Cable directionality & cables

In that case, have you ever considered publishing some of your test results? It'd be a first as far as I'm aware, and potentially a huge marketing coup at minimal cost (other than a few evenings' work writing a paper) to yourself.

 

The vast majority of users on this forum by the looks of things

 

My recovery is also proceeding along incely . Excellent points Tones.

Michael.

 

I'm bemused that people who accept all sorts of mythology about wanky wire are resistant to the idea that the signal direction (independent of topology) can be equally important. I smell inconsistency.

Speaker cables don't have grounding issues.
Standard coaxial style interconnects, digital or analogue, don't have grounding issues.
Naim SNAIC type interconnects don't have grounding issues.
XLR-XLR balanced interconnects don't have grounding issues.

In fact directionality as experienced by most listeners cannot be written off to grounding arrangements with most audio cabling.

Electrons are not flowing in your cables, they are hurtling randomly about at about 1.6 million m/s, the signal wobbles them back and forward at less than 0.1cm/s peak. But power is definitely travelling from one end to the other, as is information, it's travelling at a substantial percentage of the speed of light in the form of an electric and magnetic field, any movement of electrons is a side-effect. The salesman's imagination can run riot with the consquences of this.

I think in practice cable sound is down to bulk electrical parameters and directionality is in the mind of the listener. The quality of connector and connection is obviously significant over the medium to long term. You probably really do get diodes in a bad junction between two metals and their oxides, after all that's how radios used to work.

Paul

 

Personally, Im trying to not be swayed one iota by public/written opinion, but at the same time keeping an open mind.


I havent extensively swapped cables end to end to see if I hear a difference.

My very limited knowledge of physics says it shouldnt make a difference.

However, Im happy to believe that there may be a difference, and will readily admit it if I hear it (maybe at my next trip to WMs!).

Just as its too easy to dismiss science because of a lack of understanding of it/ because it doesnt compute with your audiophile belief system - its equally too easy to dismiss what we hear because its controversial/against known wisdoms..

My final conclusion on the topic (for me) is that I havent experimented sufficiently with it to have an opinion on sonic variation (and Im too lazy to do it on my own hifi)... and that scientific explanation seems lacking in the 'PRO' directionality camp.

Sitting on the fence.... me? yup - best thing to do when youre lacking the relevant knowledge and experience of a topic.

 

Ok, again some good replies

Merlin is the closest so far
However for those that do, PeteH, We've never thought about it (plus my writing stylee is more from my Jurno days in cars not Proper mags )
We have accquired a lot of info, wading throught it, compling it and sorting would take a while, but would we wish to share it?, humm not down to me that one, also If we don't then some will cry Bull, if we do, some will agree others will say bull also.
Quietish life for me (at the moment) thanks have enough to do.
It's all about corralation of data, and some items we've discovered, bear no relation to the accepted practices.
Just one other point, we don't just build cables for the audio industry, areospace also, and totally minimimising interferance between delicate & crucial F.B.W. avionics system, and trust me you don't want ANY interfernace telling your artifical horizon/H.U.D. your 45 degrees off your plotted coarse hitting mach 1.2 in a battlefield situation do you? I wouldn't
The other point apart from (cables are bull), are the pricing structure, I will agree whole heartly that an awful lot are plain rude in price without question, we do study other cables which we have to purchase, (even at trade it's still some what ££$£$$),
However Proper R & D costs time and money, if the results are there, then this has to be factored intro the final price, however thinking of a number then doubling it, and adding 2 noughts, is not the way it's done.
As far as I'm aware, My ears are flesh coloured and not golden, the differencies that we hear are not imagined (sorry to break the bubble here).
I will also say, everyone hears different, and 'suggestion planting' as bub stated is prefectly feesable, although our customers might say other wise.
all points are valid, some guys can't/don't hear a difference, thats cool also, it's done to the said indivdual at the end of the day, regardless if the company has a huge sales structure or marketing budget

 

If you wish to use real human ears as measuring tools or flesh coloured as you cutely refer to them how to you come to the firm conclusion the differences are not imaged by some of the listening panel without some type of DBT? If you confirm you do includes DBT then I will certainly look at your research and perhaps buy some of your cables for audio application.

 

Come on Tony that's a bit disingenuous. You won't find a single avionics engineer who would give credence to cable directionality and general "wanky wire" concepts that are bandied around in the hifi world.

Avionics, and all other branches of critical electrical/electronic engineering follows strict scientific principles - not hokus-pokus theories. Sure, minimizing interference is important but that's got nothing to do with cable directionality, it works on sound scientific principles.

I don't think it's entirely fair to use the fact that your parent company works on aerospace products to add credibility to your audio cables from a scientific standpoint.

Michael.

 

Fair enough, there are trade secrets and intellectual property issues here (although there are ways of sorting that too - tones, step forward ), but certainly in my field the vast majority of significant research in the industrial sector gets published eventually in one form or another - it's an essential part of maintaining scientific credibility and of course helps move the cutting edge forwards (especially if you're sitting on something genuinely new). At the moment though all you'd really need to publish would be your test setup and the results reported by your subjects and IMO at least you'd already be light-years ahead of any of your competitors in terms of credibility.

 

Woofie, again fair points,
Let me put this on it's head, after you last 'obsession' with dbt, we decided to try a different twist to it.
We set up a basic, £5k average system, completely covered (curtains, not blue though), the panel consisting of 5, 3 woman & 2 guys, selected their fave 5 pieces of music, we set the level in the mid point of the listening room to 89DB gave them 20 minutes of the own selected tracks (each time reset to 89db if it was out) in a random order.
We stated a *electronic component* would be subsituted at some point in the session (all other components remained the same), simple we asked them to answer 2 questions, which track was the *change* and what they thought was changed, IE CDP/AMP/PRE (we had 2 cdps going into the pre, indentical cables and mains+ mains filter).
First session we changed NOTHING, yet 2 panelists said track 4 was different and the thought the cdp had changed (that track had a higher mastering output on it never happens athey all prefect )
The next session 2 hours later, same 5 tracks just randomised again and level matched to 89DB, this time we made 2 changes, on track 2 we swopped cdp's (Arcam cd33 to Cryus 8), 4 people said a change, and 3 got the piece of kit right, yet the others heard no change.
On track 5 we changed a cable on the Cryus 8cdp, 4 said a change and 1 said amp the rest cdp again.
Last session late in the day 5pm ish
This time same tracks just suffled about lebvel matched to 89DB again, same premise to the panalists, this time we changed the power leads on track 2 (cdp/amp/pre), they all got the change, yet they all thought it was the amp had been changed, what does this prove?, what ever you want it too.
Ears are the final tresting we do, if we don't like it, then it's no go.
have a good day gents

 

Micheal,


"Come on Tony that's a bit disingenuous. You won't find a single avionics engineer who would give credence to cable directionality and general "wanky wire" concepts that are bandied around in the hifi world."

I think it's fair if I use the resources, equipment & manpower & experiance of the company for R & D in the Audio dept, then it's relevent.
I did also spend 4 years on the digital pegeus fuel system concept for the Harrier and later the Tornado, give me a little bit of credit for wire apprication
Did I specifically use that example to cast in stone the directionality issue? nope, my point there was electrical generated and *other emmisions* emissions that may cause a potential problem with critical systems on a plane, maybe Mike they make be a direct connection between why our *wanky wire works* and use in HUD's, do you think I spend all day on audio Mike ?. The Audio is a side bar, main stay is the Techonolgy sir
However they do cross on more than one issue, and benfits can be extracted from the main use of such information.
Think I'll scotch the rumour I sit in an office soldering bullet plugs on wanky wire boys right now
Pete H, I agree, the bottom line is, I don't hold the rubber stamp, to approve it, but I can see the logic.
Credibility in cables now you guys are having a laugh, So if we do publish a white paper and it's critrically acclaimed (for the sake of arguement), although our cables haven't changed sonically over night we're given the thumbs up, and they sell like no tomorrow, whats changed other than peoples *preceptions*, the cables haven't
Me just being a cynic ? we don't force the cable issue at all.
I'm on a hiding to nothing here, whatever I say, you'll find 1000 and 1 reasons to blast it.
Your all proberbly right I'm just under the influence of too much smelting fumes sorry to have disrupted your saturday T.

 

I seem to recall that the Soundpipe cables used by NVA were used in the aviation industry for onboard radar signals.

 

"I seem to recall that the Soundpipe cables used by NVA were used in the aviation industry for onboard radar signals"

The Soundpipes were made from RG-402 semi-rigid microwave cable.The solid copper screen made them very difficult to work with,but they sounded good though.............

Paul.

 

Yes, skills such as these form the basis of the clinical (Medicine) section of the final MB examinations, and of the MRCP.

 

One issue I kind of have with cables, is as follows...

In the aersopace industry, or any other hi-tec - surely the emphasis is for the highest possible level of performance. This is often regardless of price.

If there were 3 cables in a hi-tec industry, and one had better measured performance then thats the one that would be used.

In audio, conversely people often use one that they think sounds better, regardless of its suitability for purpose ... it may be weaker in terms of carrying a signal, rejecting RFI, EMI etc.

By using a cable as a component, you can alter the sound, sure..but have we used a cable as a tone control which would be shown up for all its weaknesses with more revealing equipment? Is the one trick pony an attempt to 'fix' a perceived system weakness?

In my own system, I dont want further alteration to the sound - I want to pick components I like the sound of, and connect them up. I want the leads to do the best job a lead can do of carrying a signal. I dont want them to add, or subtract, or alter.

Im not saying my own cables do that necessarily, just that this is my ideal and my goal. I struggle with the notion that its not the same goal for everyone..

I suppose whether/not you agree with me would strongly depend on whether you view a cable as a component within your system that can be used to alter the sound, or purely as a means of carrying signal/power.

over to you guys

 

Paul,
Quite correct, it had a bandwith high in the 10+Ghz range and usually had a 2mm outer alloy sheild (nothing short of a H-bomb would get through), incredibily quiet and smooth, the cable is also valid for telecommunications applications.
Chris,
Different critireras, Industrial applications, are some what different from aerospace, although they are required to be 'max performance' the parameters rerquired for planes would some what different from that of a ineternal hook up wire of a speaker or compter, although that being said, one trait can be appiled to another use so I'm led to believe.
Tayloring a package to suit the requirements of the given specification, is the standard term used I'm sure.
AS to you point of attaining the correct box in the first place I do agree Chris, I just haven't heard any box that really does it out the crate, for realistic money. T.

 

wadia-miester,

Thanks for replying. However, I am not sure what you are trying to test in that listening session you have just described. Are you testing to see how consistent is the panel of 10 people in identifying potential audible differences?

I was thinking more like if you believe cables has a better direction when applied for audio application due to the molecular structure or whatever then ask your panel to decide which is the prefered direction comparing

A. the way your initial research lead you to believe it should be or
B. the alternative reverse.
X. a random selection of A or B

Now if you ask your 10 people under DBT what is X and consistently 7 to 9 people consistently identify X correctly and it happens to be A then yeap I will believe cables has a direction. If the listening test is done by engineers without DBT and they declare A is better it is not solid prove, since it is human to believe in your own research.

If you or any other manufacturer has done this then I will consider the possibility that cables do have a direction. Note I do not care what the old science textbooks says. It is very simple.

Edit

Surely a person like you with a science degree could understand this basic procedure? What constitute a scientific listening test in your R&D department? I am asking because I dont think we could tear up our science textbooks before subjecting this with DBT.

 

Hi Penance and anopax,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been offshore for the day so my reply is probably well superceded by now.

To answer your question, albeit unscientifically, at the present moment I'm running 8m of the cheapest Chinese speaker cable I could buy in Vung Tau. When I switch over to the 3m lengths of NACA5 that came with my SBL's, neither I nor any of my musicain friends who rehearse at my place can hear any difference.

I have a huge array of interconnects ranging from Chinese made, to Audioquest, Kimber, Van den Hul and others - I have not heard Nordost which seems to be well spoken of - but from the collection I have, there are no discernable audible "differences" let alone "improvements" in the sound. It doesn't seem to matter which way around they are connected. Yet, to be honest, my dealer who has gifted this selection of cables to me swears he hears differences????

What can I say .... to me, the whole cable/interconnect thing is bulldust and wishful thinking, but my dealer loves experimenting and really gets off on different cables. I guess that's what makes it such a passionate hobby for us all.

Yet oddly, I swear I do hear differences in various stands and tables - especially with turntables. I can't explain that either.

 

Woolfie,

Well weather I decide by electron microscopic analysis/X-ray or tunnelling neutreno scans, or I just my ears, should I decide to shout about? Nah maybe I'll keep you guessing
My point about blind testing, is that it has a purpose but it's not the bottom line.
Now, where have I said in the previous post, the cables were directional?, I stated the cables were change for another cable, nothing more?. Yet a difference was dectected without question.
We are not in the business of satisfing your personal worries about cables or sheer dogmatic tendanices that every one who maufacturers audio cables is a cad and bounder sir (please forgive me If I gave that impression).
Simplicity is a key work I'm a great believer in KIS (keep it simple), and it pays off (for ourselves anyway).
I can go into the Nth degree of material properties, dielectric attributes, pairing twisting, opposed weaving, sheilding materials and radio magnetic rejection, only a few want to be intreagued.
A man with a piece of paper that says on a certain day at a certain I knew 'x'. no substitue for experiance
Experinace is the far greater bearer of knowledge
I'm not going to be offended if you don't buy anyones cables, far from it.
However one overridding factor here system tranparency, thats all I'm going to say.
So woolfie It's a solid prove if 7 out of 10 dbt er's say their cats preferred it?. Did they take the Pepsi challange ?
The test is simple, very simple, you either like or you don't, nothing added nothing taken away. sorry to disillusion.
You should work for social services Woolfie, your devotion to the subject is admirable

 

By the way guys you were spot on take us out of here No.1