So you think wire conductors in cables are directional? Think again...
Here is a very relevant discussion among physicists about the directionality...the way signal and electrons should flow... based on conductor orientation. Some esoteric, high-end manufacturers say they listen to each conductor to see which way the signal should flow for the best audio quality.
Read this discussion. Will it make you rethink what you’re being told and sold?
Ahem .... I got something the objectivists can chew on. Given the complexity, this will probably take them some times. Unless, djones et al ... can possess sonar capability, hearing by itself is not going to give you accurate localization.
Funny thing is there are numerous examples of people having something very much akin to sonar. It generally is referred to as echolocation, and has been the focus of some experiments/studies, scientific-like and everything ( they probably even use voltmeters and stuff ).
One of the most interesting take-a-ways is that in folks who are really adept at echolocation acoustic information is to an interesting extent processed by the part of the brain usually reserved for visual processing ( which kinda sorta means they see with their ears !? )....
And just taking a wee leap sideways from that ....wonder how this process to develop the ability to use echolocation ( like we all have it though some folks have developed a greater ability in that area...blind people, for obvious reasons...) intersects with the learned ability among some in the audiophile community to play the imaging game with our systems ( which requires, at a minimum, good ears,a well sorted system/acoustic environment, ability to focus attention to acoustic cues/detail, and some imagination to make the leap from purely visual/acoustic data processing to some combination thereof that results in imaging...) ...
Bottom line it may well be we all have the ability to play sonar games and we often do when we sit in front of our systems and get blown away by the imaging...
Your little insults do nothing to further your little arguments.
... if you claim to hear differences in cables based on direction, prove it, and proof isn’t me and my buddies tried last weekend. It needs to be a properly controlled blind test.
That is complete nonsense. And we’ve been through this before.
This is a hobbyist’s group, not a scientific forum. No one here owes you proof of anything, ever. If you want others to supply "scientific proof" to suit your sensibilities and listening tests conducted to your specifications, you are in the wrong forum.
So please stop your incessant demands for something that apparently no one here has any intention of providing to you.
Music for example is not reducible to physical acoustic sorry if you dont know that ....
I don’t even know what this means. If you’re claiming music is not reducible to physical soundwaves you’re wrong.
The rest of your post deals with 2. Human perception of sound.
This thread is about 1. Sound and can it be measured and scientifically tested as to be audibly different according to direction of the conductor. Yes, it can.
I find most of what you post not only wrong but demonstrably wrong. You wander off into areas not relevant to the question trying to prove your dogmatic opinion about not only how sound propagates but how humans perceive sound. The above comment about music isn't soundwaves if I'm deciphering you correctly is laughable.
I'll quit referencing you in my posts please reciprocate.
andy21,320 posts05-21-2021 9:51pmAhem .... I got something the objectivists can chew on. Given the complexity, this will probably take them some times. Unless, djones et al ... can possess sonar capability, hearing by itself is not going to give you accurate localization.
The visual and auditory systems frequently work together to facilitate the identification and localization of objects and events in the external world. Experience plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining congruent visual–auditory associations, so that the different sensory cues associated with targets that can be both seen and heard are synthesized appropriately. For stimulus location, visual information is normally more accurate and reliable and provides a reference for calibrating the perception of auditory space. During development, vision plays a key role in aligning neural representations of space in the brain, as revealed by the dramatic changes produced in auditory responses when visual inputs are altered, and is used throughout life to resolve short-term spatial conflicts between these modalities. However, accurate, and even supra-normal, auditory localization abilities can be achieved in the absence of vision, and the capacity of the mature brain to relearn to localize sound in the presence of substantially altered auditory spatial cues does not require visuomotor feedback. Thus, while vision is normally used to coordinate information across the senses, the neural circuits responsible for spatial hearing can be recalibrated in a vision-independent fashion. Nevertheless, early multisensory experience appears to be crucial for the emergence of an ability to match signals from different sensory modalities and therefore for the outcome of audiovisual-based rehabilitation of deaf patients in whom hearing has been restored by cochlear implantation.
Ahem...I guess you did read the first paragraph of the link I posted above.
Within 2 degrees. Pretty darn accurate with using your eyes.
"The brain has an amazing ability to identify the source of sounds around you. When driving, you can tell where an approaching fire truck is coming from and pull over accordingly. In the classic swimming pool game of “Marco Polo,” the player who is “it” swims toward the players who says “Polo.” In the field of neuroscience, this ability is called sound localization. Humans can locate the source of a sound with extreme precision (within 2 degrees of space)! This remarkable feat is accomplished by the brain’s ability to interpret the information from both ears. So how does your brain do it?"
Ahem .... I got something the objectivists can chew on. Given the complexity, this will probably take them some times. Unless, djones et al ... can possess sonar capability, hearing by itself is not going to give you accurate localization.
The visual and auditory systems frequently work together to facilitate the identification and localization of objects and events in the external world. Experience plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining congruent visual–auditory associations, so that the different sensory cues associated with targets that can be both seen and heard are synthesized appropriately. For stimulus location, visual information is normally more accurate and reliable and provides a reference for calibrating the perception of auditory space. During development, vision plays a key role in aligning neural representations of space in the brain, as revealed by the dramatic changes produced in auditory responses when visual inputs are altered, and is used throughout life to resolve short-term spatial conflicts between these modalities. However, accurate, and even supra-normal, auditory localization abilities can be achieved in the absence of vision, and the capacity of the mature brain to relearn to localize sound in the presence of substantially altered auditory spatial cues does not require visuomotor feedback. Thus, while vision is normally used to coordinate information across the senses, the neural circuits responsible for spatial hearing can be recalibrated in a vision-independent fashion. Nevertheless, early multisensory experience appears to be crucial for the emergence of an ability to match signals from different sensory modalities and therefore for the outcome of audiovisual-based rehabilitation of deaf patients in whom hearing has been restored by cochlear implantation.
I never said that sound which is not only a physical phenomena but also a psychoacoustic one is "absolute".... I said that sound experience cannot be reduced to measuring tools but only CORRELATED with them...
I also said that sound perception contrary to a voltmeter or a frequencies meter or any other electronical engineering tools is MULTIDIMENSIONAL and not unidimensional like each one of these tool...
Your "wow" is only a derision not an argument .....
You keep straying from and continue to derail the entire discussion. It was brought up that vision is used to figure out where sounds are coming from...eyes. It’s been studied that eyes are not part of the process, yet visual processes in the brain help process the localization of sounds...even without the benefit of having eyes.
This thread is about 1. Sound and can reversing a basic copper cable change it?
There is PHYSICAL sound, this is the phenomenon pertaining to physical acoustic....
There is human perception of sound and perception of other phenomena associated with sound, like pitch or timbre, or information about the source of sound....
Changing the cable direction even if this do not correspond to any measurable physical changing KNOWN factors in the cable itself when using the appropriate electronical tools, COULD anyway be an information about some unknown factor read through the sound by the human body and consciousness... Nobody can reject these POSSIBILITIES....
Negating this possibility because someone believe that all human perception means pure subjective relative meaninglessness compared to an electronic tool is going TOO FAR....
This is my point...
I dont have personal experience with cable inversion but many people and even some engineers vouch for this experience...
I take these testimonies seriously.... I dont want to accuse them of being gullible or ignorant...
I consider ignorant the believer and his brother the skeptic.... They are stalled in the way.... I prefer to keep an open mind without mocking the experience of others...
And reducing psychoacoustic to acoustic cues is a simplification of a complex scientific subject.... a CORRELATION between these 2 fields is the basis not a reductionist approach....Music for example is not reducible to physical acoustic sorry if you dont know that ....
I never said that sound which is not only a physical phenomena but also a psychoacoustic one is "absolute".... I said that sound experience cannot be reduced to measuring tools but only CORRELATED with them...
I also said that sound perception contrary to a voltmeter or a frequencies meter or any other electronical engineering tools is MULTIDIMENSIONAL and not unidimensional like each one of these tool...
Your "wow" is only a derision not an argument .....
subjective experience are delusions if not correlated with some measures...
I've never claimed this. You've assumed it from your irrational thinking. There are 2 distinct things involved and you keep intertwining them.
1. Sound This we can measure very accurately. 2. Human perception of sound This is extremely plastic and subject to learning, mood, and all other outside influences.
This thread is about 1. Sound and can reversing a basic copper cable change it?
Now, I've grown tired of you constantly putting words in my mouth and ridicule of me with your childish name calling.
I made this reference to illustrate the way the brain translate sound impression....Not using only hearing patways but other pathways of the brain....
In this thread i argue for the multidimensional aspect of perceptions and the impossibility to reduce them to a few engineereing tools when we speak about auditory experience about cables or others experience....
Arguing with you is impossible anyway you repeat the only thing you believe, matter only exist, subjective experience are delusions if not correlated with some measures...
This reference i put in the post above illustrate my point about the multidimensionality of perception, here with 2 dimensions at least intertwined, the hearing and visual pathways...
No the reference doesn't illustrate your point, it disputes it. The visual pathway isn't involved, only the areas of the brain used to process vision.
I try to elevate the debate....Instead of the insults eexhange....
Anyone who is not totally with your reductionist stance about that, you call him ignorant...
I just post something that show the complexities involved in sound sensation , translation, and experience...
Djones you miss the point like usual.... Answering your obsessive technological stance is useless....All is placebos for you ... Mind is an organ that product the illusion of consciousness and all that dissipate at our death.... end of story....It is easy to walk your universe....
This reference i put in the post above illustrate my point about the multidimensionality of perception, here with 2 dimensions at least intertwined, the hearing and visual pathways...
It seems evident then that reducing any aspect of the auditory experience to limited electrical measuring tools that do not even exhausted one of the 2 dimensions implicated, and perhaps more dimensions at play , is a bit presomptuous...
It is a belief that condition such attitude like religious belief.... Engineering beliefs or reductionism are no more "noble" than religious one...
Science is cautious with any dogmas.... Especially about dogmas born in his womb...
Then if many people testimonies converge about this "wired direction" experience this does not prove anything for sure, save that these testimonies cannot be ridiculized or dismiss especially because someone trust more a voltmeter than his own ears and the ears of others... Voltmeter are trustful ,Ears too....
In serious matters dogmas and sterile skepticism are useless....Testimonies are only facts to verify....Mocking people for that experience is not acceptable....
“During the study, we found that, although people with sight may use their visual imagination, those without sight, still used the same part of the brain to translate the sound, meaning that humans have a basic brain mechanism, independent from visual imagery and, more intriguingly, visual experience.
The same also happened with volunteers who had been blind since birth, and thus showing that neither visual imagery nor visual experience is necessary for the primary visual cortex to decipher sounds.
Though interesting I'm not sure what this has to do with wire directionality. It does support the contention eyesight isn't that important in localization only the evolutionary area of the brain used for vision.
This is incorrect. You don’t need to see that a sound is coming from the front, sides, or back. Must you look at a surround sound speaker to hear that it’s coming from the side or rear? Binaural hearing is quite an amazing invention. Eyesight has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, lack of eyesight happens to sharpen that sense.
Perhaps you need to improve your reference with less elementary one....
I’m not saying to measure anything. Just don’t cheat and use your eyes when trying to judge what you’re hearing. That’s all.
djones apparently doesn’t know how the brain functions in term of localizing a sound source. Both eyes and ears are needed for the brain to process and localize where the sound is coming from.
This is incorrect. You don’t need to see that a sound is coming from the front, sides, or back. Must you look at a surround sound speaker to hear that it’s coming from the side or rear? Binaural hearing is quite an amazing invention. Eyesight has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, lack of eyesight happens to sharpen that sense.
I apparently know the thread is about wire directionality not spatial cues and localization. Does a backwards wire help you find the speaker in the dark?
He’s stuck on physics from 500 years ago. That’s all I need to know. His broadbrushing of engineers is also just plain wrong, ignorant and flat out dumb to make such definitive statements.
I apologized yesterday to you by distorting one of your post about some/all psychologists.... And you were right, sometimes we react not so cleverly than what we think...
I think your answer of this post is way more a distortion than mine was about yours...
I expect your mischaracterization like mine is an accident...
This scientist DOES NOT stick to the newtonian paradign in his post.... Suggesting the opposite is not faithful to his post...
I’m not saying to measure anything. Just don’t cheat and use your eyes when trying to judge what you’re hearing. That’s all.
djones apparently doesn’t know how the brain functions in term of localizing a sound source. Both eyes and ears are needed for the brain to process and localize where the sound is coming from.
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
He’s stuck on physics from 500 years ago. That’s all I need to know. His broadbrushing of engineers is also just plain wrong, ignorant and flat out dumb to make such definitive statements.
I apologized yesterday to you by distorting one of your post about some/all psychologists.... And you were right, sometimes we react not so cleverly than what we think...
I think your answer of this post is way more a distortion than mine was about yours...
I expect your mischaracterization like mine is an accident...
This scientist DOES NOT stick to the newtonian paradign in his post.... Suggesting the opposite is not faithful to his post...
nonoise7,074 posts05-21-2021 2:08pmBefore the advent of testing equipment, that's how the world ran, and pretty well too. Lots of science laid down to go by and all without a scope, monitor, or gauge.
Yeah, that's how they built the Pyramids a nearsighted guy on a sand dune saying , "no move that block a little to the right". We don't need no stinking measuring devices or levers.
Before the advent of testing equipment, that's how the world ran, and pretty well too. Lots of science laid down to go by and all without a scope, monitor, or gauge.
All over the country, everyday, electricians run copper wire from panel box to receptacle or light fixture. If one day an electrician yanked the wire out going to a light fixture turned it around and proclaimed 'wow that lights brighter', I think it's safe to say all the other electricians are going to want more than one guys word. Yet here it's backwards world, I hear veils lifted and soundstages widen, How? I reversed a wire. Well, that's all the proof i need.
It’s pretty simple , except for little Andy, if you claim to hear differences in cables based on direction, prove it, and proof isn't me and my buddies tried last weekend. It needs to be a properly controlled blind test.
How do you do to be always beside the point of any post speaking about sound human experience even coming from a scientist?
Because no scientist worth a damn is going to accept anyone's word for their personal experience without testing it especially if they're taking anecdotal claims and extrapolating them to be quantified evidence.
He’s stuck on physics from 500 years ago. That’s all I need to know. His broadbrushing of engineers is also just plain wrong, ignorant and flat out dumb to make such definitive statements.
As a scientist can you tell us how science would go about creating test where we can " trust our ears"?
How do you do to be always beside the point of any post speaking about sound human experience even coming from a scientist?
Trusting our own ears to reach music sound experience is the crux of the matter.... Trusting his own ears dont means negation of science facts, it means only that technological measures SERVE the ears consciious experience...
Anyway science is NOT technology..... Engineering is NOT psychoacoustic science....They are correlated without being reducible to one another...
Technology goal is always related to the way we isolate a PART of the WHOLE to control it in an EXTERNAL way.... it is about efficient power....A piece of technology, a tool, must be isolated to be constructed and used properly....Even a hammer...
Science goal is always related to the way the isolated part is connected and inserted in this WHOLE, or how the part reflect internally or participate to this whole in itself.... It is about knowledge and consciousness not power....
Sometimes along the way men must choose between power and knowledge.... Sometimes we cannot keep the cake and eat it....Technology much be controlled by
We are at this moment in history....
Technology without science is death.....But much money is going to be made in the long agony for some....
Speakermaster, you actually have it right. Engineers are almost always blinded by equations. Engineers always hide behind equations when they don't understand the "unknown".
Speakermaster, you actually have it right. Engineers are almost always blinded by equations. Engineers always hide behind equations when they don't understand the "unknown".
It comes down to how the molecules pack when extruded. I had a discussion with a cable manufacturer on how his cables sounded so much better than the much more expensive ones they were replacing. We had a great discussion. He said he had trouble believing it because he was a physicist and the equations did not explain this, but the directionality of the wire was an observed, repeatable characteristic.
He hired a material scientist. The material scientist found out the packing of copper molecules when it was extruded created a definite difference in inductance. There were a couple other things like copper purity and b-field affect based on the casing.
I was trained as a physical chemist myself, and used material scientists to help me design polymer networks for coatings and other esoteric stuff like that.
this is a simple example on how molecular packing works. The effect of packing will have a very significant impact on final properties.
Engineers work with the known. Scientists work with the unknown. I have worked in both fields. The physics equations that describe sound are not be all, end all. And frankly, they do not describe the fine details of music well. The equations are not necessarily correct.
Now if you have total faith in your equations (and won't trust your ears), think of this. Newton was the most brilliant scientist of the last 500 years. His three laws of physics were probably the greatest scientific breakthrough ever. Kepler built on Newton's work and created equations to predict the motion of the planets. They worked on all the planets--except Mercury. Why? Well, the equations did not take into account of the spacetime warpage between the sun and Mercury. You need to use Einstein's relativistic equations since the mass differences between the sun and Mercury create spacetime warpage significant enough that Newton's equations (thereby Kepler's) do not account for, therefore will not describe the observations.
This is a great example where the accepted equations worked in many situations--but not all. Do not be blinded by science. It is not perfect!
It is a common fallacy that engineers fall into. They think if the observations conflict with the equations, the observations must be wrong. I suppose it is because the equations can work so well for so many things, and engineers spend so much time doing the known, that they can have trouble with the unknown.
Minorl934's list (among others, I am singling this post out because it was the last post to give a definitive list from physics) does not talk about molecular packing variants in his equation list. This is what happens when your are "blinded by science" and assume that what you know is all there is.
There are many other aspects of materials science that can affect sound quality of wires that are not handled by the classic physics equations.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
