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
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there.



This is audiogon. You must have confused it with smellogon, the other website.
what is the adress of this new site: "smellogon" ?

is this is from this site:

http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/assets/file/BushdidScience2014.pdf

Or perhaps this one on forgotten abilities:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1819

Perhaps we must create Smellogon.com ourself and link it to audiogon...


Finally this article about polynesian "primitive" navigators about to "see" their routes around islands very afar in the pacific is astounding about the INTERNAL GPS of human and say a lot about underestimating the perception of humans

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-secrets-of-the-wave-pilots.html

an extract of this article that speak volume about the understimated human perceotive abilities....  :



«Genz met Alson Kelen and Korent Joel in Majuro in 2005, when Genz was 28. A soft-spoken, freckled Wisconsinite and former Peace Corps volunteer who grew up sailing with his father, Genz was then studying for a doctorate in anthropology at the University of Hawaii. His adviser there, Ben Finney, was an anthropologist who helped lead the voyage of Hokulea, a replica Polynesian sailing canoe, from Hawaii to Tahiti and back in 1976; the success of the trip, which involved no modern instrumentation and was meant to prove the efficacy of indigenous ships and navigational methods, stirred a resurgence of native Hawaiian language, music, hula and crafts. Joel and Kelen dreamed of a similar revival for Marshallese sailing — the only way, they figured, for wave-piloting to endure — and contacted Finney for guidance. But Finney was nearing retirement, so he suggested that Genz go in his stead. With their chief’s blessing, Joel and Kelen offered Genz rare access, with one provision: He would not learn wave-piloting himself; he would simply document Kelen’s training.

Joel immediately asked Genz to bring scientists to the Marshalls who could help Joel understand the mechanics of the waves he knew only by feel — especially one called di lep, or backbone, the foundation of wave-piloting, which (in ri-meto lore) ran between atolls like a road. Joel’s grandfather had taught him to feel the di lep at the Rongelap reef: He would lie on his back in a canoe, blindfolded, while the old man dragged him around the coral, letting him experience how it changed the movement of the waves.

But when Joel took Genz out in the Pacific on borrowed yachts and told him they were encountering the di lep, he couldn’t feel it. Kelen said he couldn’t, either. When oceanographers from the University of Hawaii came to look for it, their equipment failed to detect it. The idea of a wave-road between islands, they told Genz, made no sense.

Privately, Genz began to fear that the di lep was imaginary, that wave-piloting was already extinct. On one research trip in 2006, when Korent Joel went below deck to take a nap, Genz changed the yacht’s course. When Joel awoke, Genz kept Joel away from the GPS device, and to the relief of them both, Joel directed the boat toward land. Later, he also passed his ri-meto test, judged by his chief, with Genz and Kelen crewing.

Worlds away, Huth, a worrier by nature, had become convinced that preserving mankind’s ability to way-find without technology was not just an abstract mental exercise but also a matter of life and death. In 2003, while kayaking alone in Nantucket Sound, fog descended, and Huth — spring-loaded and boyish, with a near-photographic memory — found his way home using local landmarks, the wind and the direction of the swells. Later, he learned that two young undergraduates, out paddling in the same fog, had become disoriented and drowned. This prompted him to begin teaching a class on primitive navigation techniques. When Huth met Genz at an academic conference in 2012 and described the methodology of his search for the Higgs boson and dark energy — subtracting dominant wave signals from a field, until a much subtler signal appears underneath — Genz told him about the di lep, and it captured Huth’s imagination. If it was real, and if it really ran back and forth between islands, its behavior was unknown to physics and would require a supercomputer to model. That a person might be able to sense it bodily amid the cacophony generated by other ocean phenomena was astonishing.

Huth began creating possible di lep simulations in his free time and recruited van Vledder’s help. Initially, the most puzzling detail of Genz’s translation of Joel’s description was his claim that the di lep connected each atoll and island to all 33 others. That would yield 561 paths, far too many for even the most adept wave pilot to memorize. Most of what we know about ocean waves and currents — including what will happen to coastlines as climate change leads to higher sea levels (of special concern to the low-lying Netherlands and Marshall Islands) — comes from models that use global wind and bathymetry data to simulate what wave patterns probably look like at a given place and time. Our understanding of wave mechanics, on which those models are based, is wildly incomplete. To improve them, experts must constantly check their assumptions with measurements and observations. Perhaps, Huth and van Vledder thought, there were di leps in every ocean, invisible roads that no one was seeing because they didn’t know to look.... »



Then what?

We need experiment and we need to  discover some individual able to hear this hypothetical change...

But ridiculizing the possibility of sensing  this phenomena  is not a good point of departure for a scientific journey...

Speculating about this possibility is better and looking for some who experimented it and wanted to be tested a better one for sure...

But a test organized to ridicule someone or debunking him is NOT A TEST....And certainly not a rigorous scientific test created in good faith and by honest curiosity.....

Then "sunday skeptic of the scientism club" or children of James Randi or professional snake oiler hunters are not useful to science here...No more than religious zealot or marketings people.....

It is easy to understand....

A climate of trust only make thinking possible....And discovery possible...

Doubt is a tool not a vocation or a working field.....

Human need beliefs, and need doubts; but human need over all  to think and thinking process is  alway using these 2 tools simultaneously...



 








dletch2194 posts
04-23-2021 11:46pm

And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times!

Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes.

dletch2, you haven't finished explaining your previous statement yet:

"The interference of a power cable can get into the signal circuit and become audible not as periodic interference of 60Hz harmonics, but as non-periodic one so that initial frequency of 60 hz is perceived as something related to a musical signal (for example, frequency response), and not as interference or noise."

After you make this one clear, I expect the next explanation from you:

How the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed?

And please, no more muddy theories. You are required to:

1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference
2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit
3 - In what exact place it penetrates there the signal circuit


mapman
Ok now we are getting somewhere. Have you done that? Where are the results published for those who might be interested?

I have an article in Russian https://www.backtomusic.ru/do/radio/testing, there is a description of a lot of subjective experiments made using the testing system, but what can they give you, other than to take the topic aside?

I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point.

That's a shot in the air, sorry. Whatever the impedance mismatch is, it will remain the same for any changes in the area of J1 and J2. It will not prevent us from conducting the experiment, all other things being equal.
mahgister,
to be honest, I did not think that in this topic I can learn something new to me, but you have already brought a lot of interesting information that goes in parallel with my audio practice. I am going to post some of your posts on my site. Of course, if you don't mind.

Regards