I would reply with a snarky comment Miller, but i figure your foot already has enough holes in it.
What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?
Douglas Self wrote a devastating article about audio anomalies back in 1988. With all the necessary knowledge and measuring tools, he did not detect any supposedly audible changes in the electrical signal. Self and his colleagues were sure that they had proved the absence of anomalies in audio, but over the past 30 years, audio anomalies have not disappeared anywhere, at the same time the authority of science in the field of audio has increasingly become questioned. It's hard to believe, but science still cannot clearly answer the question of what electricity is and what sound is! (see article by A.J.Essien).
For your information: to make sure that no potentially audible changes in the electrical signal occur when we apply any "audio magic" to our gear, no super equipment is needed. The smallest step-change in amplitude that can be detected by ear is about 0.3dB for a pure tone. In more realistic situations it is 0.5 to 1.0dB'". This is about a 10% change. (Harris J.D.). At medium volume, the voltage amplitude at the output of the amplifier is approximately 10 volts, which means that the smallest audible difference in sound will be noticeable when the output voltage changes to 1 volt. Such an error is impossible not to notice even using a conventional voltmeter, but Self and his colleagues performed much more accurate measurements, including ones made directly on the music signal using Baxandall subtraction technique - they found no error even at this highest level.
As a result, we are faced with an apparently unsolvable problem: those of us who do not hear the sound of wires, relying on the authority of scientists, claim that audio anomalies are BS. However, people who confidently perceive this component of sound are forced to make another, the only possible conclusion in this situation: the electrical and acoustic signals contain some additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.
If there are no electrical changes in the signal, then there are no acoustic changes, respectively, hearing does not participate in the perception of anomalies. What other options can there be?
Regards.
For your information: to make sure that no potentially audible changes in the electrical signal occur when we apply any "audio magic" to our gear, no super equipment is needed. The smallest step-change in amplitude that can be detected by ear is about 0.3dB for a pure tone. In more realistic situations it is 0.5 to 1.0dB'". This is about a 10% change. (Harris J.D.). At medium volume, the voltage amplitude at the output of the amplifier is approximately 10 volts, which means that the smallest audible difference in sound will be noticeable when the output voltage changes to 1 volt. Such an error is impossible not to notice even using a conventional voltmeter, but Self and his colleagues performed much more accurate measurements, including ones made directly on the music signal using Baxandall subtraction technique - they found no error even at this highest level.
As a result, we are faced with an apparently unsolvable problem: those of us who do not hear the sound of wires, relying on the authority of scientists, claim that audio anomalies are BS. However, people who confidently perceive this component of sound are forced to make another, the only possible conclusion in this situation: the electrical and acoustic signals contain some additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.
If there are no electrical changes in the signal, then there are no acoustic changes, respectively, hearing does not participate in the perception of anomalies. What other options can there be?
Regards.
- ...
- 798 posts total
“Cables do not transmit sound. The transmit electrical energy, or voltage potentials depending on whether a load is connected or not.” - dletch2 The point here is not whether cables transmit sound, but rather, if what we measure of them in reverse fully describes what we hear after the signal finds its way into waves from the loudspeaker. If computers are not yet quite as good as humans beings in recognising timbre, obviously though soundwaves that find their way by wires and cables back into the computing system for interpretation, it is quite possible that science and technology hasn’t yet understood what needs to be measured for a computer to identify timbre better than human beings. Or, heaven forbid, there could be the smallest possibility that there will remain some things that might never be able to be measured ; ) In friendship - kevin |
There's a huge difference between writing a computer program that can recognize timbre like a human and measuring what humans can hear. I haven't seen anyone say science can describe what anyone or everyone "hears" when they listen to music only that science can record everything you're going to hear from that recorded music, as well as many other things but we are talking about music here. Whether computers can recognize timbre is irrelevant, we have been recording and playing back music way before voice recognition software came about and has nothing to do with what's measurable . I can record my wife's voice on an old cassette tape and recognize it. You're confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it's pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent. What can be recorded can be measured and playback can reproduce that recording extremely accurate because we can compare the measurements. That's all audio reproduction is, when it hits the ear that's a different system , it's not part of it. |
You’re confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it’s pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent.Yes and no.... There exist and must exist CORRELATION FEEDBACK ONGOING PROCESS between these 2 system.... And these correlation parameters are not determined only by the known actual law of audio reproduction but can and would be dictated by NEW conditions of experience by the users and new experiments...Psychoacoustic for example will evolve integrating human perception and neurophysiology and physical acoustic phenomena.... Then saying that : We can measure what goes down a wire with great accuracy. Humans can’t. Matters not what happens after. The electrical signal was either recreated properly or not.Is equivalent to saying that the conditions of experience are always the same for all users and for all time... And saying that tools could measure what "goes down a wire with great accuracy" but humans could not, to justify the impossibility or the value of a perceptive experience, is equivalent to the saying that human is ONLY an imperfect deluded measuring tool.... Which is dumb to say the least....Because it is human perceiving consciousness that correlate all POSSIBLE measuring tools....It is human perceiving consciousness that could change the conditions of the experience and create new dimensions or new experience through new parameters and creating new measuring tools to explore new dimensions with new parameters....It is ONLY consiousness that could give meaning and interpret the tool.... Then arguments against the possibility of wires direction and a related new qualitative experience is only a circular vicious circle around the measuring fallacy.... No one can lift itself by the hair....Save perhaps it seems dletch2... 😊 No measuring tool work in a grid of measuring tools without a human perceiving consciousness at the beginning of the grid and at the end....There is NO EXTERNAL reality without any conscious participation, which is anyway the greatest discovery of the XX century called quantum physics... Then technological idolatry is only a blind religious belief in a complete external reality...It is the Baron Munchausen religion....Also the vision of some monotheistic cult where the Earth is given like an EXTERNAL object to exploit for men.... Sorry but science has already establish against ANY belief favoring the contrary view the fact of consciousness participation.... There is no absolute objective external reality independant of any consciousness or independant for ALL consciousness...Materialism is dead in the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics; held from 24 to 29 October 1927 and buried after Alan Aspect experiment in 1982.... No engineer or audiophile will ressuscitate it.... Then no reasoning could a priori replace or ridiculize a future proposed experiment based on an alleged perceptive experience like Anton proposed here .... John Archibald Wheeler, from a transcript of a radio interview on "The Anthropic Universe":
|
- 798 posts total