I'm so glad you have no opinion. It makes my day.
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.
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.
- ...
- 798 posts total
| Post removed |
I’m so glad you have no opinion. It makes my day.Sarcasm is not a replacement for intelligence... I CANNOT have and HAD no opinion about wiring direction from a tube amplifier...I say it from the beginning but i am interested by the person who created the contour site yes... YOU HAVE ONE OPINION, YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A BELIEF and no experience and no experiment ... I have myself an opinion about the WAY to treat people tough ...Especially people who propose something related to decades of work, EVEN IF they are wrong.....It is called respect and fair listening...We are supposed to be equals human beings here speaking between themselves ... A bias coming from a belief or an arrogant " knowledge" is not on the same footing than a bias coming from experiments... These biases cannot be put on trial BEFORE experiments.... And in this case a blindtest CANNOT replace the experiment save for idiots or conditioned mind... Are you able to think or you repeat dletch2 arrogance? dletch2 I just read another thread where you reject with the back of your hand another person which was talking about his own design experiment with cables by the way... You have not improved in the last month contrary to my belief .... Arrogance does not reflect intelligence only conditining of the working mind....Then your competence so great they are, and i dont doubt they are great, are also blinders .... Must i repeat that this guy here did not sell cables..... |
| Post removed |
By the way he seems that our friend dletch2 need to refresh his knowledge about hearing... This is the post he wrote about pitch after my defense of Essien he characterize to be a fraud : The brain is effectively a computer, I don’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.now this is from this very interesting book of 2017 : https://www.amazon.ca/Human-Machine-Hearing-Extracting-Meaning/dp/1107007534 All the book is free to read here: ( uppercases are mine) http://dicklyon.com/hmh/Lyon_Hearing_book_01jan2018_smaller.pdf «Ohm’s and Helmholtz’s view of hearing as Fourier analysis, and THE CONFUSION OF FREQUENCY WITH PITCH, continued to permeate, if not dominate, thinking about hearing in the early twenty-first century, even though problems with the approach had been repeatedly demonstrated, and arguments against it published continually over a century and a half.» P16 in "the hear as a frequency analyser?" Then perhaps if our friend is WRONG about pitch being equal to frequency and if his immediate judgement about someone research is so expeditive without even trying to study it for a few minutes, is it possible than his judgement about Anton_Stepichev experiments and ideas coming from the same arrogance perhaps are also wrong? I will add another reference to enter the nail in his hole and this remark will contradict our friend about the fact that we are supposed to know WHAT PITCH IS WITHOUT DEBATE today, a view totally opposing the book of Essien our friend describe being a fraud and this world authority in the field Erik Heller: «Since melody is based on pitch, there must be a pitch present—at least when it is called to our attention. There is no correct answer to whether a pitch is present in the sound of a wood block, since the human subject is the ultimate authority, by definition. If the pitch was not heard, it was not present. It is difficult to reason in a detached way about subjective sensations. If two people are coming from a different place in that debate, then something obvious to one person might be vehemently rejected by the other. This is a recipe for debate going around in circles, and INDEED TODAY YOU CAN FIND THE SAME CONTROVERSIES that flared up in the mid-1800s.... The subject of pitch perception heated up in the mid-nineteenth century with a debate between physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and Georg Ohm on one side and Rudolf Koenig and August Seebeck on the other (figure 23.5). They went to extreme lengths to try to achieve control of sound sources in order to settle ambiguities of human hearing. At some risk of oversimplification, we can state in a few words what the controversy is all about: Are human beings essentially walking Fourier analyzers? The debate continues today, although it is slightly more subdued.» P.549 Why You Hear What You Hear An Experiential Approach to Sound, Music, and Psychoacoustics by Eric J. Heller These 2 writers are top notch acoustic world known researchers...The two dont equal pitch and frequency at all like Essien.... Then Essien is perhaps Not just a " fraud from a third class university from Nigeria"....like claimed our friend in a past post 😁 And if his judgements are so wrong and expeditive and his claim simplistic, like equating pitch with frequency, and reducing any human perception to be ONLY an impediment and less accurate than a simple measuring tool, PERHAPS he is also wrong about Anton-stepichev experiments... I have no opinion myself but i like truth and truth is never a number... |
- 798 posts total