Speaker wire directional?

[The Man From Mars]

Is speaker wire directional? Like it needs to be installed in a certain way
instead of either way? I have Acoustic Research 16 gauge wire and I had
never heard this before but I got to talking to someone the other day and
they said it was so. They said something about the writing on the wire
needs to be pointing toward the speaker. Mine are all different and I
haven't noticed any difference. Is this true or just bull?

Thanks in advance
<><

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <11hsn9qk7lmf1e@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Man From Mars" <deaded77@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Is speaker wire directional? Like it needs to be installed in a
> certain way instead of either way? I have Acoustic Research 16 gauge
> wire and I had never heard this before but I got to talking to
> someone the other day and they said it was so. They said something
> about the writing on the wire needs to be pointing toward the
> speaker. Mine are all different and I haven't noticed any
> difference. Is this true or just bull?

The only thing is that they have to be wired so the speakers are all in
phase--in phase with each other and in phase with the amplifier.

So red terminal on the amplifier must be connected to the red terminal
on the speaker, and the black (or white, depending on the brand)
terminal on the amplifier must be connected to the black (or white)
terminal on the speaker.

One wire of the pair is marked, sometimes by lettering, and sometimes
with a color code of some sort. Some of them have a strip of vinyl
running with the wire in one side, but not the other.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

[MES]

Think about the question you have asked of the group, a conductor is a
conductor and direction would not be a factor.
"The Man From Mars" <deaded77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11hsn9qk7lmf1e@corp.supernews.com...
> Is speaker wire directional? Like it needs to be installed in a certain
way
> instead of either way? I have Acoustic Research 16 gauge wire and I had
> never heard this before but I got to talking to someone the other day and
> they said it was so. They said something about the writing on the wire
> needs to be pointing toward the speaker. Mine are all different and I
> haven't noticed any difference. Is this true or just bull?
>
> Thanks in advance
> <><
>
>

[Ethan Winer]

Mars,

> Is speaker wire directional? <

Besides the correct answers you already got, here's another way to look at
it. If a wire conducts differently in one direction compared to the other,
BY DEFINITION that will create distortion.

--Ethan

[TrpGuy]

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Mars,
>
>
>>Is speaker wire directional? <
>

Maybe he has seen the wires on the market that have arrows to indicate
the direction of current or have one end labeled "speaker" and the other
"amp" with no visible difference in the two ends.

Is it reality or marketing???? Only your ears will know for sure.

[Ethan Winer]

Trp,

> arrows to indicate the direction of current <

Ah, but the current flows in BOTH directions because audio is AC, not DC.

> Only your ears will know for sure. <

Ears are easily fooled, but test equipment knows for sure every time.

--Ethan

[Booch]

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-2C6261.22342706092005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <11hsn9qk7lmf1e@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Man From Mars" <deaded77@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is speaker wire directional? Like it needs to be installed in a
>> certain way instead of either way? I have Acoustic Research 16 gauge
>> wire and I had never heard this before but I got to talking to
>> someone the other day and they said it was so. They said something
>> about the writing on the wire needs to be pointing toward the
>> speaker. Mine are all different and I haven't noticed any
>> difference. Is this true or just bull?
>
> The only thing is that they have to be wired so the speakers are all in
> phase--in phase with each other and in phase with the amplifier.
>
> So red terminal on the amplifier must be connected to the red terminal
> on the speaker, and the black (or white, depending on the brand)
> terminal on the amplifier must be connected to the black (or white)
> terminal on the speaker.
>
> One wire of the pair is marked, sometimes by lettering, and sometimes
> with a color code of some sort. Some of them have a strip of vinyl
> running with the wire in one side, but not the other.
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

What about interconnects that have arrows denoting which way the signal
should travel? Does it matter?

Booch

[Ethan Winer]

Booch,

> What about interconnects that have arrows denoting which way the signal
should travel? Does it matter? <

No, and that's the whole point of this thread. Now, it's possible a
manufacturer could put a ferrite core filter in the path to keep radio
frequencies out of the cable, and maybe that filter should be at one end or
the other. But such filters are not needed or desired in either line level
or speaker level wires.

--Ethan

[wkearney99]

> Ears are easily fooled, but test equipment knows for sure every time.

People are easily fooled, expecially ones trying to justify the price they
overpaid for junk, either for the new cables they were dumb enough to have
just bought, or for some other overpriced/overhyped piece of crap they've
bought before. Aka Bose and Monster customers.

[David B.]

wkearney99 wrote:
> People are easily fooled, expecially ones trying to justify the price they
> overpaid for junk, either for the new cables they were dumb enough to have
> just bought, or for some other overpriced/overhyped piece of crap they've
> bought before. Aka Bose and Monster customers.

There's some interesting research going on in the fields of neuroscience
and psychology that's showing different interpretations of our sensual
perceptions vary with information. CAT scans are one of the apparatus
being used to demonstrate this. Give someone a different piece of
information (i.e. different cables) and the parts of the brain that
process the sound can change. This has led some reseachers to
hypothesize that the sound will be preceived differently.
So, yes, it's all in our heads but that dosen't mean that it isn't real.
It's just not the equipment that's causing the change.
And yes, Bose and Monster are two of the many who are benefiting from this.

David

[John C.]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:34:26 -0400, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner
dot com> wrote:

>Booch,
>
>> What about interconnects that have arrows denoting which way the signal
>should travel? Does it matter? <
>
>No, and that's the whole point of this thread. Now, it's possible a
>manufacturer could put a ferrite core filter in the path to keep radio
>frequencies out of the cable, and maybe that filter should be at one end or
>the other. But such filters are not needed or desired in either line level
>or speaker level wires.
>
>--Ethan
>
Usually "directional" interconnects are shielded, and have the ground
lifted at one end to help eliminate ground loop problems. It has
nothing to do with electron flow.
John


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[wkearney99]

> There's some interesting research going on in the fields of neuroscience
> and psychology that's showing different interpretations of our sensual
> perceptions vary with information. CAT scans are one of the apparatus
> being used to demonstrate this. Give someone a different piece of
> information (i.e. different cables) and the parts of the brain that
> process the sound can change.

As in, if you tell them "you're now listening to a better cable" they'll
believe you? There's nothing new to that idea and you certainly don't need
a CAT scanner to tell you. Which, by the way, is pretty unlikely as it'd
more likely be a PET scanner.

> So, yes, it's all in our heads but that dosen't mean that it isn't real.

If the scope says it's the same (or worse, which is often the case with
so-called 'premium' wiring) then it doesn't matter what "your head" thinks.
If you're dumb enough to let yourself waste the money then, by all means, go
right ahead. Just don't try hoodwinking the rest of us that know better.

[David B.]

wkearney99 wrote:

> As in, if you tell them "you're now listening to a better cable" they'll
> believe you? There's nothing new to that idea and you certainly don't need
> a CAT scanner to tell you. Which, by the way, is pretty unlikely as it'd
> more likely be a PET scanner.

Our brain is a processor. It processes the same imput in multiple ways
and this has led to the hypothesis that the outcome can be different
even when the imput remains the same. The researchers felt they needed
(and continue to feel they need) CAT scans. They're probably not as
smart as you are.

> If the scope says it's the same (or worse, which is often the case with
> so-called 'premium' wiring) then it doesn't matter what "your head" thinks.
> If you're dumb enough to let yourself waste the money then, by all means, go
> right ahead. Just don't try hoodwinking the rest of us that know better.

Where did I make this argument? Try reading for comprehension and not
for argument's sake.

David

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:58:28 -0400, "David B." <dsbalfoo@syr.edu>
wrote:

>wkearney99 wrote:
>
>> As in, if you tell them "you're now listening to a better cable" they'll
>> believe you? There's nothing new to that idea and you certainly don't need
>> a CAT scanner to tell you. Which, by the way, is pretty unlikely as it'd
>> more likely be a PET scanner.
>
>Our brain is a processor. It processes the same imput in multiple ways
>and this has led to the hypothesis that the outcome can be different
>even when the imput remains the same. The researchers felt they needed
>(and continue to feel they need) CAT scans. They're probably not as
>smart as you are.

They use CAT scans because they can. However, they have poor temporal
resolution and PET is only a bit better. MEG might be the way to go
(if, indeed, you are going in this direction).

Kal

[David B.]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> They use CAT scans because they can. However, they have poor temporal
> resolution and PET is only a bit better. MEG might be the way to go
> (if, indeed, you are going in this direction).
> Kal

If the methodology is flawed, I'd expect that would be pointed out in
the peer reviewed journals that these findings are published in. No?

David

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:25:03 -0400, "David B." <dsbalfoo@syr.edu>
wrote:

>Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> > They use CAT scans because they can. However, they have poor temporal
>> resolution and PET is only a bit better. MEG might be the way to go
>> (if, indeed, you are going in this direction).
>> Kal
>
>If the methodology is flawed, I'd expect that would be pointed out in
>the peer reviewed journals that these findings are published in. No?

Not necessarily. The problem is that any positive findings are
perfectly acceptable with the implicit understanding that they are
limited by the techniques employed. As someone who has both published
and reviewed such publications, I can say that is perfectly valid.

The problems arise when those results are used or interpreted by
people who to not understand the methods. Do you think that most
non-medical readers and those outside the imaging field know what are
the temporal and spatial resolutions of the various techniques?

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

David B. <BikeMan@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> wkearney99 wrote:
> > People are easily fooled, expecially ones trying to justify the price they
> > overpaid for junk, either for the new cables they were dumb enough to have
> > just bought, or for some other overpriced/overhyped piece of crap they've
> > bought before. Aka Bose and Monster customers.

> There's some interesting research going on in the fields of neuroscience
> and psychology that's showing different interpretations of our sensual
> perceptions vary with information. CAT scans are one of the apparatus
> being used to demonstrate this. Give someone a different piece of
> information (i.e. different cables) and the parts of the brain that
> process the sound can change. This has led some reseachers to
> hypothesize that the sound will be preceived differently.
> So, yes, it's all in our heads but that dosen't mean that it isn't real.
> It's just not the equipment that's causing the change.
> And yes, Bose and Monster are two of the many who are benefiting from this.

What's so strange about finding that when someone *thinks*
something is different for reason A, that's going to 'light up'
different neurons that if he *thought* it was for reason B?

*Thinking* always has to involve neurons, right? Pure *imagination* is a form
of thinking and it also lights up CAT scans. So yes, if you think about
unicorns, there's a 'real' correlate in the brain but that doesn't mean
that there are really unicorns.

What research in particular are you referring to, btw?

--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

David B. <dsbalfoo@syr.edu> wrote:
> wkearney99 wrote:

> > As in, if you tell them "you're now listening to a better cable" they'll
> > believe you? There's nothing new to that idea and you certainly don't need
> > a CAT scanner to tell you. Which, by the way, is pretty unlikely as it'd
> > more likely be a PET scanner.

> Our brain is a processor. It processes the same imput in multiple ways
> and this has led to the hypothesis that the outcome can be different
> even when the input remains the same.

Well, comparing two different cables that measure the same, is keeping
*one* kind of input the same. That's not quite the same as saying that the
'input' was the same, period. We know that the 'input' of sight and
knoweldge -- e.g. being told which cbale sounds 'better' beforehand --
can certainly affect belief about what one hears. Since belief has
to be a mental process, is it all that strange to find taht the process
is measurably different when the belief is different? Remember,
all that's being measured is blood flow to different parts of the brain.

Did the researchers vary *only* the cables, in a blind trial, and
then see if the two cables evoked two different yet characteristic
patterns?



The researchers felt they needed
> (and continue to feel they need) CAT scans. They're probably not as
> smart as you are.

The 'outcome' may be different in terms of blood flow to the brain, but
there's nothing particualrly remarkable about *mental* processes having
physiological correlates in the brain.


--

-S

[David B.]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> What's so strange about finding that when someone *thinks*
> something is different for reason A, that's going to 'light up'
> different neurons that if he *thought* it was for reason B?
>
> *Thinking* always has to involve neurons, right? Pure *imagination* is a form
> of thinking and it also lights up CAT scans. So yes, if you think about
> unicorns, there's a 'real' correlate in the brain but that doesn't mean
> that there are really unicorns.
>
> What research in particular are you referring to, btw?

You're more familiar with it than I am. You know they were referring to
neurons and I didn't so please continue.

David

[David B.]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

>
> The 'outcome' may be different in terms of blood flow to the brain, but
> there's nothing particualrly remarkable about *mental* processes having
> physiological correlates in the brain.

You're a genius. I didn't give a cite but you know what it says. I'm
in awe.

David

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:34:35 -0600, John C <john_c@Nospam.com> wrote:
>Usually "directional" interconnects are shielded, and have the ground
>lifted at one end to help eliminate ground loop problems. It has
>nothing to do with electron flow.

Unfortuneately, they can't possibly eliminate ground loop problems as the
negative conductor still ties the grounds of both pieces of equipment together.

They psuedo-balanced, based on pseudo-science. At best they're harmless,
at worse they have lousy shielding at the end where the shield isn't tied to
a ground.