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
anton_stepichev OP
150 posts
 
    @arthur1260
    Evolution taught our brain what's relevant and what not. We moved to a new apartment, near train tracks, first few days/weeks were a bit unusual but we got used to it, now we can sleep through the night, though the trains are still going on time.

    I can easily imagine that originally our ears (and maybe bodies) are capable of picking up a much wider frequency spectrum than the current science considers de facto, but due to our planet getting noisier our brains just filter things out in the conscious domain (as proven by scientists). It could be that our brains go into a different state (alpha or theta) while listening to music, it widens the acceptance of frequencies which enables our brain to sense or perceive something different. 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.

Traffic noise perception is a good analogy! The adaptation of hearing is used in subjective tests, when it is necessary to separate changes in the frequency response (FR) from more subtle moments. For example, when we evaluate the sound of two different speakers, we are faced with a difference in the FR and coloration at the same time, but by default we attribute everything to the FR. The adaptation of hearing helps to separate these two sensations - for some reason, a person clearly feels changes in FR only for a short period of time after their occurrence, and all this time the attention is involuntarily focused on the FR, and the rest of the moments remain in the background unnoticed. After some time (for everyone in different ways), the perception adjusts to the new conditions and you stop feeling the tonal imbalance at all, from this moment the consciousness begins to confidently fix all the other aspects of the music. It's like walking into a dark room from bright light and having to wait for the eye to adjust to the dark.

The point here is that wires and other anomalies cannot be evaluated in quick tests. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible, and this is where its advantages end. Long tests (a few minutes and more) evaluate everything else, revealing those little subjective things that turn sounds into music.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,011 posts
 
Very good points thanks.....
dletch2
455 posts
 
The point here is that wires and other anomalies cannot be evaluated in quick tests. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible, and this is where its advantages end. Long tests (a few minutes and more) evaluate everything else, revealing those little subjective things that turn sounds into music.



Listen as long as you want. It make no difference. Except the longer you listen, the harder it will be to identify a difference. If you wish to hamper yourself that way, that is your choice. I would suggest doing both. 


A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible


No, this is not correct. Switching times are typically short because our echoic memory is very short (<5 seconds), and our working memory is also very short, i.e. <30 seconds, and comparisons using these memories are far higher resolution than any other memory imprint.  Once you go much beyond 30 seconds, effectively you are not really comparing two sound anymore, but are comparing factors you have identified (or not) in those sounds, hence why the reliability of detection of changes drops.  

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,011 posts
 
Once you go much beyond 30 seconds, effectively you are not really comparing two sound anymore, but are comparing factors you have identified (or not) in those sounds,
Exactly....

BUT there is not only a short conscious memory span associated to sound like you suggest but a longer memory span associated with the body feeling unconscious memory of musical experience ( called that a learned bias)😁 .... And the body need more time to adjust retrieving what he knows already in some way and say his words...Sound is not music and anyway music is not only sound image but also sound body....

Read Essien and Ansermet for the difference between sound image and sound body ( Essien) or musical consciousness (Ansermet)...The 2 writers cannot be ignorant or only amateurs saying the same thing in a complete different way and from complete different perspective...Read Ansermet curriculum...The 2 writers wrote only one big book after 50 years of research each one in a life dedicated to sound for one and for music the other.... They say the same thing or pointed toward the same direction in spite of their differences Calling them incompetents will not be an argument by itself....For sure i am open to discuss because  calling them geniuses will not do the job either, even if they are....


Reality is more complex than the technology of omelette recipe....Particularly music acoustical reality....But i know that you know that, even if we differs in perspective...And i know that you are way more knowledgeable than me in audio by the way....I will accept gladly the discussion because i wanted to learn...

We understand anyway each other about the fact that the short and longer time delay in a test will reveal different things... They dont matter for you these things but they matters for some...

😊

Precision: i dont have an opinion about the subject matter of this thread by the way.... I am not competent to express one... I am only interested by the OP dedication, ideas and personal experience and the consequences of this fact if it is proven right...Like i am interested by ideas and knowledge of some here like the poster ,dletch2 , adressed by this post...
anton_stepichev OP
150 posts
 
djones513,807 posts
04-21-2021 10:14pm
If interference is bad enough in a signal to be heard it can be measured.

Yes, аny audible interference in a signal can be measured because мeasuring devices are much more sensitive than hearing. At the same time when you reverse a cable and hear it, there is no interference in the signal that can be heard in some way, this was proved by Self and Co. Hence, in fact, the question of the topic "what do we hear when the wire is reversed?"
More to discover