What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?

Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works?  Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.  You have wrapped up a red herring, a causal fallacy, an appeal to authority all into a few posts.


To respond to your post, Ohm's law (not a scientific law by current definition), is not completely incorrect. The fundamental sensor of the ear is a bunch of detectors with effectively bandpass filters in front of them. The result could be considered similar to a Fourier transform.  This "law" was put forth 40 years before we even knew what neurons were. Ohms conclusions were grossly simplistic, lacking knowledge of so many aspects of the brain, the ear, the mechanics of the ear, neurons, neural connections, or the brain in general ..... all of which has no relevance to the direction of a wire.  This is all a red herring as it speaks nothing to audibility, only that the ear/brain is an imperfect instrument.

Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works?

In this thread anton spoke about a writer in acoustic Essien...

I bought the book...

You said that this guy is a crook or a fraud...

You never even read it...

My post was not an appeal to authority...

Read it carefully all three say the some thing and go in the same direction...

Contradicting what you have claimed: pitch IS frequency nothing more...

that is the point of my post...

Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.

For the link between Essien concept and Anton concept about the direction of wire there is no direct connection....

An indirect one, yes, linked to the fact that human hearing is not explanable with the psychoacoustic of frequencies actual theories for the time being....Then measuring apparatus inspired by these acoustic theory  so precise they are perhaps dont measure all that is  there, for the listening  ears... 

it is you who use the autorithy card by declaring other like Essien a fraud...And dont pertaining to the discussion... the OP think otherwise...

There is no red herring in my post....

The concept defended by anton and his Russian master appeal to the fact also that hearing is not explainable by a Fourrier like generalysed theory...

Then unable to answer to these 3 people an articulate answer: Ansermet, Essien, Békésy, you accuse me of using authority, red herrings... 😁😊  this is not a great argument my friend ....



Please be fair and respectful of the ARGUMENTS here...It is not a pissing contest.... I want myself to understand and i dont pretend to understand.... Do you yourself understand? if yes, answer directly and not by ACCUSATIONS....

For all these three thinkers there is more in pitch than in  Fourrier analysis....

The reason why this is such  is explained  in Ansermet and in  Essien in another perspective.... Then accusing me of being out of the discussion is untrue...

Save if you decide yourself unilaterally...

The fact that human hearing is not reducible to actual acoustical conceptions is in the center of this discussion...

The OP itself think so....

Then answer me: do you go on claiming that pitch and frequencies are the same phenomenon?

Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...

You are right and they are wrong?
Or the opposite?

and WHY

The ear, again, is a bunch of receptor behind band-pass filters effectively. That is the sensor. That says nothing about the processing behind it, whether there is crosstalk, etc.

Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...

NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news. Essien has brought exactly 0 to the argument. Heck, if people listened to him, we would be going backwards. He proudly bleats that he has discovered something new. For him maybe. He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references to justify his bleating, meanwhile ignoring decades and decades of deep work into how human hearing works.  He is an artist, trying to tell a rocket scientist how propulsion works, using feelings. 

is pitch perception totally reducible to frequencies?
you must answer to my question....

You have already claimed that to me i assume your opinion has not changed....

NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news

Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ? Békésy know what he speak about in hearing theory, his Nobel prize come from his research in this field....This not an authority argument this is a fact that reinforce the perspective of what he said and from which context...

He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references

Sorry to contradict you he quoted the more recent references in acoustic, i OWN the 500 pages book just published...The book is in my hand... 😊 Ansermet book also....

Absolutely nothing.

Nope, NASA never cared about the directionality of cabling...
Except when the Gorilla tried to put the round end into the square end.