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
cleeds
6,318 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.
dletch2
455 posts
 
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. 

The experts do not require quick switching. There is no requirement for quick switching in testing. Quick switching is used because in every case, it has been more reliable in detecting small differences. The longer the switching time, the harder it is to detect changes. Double blind is preferred, but as someone has pointed out repeatedly, this is a hobby site, not a scientific journal. If a manufacturer makes a claim, I would expect double blind as that is a commercial claim.  I would hope that my fellow audiophiles can be honest enough with themselves and us that single blind is sufficient. You quickly get to know who tells tall tales and who does not.


rodman99999
6,206 posts
 
@dulledge-    "Anyone that knows anything about science knows that you could never assign a number like 96% to what remains a mystery as that would imply knowing exactly what we don't know."                                                                                                          It would behoove you to keep up with science, if you intend to comment on the subject.          https://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/                    Even Einstein realized there must be a huge amount of unseen/unknown matter and energy, when accounting for the gravity in our universe.     His theories were published in the very early 20th Century.     https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
dletch2
455 posts
 
That’s how I know blind tests have their place and their limitations.


Okay, what are their limitations and how did you come to this conclusion?
djones51
4,947 posts
 
It's a conundrum why those who profess to trust their ears are not willing to really trust their ears, they need a crutch, their eyes.

  It's been a lot of years but I was taught theorems began as a conjecture but I guess theory in the generic sense could be used. 
More to discover