Directional interconnects?

[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.

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/c.../msg00506.html

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.

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/g...lossary&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.

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.

Audible hiss

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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?

...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?

Thanks

I 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]

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 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"; they have testimonials from celebrities claiming that Q-Ray "changed my life". The U.S. Q-Ray 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.

[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