A simple test, done under controlled conditions with witnesses and published for all to read in a reputable journal would help. 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 screened from seeing which direction the cabling is hooked up and when/whether the cabling direction is switched. Round 1: Person B attaches the cabling and follows Person A’s direction on what to play through what device(s). When Person A is satisfied with this round, Round 2 begins. Person B switches the cabling direction (or not) and follows Person A’s directions again on what to play through what device(s) until Person A has heard enough. Person B then switches the cabling direction (or not). Round 3 begins...and so on. Enough rounds are conducted to give the desired confidence level per the “Student’s t Test” for rejecting hypotheses, and to satisfy Person A (perhaps). Person A keeps notes and at the end has to state for each round transition, whether the direction of cabling was changed or not.
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.
- ...
- 798 posts total
So you're saying neurons do say, "Incoming! 92.7dB at 5kHz!" You seriously believe that? Really??!None of our sensory systems fire off a signal that says to the brain, "Incoming! 92.7dB at 5kHz!" Not at all. |
Controlled tests are fine but there is nothing still that says cable y will behave the same as cable X you just tested. Even if its the same maker and model. The devil is always in the details and blanket statements are a slippery slope especially when big bucks are involved. At least most low voltage wires can’t cause physical harm or injury on their own but that just means there are no legal bounds practically that a wiremaker and his claims can clearly cross and be held financially liable. IT’s just a hobby after all. |
Theorems are mathematical, theories are more generic, but who is counting anyway. 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. You were saying? This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith. 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. You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter. The issue is the special pleading of lack of bias. That does not cut it. Learn to be honest with yourself, and you will progress much faster towards your audiophile goals. When certain audiophiles say "trust your ears", they really don't mean that. They say it. They probably say it 10-20 times a day on these forums. But they prove over and over they don't mean it. If they really meant it, then they would not take every single opportunity they can to discourage blind testing. You can't honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles. |
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. |
- 798 posts total