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
The brain is effectively a computer, I donโ€™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.
The brain is not a computer at all and one of the greatest scientist think so with many others.. ( Penrose/Hameroff) and there is others...

And you hide some truth here under a wrong statement:

Pitch as a human perception CORRELATE to mathematical frequencies...

It is a correlation not an identity....Psychoacoustic is based on an ongoing process of correlation between human perceptions and mathematics...But this does not means that this process will end by reduction of the human factor to an equation or an egality....Like the transhumanist credo... Science is NOT faith....

At least correct your sentence if you dont want to correct your understanding...

But perhaps you believe that all that is human is reducible to A.I. ? Then you are right....

If this equality express this belief clearly the Essien book is completely wrong....A complete retarded spirit....

If the Brain compute with Fourrier analysis the frequencies "equal" to pitch and if pitch is completely reducible to frequencies and Fourrier analysis this book made absolutely no sense...There is no more need of a human consciousness to perceive and create music phenomena...A pitch which is a semantic phenomenon in music expression is reducible to BITS.... And your favorite theorems in information theory says all there is to say.... ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜Š

Dont bother to read the book , you will not be able to read it at all, like a monotheist cannot read shamans books and undersatanding them...

And this Nigerian is without doubt a shaman and you are a monotheist...Is it not?

Simple......

๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š


dletch2
... I challenge you to present a valid observation (i.e. a blind test) ...
Once again you insist that only a blind test represents a "valid observation." That's absurd, but I guess it suits your need to continue an argument.
I was reading an article about a month ago saying the brain is more like a network than a single computer.ย 

Sorry a bit off topic.ย 


The brain is not a computer at all and one of the greatest scientist think so with many others.. ( Penrose/Hameroff) and there is others...

Forgetting for a minute that Penrose has limited to zil knowledge of modern theoretical neuroscience, this is not at all what he claimed. What he claimed, paraphrasing and summarizing, is that the brain can tap into quantum computing. That is still computing.ย  He is misquoted or selectively quoted as saying "not computational", but in full context, more accurately it would be not algorithmic, though many brain and thought processes absolutely are.ย  Of course, this is just a mental exercise, outside his area of expertise, and for all the brilliance, many brilliant people make leaps outside and inside their expertise that turn out to be colossally wrong. We shall see, but at the base, he did not say "not a computer", in fact he specifically references quantum computing.


This is a topic for another thread, and really quite meaningless within the scope of the topic, and pure diversion, as it matters not how the brain works, it only matters the outcome, that outcome being whether you can audibly discern the direction of wire.ย