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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,961 posts
 
Mahgister, at some point will you communicate the magical connection between direction of a wire and also how the ear works?
In this thread anton spoke about a writer in acoustic Essien...

I bought the book...

You said that this guy is a crook or a fraud...

You never even read it...

My post was not an appeal to authority...

Read it carefully all three say the some thing and go in the same direction...

Contradicting what you have claimed: pitch IS frequency nothing more...

that is the point of my post...




Nothing that Bekesy or anyone else you mentioned has one iota of relevance to the discussion.


For the link between Essien concept and Anton concept about the direction of wire there is no direct connection....

An indirect one, yes, linked to the fact that human hearing is not explanable with the psychoacoustic of frequencies actual theories for the time being....Then measuring apparatus inspired by these acoustic theory  so precise they are perhaps dont measure all that is  there, for the listening  ears... 

it is you who use the autorithy card by declaring other like Essien a fraud...And dont pertaining to the discussion... the OP think otherwise...

There is no red herring in my post....

The concept defended by anton and his Russian master appeal to the fact also that hearing is not explainable by a Fourrier like generalysed theory...

Then unable to answer to these 3 people an articulate answer: Ansermet, Essien, Békésy, you accuse me of using authority, red herrings... 😁😊  this is not a great argument my friend ....



Please be fair and respectful of the ARGUMENTS here...It is not a pissing contest.... I want myself to understand and i dont pretend to understand.... Do you yourself understand? if yes, answer directly and not by ACCUSATIONS....

For all these three thinkers there is more in pitch than in  Fourrier analysis....

The reason why this is such  is explained  in Ansermet and in  Essien in another perspective.... Then accusing me of being out of the discussion is untrue...

Save if you decide yourself unilaterally...

The fact that human hearing is not reducible to actual acoustical conceptions is in the center of this discussion...

The OP itself think so....

Then answer me: do you go on claiming that pitch and frequencies are the same phenomenon?

Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...

You are right and they are wrong?
Or the opposite?

and WHY
dletch2
455 posts
 
The ear, again, is a bunch of receptor behind band-pass filters effectively. That is the sensor. That says nothing about the processing behind it, whether there is crosstalk, etc.


Békésy claim that the ear dont function like a fourrier analyser at all....Like Essien... like Ansermet...



NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news. Essien has brought exactly 0 to the argument. Heck, if people listened to him, we would be going backwards. He proudly bleats that he has discovered something new. For him maybe. He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references to justify his bleating, meanwhile ignoring decades and decades of deep work into how human hearing works.  He is an artist, trying to tell a rocket scientist how propulsion works, using feelings. 
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,961 posts
 
is pitch perception totally reducible to frequencies?
you must answer to my question....

You have already claimed that to me i assume your opinion has not changed....

NO ONE has claimed this in over 100 years. This is not news
Then why BÉKÉSY feel the urge to denounciate this reduction exactly 50 years ago ? Békésy know what he speak about in hearing theory, his Nobel prize come from his research in this field....This not an authority argument this is a fact that reinforce the perspective of what he said and from which context...
He quotes decades if not 100+ year old references
Sorry to contradict you he quoted the more recent references in acoustic, i OWN the 500 pages book just published...The book is in my hand... 😊 Ansermet book also....

joysjane's avatar
joysjane
165 posts
 
Absolutely nothing.

Nope, NASA never cared about the directionality of cabling...
Except when the Gorilla tried to put the round end into the square end.
djones51
4,947 posts
 
I wouldn't be lumping Bekesy in this argument as agreeing with Essien. I would need to see the reference where this quote of Bekesy came from. From what little I understand Bekesy is being used out of context here 
was always clear that the ear does not react like a simple Fourier frequency
analyzer.
More to discover