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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,173 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
13,173 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 ....


anton_stepichev OP
150 posts
 
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.

@toddalin
The math is flawed so why would I belive anything else in the post?
A 1 volt change from a 10 volt average represents a change of 21% in power, not 10% as stated.
10V x 10V = 100V / 10 ohms = 10 watts
11v x 11v = 121V / 10 ohms = 12.1 watts

The smallest step-change in amplitude, not power or average. Please read carefully.





linnvolk
90 posts
 
@cleeds,

Your "simple test" is too simple and what you describe are not controlled conditions. For example, your test isn’t double-blind and doesn’t allow for quick switching, requirements that experts in the field (Johnson, Toole) insist are necessary.

My “simple test” was not intended to be a full specification. I have a non-audiophile life, too. An obvious requirement is for there to be a controlled amount of time, the same whether switching or not, between rounds. Someone else can fill in all the missing bits.
The point is that it would be fairly simple to do a test on the home ground/system of the person who claims to be able to hear the difference. Proper witnessing and test design would insure a satisfactory result. The person can either hear the difference with statistical accuracy without the benefit of knowing how the cables are hooked up or or they cannot. Proper witnessing removes the chance of fraud, and suitable repeatability is established.
Finding a proponent and a detractor and a few witnesses who are all interested foremost in the truth (and who have the time to spare) is the challenge. I volunteer as a witness for any such test conducted in the Houston area, as I am qualified to be neither a proponent nor a detractor.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,967 posts
 
dletch2
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?
If you find my posts "insulting" kindly direct your dissatisfaction to the moderators. You’re not going to shut me up by shouting me down.
Why do you feel the need to oppose blind testing.
I do not oppose blind testing at all, and I noted so in the post to which you pretend offense. But - as I also noted - I have not adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.

I have almost certainly participated in more genuine, controlled, scientific blind audio tests than most on A’gon. That’s how I know blind tests have their place and their limitations.
More to discover