Are conductors a necessary evil?

Have I understood correctly that the conductor itself is a necessary evil and that we care only about the field carried by it?
If there was a way to transfer analog signal without a conductor, as in somehow efficiently waveguided through air, would it be better than any cable?
I’ve understood that the part of the signal EM field that is inside the conductor suffers from lag through the metal and we have the signal arriving at slightly different time to the speakers. Is this quite why porous dielectrics and thin conductors (with enough surface area) are often preferable?

Without a Conductor, the members of the orchestra are seated so far apart that they can’t tell if they’re all playing in time.


And you’ll end up with a bunch of freeloaders that didn’t buy a ticket.

1 Like

How would the amp connect to the speakers?!

I apologize, couldn’t help myself

Try I Musici - The Brandenburg Concertos. I Musici is famous for not using a conductor… I love these two CDs… lively, modern sound… just great.

Bruce in Philly

1 Like

Along with the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, both of which have won Grammys.

1 Like

Without a conductor = no symphony…

Without a conductor…how would get the electron wave through
from source to amps to speakers?

Conductors are not evil…if they were so bad our hobby
would not exist…and you wouldn’t have your toys…right ?

Without a conductor, who would take our ticket?

High Fidelity Cables? Using magnetics as conductors :slight_smile:

1 Like

This is what I meant.

1 Like

Would it be practically possible to build “cables” that are essentially (magnetically wave-guided if necessary) long vacuum tubes? No consideration on flexibility.

I don’t think you’re looking at the physics correctly… Yes, there are electric and magnetic fields around a current carrying conductor, but those fields are a product of the current in the conductor, not the other way around. In the case of a speaker cable or analog interconnect, the fields aren’t what’s doing the work of transferring the signal, it’s the time-varying current (which is the result of the time-varying voltage applied across the load).

It’s oft said the best speaker cable is the 3~4 inch lead that connects the terminal to the voice coil. Having the output device connected directly to the speaker terminal. That requires active speakers and use of wireless technologies to get it from the source.

Osmosis. Nobody is looking into osmosis. Why this is?

I know. I was wondering if there’s any somewhat plausible other methods of getting the signal through.
Some very impractical methods for fringe extremists.

Could we connect a transformless tube amp (?) to the speakers using a long enough output vacuum tube that’d act as a “cable”? In fact two of such, such that the terminals would act as anodes, perhaps with a suitable correction circuit if necessary?
Doesn’t a high transfer function tube zip the current straightforward to the anode with very little loss?

What are the RLC characteristics of quality tubes?

This might get you part way to your answer
From Quora

Siyu Jiang

, B.A. Mechanical Engineering & Electrical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology (2021)

Answered May 9, 2018

Generally speaking, for an underdamped RLC system, the quality factor (Q) provides a comparison of the resonant frequency (w0) and the rate of decay or damping factor of the oscillating states (a).

Specifically, Q = w0 / 2a. The values of w0 and 2a are determined by the differential equation that describes the RLC system. For a series RLC network, w0 = sqrt(1 / LC), and 2a = L / R. The result is Q = (1 / R) sqrt(L / C). For a parallel RLC network, w0 = sqrt(1 / LC) (same as for series), and 2a = 1 / RC. The result is Q = R sqrt(C / L).

More dependent on the circuit being used.

Hopefully this page will open up for you.

Well, I hardly know how to apply that information on let’s say a 300B tube.

The point being, using a tube as a conductor (essentially a cable of sorts), is this applicable at all?