Shag]

Oh, a wise guy, eh? whyyioutta.... :biggrin5:

(pick two fingers)

Love that saying! :cornut:

[hermanv]

With respect to directional interconnects - <snip> Ask most any engineer and they will put 'directionality' down to marketing. I tend to agree with this assumption. .Ask most any engineer and they will refer you to a drawing such as the number 27 post in this thread. This talks to interference reduction, not sound quality per se, but if a directional cable is made as in that drawing, there is one theoretically superior way to connect it between two pieces of equipment.

[budgetaudio76]

i moved my components around put them under the tv. this was after reading part of this thread. after i was done didnt sound quite right. and i thought to my self ..did i put the ic on backwards?! oh crap¿! but i soon got over it. whew!!

[hermanv]

People are pretty funny.

I am not a wine drinker, if you asked my to blind taste test some wines, I'd be happy enough if I could differentiate between Red, White or Rose wines. Experts can tell you how old the barrel was the wine was aged in from just tasting that wine. They can identify thousands (actually I think it's tens of thousands) of distinct flavors. No one questions that a human can resolve such microscopic detail, actually the best at this are paid small fortunes to help a winery make better wine.

I guess if there was a wine taste equation, the battle would be joined. Golden tongued?

The longer I listen as an audiophile, the better I get at hearing what is missing or what is there that shouldn't be. You can foresee a dangerous financial spiral, I need better stuff!

I notice that as my equipment gets better, that Redbook CD had layers of unresolved information "perfect sound forever". Also as my equipment gets better, the advantage SACD has over Redbook is slowly disappearing. This might help explain why the format didn't take off. It wasn't the digital format that was limiting the quality, it was the reproduction chain. It seems that 16 bits of resolution is quite good when played over the best possible equipment. For me that means I need very good wires because the least significant bit out of a CD player will be about 22 microvolts, a signal easily lost in the noise of inferior cables in a average house. (I'm assuming full scale is 1.5VRMS). To put this in another perspective, 22uV is only a little more than what an FM radio antenna needs to reproduce a stereo FM signal. In he case of FM, the sound signal is encoded onto a radio frequency carrier making radio signal noise or distortion mostly a non-issue. This is not true for audio interconnect signals

Now back to cable performance. Why can't we measure it? We probably can, if only we knew how to measure for music quality. Science works like this: You observe a phenomena, you develop a hypothesis, you validate the hypothesis and it becomes a theory. No real scientist wants to get his name liked up with cable sound, we can't even agree if there is a cable sound. It's right up there with the Yeti. Still observation usually precedes explanation

I would guess that there are probably 100 interconnect cable manufacturers, most of them are making a living. I would also guess that those audiophiles that buy the expensive spread on the whole are well educated in order to earn the kind of money you need to buy the better systems. The idea that every one of these well heeled and probably above average IQ people is being fooled regarding cables is next to impossible to believe.

Please remember that a large number of "tweaks" did not stand the test of time, green markers, little wooden blocks glued to the walls, my favorite was an IC mounted inside a block of wood with no battery. You merely placed this on top of your CD player so it could absorb bad bits. This guy was clever, every 6 months or so you were supposed to return it to the manufacturer so he could "drain off" the accumulated bad bits. Gotta love it.

[Brett A]

Forgive me if this has been covered. I have not read every point made in every post in this thread. But my understanding of directional cables is that it has nothing to do with the signal wires, rather the shielding.

Some ICs are wrapped or sheathed in braided copper or similar. This is to catch and drain off any RF (correct me if I'm wrong about what it's capturing and draining). This shielding layer "drains" to only one end of the cable (that's the end the arrows point to. It is then a matter then of which component is it best to drain to? The source or the amp?

[O'Shag]

Whose job is it to fix the woes of the world? It's too big a job for you or me to take on, but I certainly believe that the human condition suffers because people are content with -- indeed seek out -- happy illusions.

Granted, on the personal level, people who are unreasonably optimistic, self-confident, or religious are generally happier and often more productive than those who aren't. As for me, I have made a personal choice to avoid self-delusion and seek truth even at the expense of contentment. Understandably, other may make the opposite choice. But as general phenomenon it retards human progress.

VERY WELL SAID!!