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

By the way he seems that our friend dletch2 need to refresh his knowledge about hearing... This is the post he wrote about pitch after my defense of Essien he characterize to be a fraud :

The brain is effectively a computer, I don’t think that is disputable and pitch, by definition at least is, quite literally, frequency. You can dispute how the brain computes, but still a computer.

now this is from this very interesting book of 2017 :

https://www.amazon.ca/Human-Machine-Hearing-Extracting-Meaning/dp/1107007534

All the book is free to read here: ( uppercases are mine)

http://dicklyon.com/hmh/Lyon_Hearing_book_01jan2018_smaller.pdf


«Ohm’s and Helmholtz’s view of hearing as Fourier analysis, and THE CONFUSION OF FREQUENCY WITH PITCH, continued to permeate, if not dominate, thinking about hearing
in the early twenty-first century, even though problems with the approach had been
repeatedly demonstrated, and arguments against it published continually over a century
and a half.» P16  in "the hear as a frequency analyser?"




Then perhaps if our friend is WRONG about pitch being equal to frequency and if his immediate judgement about someone research is so expeditive without even trying to study it for a few minutes, is it possible than his judgement about Anton_Stepichev experiments and ideas coming from the same arrogance perhaps are also wrong?





I will add another reference to enter the nail in his hole and this remark will contradict our friend about the fact that we are supposed to know WHAT PITCH IS WITHOUT DEBATE today, a view totally opposing the book of Essien our friend describe being a fraud and this world authority in the field  Erik Heller:

«Since melody is based on pitch, there must be a pitch present—at least when it is called to our attention. There is no correct answer to whether a pitch is present in the sound of a wood block, since the human subject is the ultimate authority, by definition. If the pitch was not heard, it was not present.

It is difficult to reason in a detached way about subjective sensations. If two people are coming from a different place in that debate, then something obvious to one person might be vehemently rejected by the other. This is a recipe for debate going around in circles, and INDEED TODAY YOU CAN FIND THE SAME CONTROVERSIES that flared up in the mid-1800s....
The subject of pitch perception heated up in the mid-nineteenth century with a debate between physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and Georg Ohm on one side and Rudolf Koenig and August Seebeck on the other (figure 23.5). They went to extreme lengths to try to achieve control of sound sources in order to settle ambiguities of human hearing. At some risk of oversimplification, we can state in a few words what the controversy is all about: Are human beings essentially walking Fourier analyzers?

The debate continues today, although it is slightly more subdued.»
P.549
Why You Hear What You Hear An Experiential Approach to Sound, Music, and Psychoacoustics by Eric J. Heller

These 2 writers are top notch acoustic world known researchers...The two dont equal pitch and frequency at all like Essien....

Then Essien is perhaps Not just a " fraud from a third class university from Nigeria"....like claimed our friend in a past post 😁


And if his judgements are so wrong and expeditive and his claim simplistic, like equating pitch with frequency, and reducing any human perception to be ONLY an impediment and less accurate than a simple measuring tool, PERHAPS he is also wrong about Anton-stepichev experiments...

I have no opinion myself but i like truth and truth is never a number...

Now the most important point about true science:

Even if pitch could be reduced to frequency, which is absolutely demonstrated false and simplistic in these 2 books in some experiments in the last 50 years, the perception of pitch is a human subjective experience, and All science is based not on the technological reduction of human experience to a mathematical model like  with A.I. for example but on the contrary science is the ultimate way to ENLARGE and UNDERSTAND human perception and experience.... Replacing human perception by A.I. is a technology irrealisable feat anyway  which will never replace understanding and could not do it...

Confusing technology or a question about "what" or "how" with a deeper question about "why" is technological idolatry, a religious belief and not science at all...

True scientist can use blindtest but they dont promote this like if it was a science replacing experiment and a tool for defending "status quo" in research.... It is a statistical tool and a statistical tool is not science by itself save without taking enormous precautions about the "How" and "When" they will or would be used for ...

And what could be  justified with dealing about a cables sellers claiming something, if the sellers wanted to; is not justifiable in this case.... He does not sell cable , he describe an idea and his experiments.... then this must be discussed  and replicate by someone BEFORE any public blindtest.... Then we are very far here from a blindtest with a cable delivered by post....

Any other opinion is a belief, not an experiment....Or worst a scientist  ideology....Eliminate your own bias and experiment yourself.... Or forgeot this thread and blindtest Ted Denney cable....He wait for that who knows....Or buy one and listen....

Who care if he sells cables. He is still wrong.

Is anton_stepichev wrong like Essien when he was claiming in his book that pitch cannot be reducible to frequency?

If so, guess who is wrong a second time perhaps ?

Contrary to you i respect people idea and experience and i have no opinion about Anton experiments... NONE...

His site is well designed and interesting, his idea original, and his thread here interestings and NOT ABOUT cable brand name pretense....

But i dislike religious zealots, in any field or any religion...It seems you are a zealot and you overestimated your knowledge at the expanse of ANYONE here....Anton is NOT the first victim....I have seen many....

By the way i am ignorant myself but i can learn and i can read ....

djones51
Until you acknowledge the fact that humans are easily fooled and have biases you'll never convince anyone outside those who already agree with your flawed methodology.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know perfectly well that it's impossible. Read again the question of the topic, it is not about convincing those who do not hear, but about how you can explain audio anomalies to those who hear them and successfully use the knowledge in their systems.

For me and for many others, the direction of the wire is as commonplace as its absence is for you. Despite this, I believe that the ability to reason in educated, unbiased people should be the same.

I hope you have an imagination, assume that you have been dealing with the direction of the wire for many years, show it to friends and acquaintances, discover interesting patterns related to the direction, these patterns are successfully used by other people in their audio projects. All doubts about the reality of the phenomenon and many similar anomalous effects in audio have long disappeared. The only question left is, why do we hear (feel) something that isn't in the signal?

Naturally, I still don't know what it is, but logically, it can't be related to electricity, thus it can't be measured by electrical appliances and evaluated by blind tests.

So the question is: are there any errors in my logical chain (that I have already posted several times) if there is no doubt that when the wire is reversed, not only is it audible, but its sertain direction is fundamentally important for a more natural reproduction (perception) of music?