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
Post removed 
Post removed 
From an inexperienced and uneducated position, it may appear bad faith or a sophism. To someone with experience and knowledge, it is simply self evident, like jumping off a building is bad for you. Every single thing you have posted comes down to special pleading.
I know very well that you are intelligent then what it is?

Lack in reading analysis basic understanting?

Read your sentence i just put above....read it again...

NOTHING CAN CHANGE A SOPHISM INTO A TRUTH, or a well articulated reasoning...NOTHING....




After that, you add if not a lie a complete distortion : every post i wrote is supposed to be a "special pleading" about what?

FACT DONT NEED SPECIAL PLEADING.....




- About the fact that " musical timbre" is not a taste or a subjective color only, like you have pleading against turntable afficionados to defend the supposed superiority of accurate bits?

-About the fact that any recording process is a trade-off where no perfect timbre recording exist? and we need not only a source but a psychoacoustic control to recreate timbre perception ? It is a fact...

-About the fact that "imaging" perception in a room acoustic is more complex than what you were describing about recording and volume and speakers positioning and speakers specs? it is after this discussion that i created my "mechanical equalizer" reading about psychoacoustic to make my point... You wrote to me after that that the results i gained with my Helmholtz device was an illusion, a deception.... Very comic....

-About the fact that perception of pitch is not explained actually by reducing it to frequencies? It is a fact...

-About the fact that Essien was right about his claim that the same debate in psycho- acoustic like 2 hundred years ago continue today? I even give many modern references about this FACT...

-About the fact that the brain is not a computer and human perception could not be reduced to any artefact or tool? it is a fact agreed upon by many great scientist in all fields....

-About the fact the the map (tool) is never and could never be the territory( human brain/body) ? It is a methodological fact and not only a simple fact ....

-About the fact that blindtest is not a circus but a serious STATISTICAL method then it makes no sense to test any other thing in audio than borderline audible change...Blindtest improvised with few people cannot prove or disprove anything... It is a fact.... Blindtest is a STATISTICAL tool ...Or a simple way for an individual to test a borderline small change nothing more...

-About the fact that BIAS are a highway with 2 directions not only your favorite one, and all bias are not equal? it is a fact....

-About your stubborn habit to distort anything that someone could say and twisting it to a ridiculous proposition, like taking anton experiments to be a pure bias, when it is not, a string of experiments with many other people implicated cannot be explained like a temporary deception with an audio cable....

I will stop here i am tired and there is other sophism of you i forgot in the last discussion one month ago....

You never answer to argument if there is no precise electrical knowledge because it seems you understand Maxwell basic ....You are unable to think out of a known equation...Sarcasm is not philosophy of science....

And read some new book, materialism is a dead body....

My post are not a "special pleading" but only about an evidence: human are not machine and sorry but save for more powerful technology we know nothing almost about the universe....Our big improvement in the last centuries is precisely that we are more conscious of our ignorance than in the past....Guess why yourself ? it will be a practice in thinking....


A clue for your homework:

More Knowledge always increase the mystery...

But More Technology may blind us about the mystery...


why is it so?

You are so arrogant i cannot resist to be arrogant myself with you....

but think about my question and answer it if you can think again at your "old" age....

If your answer is the right one i  will offer you some pu-erh tea...

😊
@dulledge:    "May I suggest paragraphs, proper sentence structure, leaving useless capitals out and toning down the emotions. Not sure about anyone else, but I don't make it past a sentence or two."        There is no, "emotion" to tone down.     Caps merely emphasize points and I wouldn't waste any emotion on a poser.     Nor: is there anything wrong with my Grammar.       My posts contain only facts and observations.        None of which you can refute.      Hence: your continual twisting in the wind.