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
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
13,802 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....
dletch2
455 posts
 
false assumptions that the brain is a computer and that pitch is in some way reducible to frequency....


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.



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.

In my opinion, doing double or triple-blind tests with something that's an acquired taste won't provide scientifically sound results.


There have been many many tests w.r.t. the range of hearing. There had been some evidence of "perception" w.r.t. higher frequencies. I think that was pretty much debunked, or at least was not easily repeated. It really does not matter either way to this argument.


W.r.t. blind testing, no one is testing "taste". They are testing ability to identify a difference. Any difference. In fact, if you have a particular taste you are fond of, then that should provide even stronger ability to detect in a blind test.


@dletch2
You keep insisting there is a demonstrably audible difference that cannot be detected by instruments. This simply is not true. Neither that the differences have been demonstrated in anything other than ad-hoc fashion (i.e. at least blind), nor that in that same situation no one could measure a difference.

@dletch2, You are engaged in demagoguery and do not help to understand the topic at all. Very sorry. But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question if you want to continue the discussion.

Then you are engaging in false witness as there is nothing in my post that is not a simple statement of fact. If you can't demonstrate the ability to detect a power cable change, or anything for that matter, in a blind listening condition, i.e. one where you don't know the nature of the change, then the reporting of being able to detect it is effectively void. There is no reason for anyone to take your word for it that you heard a difference.  To the second part of my statement, I challenge you to present a valid observation (i.e. a blind test) where both there was a statistically valid ability to detect the change, and where a qualified person (i.e. someone with some solid engineering background) was unable to measure any differences.
More to discover