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

Showing 12 responses by cleeds

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
dletch2
This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith.
Agreed!
One group is honest with itself and does not rely on the "faith" that they are infallible, while the other group does. No more, no less.
True, to a point. The Naysayer Doctrine (the measurementalist approach) does very much acknowledge that we humans are fallible and our senses prone to deception. Good for you! But then the measurementalists insist the doctrine is perfect and infallible; hence, those in conflict with the doctrine are labeled as deluded, insane, confused, stupid, and the like.
You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter.
Call it what you like, but it does clearly matter very, very much to you. That’s consistent with your evangelism and why you’ve made more than 80 posts here since joining just a week ago. And it’s why you’ve been banned from the group multiple times under your previous user names. Your proselytizing insults really get old.
You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.
There’s another example of how those who claim science and reason as being on their side commit some of the most confounding acts of ill logic along the way.

I don’t discourage blind testing, by the way. But neither have I adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
dletch2
cleeds, Your post is insulting, dogmatic, and adds nothing to the discussion. It is nothing but a rant. Your constant insults to me and others with attempted insults like "measurementalist", "naysayer doctrine", etc. is tired, old, and useless. Your deflection to bring up measurements in attempted refutation of something that did not mention measurements is an exercise in personal futility. Do you have anything at all of value to add to this conversation?
If you find my posts "insulting" kindly direct your dissatisfaction to the moderators. You’re not going to shut me up by shouting me down.
Why do you feel the need to oppose blind testing.
I do not oppose blind testing at all, and I noted so in the post to which you pretend offense. But - as I also noted - I have not adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.

I have almost certainly participated in more genuine, controlled, scientific blind audio tests than most on A’gon. That’s how I know blind tests have their place and their limitations.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
linnvolk
My “simple test” was not intended to be a full specification.
Thank goodness!
An obvious requirement is for there to be a controlled amount of time, the same whether switching or not, between rounds.
I don’t think that’s an obvious requirement at all. Blind listening test subjects are usually allowed as much time as they need. There are very good reasons for that, by the way, but the real point is that conducting a scientifically valid listening test is a lot trickier than it looks to the casual observer who’s never undertaken such an exercise.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
rodman99999
... no one can possibly know whether ANY given changes will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves ... The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!" = their credo) ... IF you’re interested in improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and the audacity to trust your own senses: TRY whatever piques your interest/curiosity, FOR YOURSELF. The faith-based, Naysayer Church HATES it when THAT happens!
It’s true that the Naysayer Church is based on faith-based religious doctrine, and that would be fine by itself. However, the church’s fundamentalist evangelists preach their brand of faith by trying to cloak it with the respectability of real science, and then attempt to minister in a forum intended for hobbyists, not scientists. This assures them of endless opportunities to argue and pretend they are saving us from ourselves, or from each other, or from some mythical "snake oil" evil-doer. That's the problem here.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
djones51
A Theory is never proved but they can be disproved.
That is completely mistaken. Every theorem began as a theory and existed as a theory until the proof was developed.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
linnvolk
A simple test, done under controlled conditions with witnesses and published for all to read in a reputable journal would help.
I'm not sure who it would really help. It wouldn't help those who are uninterested in such tests and have already made their choices about what to buy. Neither would be of much help to those interested in such tests but still undecided. For that listener, the only test that matters - whether blind or otherwise - is one in which he's the subject.
Person A has cables for which he/she believes she/he can hear directionality in his/her system. Person B comes to where this system is, with witnesses. Person A selects the music and listens to everything blindfolded or otherwise ...
Your "simple test" is too simple and what you describe are not controlled conditions. For example, your test isn't double-blind and doesn't allow for quick switching, requirements that experts in the field (Johnson, Toole) insist are necessary.

A poorly designed or conducted blind test has no advantage over any other kind of listening test - yet it will still suffer the disadvantages and risks associated with blind testing.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
dletch2
... I challenge you to present a valid observation (i.e. a blind test) ...
Once again you insist that only a blind test represents a "valid observation." That's absurd, but I guess it suits your need to continue an argument.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
audition__audio
I dont understand the concern of those like dletch2 for the rest of us deluded souls.
There are two possible explanations. Some are overcome with religious fervor -  they are driven by fundamentalist evangelical  belief, i.e. "blind faith." The others simply come here to argue. Both get what they seek.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
dletch2
I am sorry that people here refuse to learn even a modicum of relevant physics or engineering so that they would understand that the claims they make are easily dismissed. They would do it themselves if they possessed some relevant knowledge. That is not my problem ...
You’re the one who is sorry and it is entirely your problem.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
This Junilabs player is interesting:
The optimization is sensitive to the electromagnetic effects of the environment. Electromagnetic activity is lower at night than during the day. An optimization launched at night will be more effective than an optimization launched during the day.
That's using Google translate, so we can't be sure what this means.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
doogiehowser
... you did get on the internet, and make a claim, and have been defending it for 16 long pages, while not making the most basic of steps to give substance to the claim.
As I've explained to you under your previous usernames, this is a hobbyist's group, not a scientific forum. No one is obligated to submit to your demands that they provide "proof" tailored to your specification. So please give it a rest.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,647 posts
 
thyname
And... the "doogiehowser"’s posts are now all deleted. This must be a record: this time around it only took one day (and "only" 57 posts in this one day) for this dude to disappear. What a character! Sick
I think it is a record!. I also think the person is not well. That's unfortunate, because the guy seems to have some value to contribute to the group. It's just that he doesn't know how.
More to discover