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 7 responses by herman

herman
2,215 posts
 
Wire directionality in an alternating current (AC) application? How interesting.

This is a very common misconception. This is not about current, which is also commonly misunderstood as a "flow of electrons." Electrons do not flow down a wire like water through a hose. Electrons do not flow back and forth in AC. "Alternating current" was a horrible choice of words to describe the phenomenon and the water hose analogy is just plain wrong which  leads to many of these common misconceptions

What's important is the transfer of energy. Energy flows from the source to the preamp, from the preamp to the amp, from the amp to the speaker. This doesn't prove wires sound different when you change the direction, but the transfer of energy is definitely in one direction,


There is nothing "alternating" about which way the energy flows. 


herman
2,215 posts
 
they have the same checksum. This is an absolutely indisputable proof of their similarity no matter what you call these files and no matter how you created them.

I am assuming you mean identical rather than similar, but in any case a checksum does not prove 2 files are identical

2 files with different checksums are different, 2 files with identical checksums could be different

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_collision

herman
2,215 posts
 
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.)

if you start with a flawed premise you often end up with a flawed conclusion.


herman
2,215 posts
 
if you start with a flawed premise you often end up with a flawed conclusion.
That is certainly true.

My point was, perhaps it was obvious, the thread started with a declaration that the human ear/brain isn’t able to resolve changes below .3 dB, which is in my mind ludicrous. Perhaps in a lab with test tones, but not listening to music. We hear too many subtle changes in our systems to believe that. It reminds me of the declarations on the grossly mislabeled "Audio Science Review" where they use measurements to tell you what you can and can’t hear. He often states something to the effect that "these measured differences are inaudible." It is impossible for him to actually determine that so it is therefore a non-scientific conclusion.

The whole idea that we can use electrical measurements to definitively quantify what we hear is ludicrous. Just because there is some correlation and we can measure some parameters doesn’t mean we can quantify hearing any more than we can measure and quantify what we see, taste, smell, or touch.

Thank you for the interesting information, I take off my hat! Yes, I have to admit that the checksum is not a proof of the similarity of the files, although the probability of the match is extremely low and this is definitely not our case


yea, just when I see "indisputable proof" it kind of sets of my BS sensors. I agree  the chances that 2 audio files returning the same checksum and not being identical are so low they can be ignored.. I actually have no idea what the file debate is about, no idea how we got from wire directionality to checksums as I didn’t trudge through the whole thread. sorry


herman
2,215 posts
 
In a broad sense, the topic is devoted to audio anomalies that cannot be explained from the point of view of ordinary physics.
got it

  There is a lot to audio that you can not measure at all,

I don't disagree with the overall idea of that, just with the finality of it. I think it would be more accurate to say that there are many aspects of how we hear that we haven't figured out how to correlate to measurements. Not that we can't, just that we haven't figured how to do it. Maybe never will.

That's what amazes me about the camp here and elsewhere that say basically "if you can't explain it I can't hear it." In effect, "if I don't understand it then it doesn't exist," Even though we've barely scratched the surface of how our brains work and how it interprets what we call our senses, these guys have managed to precisely quantify how we hear.  The insane idea that everything they need to know can be explained by an expensive audio analyzer. The insane idea that they are capable of looking at electronic measurements and predicting with 100% certainty whether or not a given change is audible with the assumption they are measuring everything that  matters, which is highly doubtful

On the one hand we have snake oil salesman with devices like magic digital clocks that will transform the sound of a symphony hall even when the battery is dead (yes, he made that claim) and the "scientists" who refuse to believe anything they can't explain with measurements. I'm sure the answer is somewhere in the middle. Well, more toward the measurement side, but not at either extreme. I'm going to go listen to a record now even though the measurements tell me it can't possibly sound as good as the digital copy.
herman
2,215 posts
 
One, really low bass is non-directional. We sense almost nothing but volume
. Another one, really high ultra-sonic frequencies. We cannot hear these at all! At least not on a hearing test playing only these frequencies, we hear nothing.
 I think in both circumstances what is happening is our brains assemble it all into an auditory model of the world around us.  

I think that pretty much sums it up. Something is happening that we can't yet  explain and maybe never will.  We may not hear it in the traditional use of the word but we sense it. Our brains react to it. 

Which brings me back to the idea that those who make all of their  audiophile decisions  based on measurements and refuse to believe anything that they can't explain with physics and our severely limited understanding of how the brain works  are barking up the proverbial wrong tree.

“If it sounds good, it IS good.”
― Duke Ellington
herman
2,215 posts
 
Nada. Audio signals are AC.

This conclusion is based on a gross misunderstanding about how electricity and electronics works. It assumes the current flows first in one direction and then the other since it is called "alternating current" . Nothing could be further from the truth. Current is the movement of charge, not electrons as it is usually explained. Unfortunately, if you do a search you will almost always find an explanation that includes an analogy of electrons in a wire to water in a pipe. That is fundamentally wrong which leads to many incorrect conclusions and explanations.



More to discover