Is there anything intrinsically wrong with bare-wire speaker connection?

[Guest scumbag]

5 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

I haven't used the Duelund stuff and bare ends, only some original WE stuff, have always used the multi contact bananas with the Duelund wire.

 

Not sure if or how electron behaviour might come into play, as the signal transfer is transmitted outside the wire in the EMF created by the charge in the wire, it does my head in a little thinking about what's happening on that scale.

 

Someone posted this a while ago, at the time I was searching the Feynman Lectures where he hypothesises similar and explains that the actual electron movement in the conductor is at a snails pace (less) through a conductor.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/05/3937083.htm

Yes, that's why I said might, might. Perhaps the way that cables transmit music will be understood once we have the Theory Of Everything. There is so much we don't understand and it's a falsehood to think we have anywhere near all the answers. Until then, let's enjoy the sounds.

[Guest scumbag]

Having said that, the article is saying that a waterfall is great way to conceptualise electricity - it's not, as far as I can see, proposing the actual mechanism for electricity. 

[Guest Muon N']

5 hours ago, scumbag said:

Having said that, the article is saying that a waterfall is great way to conceptualise electricity - it's not, as far as I can see, proposing the actual mechanism for electricity. 

I don't think so.

 

The waterfall analogy — where the height, flow rate and number of rocky obstacles in a waterfall equate to voltage, current and resistance — has no relevance beyond simple battery-based circuits.

Worse still, it — and a lot of our language around circuits — feeds into the idea that moving electrons themselves carry energy from one part of a circuit to another. It's a lie.

The truth is way more spectacular: the energy doesn't travel through the wires at all — it shoots through the space around them, at the speed of light. (Way to bury the lead, science!).

 

This apparently has been known in at least Physics, for quite some time.

 

But for most of us in the hobby it is a matter of just enjoying the music, and you are right there

Edited March 12, 2019 by Muon N'

[Guest scumbag]

14 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

I don't think so.

 

The waterfall analogy — where the height, flow rate and number of rocky obstacles in a waterfall equate to voltage, current and resistance — has no relevance beyond simple battery-based circuits.

Worse still, it — and a lot of our language around circuits — feeds into the idea that moving electrons themselves carry energy from one part of a circuit to another. It's a lie.

The truth is way more spectacular: the energy doesn't travel through the wires at all — it shoots through the space around them, at the speed of light. (Way to bury the lead, science!).

 

This apparently has been known in at least Physics, for quite some time.

 

But for most of us in the hobby it is a matter of just enjoying the music, and you are right there

Oh well, I totally missed the point of that article then........ But I was listening to music so I have an excuse. Maybe?

[Guest Muon N']

1 minute ago, scumbag said:

Oh well, I totally missed the point of that article then........ But I was listening to music so I have an excuse. Maybe?

You are human, that's all, Mark.

 

I'd hate to count up all the mistakes I make in an average week

[Guest scumbag]

16 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

I don't think so.

 

The waterfall analogy — where the height, flow rate and number of rocky obstacles in a waterfall equate to voltage, current and resistance — has no relevance beyond simple battery-based circuits.

Worse still, it — and a lot of our language around circuits — feeds into the idea that moving electrons themselves carry energy from one part of a circuit to another. It's a lie.

The truth is way more spectacular: the energy doesn't travel through the wires at all — it shoots through the space around them, at the speed of light. (Way to bury the lead, science!).

 

This apparently has been known in at least Physics, for quite some time.

 

But for most of us in the hobby it is a matter of just enjoying the music, and you are right there

Let me see if I can get my feeble brain around this concept. Do we know what this energy is? If it's not electrons then is it Quantum level stuff?

[Guest Muon N']

17 minutes ago, scumbag said:

Let me see if I can get my feeble brain around this concept. Do we know what this energy is? If it's not electrons then is it Quantum level stuff?

It's an Electromagnetic Field that's created outside the conductor.

 

The electrons move very slowly through the conductor material, but I think the charge that creates this field is a result of the electrons passing charge from one to the other in a bumper car like fashion.

I still have little confidence in explaining this or having a very good understanding, so that the best I have so far.

 

I really need to get back into those Feynman Lectures and find where he talked about this, but there is a lot of reading.

 

@scumbag  I think, Mark, Quantum is the wrong word to use, It's a word so misused these days everywhere. Correctly we might say that the actions are happening on the atomic and subatomic level. Atoms and the constituents of atoms, and then there are maybe quasi-particles that could be at play also, It's a mind bending subject, at least for someone like me

 

Edit: it is the world of quantum physics though, so maybe not such a wrong word. I had to consult wiki for this bit..

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.

 

For example, a photon is a single quantum of light (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation). Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values. (Indeed, atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.) Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.

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

 

My head hurts now

Edited March 12, 2019 by Muon N'
typos

[Guest scumbag]

15 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

It's an Electromagnetic Field that's created outside the conductor.

 

The electrons move very slowly through the conductor material, but I think the charge that creates this field is a result of the electrons passing charge from one to the other in a bumper car like fashion.

I still have little confidence in explaining this or having a very good understanding, so that the best I have so far.

 

I really need to get back into those Feynman Lectures and find where he talked about this, but there is a lot of reading.

 

@scumbag  I think, Mark, Quantum is the wrong word to use, It's a word so misused these days everywhere. Correctly we might say that the actions are happening on the atomic and subatomic level. Atoms and the constituents of atoms, and then there are maybe quasi-particles that could be at play also, It's a mind bending subject, at least for someone like me

 

Edit: it is the world of quantum physics though, so maybe not such a wrong word. I had to consult wiki for this bit..

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.

 

For example, a photon is a single quantum of light (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation). Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values. (Indeed, atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.) Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.

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

 

My head hurts now

Thanks, clear as mud now 

So here's a thought. If this is a field then if we were to create a sheath of material around a piece of solid core wire that prevented these fields then wouldn't we create a resistance, or even stop the flow of electrical energy? Still trying to grasp this!

[Guest Muon N']

1 hour ago, scumbag said:

Thanks, clear as mud now 

So here's a thought. If this is a field then if we were to create a sheath of material around a piece of solid core wire that prevented these fields then wouldn't we create a resistance, or even stop the flow of electrical energy? Still trying to grasp this!

It's why the dielectric plays a part, it's why Teflon is preferred over PVC, and natural things like Cotton or Silk are preferred again, and with Duelund they have their oil impregnated Cotton dielectric.

The EMF does interact with the dielectric covering the conductor.

 

Regarding fields interacting, is why you will see in cable construction different approaches, whether braiding or forms of separation of the conductors, you can construct a cable to have these fields interacting more, or less.

 

Edit: forgot to mention that the dielectric it's self can be conductive, but they are a very poor conductor.

 

I better leave it there, as reaching the limits of my understanding and I hate relying on my memory.

Feel game? and have the time? have a read of Feynman's Lectures on the Caltech site

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Edited March 12, 2019 by Muon N'

[Guest scumbag]

4 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

It's why the dielectric plays a part, it's why Teflon is preferred over PVC, and natural things like Cotton or Silk are preferred again, and with Duelund they have their oil impregnated Cotton dielectric.

The EMF does interact with the dielectric covering the conductor.

 

 That's why you will see in cable construction different approaches, whether braiding or forms of separation of the conductors, you can construct a cable to have these fields interacting more, or less.

 

Edit: forgot to mention that the dielectric it's self can be conductive, but they are a very poor conductor.

OK, understood that part. Bear with me though. What I'm saying is, if I understand the theory correctly, if you could stop the electrical field then you would stop the flow of electricity? So for instance if we sheathed the copper in a lead block (or whatever material suppressed the field)  then doesn't that by extension mean that the electrical power is not transmitted? .

 

[Guest Muon N']

On 12/03/2019 at 4:34 PM, scumbag said:

OK, understood that part. Bear with me though. What I'm saying is, if I understand the theory correctly, if you could stop the electrical field then you would stop the flow of electricity? So for instance if we sheathed the copper in a lead block (or whatever material suppressed the field)  then doesn't that by extension mean that the electrical power is not transmitted? .

 

Doesn't work like that. Maybe it could be suppressed using another stronger magnetic field, buggered if I know.

 

I think the problem here is the question you are asking.

Best to find some Physics lectures or material There is that link I added to the above post.

 

Edit: had to correct myself in this post, it's why it is best to consult real physicists or material by them if you want answers. Have to remember also that science is self correcting so always updating as new data comes to light.

Also remember that it doesn't need to make sense to us, as we are designed to understand the macro world.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Muon N'

[Guest Muon N']

7 minutes ago, scumbag said:

OK, understood that part. Bear with me though. What I'm saying is, if I understand the theory correctly, if you could stop the electrical field then you would stop the flow of electricity? So for instance if we sheathed the copper in a lead block (or whatever material suppressed the field)  then doesn't that by extension mean that the electrical power is not transmitted? .

 

I corrected part of that above post of mine also, as the construction is less to do with the dielectric.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Muon N'

[Southerly]

It's all about Quarks, Strangeness and Charm, no but seriously - particle physics is all about the building blocks of life as we know it on this planet/starship. 

 

The audio world is often seen by those in the computer world as a bit of a joke. This is far more true in the analogue than digital domain. It wasn't always so eg. in the 50s lots of papers were written about the effect of heat on the performance/life of capacitors, resistors etc.

 

Metallurgy  has moved on hugely especially with the introduction of computing power and then we have the obsession with rhodium plated plugs, carbon fibre shells for RCA/XLR plugs - what the hell does this material have to do with electron/signal conduction - nothing but it is good for profiting from mugs who buy into this b/s.

 

Someone made a comment (i think in jest) about bare wire - do away with connectors. On another forum which has been at death's door for years, I mentioned air cored conductors, which should be solid core, about using FEP and not TEFLON as dialectric. Instead of using reasoned argument to oppose these tried materials the only responses were sarcasm, denial syndrome or ridicule. One sad character said that the design and implementation of circuits were far more important but wait a minute - no matter how good an amp or preamp or whatever is - the signal has to be conveyed via signal wiring and 99% of the time this has to passed through, connnectors.

 

These electronically generated musical signals are weak - how well do they pass through and around the conductor/s used? (read Oliver Heaviside) - how are these signals effected by the dialectrics they pass through, how much are they corrupted by the dialectric and by the powerful atomic fields they encounter when entering connectors, RCA,XLR, h/phone plugs. 

 

Can anyone point me to actual research conducted by experienced, open minded professional people? I have heard it said that point-to-point wiring is the best way to build analogue equipment?

 

I've lost count of the times that it has been said that as long as digital i/connect is actually 75ohm all is golden, some now challenge this.

 

I spent 4 years starting with received wisdom aka b/s about designing analogue i/connects - the whole thing nearly put me off music. I did reach and end game, or nearly so, I still have to make i/cs using 4 x 6N sold bare copper wire, micro coated with Pro-Gold to inhibit/stop oxidisation. 

 

Speaker wire - the larger the gauge the better, maybe it will be the same as for i/cs - 4 x 26AWG = 1mm. so, 4 x 1mm = 4mm in air(FEP)cored dialectric.

 

I will risk buggering up the brilliantly designed gimbal arm developed long ago by Kenwood for the KD990 (I have 2 x KD990 decks) Taking the original solid core high purity silver from cartridge tags to phono stage input - I never use shielding,electro-magnetic interference. I never twist multi-conductors together, I use them straight inside a soft sheathing material, secured with heatshrink - never use the supplied grub screw, use.

 

Once you've made your own analogue i/cs you will never buy commercial ones again - whatever design you use. I will make and use my own digital cable using true 75ohm connectors.

If your connecting well designed and built gear doesn't it make sense to use signal wiring that will convey the signal/music as faithfully (non religious use of that expression)  as possible to the next piece of gear?

 

 

[Guest Muon N']

meh...

 

I'm empty.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Muon N'

[G-Dubz]

Very interesting opinions. 

 

I'm also interested in thoughts between 3m unterminated thicker 12AWG local Australian copper speaker cables ~$15/m vs a 3m thinner Duelund 16GA cable with banana plugs from a sound physics standpoint, is thicker better? Based on the LS50's 4ohm drops I would've thought the thicker one would provide more bass frequency. Also I didn't know about the oxidation of the copper being an issue, it seems some think it does make a difference and others not for a few years at least? 

Edited March 18, 2019 by G-Dubz

[Guest Muon N']

@G-Dubz depends on how much current is being transferred from amp to speakers, if the speakers are efficient enough and not current hungry ones, the 16awg should be sufficient. Maybe with your setup you may prefer the heavier gauge if the amp provides the extra current *shrug* Aurealis Audio also have a 4 braid Duelund cable using the 16awg so.... doubled up and LCR is good too as I understand it, so that is better for more current, if needed.

What would you prefer where Duelund tin plated copper in an oil impregnated cotton dielectric vs the copper (no idea on any other aspects of this cable) would be down to what you like aside the power requirement issue, I suspect. I haven't noticed any degradation of the signal with having multi contact banana connectors on the Duelund wire. I have made up a couple of pairs of Duelund cables for mate's and used muti contact bananas, but tested as bare wire before adding the connectors both times.

 

Personally I like the Duelund Tin Plated Copper in it's dielectric over most cables I have used.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Muon N'
amendment

[G-Dubz]

14 hours ago, Muon N' said:

@G-Dubz depends on how much current is being transferred from amp to speakers, if the speakers are efficient enough and not current hungry ones, the 16awg should be sufficient. Maybe with your setup you may prefer the heavier gauge if the amp provides the extra current *shrug* Aurealis Audio also have a 4 braid Duelund cable using the 16awg so.... doubled up and LCR is good too as I understand it, so that is better for more current, if needed.

What would you prefer where Duelund tin plated copper in an oil impregnated cotton dielectric vs the copper (no idea on any other aspects of this cable) would be down to what you like aside the power requirement issue, I suspect. I haven't noticed any degradation of the signal with having multi contact banana connectors on the Duelund wire. I have made up a couple of pairs of Duelund cables for mate's and used muti contact bananas, but tested as bare wire before adding the connectors both times.

 

Personally I like the Duelund Tin Plated Copper in it's dielectric over most cables I have used.

Thanks for your reply. 

 

What I found interesting in the discussion in the previous pages and from OP's comments was the push pull between 'less is more' in terms of number of components in the circuit down a simple but solid & thick gauge copper connection compared with a treated/more sophisticated engineering process on metals but with a banana plug or spade in between as an additional point of resistance. 

 

In terms of ease of access, it was fairly tedious putting the bare wire on as the unterminated cable I have is a bi-wire that I had to combine into 1 speaker terminal as I don't have bi-wire speakers. 

 

I'm still new to the audiophile scene but comparing the thicker copper unterminated vs the thinner Duelund banana plug cable, I'm not sure how much of a difference it has made however I still need to run the new thicker copper cables in. It's also difficult to do a side by side because of how long it took connect the unterminated wires! 

[Guest Muon N']

@G-Dubz Higher purity metals conduct better than lower quality metals, small difference but it is there.

 

I don't have any answers, different folk have different opinions in this hobby, and the best thing to do is work out what you prefer and works in your system for you, without following your own or others biases.

 

Often extended listening and with familiar material will help you come to a conclusion, listen to piano, drums, violin, male and female vocals and maybe the leading edge if guitar. What I mean is de-construct the music of the familiar material somewhat and compare those parts of the whole as well as the overall sound, works for me anyway.

 

Have fun or make it a fun experience, Geoff

[G-Dubz]

5 hours ago, Muon N' said:

@G-Dubz Higher purity metals conduct better than lower quality metals, small difference but it is there.

 

I don't have any answers, different folk have different opinions in this hobby, and the best thing to do is work out what you prefer and works in your system for you, without following your own or others biases.

 

Often extended listening and with familiar material will help you come to a conclusion, listen to piano, drums, violin, male and female vocals and maybe the leading edge if guitar. What I mean is de-construct the music of the familiar material somewhat and compare those parts of the whole as well as the overall sound, works for me anyway.

 

Have fun or make it a fun experience, Geoff

Absolutely! Thanks for your advice & replies! 

[bob_m_54]

On 12/03/2019 at 10:04 AM, Muon N' said:

I haven't used the Duelund stuff and bare ends, only some original WE stuff, have always used the multi contact bananas with the Duelund wire.

 

Not sure if or how electron behaviour might come into play, as the signal transfer is transmitted outside the wire in the EMF created by the charge in the wire, it does my head in a little thinking about what's happening on that scale.

 

Someone posted this a while ago *(I think it was Eltech), at the time I was searching the Feynman Lectures where he hypothesises similar and explains that the actual electron movement in the conductor is at a snails pace (less) through a conductor.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/05/3937083.htm

That tends to disagree with just about every teaching on electrical flow and magnetic flux. The magnetic flux is produced as a result of the current flowing through a conductor. This is why motors and generators work.

 

The current flow (or rate of change of charge) is generated by applying an Electro Motive Force (EMF) or Voltage, across the conductor.

 

The atoms in a conductor, to put it simplistically, have an outer shell of easily displaced electrons surrounding the nucleus. When the EMF is applied to the conductor (ie Neg on end Pos the other) Electrons are supplied to one end, inducing the localised atoms of the conductor to accept extra electrons producing Negatively charged Ions. The Neg Ions in turn will give up Electrons to their surrounding Neutral Charge Atoms in natures attempt to equalise.

 

At the same time, the reverse is happening at the Positive end of the conductor. The positive charge of the EMF attracts Electrons, which are stripped from the outer shell of the localised atoms, producing Positive Ions. The Positive Ions attract Electrons from their neighbouring Neutral Atoms in an attempt to equalize the charge difference between them, and so on.

 

If the conductor was only one atom wide, the transference of electrons (hence charge) would be like the balls of a Newton's Cradle. One ball hits the group, and one ball is ejected from the other end. Two balls hit the group (bigger EMF) two balls are ejected at the other end. But as the conductors are many millions of atoms thick, the actual path of each electron is meandering, but ultimately in the direction forced by the EMF.

 

The speed with which the effects of the differential charges occurs, is close to the speed of light, Even though the speed of individual electrons that transfer from one atom to another, zigzagging down the length of the conductor is very slow.

 

Incidentally, it is easier to understand Electron Flow Theory of Electric Current because of this, and especially if you are into Valve gear. I learnt and used Electron flow for 30 years, then had to change to Conventional Flow when I started my Advanced Diploma in 2000. That was interesting for the first few weeks.

Edited March 20, 2019 by bob_m_54

[Guest Muon N']

Deleted

 

What in a rush and skimmed ya' post, Bob and now I see no reason at all for my response.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Muon N'
For clarity

[davewantsmoore]

On 19/03/2019 at 12:12 PM, G-Dubz said:

What I found interesting in the discussion in the previous pages and from OP's comments was the push pull between 'less is more'

In this regard, less IS more .... but only in so far as you need to still ensure a good quality electrical and mechanical connection.

 

It possible to make thing too simple.... meaning that if you had a terminal and wire which didn't form a good quality connection  .... then worshiping the "less is more" gods is silly.....  It would be much much better to put a connector (eg. a spade) on the wire - assuming that the spade could be connected to the wire with a good quality electrical and mechanical connection (and that the terminal could accept the spade well).

 

I have DIY equipment, so I sometimes run wire directly from the amplifier to the driver, with no connectors of any sort.....   that's not 'cos I think connectors are inherently bad .... but it just removes the potential for poor connections, corrosion, etc.     But I also change things like I change my underpants sometimes, so it gets quite inconvenient.

 

[davewantsmoore]

On 13/03/2019 at 2:57 AM, Southerly said:

Instead of using reasoned argument to oppose these tried materials the only responses were sarcasm, denial syndrome or ridicule.

 

One sad character said that the design and implementation of circuits were far more important but wait a minute - no matter how good an amp or preamp or whatever is - the signal has to be conveyed via signal wiring and 99% of the time this has to passed through, connnectors.

The sad character is correct in general <shrug>

 

... but from what you have written (sorry if I've missed something) you seem to have things generally arse-about.    It isn't up to others to use reasoned argument to "oppose".    It's up to others to "replicate".

 

If someone says there is an outcome "from using air cored conductors".... it's up to them to provide details of what they did and what the results were ... and then others can try to replicate the experiment and confirm the result.   Either the result is able to be verified by others, or it is not.

 

 

 

On 13/03/2019 at 2:57 AM, Southerly said:

Can anyone point me to actual research conducted by experienced, open minded professional people?

Research on things like this is typically not published when it is unable to confirm a hypothesis.

 

Eg. Hypothesis is "such and such wire might better transmit audio signals"

 

I do some experiments, and I cannot show anything different about the wire performance.    I do not publish a paper about this.

 

On 13/03/2019 at 2:57 AM, Southerly said:

I've lost count of the times that it has been said that as long as digital i/connect is actually 75ohm all is golden, some now challenge this.

You gotta be careful who you listen to, and what actual specific justification they give for what they're saying.

 

Digital signals are fast.  Typical SPDIF cables won't transmit them perfectly.   That could be a problem (depends what is on either end of the cable, and whether it cares much).    "Is it 75ohm" is an oversimplification.

 

On 13/03/2019 at 2:57 AM, Southerly said:

If your connecting well designed and built gear doesn't it make sense to use signal wiring that will convey the signal/music as faithfully (non religious use of that expression)  as possible to the next piece of gear?

Of course.... but I tend to think about wire, the same as large signal capacitors or resistors. 

 

There's a mountain of both theory and evidence which says they won't/don't have a significant effect....  but, lots of people are very sure they do.

 

If that's the case (that they all sound different) .... then what does that say?   That none of them are "perfect" .... indeed, perhaps none of them are even "good".

 

I try to design systems which avoid cables, connectors, resistors, capacitors, etc.   If people need to speed dizzying $ on them to be happy, then I think that those problems should be just sidestepped and the money re-purposed where it does good.

 

[Southerly]

davewantsmore,

oh dear, your making a very arrogant and irrational argument  re. reasoned argument and replication ie. your right and I'm wrong. I used, after much experimentation on cable construction the unchallenged findings of Oliver Heaviside/late 19th century.

 

You are contradicting yourself when you make pronouncements on air cored conductors - (1) I did get specific about construction, what materials to try and why FEP is better than TEFLON  and I did say that others should try to make them - theory from practice. As you are a DIYer - why don't you make a set - then you will be dealing with reality and not concept. 

 

On digital cables I said - I have no experience, so no opinion - you need to look at your response and take note.

 

Your last paragraph is hilarious but I don't think this was your intention. There isn't a mountain of evidence, if there was you would have quoted some of this mountain, you have made a statement with nothing factual to back it up - why not? There are idiots who pronounce that - mosfets sound best when run hot BUT they never show evidence that cool running mosfets sound worse - because they have never conducted  experiments to prove/disprove their theories - this is just pure arrogance - I can't be wrong - sad, very sad characters. Years ago I used computer fans underneath hybrid gear (mosfet output) that sounded different/better to my ears and the bonus was that surrounding caps/resistors ran far cooler. In the 1950s many papers were written on the greatly increased longevity of caps and resistors that operated under reduced temps.

 

So you design systems that use no signal wire, no caps and no resistors - unbelieveable - now produce at least (1) photo of an amp/preamp/phono stage to back up this revolutionary statement - we are waiting.