If we have to leave out basic science like blind listening tests let's also not delve into psuedo science "sixth sense" and unknown signals.
So, we can't have placebo or imaginary signals or an unknown sixth sense. The answer is, it doesn't exist.
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.
Showing 50 responses by djones51
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 scienceThis statement is flawed there is another possible conclusion well known to science that doesn't require additional signals contained in the electrical signal. The other option? Bias, conduct a proper ABX test and see if people really confidently perceive this component of sound. |
The ancient Greeks believed the Earth was a sphere and measured it. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm#:~:text=240%20B.C.%20Eratosthenes%20Meas.... |
Because the 2 arms of the bias accusation are too large and encompass everything... Bias is large and it encompasses everything. No Biases can explain or debunk 2 years of incremental chganges in my system and no blind test is necessary.. Bias can explain and debunk everything you have ever changed in your system if blind testing wasn't used, it is necessary. |
Of course, there is a bias, but let’s still assume that not all people who use special audio wires are biased. That sounds too far-fetched) Why is it too far fetched? You make a claim saying there is only one conclusion, I give an alternate conclusion you say is to far fetched. I fail to see how humans have bias is more far fetched than unknown signals hidden in wire unknown to science?? Let's not assume bias is to far fetched since we know it's a common human condition. You make an extraordinary claim concerning hidden signals, do you have any extraordinary evidence? |
https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdf This fellow retired from Jensen Transformer maybe he will get some respect but I doubt it. |
It's what Self wrote in the article you referenced. https://www.backtomusic.ru/audio-engineering/theory/science-and-subjectivism |
I'll agree with Douglas Self Cables are directional, and pass audio better in one direction than the other.” What we hear when cables are reversed ? Same as when they aren't. |
I don’t know of any tests done on audible effects of wire direction. In my very limited unscientific use I’ve never noticed any difference in RCA or speaker cable direction. XLR only goes one way and I have no desire to take the connections off and reverse them . All I use now is XLR AES3 connections. My system is all active and digital. Thanks! The structure of the wire was excluded by Self. Then only bias? IMO bias is the most likely reason. |
I'll stick with the Britannica. That's deep enough for me. The ear actually functions as a type of Fourier analysis device, with the mechanism of the inner ear converting mechanical waves into electrical impulses that describe the intensity of the sound as a function of frequency. Ohm’s law of hearing is a statement of the fact that the perception of the tone of a sound is a function of the amplitudes of the harmonics and not of the phase relationships between them. This is consistent with the place theory of hearing, which correlates the observed pitch with the position along the basilar membrane of the inner ear that is stimulated by the corresponding frequency. https://www.britannica.com/science/sound-physics/The-ear-as-spectrum-analyzer |
The nervous system cover the entire body heart included...I don't really understand what you're saying. Love is an emotion which is strictly the province of the brain the heart has nothing to do with it. People who get heart transplants don't suddenly stop loving their family and start loving the donors family. |
You mean Self could just wrote what came to his mind? Honestly, i don't figure it out, what are your doubts. You weren't in such a hesitancy when you speak about wire direction.Self wrote wire direction was nonsense . I don't doubt that. You said something about measurements. I haven't seen any measurements by Self so I can't comment on measurements I haven't seen. As long as cables are not manufactured to be directional, if we're talking about basic copper interconnects that don't have a lifted shield or speaker wires of stranded or solid copper then NO I do not believe they are directional. If anyone claims they hear a difference without using some kind of control for bias then to me it's a useless claim. |
This is very strange to me. Are you applying to be invited to a measurement session? Self is an authoritative audio engineer, he wrote a detailed description of the experiments conducted, gave data from psychoacoustics, there are links, if you want, you can check everything. Isn't all this enough to be shure?Self said audible differences in the direction of wire is nonsense. If there were any measurable differences it was irrelevant. Since he is an authoritated audio engineer and I'm not I'll defer to his opinion. |
There's a huge difference between writing a computer program that can recognize timbre like a human and measuring what humans can hear. I haven't seen anyone say science can describe what anyone or everyone "hears" when they listen to music only that science can record everything you're going to hear from that recorded music, as well as many other things but we are talking about music here. Whether computers can recognize timbre is irrelevant, we have been recording and playing back music way before voice recognition software came about and has nothing to do with what's measurable . I can record my wife's voice on an old cassette tape and recognize it. You're confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it's pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent. What can be recorded can be measured and playback can reproduce that recording extremely accurate because we can compare the measurements. That's all audio reproduction is, when it hits the ear that's a different system , it's not part of it. |
Timbre is simply part of the audio signal. You haven’t figured anything out other than misinterpreting what I said. You confuse the signal and if it can be measured with computer software being able to decipher the signal. Where voice recognition software is not yet at the ability of the human ear doesn’t mean this will always be so. You’re saying because computers can’t mimic human ears then the signal can’t be measured, makes no sense. If the complexities of timbre, whatever that means, wasn’t in the signal you wouldn’t be able to tell an oboe from a piano. So I agree we’ll leave it as that until you figure out what timbre is and an audio signal is. |
I didn't make a claim I simply gave an alternate conclusion to the claim there wasn't one. It isn't incumbent on me to prove or disprove anything that's up to the claimant. I didn't claim at the same time the authority of science in the field of audio has increasingly become questionedwhich is nonsense, if anything there's a resurgence. I didn't claim there's an unknown signal in the audio signal that humans perceive with a sixth sense. 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 this signal is unknown to science how does he know it's there? |
Then he shouldn't have asked for alternative options. 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?I wasn't questioning his cables but his conclusions drawn from his test. He asked for another option , I gave him one. Scientists don't take it personal they would do the testing to show my alternate conclusion is wrong. That's how it works. |
The very first post on this thread was by me. In the OP it was claimed there is only one conclusion. 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.I said there was another conclusion, bias. Now tell us what would be the "scientific" thing to do? Conduct a test to eliminate bias since it is another legitimate conclusion to his premise or continue on as if it's irrelevant? |