Directional wires/cables

@rodman99999

As simple a device as a fuse is: it still carries a sinusoidal signal/voltage, ALWAYS from source to load. NOT back and forth!

Also (as mentioned above): any fuse acts as an RLC circuit, the ’C’ of which will be determined by properties of its wave guide’s/conductor’s surroundings (ie: glass, air, bee’s wax, ceramic, end cap materials, etc).

Any commonly drawn wire will exhibit a chevron pattern in its crystal lattice, so: why not "directionality" and why Ohno Continuous Cast, single crystal wire sounds better, to so many?

Stated above are scientifically tested, measured and proven facts.

1) Your first statement above is completely incorrect. A fuse (to take your example) does not carry a voltage (whatever that means, since it is a meaningless statement in the first place). The idea of ’source’ and ’load’ are irrelevant in electrical theory; you can represent any part of a (linear-ized) circuit as a ’source’ with an ’impedance’ that is connected to the rest of the circuit ("load"). The fact that we as humans interested in hearing sound being reproduced interpret one component as a source and another as a load has nothing to do with the way in which electrical circuits behave.

2) All the parameters of an RLC representation of a real component will be influenced by the properties of the materials they are made and surrounded by. Not just capacitance.

3) The fact that a drawn wire will show a grain orientation does not imply your (or anybody else’s) opinion that there is any "directionality" or asymmetry in the way in which a non-DC waveform is transmitted through it.

4) Your "stated above" is not fact; it’s a mixture of poorly understood electrical theory/physics, and opinions. As is your idea that because materials with a high dielectric constant take longer to polarise therefore this justifies the phenomenon of burn-in.

5) Very little of what you have posted has anything to do with the topic of this thread, which is about the directionality of cables to audio signals.

Before continuing, kindly get a degree in electrical engineering (which I happen to have), rather than posting nonsense under the flag of "it’s new theory". No, it isn’t. The idea that electrical currents move as ping-pong balls in a tube is not based on "old theories"; it’s a (bad) analogy used today with high school students who start learning about electricity without having the mathematical background to understand different and more correct/complete representations. It’s neither more nor less than second grade students being told "you cannot do 2 minus 3" as they have not been introduced to negative numbers.

@billpete 

What about ones that do not have directionality in mind? Will they "learn" to be better in one direction than the other? This would mean that they physically changed over time.

No, they won't - there is no "direction" to an AC signal that would change the material to conduct preferentially in one sense rather than the other - and if there were, it would be a cause of significant distortion. Either the cable is manufactured asymmetrically (with different shielding or cable geometry) or it isn't - the asymmetry may cause differences in sound when the cable is plugged in one way rather than the other, but the asymmetry would not change because a signal is sent (from a human "teleological" perspective) from A to B instead of from B to A.

@dlevi67

Thank you for the very thorough demolition jobs!

             Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works.     

                         That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY.     

        The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing.             

       Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it.     

      Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's.   Then came Feynman’s.       For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, FUSES, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems.    

             The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point:

 https://www.steamnews.org/articles/math/albert-einstein-he-who-dared-to-challenge-newtons-physics

              then:

 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/qed.html#:~:text=Quantum%20 electrodynamics%2C%20co....               

               and: 

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/an-updated-feynman-experiment-could-heal-the-rift-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity/

     "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."  (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872) 

     "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,"  (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)

      "The super computer is technologically impossible.  It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)                        

      "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."  (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)

      "Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)

      "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895) 

      "The bomb will never go off.  I speak as an expert in explosives."  (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project) 

     When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."

      Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft. 

     Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe). 

     I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY."  He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)   

                         PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?