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.
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
Obviously, a uniform single core wire cannot be directional.
Then, what can cable engineers do to make the cables directional? If a technology indeed exists to make cable sound directional, would the extra cost be justifiable? By the way, I have a few cables with directional sign, but I cannot hear any difference on my system. Maybe the direction is there because the cable company put it since customers want it. Or, my ears are not refined enough to tell the difference. Or, my components are not precise enough to reveal the difference. Anyway, even though I cannot tell the difference, I follow the direction of the cable direction. There are many different kinds of science exist these days, and many people often resort to science to defend their arguments, and my favorite one is political science. |
The dogma is you think complexities exist that don't at least not at a signal level. |
The one thing human perception is not, is accurate. Marketing is the tool used to address those pesky human perceptions. For example, you can can be a total unknown and sell a wire for $10K. Then you can give a skeptic permission to buy it and find out how wonderful it is. THen when he declines, call him a coward. Works every time! Don’t forget to give a few away to a few cohorts so they can write up rave reviews all on a free hifi web site that sells expensive stuff. That helps keep the marketing costs down. |
The one thing human perception is not, is accurate.I said it to you alrady but you reverse to this " commom place evidence" accusating me of his negation... Do you think i am so stupid? Dont lend to my words a meaning opposite to a fact no one could contradict being sane ..... A tool for example microscope or a telescope exceed any eye on some power of resolution, i never negate that and no one here save the more idiot will ever negate this....Same observation is valid for ANY tools in ANY field... There is 2 meanings to the word "accurate"... --- Accurate by numbers.... Exactitude FOR SOME CHOSEN PARAMETERS AND FOR SOME CHOSEN DIMENSION for a tool.... In this context the eye is a mere tool... --- Accurate for the encompassing human perception, with many unknown parameters and many unknown dimensions RELATIVE to the chosen complementary tool measuring process...In this context the eye is NOT a mere tool...but the cause and main actor in the recreation of the perceptive experience... Accurate for a microphone response or accurate for hearing are not the same...They could be equivalent but NEVER equal.... If they would be reducible to one another psychoacoustic will not exist... We will be able to replicate all there is to human hearing.... And human hearing will be only a mere tool like any other... But we cannot.... |
- 798 posts total