2. cables
  3. 166070-159469

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.
anton_stepichev
dletch2
455 posts
 
Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orcjhestra play behind the speakers in front of me...


One day you will research how we determine how we determine the location of sound, front to back, and realize that what you describe, is at best illusory, heavily influenced by preconception, and if true, would cause all vocals to do this, whether that is in the original recording or not, and probably causes a lot of the instrument sounds to have a false location. That is not what I would consider a positive result. You can create all kinds of illusions for a given set of speakers, in a given room, with a given set of reflectors, diffusers, absorbers, that will work for one effect, on one recording and create chaos with anything else. This is not news, but can be fun.


 Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Callint that science is sunday club scientism.....

You may, just may, want to read the title of the thread you are posting in and consider whether your statement makes any sense at all?  You have gone on and on about acoustics in a thread that is about cable direction, a topic that screams exactly for blind testing, whether the claim is made by a manufacturer (it has been in this thread) or by someone who could be misleading others (or not).



cleeds
6,271 posts
 
dletch2
This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith.
Agreed!
One group is honest with itself and does not rely on the "faith" that they are infallible, while the other group does. No more, no less.
True, to a point. The Naysayer Doctrine (the measurementalist approach) does very much acknowledge that we humans are fallible and our senses prone to deception. Good for you! But then the measurementalists insist the doctrine is perfect and infallible; hence, those in conflict with the doctrine are labeled as deluded, insane, confused, stupid, and the like.
You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter.
Call it what you like, but it does clearly matter very, very much to you. That’s consistent with your evangelism and why you’ve made more than 80 posts here since joining just a week ago. And it’s why you’ve been banned from the group multiple times under your previous user names. Your proselytizing insults really get old.
You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.
There’s another example of how those who claim science and reason as being on their side commit some of the most confounding acts of ill logic along the way.

I don’t discourage blind testing, by the way. But neither have I adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.
dletch2
455 posts
 
cleeds,


Your post is insulting, dogmatic, and adds nothing to the discussion. It is nothing but a rant. Your constant insults to me and others with attempted insults like "measurementalist", "naysayer doctrine", etc. is tired, old, and useless. Your deflection to bring up measurements in attempted refutation of something that did not mention measurements is an exercise in personal futility.


Do you have anything at all of value to add to this conversation? It is about wire direction. If it exists as an audible effect, the effect will be small. If you claim you can reliably pick out very small differences without bias, then you are not being honest with yourself or your fellow audiophiles. Is that fair?


A simple question.  Why do you feel the need to oppose blind testing. Blind testing can do nothing, absolutely nothing but improve the quality of SUBJECTIVE testing. It has absolutely nothing to do with measurements. Not even a little. It is exclusively the domain of subjective impression. 
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,801 posts
 
One day you will research how we determine how we determine the location of sound, front to back, and realize that what you describe, is at best illusory, heavily influenced by preconception, and if true, would cause all vocals to do this, whether that is in the original recording or not, and probably causes a lot of the instrument sounds to have a false location.
Human perception is not illusory in the absolute sense...

And for sure this files comes from an excellent studio recording where the singers walked and turn their head singing.... what i listen to was an acoustical recreation of what was the intention of the recording engineer....It is a theater play not static singing...

For sure in many recording the instrument dont have a true location....

But my sound effect is not 2-d and lifeless....

That is the point...

You can create all kinds of illusions for a given set of speakers, in a given room, with a given set of reflectors, diffusers, absorbers, that will work for one effect, on one recording and create chaos with anything else. This is not news, but can be fun.
Sorry here your affirmation is not my expoerience ...

All my recordings files are not in chaos they are more livelier 3-D and filled the room...

This result by the way is not obtained by MAINLY and ONLY a balance between diffusive, reflecting, and absorbing surfaces BUT by my use with my "mechanical equalizer" and the locations very precise of the 32 tubes and pipes inhabiting my room and transforming completely the zones pressure distribution...

I had the idea discussing with you in a disagrement that was a great luck for me when we argue about imaging concept.... You forgot? Anyway i cannot thank you enough for the discussion...
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,801 posts
 
You may, just may, want to read the title of the thread you are posting in and consider whether your statement makes any sense at all? You have gone on and on about acoustics in a thread that is about cable direction,
I apologize because you are right about that....But there is a link by the OP about hearing sound then.....By the way i approved your blindtest protocol in another thread.... I am not against blindtest i am against those who use it to harass any testimonies ....


More to discover