What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?

I would not waste your time on Essien. He comes across a bit of a fraud.

You dont have  read Essien and cannot judge it...Sorry...

Ok i just verified in the big book of Ernest Ansermet "
the foundations of music in human consciousness" P.18

He WARN us about the Helmholtz error pointed by Essien ( who dont cited him and probably dont know the book of Amsermet) the 2 writers say the same thing:

( the translation from french is my own....)


«Musical consciousness did not base tonal relations on the relation of a sound and its "harmonics" but on the relation of a sound and other real sounds whose frequencies are to its own in the same relation than the frequency of the "harmonics" from a fundamental sound.

The sounds of which we have just compared the structures of durations (fourth, fifth, third, octave scale) nonetheless constitute what we can call "a harmonic series of sounds" which we will therefore be careful not to confuse with the series of "harmonics" of a sound, an error of Helmholtz in which all theorists persevere, not that they confuse a real sound and a harmonic sound, but because, observing the phenomenon from the outside and relating it to the watch, they qualify the sounds of the "harmonic series" in the same way as the "harmonics" of a sound, which makes them miss the exact meaning of the phenomenon for the perceptual consciousness ...» Ansermet P.18






«In prehistoric physics, string tension is the size of the oppositely-directed force exerted on a string
regardless of the string’s physical dimensions. On this basis Pythagoras (6th century B.C) established the
string ratio theory of musical pitch intervals. Later physics converted the ratios into frequency ratios and
created the frequency scale for musical pitch intervals mathematically even though string ratios are not
invariant with pitch intervals. These incoherent data constitute the basis of Ohm‘s acoustic law (1843),
Helmholtz’s resonance theory (1877) and modern psychoacoustic theories of pitch. In the illusive quest for
pitch in frequency analysis of sound, Ohm and Helmholtz have been proved wrong;.... » Essien abstract of " The tension theory of pitch production and perception"








Then i dont think that it will be possible to accuse Ansermet to be a fraud...He speak of what he knows best here : musical tonal sounds / versus acoustical sounds...

If the 2 Ansermet and Essien say the same thing and formulated the same critic about the psychoacoustic reductive theory of Helmholtz it will be difficult to speak of fraud about the 2 writers who dont know one another...




And what say Békésy:

«"The validity of Ohm’s law was always considered only as a first approach to a complex problem of
frequency analysis. It was always clear that the ear does not react like a simple Fourier frequency
analyzer. There is a very large set of experiments that show that Ohm’s law is only a first approach
and is not always leading to correct conclusions, even in the field of telephone engineering, where it
was so successful."
(Békésy, 1972

In 1961, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the function of the cochlea in the mammalian hearing organ

is Békésy a crook or a fraud also?







Then confusing pitch and frequencies is an error.....A bad technological habit....Not an understanding....

But it is only a beginning...

To be continued.........

Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works?  Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.  You have wrapped up a red herring, a causal fallacy, an appeal to authority all into a few posts.


To respond to your post, Ohm's law (not a scientific law by current definition), is not completely incorrect. The fundamental sensor of the ear is a bunch of detectors with effectively bandpass filters in front of them. The result could be considered similar to a Fourier transform.  This "law" was put forth 40 years before we even knew what neurons were. Ohms conclusions were grossly simplistic, lacking knowledge of so many aspects of the brain, the ear, the mechanics of the ear, neurons, neural connections, or the brain in general ..... all of which has no relevance to the direction of a wire.  This is all a red herring as it speaks nothing to audibility, only that the ear/brain is an imperfect instrument.

Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works?

In this thread anton spoke about a writer in acoustic Essien...

I bought the book...

You said that this guy is a crook or a fraud...

You never even read it...

My post was not an appeal to authority...

Read it carefully all three say the some thing and go in the same direction...

Contradicting what you have claimed: pitch IS frequency nothing more...

that is the point of my post...

Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.

For the link between Essien concept and Anton concept about the direction of wire there is no direct connection....

An indirect one, yes, linked to the fact that human hearing is not explanable with the psychoacoustic of frequencies actual theories for the time being....Then measuring apparatus inspired by these acoustic theory  so precise they are perhaps dont measure all that is  there, for the listening  ears... 

it is you who use the autorithy card by declaring other like Essien a fraud...And dont pertaining to the discussion... the OP think otherwise...

There is no red herring in my post....

The concept defended by anton and his Russian master appeal to the fact also that hearing is not explainable by a Fourrier like generalysed theory...

Then unable to answer to these 3 people an articulate answer: Ansermet, Essien, Békésy, you accuse me of using authority, red herrings... 😁😊  this is not a great argument my friend ....



Please be fair and respectful of the ARGUMENTS here...It is not a pissing contest.... I want myself to understand and i dont pretend to understand.... Do you yourself understand? if yes, answer directly and not by ACCUSATIONS....

For all these three thinkers there is more in pitch than in  Fourrier analysis....

The reason why this is such  is explained  in Ansermet and in  Essien in another perspective.... Then accusing me of being out of the discussion is untrue...

Save if you decide yourself unilaterally...

The fact that human hearing is not reducible to actual acoustical conceptions is in the center of this discussion...

The OP itself think so....

Then answer me: do you go on claiming that pitch and frequencies are the same phenomenon?

Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...

You are right and they are wrong?
Or the opposite?

and WHY

The ear, again, is a bunch of receptor behind band-pass filters effectively. That is the sensor. That says nothing about the processing behind it, whether there is crosstalk, etc.

Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...

NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news. Essien has brought exactly 0 to the argument. Heck, if people listened to him, we would be going backwards. He proudly bleats that he has discovered something new. For him maybe. He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references to justify his bleating, meanwhile ignoring decades and decades of deep work into how human hearing works.  He is an artist, trying to tell a rocket scientist how propulsion works, using feelings. 

is pitch perception totally reducible to frequencies?
you must answer to my question....

You have already claimed that to me i assume your opinion has not changed....

NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news

Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ? Békésy know what he speak about in hearing theory, his Nobel prize come from his research in this field....This not an authority argument this is a fact that reinforce the perspective of what he said and from which context...

He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references

Sorry to contradict you he quoted the more recent references in acoustic, i OWN the 500 pages book just published...The book is in my hand... 😊 Ansermet book also....