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
manueljenkin
11 posts
 
Thank you. I misunderstood the context (millercarbon didn’t mention it, and the same group of scientists were into quantum theories when the Bohr Atom model was being published).

I have been exploring in these areas for a while (plenty of fantastic resources online and in youtube). I am not sure if there is a Personal Message function on Audiogon, but I haven’t been able to spot an option. I am interested to learn further and would like to know your recommendations for books/articles/blogs in any of these areas - Modern Sampling and signal processing (wavelet and time-frequency analysis based), Bio Instrumentation (I know it’s a vast area, any recommendation from any area you are familiar would be fine), and Quantum physics. I have done a fair amount of homework on all of these for wavelet transforms, took guidance from online resources on epigenetics, and I am somewhat familiar with Maxwell’s 4 Electromagnetism laws and foundation of Schrodinger wave equations and the particle in a 1d-box problem, and looking to learn further. Hopefully this isn’t too off topic!
rodman99999
6,159 posts
 
@manueljenkins-  

      We can hope the OP won't mind a bit of further communication.

      Given your obvious interest in computing: did you know they're working on a system, by which spinning electrons could, rather than the typical bit, which only contains a possible 0/1 (binary); by stopping it's spin at various locations, enable that quanta bit (or qubit) to exist in more than one state, simultaneously, until detected?

       https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9768-electron-spin-trick-boosts-quantum-computing/

        and: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200302113310.htm 

        FUNNY, that a dispute regarding one of my favorite Physicists, Feynman, would have also postulated precisely that proposition, in 1982:

        https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/1646/04_DissCarolaMeyerChapter1.pdf?sequence=5...

         One of his Rules of Life, mentioned often in his lectures, was, "Never Stop Learning".     That always resonated within me.

         https://harrywhite.org/2020/06/29/richard-feynmans-rules-of-life/

          I've made an attempt, best as possible, to abide by 3 and 4, as well.

          Sadly: I've encountered more MENTAL OHMS on the 'GoN (the levels of which have proven enormous, at times), than anywhere else, in my experience.     Hence: potential, pronounced provocations are often presented, to number 6, on these pages.

           For quite a while there: the only/best place for keeping current with developments in Physics and Quantum Mechanics, was the Library, perusing the newest editions of Encyclopedia Britannica and the science journals, published every month.   ie: the now gone and sorely missed*, 'Science Digest'.       *Well: by me, anyway.

            Now, of course, we've got the Net's profusion of sites and yet even more monthly magazines, through which to keep up, ie: the two above-cited links and:

             https://www.sciencenews.org/article/physics-ligo-mirrors-lasers-quantum-mechanics-limit

                                             Enjoy the journey/never stop learning!




andy2
1,555 posts
 
Not sure why the OP made it more complicated than it has to be.  Here is the bottom line:

1. The DAC is a mix-signal : has to operate in digital and analog domain.
2. The DAC needs a clock to clock out the data.  The clock ideally has to be clean but no real world clock is clean.  It is corrupted by noise form its own analog and digital signal.
3. If the clock is corrupted, then the signal being clocked out is also corrupted in the "time domain".  I don't mean the 1's and 0's are corrupted, I mean the timing edge of the output data are corrupted.

So it's simple as that.  
anton_stepichev OP
150 posts
 
@Andy2, we have two IDENTICAL digital audio files that sound differently whatever order or how many times you play them. Do you really mean that one copy of the file by some miracle is always knocks down a DAC's clock, and the second does not?
andy2
1,555 posts
 
I guess it depends on what you meant by "IDENTICAL".  

If two files are identical, using the same compress format (i.e. wave or flac ...), then for the most part they should sound the same.

That is UNLESS, each file comes from a different source, for example, one comes from a USB or one comes from HD, the playback could sound different.  Each source may have different interference signature on the DAC clock, then the sound could be different.

BUT if everything is the same: same file, same source, same equipment, then I guess it's hard to see how the sound could be different.

If you really want to down that path ... to the nth degree then anything is possible.
More to discover