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
13,781 posts
 
I have to repeat: Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without doubt. Whose words are silly then?
Essien if he is right, proves with experiments very simple one by the way, that all the research enebriated by his technological success has never been able to solve the hearing problem because of the false assumptions that the brain is a computer and that pitch is in some way reducible to frequency....

But if there is a mechanical very concrete forgotten  factor at the source and  production of sound and if the air is only the vector of the sound image not of this sound body, then what is sound?

Sound is no more what we think it was...and the ears is not linked to a brain wich would be mainly a computer...

I will say no more i just received the book....





In my opinion, doing double or triple-blind tests with something that’s an acquired taste won’t provide scientifically sound results.
Wise! This acquired taste is often a new learning habit also whose exercice takes place like you already said yourself, in a controlled room or space or at least a relaxing environment like a long month camp holiday....

Science has almost nothing to do with blindtest...The industrial process has all to do with it....Standardization and controls are the key words related to blindtest with statistic....And this is at best.... After that it is a useless James Randi Show....
djones51
4,947 posts
 
If interference is bad enough in a signal to be heard it can be measured. Where did you get the idea it couldn't?
djones51
4,947 posts
 
And that could be the point where traditional science fails to answer, especially if it starts with the well-known and accepted theorem that humans' audible spectrum is 20hz to 20khz.

Now we're questioning audible range of human ears? 
dletch2
455 posts
 
I have to repeat: Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without doubt. Whose words are silly then?



I reduce Essien, who again is not an expert on psycoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, or really from what I can tell any relevant field that would make his, what is effectively an opinion, matter. I gave you my example, "OK GOOGLE", and "ALEXA", that shows that even a relatively simple processor can pull voice, out of a cocophony of sounds.  The authoritative opinions you refer to, really are not. They are fringe, and/or quite old.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,781 posts
 
There is a fundamental difference in understanding water and using it...

There is a fundamental difference between using light with laser and understanding what is light...

There is a fundamental difference between using electricity and understanding what it is...

There is a fundamental differences between using the prime numbers in cryptography and understanding what they are...

There is a fundamental difference say Ernest Ansermet between using musical sounds and undersatanding what they are....This stay a mystery for him and he was not born in nigeria... 😁 And he does not need any peer review for his book one of the deepest analysis of music ever written to this day....

There is a fundamental difference between using speech ability of A.I. and developing them for internet and understanding what are the "atoms " of language in phonology and how they act on the surface level of language for example....What is language is not a question answered by A.I. technology....

Then i will read the nigerian non peer reviewed book because the artyicle i read was original and clever and surprizing and based on experiments easy to verify by the way....

 Then we need only to think to read the book i will read it....
More to discover