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
dletch2
455 posts
 
Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ?



He did not even denounce Ohm, he said it was always obvious Ohm was not the be all and end all. Seebeck showed that 170 years ago. Bekesy was not "denouncing" , he was just making a statement.


How about we move the discussion into the 20th century.

https://neuro.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/131/2020/12/PDF1.pdf


From Wikipedia, essentially why he got the Nobel,  "Békésy concluded from these observations that by exciting different locations on the basilar membrane different sound wave frequencies excite different nerve fibers that lead from the cochlea to the brain. He theorized that, due to its placement along the cochlea, each sensory cell (hair cell) responds maximally to a specific frequency of sound (the so-called tonotopy). Békésy later developed a mechanical model of the cochlea, which confirmed the concept of frequency dispersion by the basilar membrane in the mammalian cochlea."  


You will note nothing in there about what happens after ear, and how far we have progress when you look at the article I linked.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,190 posts
 
 my use of the word "denouncing"  is not the better word to use but the idea does not change...

 For sure pitch is not reducible to frequencies ....  But It is what you affirm to me erroneously in one of your post ...
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,190 posts
 
How about we move the discussion into the 20th century.

https://neuro.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/131/2020/12/PDF1.pdf
Thanks for the link.....
😁😊
i already own the masterbook of acoustic tough.... But this is shorter read...

«Pitch is a subjective term. It is chiefly a function of frequency, but it is not linearly related to it.
Because pitch is somewhat different from frequency, it requires another subjective unit, the mel.
Frequency is a physical term measured in hertz. Although a soft 1-kHz signal is still 1 kHz if you
increase its level, the pitch of a sound may depend on sound-pressure level. A reference pitch of
1,000 mels is defined as the pitch of a 1-kHz tone with a sound-pressure level of 60 dB.»
Master handbook of acoustic p.85

Nothing i read made Essien nor Ansermet ridiculous by the way....Nor obsolete at all like you affirm....

But it is only the begininng of my reading.....



By the way my mechanical equalizer distribution and location of tubes and tunable pipes use the loudness level of each of  my speaker in a different way to make my 2 ears able to recreate a 3-d holographic soundstage by working with  better timing  between reflecting  and direct  waves.... I get the idea arguing with you.... Then who knows ! you will give me an another one.... anyway thanks....
dletch2
455 posts
 
For sure pitch is not reducible to frequencies .... But It is what you affirm to me erroneously in one of your post ...



Pitch is by definition reducible to frequencies. Pitch is a definition. That does not mean we can't fool the brain, or distort the auditory system to create a perception of a pitch that does not match the true frequency components. But that is like trying to argue an optical illusion is the real result, not what is actually in the underlying image.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,190 posts
 
Pitch is by definition reducible to frequencies. Pitch is a definition. That does not mean we can’t fool the brain, or distort the auditory system to create a perception of a pitch that does not match the true frequency components. But that is like trying to argue an optical illusion is the real result, not what is actually in the underlying image.
WOW!

You repeat it....It is very articulate and clear thanks....

i think we will have much to discuss .....

Perhaps i will learn something thanks to you....

But you are wrong i think....Very wrong....But for sure unlike Essien or Ansermet i am not competent in any way to say that.... I say it in a friendly manner in the discussion .... I hope you will understand....

Pitch is NOT a "definition" it is a particular specific perception non linearly reducible to frequencies... Nor for Essien neither for Ansermet...Between a definition and a perception there is an ocean ....

Anyway for you we are mystics.... 😊

I am a disciple of Goethe and Husserl....And of Cassirer....


By the way in the master handbook of acoustics they are way more cautious than you:

" Because pitch is somewhat different from frequency" MASTER HANDBOOK OF ACOUSTIC

if pitch as his own UNIT the "mel" (because of this  loudness conventional psychoacoustical  treshold of 60 Db used in experiments), and described by this handbook as different from frequencies, how in the world could it be REDUCIBLE to frequencies like you just said?

explain please?

Oh! i know it is just psychoacoustic studying subjective illusory Auditive illusion of a bunch of humans....

is it not?

did i understand you correctly?

More to discover